Image Quailty (Part 1)

A lot of the time photographers tell me that they do not bother shooting in RAW, because the files are too large, and when you process the image you eventually end up with hundreds of duplicates. There are also some photographers out there that delete their RAW files after processing them, just to save space.

I'm not going to go on a massive rant about the benefits of RAW over JPEG, mainly because they both have their place in this digital world of ours.

What I'll do instead, is just give you a physical demonstration about the benefits of shooting and keeping your RAW Files.

This here, is an image of an Owl. It was shot as a RAW file (.CR2) and processed straight from the camera with nothing corrected. If I had shot this image in JPEG, I would have pretty much the same image (except, a colour profile and white balance would be embedded in the image).

Now say that this was the original, the only copy I have is this JPEG. I open it in Photoshop a few times to tweak it. Adjust colour levels. Maybe change its white balance. But, every time I do a change to this image, I save it again. In the long run, my photo of the owl would look like this:

Why? Well, simply. To make the JPEG file internet friendly, when it is saved, it basically takes a pixel and says, “well this pixel is colour X... so to save space and information, lets make the adjoining pixels colour X as well.” That way, it does not have to remember as much information and therefore the image shrinks from 500Kb to 20Kb for example:

First save:

Second save:

Third save:

While only done a few times, this isn't an issue and you'll never notice. But it doesn’t take long until all the pixels become Colour X and therefore your image will end up with noticeable squares (or giant pixels).

Of course, there are ways around this. For example, save your processed image in a lossless format, say, TIFF or PSD and work on those images leaving your original JPEG safe from saving.

I have a three step image system. Shot in RAW, Processed in PSD (where I keep all the changes I make in layers, so I'll always be able to go backwards or forwards without fear of losing anything that I've done to the image) and then JPEG with ugly watermark for the internet.

If an image needs to be printed, then off it goes as a TIFF in CMYK – but I'll leave that for another day, when I'll rant about mega-pixels being bullshit.

The final reason as to why I'll never delete my RAW files, is because, they are the equivalent to my negatives, in pretty much all forms and sense. No photographer throws out their negatives.

Guess what? Your name. IT MEANS NOTHING!

Well, okay, not true. One day, your name might mean something, but now, while you're a new fish in the sea with a DSL no better than a million others, your work is not worth your name.

“There is no pay, but I'll credit you.” Then when the credit doesn’t appear, “Oops, sorry, next time we'll make sure.” - Have any professionals experienced this before? I think a good handful might be muttering something about now.

People, when you are new, and the idea of your name appearing alongside an image that you've taken for a magazine, seems wonderful, so wonderful that you are willing to sacrifice your pay, or the livelihood of other photographers. I will not judge you because of it. We all have done it.

But to carry on doing it, I'll put you on a little list. This list shall be viewed by the Council of Dark Pissed-Off Photographers who need to earn a living- and we'll hunt you down with blunt objects.

Your name, is actually a valuable source of advertising. This is true. And there is a price to your name. There are limits though. Finding those limits is all important if you're looking to make a living out of photography.

I was offered by my landlord last year, the chance to shoot for his shop (my studio at the time sat above it). He then added, “I can't pay for the shoot, but you'll get your name printed with the images.”

First thing that popped into my mind was “So? My name will get printed with the images even if you pay me. My name will get printed with ALL my published images. Unless, you pay me not to put my name on my images.”

I turned down the shoot. It was not worth the time sacrificed to see my name. Besides, if you walked into his shop, you'd have already seen my name and studio and business cards.

Lets just say I come across a photo I like, and I take the time to look to see who shot it (I do often do this, how many others do though I wonder?). The byline says “Pete Joe”. Okay, cool. Let me Google him, let me Facebook him? Nothing comes up, or a million things come up. Dear Pete Joe, I'm sorry, your byline was worthless to everybody except your mother bragging “My Pete has his name in this magazine!”

Your name is worthless in the beginning. Get the money first, build up your name. Then one day people will be like “Pete Joe the photographer? I love your work!” And you dear Pete Joe, will be happy, because you got to buy yourself some food.

Summary:

Having your name published is not full payment.

By law, if you still own the copyrights to your image, your name HAS to be published even if you get paid.

Only if the publisher buys full copyrights, then they don't have to publish your name.

If you have an agreement to have your name published with an image, and it isn't. Then that publisher owes you the financial value of your name. INVOICE THEM!