You may remember Lindsay, one of my future brides and past
engagement shoot clients. She has a blog of her own, which I am guilty of stalking on a regular basis, just to keep up with what is going on before the wedding goes down (in only SIX MONTHS!).
The photography bug has bitten Lindsay, long before we met, and I always love to see what she is doing with her camera. This past weekend she had the opportunity to photograph her absolutely adorable, pinchable-cheeked nephew, whom she calls Moose. She wasn't getting the results that she usually gets, and asked on her blog if anyone knew the problem. You can see the post, along with the images,
here.So here is her question:
"I tried the manual aperture setting on my camera for these pictures of Moose and for some reason they all turned out very grainy. You might not be able to tell here, but they don't have the crispness I usually get. Anyone out there know what I did wrong? Help!"
I know I'm not an expert on photography, but I have a fair idea of what is going on so I emailed her my take on it. It then occured to me that there are lots of people who have the same questions, after all I was in Lindsay's shoes not too long ago, trying to figure all this out.
So with the hope of helping out at least one other person, here is my reply:
"The problem, which really isn't a problem, is that you were shooting in RAW, and so there are absolutely no adjustments made to the image by your camera. That means that you have to do stuff to it in PS to get it to look the way a JPEG looks SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera).
I tend to shoot JPEGs as much as I can, unless I know that there is a reason that I need the extra latitude a RAW file gives to fix stuff. For example, I shoot RAW if there are very bright areas and very dark areas within the frame (subject is in the shade and background is bright sun) or if the white balance is questionable (any light source besides the sun or your flash). These situations are hard to fix once they have been shot in JPEG, but a RAW file is much easier to fix because it has so much more information, RAW files are huge for a reason. You don't, however, want to fix every image you take because it is extremely time consuming. If the conditions are such that it is easy for the camera to get it right, then take advantage of the amazing software in your expensive DSLR and let it do the work for you.
In my mind, I think of a RAW file as raw food, like carrots, potatoes and chuck roast sitting on the counter. There are a million ways to cook it, a million different things you can do to it to make a meal. But just keep in mind that you will have some work to do before its "done." RAW files are flat and lackluster by nature, but all of the information is there in the file for you to be able to make it mighty tasty.
A JPEG is like an already cooked meal. Someone else has done all the cooking, just as your camera has done all the post-processing. You can still do a few things to it in order to get it just how you like, but not much. You can cook it a little longer, add salt or seasoning, etc. Its the same with a JPEG. The contrast, saturation, white balance and sharpening are done for you. The camera actually starts with the same RAW file, applies all that stuff, and spits out a JPEG, to which you can add some salt."
All Lindsay really needs to do is add some extra contrast and then sharpen the image in Photoshop or any image processing software. Or next time, shoot JPEG to start with and let the camera do most of the work for you.
So there you have my take on the JPEG vs. RAW debate. I do both, just as sometimes I buy an Arby's Roast Beef Sandwich and sometimes I spend the whole afternoon making Pot Roast. I love them both, for different reasons.
