SHOOTING IN

THE RAW :
Legal even in Pennsylvania

Photography and Text

© 2009 Michael Lustbader

Even the most inexperienced novice in

photography (either film or digital)
knows that certain decisions have to
be made before pushing that shutter
button. When photographing digitally
in particular, we can adjust certain
settings in-camera that dramatically
influence the quality and
characteristics of our final image.

Digital cameras allow us to

photograph in certain “formats”. In
this context, the word format doesn’t
refer to image size or shape as it does
in traditional film photography, but
rather to one of the languages in which
the camera records what the sensor
“sees”. There are several options
offered by most digicams, each with its
own set of advantages and
disadvantages. Some choices are
blatantly and grossly inappropriate.
(Opinionated, eh?) Other alternatives
are not quite so straightforward, and
may indeed be reasonable for some
uses, but less so for others. In this
discussion, we will try to cut our way
through this morass, and clarify these
Upper right: A leafhopper surveys the world.
issues.
Above: A small katydid judges the trajectory to its
next location.
SHOOTING IN THE RAW 2

Choice of format determines:

1. The amount of information captured. This, in turn, effects tonality, contrast range, and
color accuracy. RAW captures more data than TIFF, which captures more than JPEG.
2. The size of the file and therefore,
3. The number of images that can be stored on any given memory card, and the speed
with which those images can be
transferred from the camera’s buffer to
the flash card.

Let’s take a look at these formats, one-by-one.

TIFF (Tagged Image File Format)

Advantage:
TIFF is a universal format, meaning that almost
any computer can open these images right out
of the camera, without special software. There
is no information loss due to compression, so
the final image quality is excellent.
Disadvantage:
TIFF files are large. This means fewer images
per card, and a subsequently longer transfer
times between exposures. It is not an ideal
format for image capture in the field. It can be,
however, an excellent storage format after
download. TIFF can be an appropriate working
format for studio photography, where file size
is not that important, especially now that TIFF
files can be saved with their layers intact.

Above: Immature Milkweed

bugs (Oncopeltus fasciatus).
Instars of different sizes often
cluster together, giving the
appearance of family groups.

Left: Red Milkweed Beetle

(Tetraopes tetrophthalmus)
on hydrangea. A frenetic
beetle in constant motion.
This photograph required the
use of the most important
accessory in my bag--
PATIENCE!
SHOOTING IN THE RAW 3

JPEG (Joint Photographers Expert Group)

Advantages:
JPEG, like TIFF, is a universal format. The image is compressed, however, resulting in smaller
files, even with HIGH setting. You can
therefore store more images on each card, and
enjoy more rapid transfer rates. With JPGs,
there is no need for conversion software—
images are useable right out of the camera, just
like film. Less post-capture processing is
needed, (assuming all your settings, exposure,
etc., were correct). There is minimal loss of
data if you resave as a TIFF or a PSD file and
do not re-save as a JPEG.

You are usually given choices of compression

size:
JPG BASIC:
Think of it as “B” for bad, broken, bent,
bludgeon, barf, bleak, blurry, bleary, etc. You
can use it to take pictures of people or subjects
you don’t particularly like which you can then
email to other people you don’t particularly
like. If you insist on using this format, there is
a very real risk that the Photo Police will drag
you away for some gruesome punishment, like
having to trade in your camera for an
Instamatic and one roll of 110 film. Yes, you
can fit millions of images per card, but the quality is so poor that you will wonder why you
bothered. Or, you can enlarge them immensely, call the result, “Pointillism”, buy yourself a
beret, and be an artist.

Above: Crab Spider

(Misumena sp.) on coneflower.
When photographing spiders, I
like to position them at an edge,
looking into the frame. This
seems to emphasize their
predatory nature. These spiders
lie in wait to ambush their prey,
as opposed to spiders which
actively hunt or weave webs.

Left: Solitary bee on cascading

cone flowers. A pyramidal
composition--very stable and
restful.
SHOOTING IN THE RAW 4

JPG NORMAL:
Higher quality than the preceding. This format is useful for images that will only be shown on
the Web or in email. Despite compression, it still
provides many images per card, and a rapid
transfer rate.

JPG FINE:
Provides very good quality and can be a reasonable
format if proper care is taken. (More later).
It allows more images per card and a faster transfer
rate than either TIFF or RAW.

Disadvantages:
All JPEG formats involve “lossy” compression,
which means that some information is irretrievably
lost during processing in-camera. The question is
whether that loss is acceptable to you or not. In
many cases, you will not even be able to see the
loss of data under normal degrees of enlargement.
All settings (white balance, exposure, etc.) must be
correctly set beforehand. You can make some
corrections after the fact in Photoshop or whatever
editing software you use, but this involves
significant time and effort, and in some extreme
cases will still not give you an optimal result.

Above: Monarch
butterfly caterpillar
(Daneus plexippus) on
butterfly weed. A bit too
much flash for my taste,
photographed before the
days of the Nikon R1C1,
with direct flash creating
too many hot spots on
the buds. We live and
learn.

Right: Dogbane Leaf

Beetles (Chrysochus
auratus) enjoying
springtime. Rated “R”.

A new kink in the equation is the appearance of JPEG 2000, which is an improved format, with
little, if any, loss of data due to compression. It is available, but not yet universally accepted.
SHOOTING IN THE RAW 5

In an article in Digital PhotoPro, Jay Meisel (arguably one of the world’s best commercial color
photographers) gave his reasons for shooting JPEG, FINE. Of course, he shoots in a studio
where he avoids most of the variables that we deal with in the field, and has a staff to deal with
post-capture aberrations, but even so, he achieves superb quality.

RAW (stands for RAW)

It is not really a format, but rather just a collection of ALL the unmanipulated data that has
fallen on the sensor for that particular exposure.
Left: The Conopidae are flies that protect
themselves by resembling wasps. This type of
mimicry is relatively common in the insect
world. The most famous example is the Viceroy
butterfly, whose coloring mimics that of the
Monarch, another butterfly which advertises its
toxicity and bad taste with bright colors and
wing patterns. Paralleling the camera plane
with the subject plane was vital in maintaining
sharpness in this image. The fly is only about
1/4” in size and the background very busy and
distracting. A large aperture was needed to
limit depth-of-field.

Below: Io Moth (Automeris Io) snaps its

wings open when alarmed. The eye spots startle
predators and give the moth time to escape.
Another defense mechanism, relatively common
Advantage:
in the miniature world of insects.
There is NO loss of data, so shooting RAW provides
the greatest amount of information. You can capture
the full range of tonality, detail, and color available.
The files are smaller than TIFF, so you can fit more
images per card, with a faster transfer rate, although
not as rapid as JPEG. Using the RAW format allows us
the greatest degree of post-capture control since all the
data is preserved. We can, for instance, now adjust
white balance in-computer, making it one less thing to
worry about in the field.
In addition, we can photograph in 16-bit color. Without
going into gobs of technical detail, this allows
maximum color information (like having one hundred
shades of blue on your palette instead of five...), with
“smoother” color transitions and less risk of banding
and posterization.
Disadvantage:
RAW files require post-capture processing and cannot
be “read” right out of the camera. In the “old days” of
shooting transparencies, I would return from a week’s
adventure perhaps having shot 30-50 rolls, average. It
would take two or three evenings to edit and page the
SHOOTING IN THE RAW 6

A baby mantis, on the

lookout for potential
enemies, which at this
size, includes their own
kind. Thousands hatch
from the same egg case-
-perhaps a hundred may
survive being
cannibalized by their
brothers and sisters. Do
you see the other one
peeking out just below?

Mantids are quite

territorial, and may
spend their entire lives
in the same patch of
garden if food is
plentiful.

slides, perhaps another evening or two to

identify and caption. Generally, a
submission to my stock agency would go
out within two weeks of my return home.
On my last trip to the Galapagos Islands,
during which I photographed 100%
digitally, I returned with about the same
number of images and 5 weeks later was
still editing… Translate that into time at
the keyboard instead of in the field taking
pictures. RAW is not a universal format,
and the images are useless until converted
into a language that your computer can
read. In fact, each camera manufacturer
has a different formula for RAW capture
as well as proprietary software. Camera
Raw is Adobe’s conversion software, and
there are third party software packages
available as well. In addition, there is now
a “Digital Negative” (DNG) format which
may, in time, supplant all the proprietary
formats and simplify these issues.

My favorite time to photograph in the garden is

just after sunrise. The light is soft, there is often
still dew from a cool night, and many diurnal
insects are still quiet and calm from their night’s
slumber.
SHOOTING IN THE RAW 7

My recommendation:
SHOOT RAW!

Although it is clearly a compromise between quality and convenience, I am paranoid about

capturing every bit of data available. A RAW file supplies maximum information and
therefore the the highest quality available from any particular image. And after all, quality is
the name of the game, isn’t it?

LEFT: A photograph of the Blue Fly of

Happiness, demonstrating never-before-
captured-on-film-or-pixel courtship
behavior.
Individuals of this rarely-seen species
mate for life, and like Tinkerbell, exist
only in environments where people
believe in them. Much rarer than the
Ivory Bill.

BELOW: Rana and Ranita Frogge

welcome spring amidst the daffodils.

(P.S. I’m sorry if you misunderstood the title, and if you want to run around naked
with your digital camera, that’s fine with me.)