The great RAW debate

You might have come across the common debate on whether photographers should be giving out their RAWs or not. There’s many sides to the argument, and I’ll give my opinion, but first, what even is a RAW file??

First of all, let’s start with what a RAW file is not. RAWs are not image files, they’re actually a raw dataset. It was first referred to as a ‘digital negative’ lending to the .DNG file type introduced by Adobe in 2004. This was the first time a file type had been devised to record raw information from the camera sensor without going through compression in-camera, and was quickly adopted by leading brands such as Hasselblad and Leica.

RAWs need to be exported to be used as an image, there are lots of different image file types out there, but the most universal is generally agreed to be .jpg or .jpeg.

Over time, most camera systems have replaced the .DNG file type with their own. Nikon uses .NEF, Canon files are .CR2, Sony’s are .ARW, and they’re just the ones I know off the top of my head!

For a long time, I’ve heard it touted that RAW images straight out of camera are more authentic, and leaning on editing means you’re a bad photographer. Film photography is often used as the gold standard in this regard, but the film stock you choose massively influences how the final image will look. It affects colour, tone, grain, and that’s all a form of processing. Many of the retouching terms and symbols actually come from darkroom techniques, such as dodging and burning.

And now on to the argument itself. One reason for not handing out RAWs, is that clients won’t always be able to open and use them if they don’t have the necessary software. This isn’t as much of an issue nowadays as more people have access to simple editing software, but it’s still something to consider.

I’ve often heard another side of the argument, explained with the oven metaphor which likens RAWs to an unbaked cake. The image isn’t truly finished until it goes into the oven (editing software) to ‘bake’. This is where a lot of a photographer’s personal style comes from, and since RAWs are completely unprocessed, there needs to be at least some editing for it to become a fully fledged image.

However I think it’s more akin to ceramics. Our images straight out of camera have already had a lot of skill put into them, like a ceramic mug. I’m sure there’s plenty of places you can go to paint your own mug, where someone else has already put the work in to create the mug itself. But you wouldn’t go to a ceramicist who’s known for their beautiful painting and glazing, and ask for an unglazed mug to paint yourself, so why do you do the same with photographers?

Our styles are just as unique as we are, and my personal editing style is a huge part of my work, and a part of the service I offer to my clients. I will never just hand over RAWs without good reason (unless working as a second shooter or as part of an event team of course), because they’ll always be missing that special sauce that makes them mine. If you don’t like my style, why hire me in the first place?

But everyone has their own opinion on this topic, so what do you think? Has your opinion changed after learning a bit more about how RAWs work? Comment below and let me know, I want to hear your thoughts!