Raw

Pirate!! · 10-11-2006, 11:59 AM

Ahoy all!

I've never taken images in RAW mode, only JPEG. I have CS2 and PSP X.

I have no idea at all of the hows, why's or wherefore's of RAW processing.

So, anyone want to put fingers to keyboard and give a rundown of what can/can't be done, and how to do it? Essentially, an idiots guide to RAW.

Oh, I also have Olympus Master. The RAW format for Olly is ORF.

sinizterguy · 10-11-2006, 12:04 PM

My take on it - Always shoot in RAW.

Its cleaner as there is no processing done in camera. More latitude with exposure - upto +/-2 stops can be achieved in software only using RAW.

With Adobe Camera RAW plugin (built into Adobe Photoshop CS2) you just have to open the file like any other, change a few settings and save as JPEG - thats minimum processing.

JPEG is a lossy format and each time to you save the file, a little information is lost. This is not the case with RAW. So you always a clean file to start from again if you want to process it differently.

No sharpening is done in camera, so you do need to a little with Photoshop.

Kaoshan · 10-11-2006, 12:10 PM

You can adjust/correct white balance, exposure and focus (sharpening/noise reduction). I use Capture 1 Pro and save the resultant files as TIFFS either to save or for further processing in Photoshop CS2.

Processing RAW files is a processor intensive job so you need a computer with plenty of horsepower.

Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM lens for sale.

md644 · 10-11-2006, 12:33 PM

Think of it this way - on the camera you have various adjustments in the menus for sharpness, white balance, colour saturation etc. If you shoot JPEGs these are set as soon as the shot is taken. If you shoot RAW, you can make all these adjustments on your PC afterwards, and generally keep adjusting until the shot looks like you intended. And like the above poster says, if the exposure is a little bit wrong, you can correct that too (within reason, and at the expense of extra noise, possibly).

Downside is the extra time taken to do all this, but generally worth it IMHO.

EDIT: Have a look at this link, it explains it in more detail than me (And a lot better too probably):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...aw-files.shtml

Robert B 2 · 10-11-2006, 3:06 PM

Agree with everything said so far.

RAW allows you more control to get the ideal picture you were after- by modifying exposure, 2 types of contrast, saturation and several other elements. Those are the things I usually play around with and more often than not, providing the image wasn't a complete pigs ear in the first place, I am happy with the results.

I use Rawshooter (there is a free version like I have), which is very easy to use and highly effective (in my amateur opinion.) You can simply modify the RAW to get how you wish and then save as Jpeg or Tif.

It also enables you to save a range of exposures so that you can produce a HDR using other softeware (like Photomatix.)

Robert B 2 · 10-11-2006, 3:24 PM

Incidentally, I always shoot in RAW and JPEG now and the photos I like I will take the time to smarten up in RAW format.

As an example of the difference between a RAW and JPEG, view the two formats of the same image and zoom in. You will find the JPEG loses quality more quickly the more you zoom. The RAW is the more pure version before compression takes place within the camera (to form JPEG.)

This is not withstanding the fact that you get greater control to change the RAW as described in the last post.

beachy · 10-11-2006, 4:18 PM

[QUOTE=Robert B 2;3742948]You can simply modify the RAW to get how you wish and then save as Jpeg or Tif. QUOTE]

but does this mean that once you have converted to jpg, you can't do anymore work on it, in which case do you have to duplicate the original raw file if further pp is required, hope this makes sense

chris1210 · 10-11-2006, 4:23 PM

If you can spare the time to edit them properly afterwards, the results you can get are fantastic. Take this example from yesterday shot in RAW...

Before
http://static.flickr.com/116/293807725_7cacd94726_b.jpg

After
http://static.flickr.com/121/293190325_2134efdb70_b.jpg

Kaoshan · 10-11-2006, 4:23 PM

The original RAW file remains untouched. Once you have made all the necessary adjustments you would either save as JPEG or TIFF.

beachy · 10-11-2006, 4:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris1210

If you can spare the time to edit them properly afterwards, the results you can get are fantastic. Take this example from yesterday shot in RAW...

Before
http://static.flickr.com/116/293807725_7cacd94726_b.jpg

After
http://static.flickr.com/121/293190325_2134efdb70_b.jpg

yes see what you mean, vast difference, were these just normal adjustments ie brightness saturation etc ?

Radiohead · 10-11-2006, 4:29 PM

Think of RAW as a digital negative, and JPG as a print.

beachy · 10-11-2006, 4:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaoshan

The original RAW file remains untouched. Once you have made all the necessary adjustments you would either save as JPEG or TIFF.

so basically what your saying is once you have done your pp with the raw file and saved to jpg, you do still have both files on your hard drive,ie original raw file and saved jpg, sorry to be a bit long winded with this, but just want to get it right, i shot my first set of raw files yesterday, so just want to make sure when i pp and save as jpg i still have the original, and have no need to copy the raw file first.

Robert B 2 · 10-11-2006, 4:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachy

so basically what your saying is once you have done your pp with the raw file and saved to jpg, you do still have both files on your hard drive,ie original raw file and saved jpg,

Yes, exactly. You will still have you raw file, and then a version which you have saved with a different extension (.Jpeg or .tif) which is a whole new file.

bowenjones · 10-11-2006, 4:54 PM

Hi Pirate.
Although you already have the tools for editing RAW files, i'd recommend downloading Rawshooter Essentials. Really easy to use and it's free. I find that although I have CS2, most of my Raw processing is done using Rawshooter as it's so good. Give it a try

13-11-2006, 6:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowenjones

Hi Pirate.
Although you already have the tools for editing RAW files, i'd recommend downloading Rawshooter Essentials. Really easy to use and it's free. I find that although I have CS2, most of my Raw processing is done using Rawshooter as it's so good. Give it a try

This is what I use, it is simple yet powerful. The best bit, now I am used to it, is that if I have taken 20-30 simillar photos in a shoot, I can copy and paste all the related changes to all the selected shots Then check them, and if all is ok, batch process them without having to 'develope' evey picture individually. You can normally tell in the preview which ones will need the same processing.

Once you have set this baseline, it is easy to individually tweak each shot if required before the background processing. It also avoids wild changes in White balance and exposure between the shots, which it is wasy to do when processing individually.

It gives you great flexibility and means that under exposed shots can be 'rescued' a lot easier than trying to fix an out of camera Jpeg. It's been a god-send a number of times since I started using it, esecially for indoor shoots when it is easy to get exposure and colour temp wrong.

The downside is the extra step you have to take to develope the shots, but I reckon it is worth it.

pixelpixel · 13-11-2006, 6:36 PM

should we not have a raw sticky/faq its just over the last few weeks I have noticed a lot of raw questions. I really don't mind anyone asking questions. Just maybe find it would help a lot as its something that everyone might use or would like to use and it fits as a sticky.

What does everyone think ?

beachy · 13-11-2006, 6:44 PM

yes this seems like a good idea, i've just started to try raw out myself, so i reckon it might be quite useful for complete newbies to it

bodoman · 13-11-2006, 7:19 PM

Thanks to all the advice on here, i have downloaded RawShooter and its seems easy to use.
Strangely i never used raw before, and just used the jpeg as i knew and understood that.

Looks like i have been missing out on a lot and will be taking a greater interest in taking photos now.

i have just tried a few shots today and using the tools in it, it seems to produce a more natural photograph, my camera is a leica digilux 2, and dont know if this is normal but each shot produces 2 images, 1 in jpeg and 1 in raw.

So thats for the advice folks.

electrolyte · 14-11-2006, 8:15 AM

I always shoot in RAW as well and I use Adobe Lightroom to do my RAW processing. It is an excellent program and is currently available for free as they are still developing the program and want to get feedback about it. The version I use will expire in February 2007 so I have free use of it until then.