Multifaceted topic: RAW and Photoshop

Camera Gear, How-To, Questions
Post Reply
User avatar
TJ_T
Posts: 765
Joined: July 23rd, 2011, 7:18 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Multifaceted topic: RAW and Photoshop

Post by TJ_T » November 7th, 2011, 12:17 pm

I've just recently starting shooting RAW and enjoy the ability to control the photos a little more than letting the camera do the work for me. But part of me feels that this.. cheapens my photography. Has anyone else felt that way?

I guess what I'm saying is that anytime I use PS to manipulate an image I feel like I'm cheating. I want to take photos that are beautiful with minimal post-porocessing. Generally I don't do much to my photos other than resize them.. but I find myself tweaking a lot more when shooting RAW.

Am I just being stubborn and letting ego get in the way? I've never worked in a chemical darkroom before and I would certainly view that as a skill and art. I once had everything I needed for a dark room but never lived in a place where I could set it up. I ended up selling all of it a couple of years ago.

So I'm curious as to what format you prefer to shoot in and your feelings on digital processing.

Adding into my frustration are the 300 photos I took (in RAW and JPG format) and only having photoshop elements. My computer with Photoshop was stolen and I didn't spend the money to replace it.
I take pictures sometimes. And sometimes I post them here:
http://www.tjthornephotography.com
and
http://500px.com/TjThorne
and
https://www.facebook.com/tjthornephotography

User avatar
potato
Posts: 1211
Joined: October 10th, 2011, 9:16 pm
Location: my car
Contact:

Re: Multifaceted topic: RAW and Photoshop

Post by potato » November 7th, 2011, 12:30 pm

I don't call myself a photographer and I'm by no means a purist, but my philosophy is that if I'm using a digital camera, the image I'm generating is already the result of a lot of computer processing. What does it matter if that digital processing happens purely on my camera, or if I get the result I want by tweaking it on my PC?
self observing universe (main blog)
Joe hikes (PCT blog)
Laws of Nature (bandcamp)

User avatar
TJ_T
Posts: 765
Joined: July 23rd, 2011, 7:18 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: Multifaceted topic: RAW and Photoshop

Post by TJ_T » November 7th, 2011, 12:58 pm

theradpotato wrote:I don't call myself a photographer and I'm by no means a purist, but my philosophy is that if I'm using a digital camera, the image I'm generating is already the result of a lot of computer processing. What does it matter if that digital processing happens purely on my camera, or if I get the result I want by tweaking it on my PC?
I got that feeling as well when I switched to digital. But then never having chemically processed my own photos I guess I'm in the same place as I was when I shot film.

The difference is that when you shoot RAW it's only the data from the sensor.. so no maniuplation has taken place.. yet. Or at least that's my understanding but then again I still have a lot to learn.
I take pictures sometimes. And sometimes I post them here:
http://www.tjthornephotography.com
and
http://500px.com/TjThorne
and
https://www.facebook.com/tjthornephotography

Lurch
Posts: 1268
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Aurora
Contact:

Re: Multifaceted topic: RAW and Photoshop

Post by Lurch » November 7th, 2011, 1:36 pm

I know where you're coming from.. I've never done *color* darkroom work, and what what I've heard that is infinitely more difficult. But even with b/w photography the actual shot out of the camera is only half the work.

Remember that a lot of the tools out in photoshop are pulled from direct inspiration of the dark room. That said, there is no "undo" in the dark room. Everything from the exposure time, to the development time changes how the print looks. It takes time, and repetition to get a shot "just right".

I'm not convinced that it "cheapens" the image though. In terms of photographers circles perhaps it might a little. But to 99.9% of the public they aren't going to know the difference.. Photoshop has made it extremely "easy" to do things that used to be quite difficult and time consuming. I'm definitely a fan of fledgling photographers starting with film, and learning the basics and theory rather than shooting 400 pictures with a digital to hit blind luck on the 2 that turn out right.

As my photography prof told me a long time ago.. if you can prove to that you can do it the oldschool traditional "real" way, than any shortcuts after that are just time savers.. In other words, using the technology to achieve doable results faster is different than using the technology as a crutch to achieve something you can't do otherwise.

User avatar
TJ_T
Posts: 765
Joined: July 23rd, 2011, 7:18 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: Multifaceted topic: RAW and Photoshop

Post by TJ_T » November 7th, 2011, 1:43 pm

Lurch wrote:I know where you're coming from.. I've never done *color* darkroom work, and what what I've heard that is infinitely more difficult. But even with b/w photography the actual shot out of the camera is only half the work.

Remember that a lot of the tools out in photoshop are pulled from direct inspiration of the dark room. That said, there is no "undo" in the dark room. Everything from the exposure time, to the development time changes how the print looks. It takes time, and repetition to get a shot "just right".

I'm not convinced that it "cheapens" the image though. In terms of photographers circles perhaps it might a little. But to 99.9% of the public they aren't going to know the difference.. Photoshop has made it extremely "easy" to do things that used to be quite difficult and time consuming. I'm definitely a fan of fledgling photographers starting with film, and learning the basics and theory rather than shooting 400 pictures with a digital to hit blind luck on the 2 that turn out right.

As my photography prof told me a long time ago.. if you can prove to that you can do it the oldschool traditional "real" way, than any shortcuts after that are just time savers.. In other words, using the technology to achieve doable results faster is different than using the technology as a crutch to achieve something you can't do otherwise.
Agreed.. and I think that's why I feel my 'work' is cheapened. Because I haven't done real chemical darkroom work. I've certainly done my share of studying on the subject and know the basics but haven't ever practiced them with my hands.

It's an art that is going to fall by the wayside and I'm bummed that I never learned it. Hell.. I could barely GIVE my darkroom equipment away. And in that regard I have a feeling that a lot of people do use PS as a crutch.. whereas in a chemical darkroom that was pretty much impossible.
I take pictures sometimes. And sometimes I post them here:
http://www.tjthornephotography.com
and
http://500px.com/TjThorne
and
https://www.facebook.com/tjthornephotography

User avatar
jdemott
Posts: 651
Joined: July 23rd, 2010, 1:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Multifaceted topic: RAW and Photoshop

Post by jdemott » November 7th, 2011, 1:46 pm

I had a chemical darkroom for years before the digital age. Once I could afford a digital camera, I switched and have never looked back.

The analogy of RAW files to a photographic negative is pretty accurate, although a negative has already received some processing when it is developed. In any event, it is certainly true that the out-of-the camera jpeg file (the non-RAW file) is just some engineer's idea of how to process your photo. It is just as much a "processed" file as one that you process yourself in Photoshop or any other program.

The question of "how much" processing to do is a combination of taste and skill. Some photos that look very "natural" are the result of a lot of work in Photoshop and others that look quite cheap are the result of processing shortcuts.

Most serious "fine art" photographers photograph almost exclusively in RAW. That is not to say that someone can't enjoy photography as a hobby without learning Photoshop or any other processing program. Today's cameras can produce very nice results without any help. If you get the results you're looking for straight out of the camera and/or you don't enjoy time in the digital darkroom, stay with whatever works for you.

Sorry to hear about the loss of your computer. However, Photoshop Elements also should be able to convert RAW files. There are also programs from the manufacturers that will do RAW conversion as well as Picasa, which is free.

User avatar
TJ_T
Posts: 765
Joined: July 23rd, 2011, 7:18 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: Multifaceted topic: RAW and Photoshop

Post by TJ_T » November 7th, 2011, 1:54 pm

jdemott wrote:I had a chemical darkroom for years before the digital age. Once I could afford a digital camera, I switched and have never looked back.

The analogy of RAW files to a photographic negative is pretty accurate, although a negative has already received some processing when it is developed. In any event, it is certainly true that the out-of-the camera jpeg file (the non-RAW file) is just some engineer's idea of how to process your photo. It is just as much a "processed" file as one that you process yourself in Photoshop or any other program.

The question of "how much" processing to do is a combination of taste and skill. Some photos that look very "natural" are the result of a lot of work in Photoshop and others that look quite cheap are the result of processing shortcuts.

Most serious "fine art" photographers photograph almost exclusively in RAW. That is not to say that someone can't enjoy photography as a hobby without learning Photoshop or any other processing program. Today's cameras can produce very nice results without any help. If you get the results you're looking for straight out of the camera and/or you don't enjoy time in the digital darkroom, stay with whatever works for you.

Sorry to hear about the loss of your computer. However, Photoshop Elements also should be able to convert RAW files. There are also programs from the manufacturers that will do RAW conversion as well as Picasa, which is free.
I was hoping you would reply. I always enjoy reading your insight. What you say about sticking with what works for each individual makes a lot of sense. I guess I still need to learn more about photography in general to get what I can out of a RAW file. I don't so much enjoy digital darkroom work. and find the task daunting to the point where I'll let images sit on my memory card for far too long until I have amassed an enormous quantity of images making the project seem even more daunting. But it's a habit I'm trying to break.

I'm bringing this up because I just shot about 300 images on a 1,300 mile road trip. Elements does read RAW but the way it opens them seems pretty inefficient. Especially to view 300 photos on something other than the viewfinder on the camera.
I take pictures sometimes. And sometimes I post them here:
http://www.tjthornephotography.com
and
http://500px.com/TjThorne
and
https://www.facebook.com/tjthornephotography

Lurch
Posts: 1268
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Aurora
Contact:

Re: Multifaceted topic: RAW and Photoshop

Post by Lurch » November 7th, 2011, 2:00 pm

As a side note I didn't really touch on... If all you're doing with your images is cropping and minor exposure compensations, I don't think digital is cheapening your work much at all. If you're busting out the clone tool and removing shadows, or replacing your sky that's a different story..

User avatar
Waffle Stomper
Posts: 3707
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Multifaceted topic: RAW and Photoshop

Post by Waffle Stomper » November 7th, 2011, 2:06 pm

Remember too that each camera process your images in its own way based on a formula that covers most situations but not all. RAW lets you make those adjustments by retaining all the data in the file. Even jpegs can vary from shot to shot depending on how it is saved, RGB, sRGB etc. I also think that a Sony, is different than a Canon, which is different from a Nikon etc and the images will vary. Also, when it come to printing it you may also make adjustments to satisfy the output of the printer. Most important if you are having it printed through a digital lab.

What I think is most important question to ask is does the image give the same impression as when you were moved to photograph it? If it comes out of the camera just like that, great. If not you do your best to make it work.
"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." - John Muir

User avatar
TJ_T
Posts: 765
Joined: July 23rd, 2011, 7:18 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: Multifaceted topic: RAW and Photoshop

Post by TJ_T » November 7th, 2011, 2:13 pm

Lurch wrote:As a side note I didn't really touch on... If all you're doing with your images is cropping and minor exposure compensations, I don't think digital is cheapening your work much at all. If you're busting out the clone tool and removing shadows, or replacing your sky that's a different story..
True. And all of that sounds more like 'digital artwork' than 'photography'... which at this point in time is a very fine line or even the same thing depending on which side of the line you're standing on.

As radpotato put it.. I suppose I'm a purist in general. I've been thinking about analogies to this in my field of work.. which is cooking. I like basic techniques done well and at the right time. I like simple and 'unrefined'. I like rustic. There are certain tasks I hate doing because they're tedious but are necessary to the final product (deveining shrimp, anyone?).

I just need to get ego out of the way and think along the lines of what you mentioned. That minor adjustments aren't cheapening the work. I can just as easily adjust exposure in a RAW file as I can with bracketing.

I've just found myself lightening shadows and adjusting saturation lately. And deep down I have issues with that.
I take pictures sometimes. And sometimes I post them here:
http://www.tjthornephotography.com
and
http://500px.com/TjThorne
and
https://www.facebook.com/tjthornephotography

Post Reply