Raw vs Jpeg

This is an argument I have seen played out on many occasions between photographers, most recently on social media and in particular on my favourite new fix: YouTube, where there is no shortage of advice and opinions.

Two high profile ‘educators’ or vloggers, (not sure if they are working photographers or just YouTubers) publicly slugged it out via their video channels, each arguing the case for either format.  None of their arguments made much sense but that’s probably just as well. However, the fundamental point of which is better, completely missed the point.

Just like the cameras and lenses photographers choose to use for a specific job, so too can be said of which format a photographer should use be it RAW or Jpeg.  I would go further and to be fair, this point was made…sort of, a beginner would do well to learn as much as they can before shooting in RAW, for no other reason than there is a certain amount of post processing required to extrapolate what they have shot in-camera before they can use the image.

It stands to reason therefore, that a person just starting out in photography will have little if no experience on how to process a RAW file and would be better served shooting Jpegs until such time that they have gained the required level of skill to extract all the detail from a RAW file.

And to be honest, this is an area that I have yet to fully exploit as my skill level in post is pretty basic as I have never needed to use photoshop other than the basic tweaks and for captioning.

To this end, the only time anyone would readily choose to shoot Jpegs would be those working as a press photographer, where the single most critical aspect when on a job -apart from the obvious – is speed.  They do not have the luxury of trawling through hundreds of images converting RAW files into Jpegs before transmitting them to their respective publication or agency.

Of course speed is all relative. When I was working on assignments back in the day of film, speed could be a matter of hours or in some cases days. Naturally, this was before the age of the internet and lead times were much longer. You had time to return to your publication, pop into the darkroom, place your rolls into the drop tanks of developer and so on…

If further afield, you had the option of handing your undeveloped rolls of film to a courier who would then either jump onto a bike or in extreme cases if abroad, onto a flight back to base. 

Then we had portable scanners and wire transmitting equipment and things became a lot faster until we finally reached the point of rolling news and the internet and speed was down to a matter of minutes.

Today, everyone from fashion to landscape to wedding photographers and most probably everything in between, should be shooting in RAW to maximize the full potential of the image they have captured.  And despite what anyone says or tells you, maximize they will and do.

Leica M10 Monochrome, what’s the point?

I had to laugh when I heard Leica had launched the Monochrome M10 camera recently. What’s the point of it and whose it for?

Well, there is no point to it. None whatsoever. Whose it for? Well, those with more money than sense.  I have heard all kinds of reasons why you should buy it, indeed, some saying things like: ‘it’s a Leica’ Well, yes, it’s a Leica, so? ‘You’re buying into an experience, a history’, is that enough of a reason to buy one? Of course not.

The camera world is no different to any other consumerism affectation, the desire to have what some consider to be the best of the best or the latest designer product, be it a pair of shoes, haircut or car.  Cameras are no different. You often hear the phrase ‘camera porn’, people are drawn to things which look good, which project a certain image.  The reality of course, it does not enhance your life in any meaningful way.

Simply to mention the word Leica and those who know even the basic rudiments of photography, will gravitate towards camera envy. But a reality check will confirm that not all Leicas are equal and the name alone does not mean quality.

There are better cameras on the market, most will be cheaper, a lot cheaper and do a better job.  But like everything else, you buy a camera to suit your needs and in most cases to suit your pocket. After all, a builder would not buy a sports car to do his job and so it is with photography.

A sports photographer would not buy a Leica to cover a soccer match, at least, I’ve never seen one.  In fact, as a former news photographer, I can count on one hand how many times I have spotted another photographer wielding a Leica and trust me, photographers do notice what their brethren are using if not overtly.  Moreover, whilst covering war zones, I never saw a Leica, which is kind of ironic, as that’s where the brand achieved its fame during the heady days of the 40s and 50s in areas of conflict or so it is perceived.

Probably the most famous and notable of war photojournalists, Robert Capa, used a Contax camera not a Leica. Yet for some reason the rangefinder is nearly always associated with Leica even though in reality, it was the Contax camera which broke new grounds and was the preferred choice, for it had a much faster shutter speed.

Yes, the glass is quite exceptional, but so too are those of Fuji, Canon and Sony and really, is there that much of a difference these days? A difference that in the real world you could spot? I think not.

But the mystique surrounding the Leica has always perhaps shrouded photographers’ judgement and entered the lexicon as the preferred choice for the ‘serious’ photographer. It portrays a certain image, a sense of ‘I’m successful, I can afford a Leica’. Well, perhaps, but it will not make you a better photographer.

This might be apocryphal but a story did circulate a few years back of a very wealthy person turning up to an event with a Leica slung around their neck, taking pictures, not realizing that the lens cap was still attached.  Who knows if that is true but its symbiotic of the image of the Leica and its user.  That is not to say that Leica users are in any way inferior photographers, far from it. Rather, there is a perception that owning a Leica will elevate peoples estimation of you as a photographer or indeed as a person.

The truth is the new Monochrome M10 is in my opinion, a marketing gimmick. It makes no commercial sense in the real world of photography.  Most photo agencies/libraries/publications don’t like black and white images as their marketability is limited.  For fine art work, including street photography,  its probably fine, but once again a very niche market. So I ask once more; what is the point of it other than to boast; look at me, I own a Leica?