Pretty much most of the self-proclaimed pro photographers out there will suggest you shoot raw. Yes, I’m very well aware of the inherent advantages of shooting raw, but I’m also well aware what a pain in the ass it is to edit raw files and that’s not taking into consideration the time it takes to edit through hundred or thousands of photos. If you want or have the time to edit raw images then go ahead but for the vast vast majority of photos I shoot, there’s absolutely no need to shoot raw, especially when the jpgs that come out of the Fujifilm X-Pro2 are so good.
With a snapshot like this raw isn’t going to get you anywhere
The only times I stick it on it Raw+fine is when I’ve got some low or tricky light situation, sunsets or landscapes in flat light (where I might want to bring out some detail/contrast in the clouds/shadows), but for everyday snapshots, jpg is more than sufficient and will save you untold time and frustration and maybe some embarrassment if you don’t know what you’re doing in Lightroom or whatever editing program you’re using. Check out the next 3 photos, for something like this, you can see why sometimes it pays to shot raw, but for snapshots that 99% of most people take, it’s usually just a waste of space.
Raw File (converted to jpg, no processing)
JPG Straight Out Of Camera
Processed Raw File (Converted to JPG)
For most of us, especially the ones who have just discovered Lightroom or Photoshop, we’ll crank up the clarity, contrast and make photos worse. Again, unless you absolutely know what you are doing in Lightroom or whatever photo editor you’re using, JPEGS are the way to go and there’s no need to shoot raw, especially if you have a camera of producing outstanding JPEGS such as any of the Fuji series cameras.
Another snapshot where a RAW file isn’t going to get me much further
So called Photographers like Scott Kelby, to me are not photographers but Photoshoppers. And Scott Kelby is a phenomenally talented Photoshopper – the things he can do with an image in Photoshop are absolutely incredible, to the point where the image looks nothing like the original, including cropping, photoshopping people/objects out of the scene. Again, to me, this is not photography but Photoshopping. Sure, yes he’s a photographer, but he’s a much better photo editor, or whatever the word is for someone who has absolutely mad skills in Photoshop. Go check him out and one of his tutorials and you’ll see Scott Kelby can work magic with photos in Lightroom and Photoshop.
Lot of use a raw file of this is going to do me!
I understand that editing is part of the photographic process, but editing it to the point of looking nothing like the original photo is not really photography to me. Raw files also take up a lot of space, a LOT more space, so unless you’re prepared to invest in external hard drives, backup drives and the like, give a second thought before shooting raw. If you’re a professional photographer or serious (SERIOUS) hobbyist, then yeah, raw is definitely the way to go, but for everyone else, JPEGS are going to do fine for most of the time.
Go head, tell me why a raw file is needed here!
Do you really need to have a raw file for the shot you took of your child inside his classroom? Do you really need a raw file for the baby ducklings you shot last weekend at the park? I don’t know what any other camera’s JPEGS are like except the Fujifilm X series, but they can’t be that much worse and on the instances I shoot raw, I spend most of the time in Lightroom getting it to look like the JPEG, then making minor adjustments. So save yourself some time and shoot JPEG, then watch as all the trolls get really upset at me because I’ve suggested such a thing.
Troll me about this article by sending me an email or doing it on twitter.
