"I SHOOT RAW"
Portrait of a Lion
The debate among photographers on using RAW vs. JPEG image formats has raged since the dawn of digital photography. The purpose of this blog post is not to re-hash all the arguments again, but to share my own thoughts within the context of zoo photography. That being said, I landed firmly in the RAW camp, and wish I had followed Jared Polin’s tagline “I SHOOT RAW” from the very beginning of my digital photography. In a nutshell, the RAW image format can give you more options than JPEG if you conceivably will ever post-process your images in the future. RAW maximizes the tonal range of your images, and this may make a difference between unrecoverable blown-out highlights that ruin an image and a beautifully captured, contrasty image. Below I discuss three common knocks against shooting RAW, and share my thoughts on the RAW vs. JPEG debate, particularly as it applies to zoo photography.
Too Big to Handle
Knocks against shooting RAW is typically that the image files are larger in size and they’re a waste of memory if you will never post-process your image. I'm not going to say much on this except to say that memory cards and external hard drives are dirt cheap these days. A 2TB Western Digital external hard drive is about $60 on Amazon right now. Consider this an investment that helps future-proof your collection of images as software gets better or you take the next step into post-processing.
JPEG: Good Enough for Government Work
A 2nd knock against RAW is that the camera's JPEG processing is good enough and difficult to improve upon, and this might be true for many or most images. Depending on the image, the in-camera JPEG may be perfectly fine. When you first see RAW files after downloading them to your computer, they will look disappointingly flat. For JPEG's, your camera can apply sharpening, contrast, white balance adjustment, and other effects like extra saturation to make JPEGs look sweet. RAW files are minimally processed and need your artful post-processing touch to bring out their full potential. A RAW file is like a roughly formed clay figure. It still needs you to give the clay its artistic detail to make it go from "blah" to a work of art. This is extra time and effort, though, so why bother with RAW?
Because RAW files have more data, you have more tonal range to play with. Your camera may be a beast in capturing dynamic range within a scene, but JPEG basically throws some of this advantage away as it compresses the data in the image. RAW provides a little more insurance or forgiveness against having incorrectly exposed photos (or areas within a photo) compared to JPEGs. Shadows that would be inky black or highlights that are pure white in JPEG might just be recoverable if you shot RAW.
RAW is also helpful for shots that include the sky or solid colors that change tones across the image. Skies are not perfectly evenly lighted and will have significant tonal changes as you look across it. Because JPEGs throw away data in the image, you'll sometimes get pronounced banding in tonality within a blue sky. This banding looks horrific, and, without the original RAW file, you'll either have to live with the banding, hit the delete key, or end up trying to replace the sky with Photoshop. In addition, if you post-process the JPEG, you’ll sometimes get all sorts of other unsightly digital artifacts showing up in skies and elsewhere. You can generally push the post-processing significantly more in RAW files before artifacts start becoming a problem.
If you take courses on Lightroom, Photoshop or other post-processing software or read books on post-processing, you will significantly, or often vastly, improve on the in-camera JPEG. These software tools provide an extra dimension for creativity and artistic expression beyond the exposure triangle and the limitations of in-camera JPEG. If you don't want to bother with post-processing now, just keep the RAW file anyway because you never know what will happen in the future.
Post-Processing is Not True Photography
I actually don't hear this criticism much anymore. Digital photography is its own art form and it's different from film. Even with film, you could certainly "post-process" your images for artistic effect if you developed your own film, as Ansel Adams demonstrated to full effect. With digital photography, your image is obviously a digital file, and, in my opinion, you should leverage the full potential of that file using digital processing software. Almost everyone who shoots JPEGs are going with the camera's post-processing of their images to sharpen, set white balance, enhance saturation, increase contrast, etc. A minimally processed JPEG would look flat, lifeless and not awesome (like a RAW file). Instead of letting the camera do the processing, just shoot RAW or RAW+JPEG and do the processing yourself if you don't agree with what the camera is doing. Personally, it would hurt my soul if I captured a unique, expressive portrait of a silverback gorilla, but the JPEG's limitations resulted in a flawed image that could've been likely fixed with the original RAW file. Unless you're a documentarian or news photographer, consider expanding your toolkit to include post-processing of RAW images so that the processing is tailored to enhance the story you're trying to tell in your photography.
Why RAW for Zoo Photography?
Unless you're working for the media, there's no reason to not process your images in order to unlock the full benefits RAW provides as discussed above. Except for certain zoos that have extended member hours, you will rarely get to shoot at golden hour, so the dynamic range of your camera will be tested as you try to photograph a gorilla, black bear or any other darkly colored animal in the bright light of mid-morning or later in the day. Same thing for a white animal in harsh light. Interior habitats are also often dimly lighted. It doesn't make sense to further hobble yourself by using JPEG that is an extra limiter on range.
Another reason to shoot in RAW (or RAW+JPEG) is that critters do not have a stylist and don't receive direction very well. You will frequently need to remove distracting dust, dirt or twigs from animal fur or twigs and grass from in front of the animal if they're too low to the ground or are standing too close to vegetation. To bring out the best in an animal's image, you may want to do some selective sharpening, enhanced texture and vibrancy, increased contrast, dodging and burning, and other techniques. This post-processing may not be an issue in JPEG, until it is. RAW can give an extra edge in post without creating a bunch of annoying image artifacts as a JPEG chokes. Even if the in-camera JPEG looks good, RAW provides extra options for the future.
When does it make sense to shoot JPEG only? If you’re shooting snapshots for personal use or your job or client requires minimal processing, then JPEG will be fine. In the case of snapshots, I prefer just using an iPhone. If you do switch to JPEG-only for less important shots, don’t forget to switch back to RAW for the important ones (yeah, this has happened to me).
Lesson Learned
When I first started out in digital photography 18 years ago, I never thought I would bother with post-processing images. Coming from film, post-processing of digital images didn't really compute with me. The camera's JPEG seemed so good. Because I loved vibrant colors at the time and didn't know any better, I set the camera's JPEG settings to use maximum saturation. I also just went with the camera's auto white balance and sharpening settings, and when there were other issues like banding or clipped highlights, I didn't think there was any saving of the image.
Although memory was much more expensive back then, I now kick myself whenever I review some of those early JPEG's and realize I could've done so many things in Lightroom or Photoshop to either potentially recover clipping or take an image to the next level, particularly as my photography tastes evolved. There's only so much you can do with post-processing of JPEG images before they fall apart.
Bottom line, if you, your spouse, your kids, grandkids, or anyone else will ever have an interest in post-processing your images in the future, consider shooting RAW. If you're usually happy with the in-camera JPEG, shoot RAW+JPEG. Think of RAW as providing that extra backup just in case you have a potentially great image but didn't nail your exposure, and murky shadows or blown-out highlights ruined the JPEG. RAW can also help unlock the fullest potential of an image if you ever decide to take the next step into post-processing.