There, I have said it and even made it bold and slightly larger text to make it stand out. Why do I think that when everywhere you look online or in magazines states that you should aim to shoot RAW?
It’s it probably worth starting with a little summary of a RAW file before I go and say anything else. Having said that, what is the point of Wikipedia if not for shameless links to save writing lots of text?
Shameless Wiki link to explain RAW files: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format
Alternatively, here is a basic summary of RAW files for those who don't want to leave...
"Raw image files are sometimes called digital negatives, as they fulfil the same role as negatives in film photography: that is, the negative is not directly usable as an image, but has all of the information needed to create an image...Like a photographic negative, a raw digital image may have a wider dynamic range or colour gamut than the eventual final image format, and it preserves most of the information of the captured image" (copied from the wiki page).
Back? Good.
This post is actually a reaction to a starting to shoot film a while ago, and more recently my change to the fuji system which renders jpegs much better than the Canons.
It started as a feeling that digital makes things a bit too...easy.
With traditional film (and I am ignoring self-developing of film in this) or jpeg, you shoot a frame and get a photo that represents the exposure and white balance you set in the camera. That is it, no going back. What that does is make you look at the results in a slightly different way (which I think will be the subject of a different post), but also gets you actively thinking about settings, light, weird objects within the frame etc. Ultimately, it slows you down and makes you think about what you are doing because you don’t have instant feedback, and every frame has a direct financial cost. Individual frames become very deliberate and planned.
Shooting digital in itself, even with jpegs, removes a significant amount of risk from a shot purely from the fact that any mistakes can be instantly seen and then you re-shoot. Also, ISO is really not a concern anymore with modern sensors (although you are fixed by the sensitivity of the film you choose so there is an argument that digital can actually be more complicated ...). With RAW you get the added benefit that you don't really need to think about nailing the exposure because of the extra latitude in fixing things in Photoshop, and of course, white balance is an easy change of a preset. Frames become disposable and risk having no meaning.
The benefits that RAW brings are important, and when I discovered photography I was told that I should be shooting RAW and considering one of my ‘skills’ is that I don’t get daunted by the technical stuff (rubbish super power!) I figured I would jump straight in. That means my shooting style from the start has developed based on the flexibility of the format. Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with that, but after picking up my first roll of newly developed film and being surprised by the results, I realised that the flexibility has meant I had stopped checking my settings before pressing the shutter, safe in the knowledge that, in terms of exposure, I don't really have to worry, and that is a bad habit to get into. Admittedly the laziness only applies to the more candid side of my work, when shooting a landscape I tend to shoot in manual so I am forced to check everything regardless.
I am not suggesting that shooting RAW is wrong, what all of the above means is that when starting out concentrate on the photography, not the amazing things you can do and get away with when using digital. I guess one question is why I don’t suggest learning with film, which would remove all crutches. The reason is that the instant feedback of digital is also the main thing that makes photography accessible and its importance should not be underestimated. Film is great fun, satisfying and the tones and grading between colour are just amazing, but shooting a roll over a couple of weeks, then waiting a week for it to be developed is not a great/easy way to learn from mistakes unless you are really good at keeping notes.
This isn't about not shooting in RAW, it isn't really even a criticism of its use. The quality and even the flexibility gains are too important to pass up, but I stand by the above. If you are starting out, ignore the comments that state you should shoot RAW, there are significantly more useful things you can learn before you get to that point. The RAW format shouldn't be seen as a safety net, it should be the way to get the best quality possible and its flexibility should be used to your advantage (exposing to the right for example).
Get it right in camera, then use RAW to make it better.
 |
| A random photo I happened to take the other day. |
