RAW

[nwafan20]

Now that I have been shooting digital for a while, could someone explain RAW for me? What are the benefits, what are the disadvantages? Should I use it? Whats the point? ect.

Thanks in advanced.

[PhilDernerJr]

A digital camera grabs the image, andthen translates it into a jpeg according to the settings (white balance, exposure comensation, etc.) that you specify. Raw is simply the image file before its been translated.

The advantage to shooting raw is that you get to set the white balance and exposure compensation when you're at the computer. You no longer have to worry about over or under expsoing, and you can choose your white balance and so forth at the editing process instead of being stuck with a jpeg that might have not have been made at the optimum settings.

One disadvantage are that the image is considerably larger than jpegs, allowing you to fit a lot less photos on your memory card. Also, for me, since I don't have too much experience, I found it annoying to apply those exposure and wb settings in the Photoshop. I couldn't get it to let me view the photo full screen to get it just the way I wanted. Perhaps someone else can help there.

Also, I think that when you shoot raw, you can only do it with Photoshop CS, CS2 (through add-ons that you download), or the Canon software itself.

I don't use raw, although several importnat photos that I messed up settings on could have been fixed. I know there are quite a few peopel here to live by raw. i'm sure they will come forward to give their input.

[NIKV69]

Phil is basically dead on. You should still worry about getting the best capture you can exposure wise. Tru if you don't get the perfect exposure at capture you can fix it but it's never the same. If you you blow out a fuselage there is so much you can do, you can fix it but it never seems the same to me. I feel it RAW comes in handy more with white balance trouble and fixing the certain color casts you get if you don't have it set right in your camera after you have shot the picture. IMO your crazy not to shoot in RAW. It just gives you to much flexability.

[PhilDernerJr]

I thin that perhaps I have been editing my images wrongly to adjust those raw settings. Would anyone be able to maybe post some screenshots of what they are seeing during exposure compensation adjustment?

[NIKV69]

I'm too lazy to post screen shots Phil sorry, but I open the image in ACR. Turn off all the auto sliders in the adjust menu. Then move to the detail menu and turn off the sharpening and noise reduction. The saturation should be off already if not turn it off. Return to the adjust menu and click the highlight and shadox boxes above. You will see what areas are out of whack with red and blue highlights. Starting with the exposure slider working down in that order I adjust them till image looks good. You have to practice with it a bit but until you get the hang of it. Once again if I take a pic that very bad exposure and not a very worthwile shot I toss it anway. Hope this helps Phil. Then again editing those shots from your cell can't be all that hard! :mrgreen:

[PhilDernerJr]

Hope I'm not stealing the thread, but are you able to view the pre-edited raw images at full screen?

[NIKV69]

If you get rid of the workflow options on the bottom the pic takes most of the screen with the exception of the menu on the right. It's big enough for me to look at. Why do you want to view full screen Phil?

[nwafan20]

Don't worry about stealing the thread Phil, it is helping me learn, carry on.

Question, what software do you guys' use. I have PS CS2, is that a good program to edit RAW in?

[mikephotos]

Don't worry about stealing the thread Phil, it is helping me learn, carry on.

Question, what software do you guys' use. I have PS CS2, is that a good program to edit RAW in?

You would actually be editing the RAW file with Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) and it will then open up in Photoshop CS2 for further edits. Be sure to download and install the latest ACR verison. Im not familar with Canon files but with Nikon (NEF) you can also (of course) use Nikon Capture to edit RAWs.

Mike

[pgengler]

Up until recently, I'd been strictly a JPEG shooter. The files were smaller, there was less processing time involved, and I could quickly upload photos for others to see. Then someone finally showed me Adobe Camera RAW, and the adjustments that you can make in it. Didn't nail the exposure? Had the wrong white balance selected (which has happened to be more than a few times, and isn't always solved with Levels adjustments)? You can fix these things (to a point, anyway) as part of the RAW conversion, whereas with JPEG you were sunk and the picture was (probably) a loss.

The tradeoff is that the files are larger, so you get fewer shots to a card, and all cameras (as far as I know) have bigger buffers for JPEG than RAW, so you can do more burst shooting that way. (This is less of an issue in newer cameras; the final straw for me and my Digital Rebel was the atrociously small buffer/long write time for RAW images; a problem since I was trying to shoot a parade.) You also HAVE to do at least minimal postprocessing to get a JPEG image; you can't just toss them up on the web and have them accessible (this is a problem for me right now since my Photoshop computer is currently down; I've got more than 1500 photos waiting for processing, and I can't even do a quick culling of them right now.)

[madcatimages]

Vaction snapshots=JPEG

Aircraft photos=RAW :wink:

Just to give you a heads up...
I have adobe elements 3.0. In order to make the software (adobe) run RAW from my 350D I had to go the the Adobe website and get an update which had support for my camera. I have no idea about your photoshop but you migt need to get an update.

Once you get the hang of RAW you will never want to go back to jpeg. :)

[NIKV69]

Vacation snapshots=JPEG

Aircraft photos=RAW

Niceeeee, well put.

[FlyingColors]

Its all a compromise.

And its all about what camera your using, and not just the brand, but model too. Each and every one will process the image a bit different, and that's the digital downside. Film was film, K64 works great/consistent in whatever you put it in.

From what I read up on the RAW/JPEG clash on line, and what I've used-very long story short:
Canon's 10/20/30D produce the best JPEG images right in the camera, and look way better then an unprocessed RAW.
Nikon's D200 is best with RAW, I don't care at all for the JPEGS.

Yet my D100 makes fantastic JPEGS (large/fine always/only).

Hear me out, I'm only commenting on the few I've used.

FWIW: I'm a "graduate" from Nikon school, and "the pros" shoot 90% JPEG. These guys go out into the field and have massive assignments, and can't (space) and don't need RAW.
The class showed me one can make a very large prints from JPEG/large/fine, almost equal to the RAW, in size and quality.

RAW can help fix some flaws, but in no way can it beat a properly exposed large/fine JPEG.

Finally "one of my acquaintance" likes to shoot RAW only. Yet he does all his photoshop editing as an initial converted JPEG. Whats the point in that?! Your only working with a JPEG at that point on, silly.

Think before you shoot, and shoot what makes you happy! There is NO wrong answer.

[moose135]

One of the advantanges to working where I do (well, maybe the only advantage, but that's for another thread...) is the wealth of photographic knowledge right down the hall.

I spoke with the manager of our "photo lab" (it's still called that, even though it's all digital) He's been shooting for 30+ years, an old Kodachrome guy. He never uses RAW. He tried it when he first went digital (you know, since it's the "professional" method) and didn't see any advantages. He took some shots in tough lighting conditions, in both RAW and JPEG (fine-high/large) and got similar results. In everyday shooting, he can't see any reason to use RAW. The files are much larger, resulting in more storage needs, longer write times, and additional processing. Our photographers on the street all shoot in JPEG. They have no reason to do otherwise.

Before you say "but it's for a newspaper, the quality isn't that important" (don't tell that to him!), I also spoke to the Editorial Director of our Island Publications group - they do all the travel books (glossy, some larger format) as well as the upscale Distinction magazine, again, glossy print, lots of photos. He ends up taking many of the photos they use in the travel books (they are the guys who used my Big Duck photo recently) He never uses RAW. Played with it once or twice, but always shoots JPEG. If you are submitting any photos for publication, they need to be JPEG.

Both said that there really isn't anything they can't do with a JPEG file that they could by having it in RAW. Shooting JPEG in fine/high resolution - and getting the shot right - will give you more than enough to work with.