Forums > Digital Art and Retouching > how often to you get actual RAW files?

Retoucher

Stephanie M Retoucher

Posts: 276

Portland, Maine, US

I'm curious how often other retouchers are able to get actual RAW files (nef or cr2) to work on, instead of jpg's.

For really in depth beauty work I much prefer a RAW file, but lately I have been running into so many people that either do not know what a RAW file is (they think it's a jpeg that hasn't had any work done to it) or they just don't shoot in RAW at all.

It's disappointing because I'm a big believer in garbage in, garbage out, and the jpg's are almost always significantly lower quality that what I like to work on... they hold up to about 50% zoom, but any farther and they get "crunchy".

Just curious what everyone else' experiences are smile

Dec 03 12 07:00 pm Link

Retoucher

Krunoslav Stifter

Posts: 3883

Santa Cruz, California, US

Almost never a JPEG, virtually always RAW on an occasional TIFF. But I think you need to probably raise your standards if you are working with people who do not know what a RAW file is.

Only time I encounter JEPG-s is when working with stock images.

Dec 03 12 07:05 pm Link

Photographer

dv photoworks

Posts: 77

Riverside, California, US

When working with retouchers I always send RAW NEF files. With web based transfer sites size isn't a problem

Dec 03 12 07:07 pm Link

Photographer

Anne Le Monde

Posts: 11

London, England, United Kingdom

Work with me darling, I'll give you Raw! :-)

I agree, people who give you jpgs usually have no clue. If they have the money however, you can charge them more? 

Stephanie Mac wrote:
I'm curious how often other retouchers are able to get actual RAW files (nef or cr2) to work on, instead of jpg's.

For really in depth beauty work I much prefer a RAW file, but lately I have been running into so many people that either do not know what a RAW file is (they think it's a jpeg that hasn't had any work done to it) or they just don't shoot in RAW at all.

It's disappointing because I'm a big believer in garbage in, garbage out, and the jpg's are almost always significantly lower quality that what I like to work on... they hold up to about 50% zoom, but any farther and they get "crunchy".

Just curious what everyone else' experiences are smile

Dec 03 12 07:15 pm Link

Retoucher

Megan E Griscom

Posts: 453

Bordentown, New Jersey, US

I worked for a photographer for a while who never shot in RAW...never a good reason why, he just didnt think it was neccesary...but he wasnt doing the retouching either.  It always baffled me that he spent thousands of dollars on Nikon cameras, Canon cameras, equipment, etc and shot in JEPG...

But you are right, it never comes out the same. If the resolution is high, its fair but never the same as RAW.

Dec 03 12 07:15 pm Link

Retoucher

Pictus

Posts: 1040

Teresópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

I can not work with JPG, my computer is allergic and reboots... smile

Dec 03 12 07:18 pm Link

Retoucher

Stephanie M Retoucher

Posts: 276

Portland, Maine, US

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
Almost never a JPEG, virtually always RAW on an occasional TIFF. But I think you need to probably raise your standards if you are working with people who do not know what a RAW file is.

Only time I encounter JEPG-s is when working with stock images.

I have a client who always sends JPG's... but for him I basically am just doing watermarking, so it's not a big deal.

I'm trying to up my level of retouching, so I've been searching for people to do some trade work with so I can add more beauty shots to my portfolio and really have a solid set of work, but that's when I started running into people that either don't shoot in RAW or don't know what it is.

I'm honestly not sure how to bag the 'bigger fish' who would be more likely to be shooting quality photos in RAW. It seems presumptuous to cold contact people, I don't want them to think I am dissing their current post-work.

dv photoworks wrote:
When working with retouchers I always send RAW NEF files. With web based transfer sites size isn't a problem

Indeed. I have a dropbox with a ton of space that I use to send files back and forth with people.

Anne Le Monde wrote:
Work with me darling, I'll give you Raw! :-)

I agree, people who give you jpgs usually have no clue. If they have the money however, you can charge them more?

Charge more for the JPGs?

Megan E Griscom wrote:
I worked for a photographer for a while who never shot in RAW...never a good reason why, he just didnt think it was neccesary...but he wasnt doing the retouching either.  It always baffled me that he spent thousands of dollars on Nikon cameras, Canon cameras, equipment, etc and shot in JEPG...

But you are right, it never comes out the same. If the resolution is high, its fair but never the same as RAW.

Baffles me too.

Pictus wrote:
I can not work with JPG, my computer is allergic and reboots... smile

That's what I ought to start telling people.. wink

Dec 03 12 08:01 pm Link

Photographer

EdwardKristopher

Posts: 3377

Tempe, Arizona, US

I always shoot both.  Depending on the level touch I'm looking for will determine which I send.  Unfortunately many Retouchers, that I've found, do not know how to handle and edit a RAW file.  Then again, I'm really just starting out, having shot for just a few years.

Kindest regards,
Edward

Dec 03 12 08:11 pm Link

Digital Artist

Andreea Cernestean

Posts: 495

Baia Mare, Maramureş, Romania

For retouching I always get RAWs. On the very rare occasions I don't, which sums up to twice ever, I let them know retouching on JPEGs is more limited but do my best regardless.
For digital art on the other hand I almost always get JPEGs, but then again I have more liberty in editing than to keep it looking natural 100%, so I can fix a lot more in paint.

Dec 04 12 03:26 am Link

Retoucher

pxspace

Posts: 1046

Braşov, Braşov, Romania

Around 99.9% of the time.

Dec 04 12 07:43 am Link

Retoucher

Nienna1990

Posts: 568

Tel Aviv-Yafo, Tel Aviv, Israel

The only time I would work on a jpg is its one of my regular clients that happened to have only jpgs (these things happen).

But any self respecting photographer should know what is a RAW file.

Dec 04 12 12:07 pm Link

Photographer

Jhono Bashian

Posts: 2432

Cleveland, Ohio, US

Pictus wrote:
I can not work with JPG, my computer is allergic and reboots... smile

Good answer....  I would work with you...

Dec 04 12 12:15 pm Link

Retoucher

Alexey Adamitsky

Posts: 226

Minsk, Minsk, Belarus

99% RAW, never JPEG.

Dec 05 12 05:10 am Link

Retoucher

Greg Curran

Posts: 204

Oshawa, Ontario, Canada

Megan E Griscom wrote:
I worked for a photographer for a while who never shot in RAW...never a good reason why, he just didnt think it was neccesary...but he wasnt doing the retouching either.  It always baffled me that he spent thousands of dollars on Nikon cameras, Canon cameras, equipment, etc and shot in JEPG...

But you are right, it never comes out the same. If the resolution is high, its fair but never the same as RAW.

I have dealt with the same problem, you would think a true photographer would know everything about his/her craft.

I almost never get RAW files, I have to request them and it is always a hassle.

Dec 05 12 05:16 am Link

Photographer

Drew Smith Photography

Posts: 5210

Nottingham, England, United Kingdom

Curse you raw jpegs. *Shakes fist.

Dec 05 12 05:33 am Link

Artist/Painter

Hunter GWPB

Posts: 1545

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US

Interesting.  I have had multiple professional photographers tell me to shoot jpg.  The reason usually comes down to getting the quality straight from the camera.  One said he shots the wedding in raw and everything else in jpg because he isn't going to edit anything but the wedding shots.  Another said that his clients can't handle raw.

What is the advantage in shooting both?

Dec 05 12 05:39 am Link

Photographer

SKITA Studios

Posts: 1566

Boston, Massachusetts, US

That's crazy...who retouches starting from JPEG? :-P

Dec 05 12 07:06 am Link

Photographer

richy01

Posts: 153

Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands

Hunter Wald wrote:
Interesting.  I have had multiple professional photographers tell me to shoot jpg.  The reason usually comes down to getting the quality straight from the camera.  One said he shots the wedding in raw and everything else in jpg because he isn't going to edit anything but the wedding shots.  Another said that his clients can't handle raw.

What is the advantage in shooting both?

wow, that sounds like professionals????....(^^^)
What a BS...the quality of the camera is in the raw, not the jpg
Amateurs  imho

Dec 05 12 09:01 am Link

Retoucher

Sofia Zasheva

Posts: 154

Sofia, Sofija grad, Bulgaria

Stephanie Mac wrote:
Charge more for the JPGs?

Charge them more if you see that what they want would be more difficult or impossible with jpg. Try to educate your clients a little... only if you know you're not working with stock (as it was mentioned).

I never get jpg-s unless there's no other way.

Dec 05 12 10:35 am Link

Photographer

MacLeod Designs

Posts: 3309

Mooresville, North Carolina, US

i ALWAYS work with raw files

Dec 06 12 07:06 am Link

Photographer

MacLeod Designs

Posts: 3309

Mooresville, North Carolina, US

Hunter Wald wrote:
Interesting.  I have had multiple professional photographers tell me to shoot jpg.  The reason usually comes down to getting the quality straight from the camera.  One said he shots the wedding in raw and everything else in jpg because he isn't going to edit anything but the wedding shots.  Another said that his clients can't handle raw.

What is the advantage in shooting both?

well you never give your clients the raw file, you process the file from the raw to create a JPEG,

i usually shoot both RAW + JPEG, for most things, that way i can send quick samples without processing a raw file... but if anything i use JPEGs more for WEDDINGS, because i can get it right in camera and there are a TON of photos, so i dont have to process 500 pics, i can only selectively process the RAW files that need work... with modeling photos i shoot STRICTLY RAW, so that i can individually tweak the photos as i want

Dec 06 12 07:11 am Link

Retoucher

Ashish Arora

Posts: 2064

Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Contrary to what you think:

A Jpeg saved at 12 is not as bad!

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … 255&page=1

[Sometimes photographers want to save on upload times whilst traveling, and some other times they do not want you to play with their light settings.]

Its an indication to:

1. They either do not trust you enough.

2. They do not understand raw and would like to stick with jpegs.

Either way, its not as bad as you think but of course you can extract good tones from a RAW and the other advantages as stated by posters above.

What you should refrain from doing is saving over the jpeg again and again.

A good catch line to win over 1. is saying "You know if you could send me the RAW, I could really extract good tones and details in the skin/hair etc."

^^ That should do the trick.

Good luck!

Dec 06 12 09:43 am Link

Retoucher

Sofia Zasheva

Posts: 154

Sofia, Sofija grad, Bulgaria

Ashish Arora wrote:
Contrary to what you think:

A Jpeg saved at 12 is not as bad!

What you should refrain from doing is saving over the jpeg again and again.

+2 (:

The bad thing about jpg is the .. optimizing methods and despite the fact that it's already a jpg it compresses it every time you click ctrl+s. It's like working in 8 bit or 16 bit. You never fill the 16 bit you don't have to worry you won't fit in the 8 bit. A "12" saved as a psd would be okay if the person's careful.

Dec 06 12 01:20 pm Link

Retoucher

Kristiana-Retouch

Posts: 289

London, England, United Kingdom

I would say I get about 98% RAW's and if I get JPG I usually won't turn it down if it's good quality JPG.
1) I will clarify that RAW would work better for me and I could get out of photo more detail etc.
2) I've noticed when I get JPG photographers already know they don't provide best to start with and understand everything.
3) Have worked only with 1-3 persons who don't know what RAW is.

Dec 07 12 02:12 am Link

Retoucher

Benski

Posts: 997

London, England, United Kingdom

The JPEG output of your camera is *just* for sending proofs - they're not appropriate for editing

You should see how much dynamic range you sacrifice on in-camera JPEG - you might as well be shooting with an iPhone ... getting $200 performance out of a $2,000 sensor

And yeah, being 8-bit means the image quality falls apart as soon as you touch a tone curve or contrast slider ... Gradients on backgrounds are visibly posterised (and things will only go downhill from there with any more editing) ... Pretty much stuck with the awful camera profiles ... Hasselblad looks nice SSOC (very inaccurate, but nice); Canon and Nikon do not

Dec 09 12 09:04 am Link

Photographer

Jay Farrell

Posts: 13140

Nashville, Tennessee, US

My retoucher always gets RAW files.

Dec 09 12 09:12 am Link