Raw

[cshontz]

I just tried RAW for the very first time. Very powerful, but quite frankly, it gave me a headache. To what extent do you guys use RAW? Lets say you're on an adventure or shooting an event and you take a few hundred pictures. Do you really go back and edit RAW for every one?

I can definitely see the use if I'm trying to get a very specific shot. But if I'm shooting a large quantity of journalistic style photos for the web, it seems like it'd add a great deal of tedium.

I didn't try anything fancy. I went onto the back porch and took a JPG, and then took a RAW. Its overcast, so I knew it'd be dull and under-exposed. I absolutely butchered the RAW file, but all in the name of science - to see what could be done.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2385/2244335945_c892855be5.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2420/2244332909_117d0818b1.jpg

[articulate]

Jeez, man, if we were a matter of miles apart I'd say we need to go have a cup of coffee together and hash some of this out.

I'm working with RAW for the first time too. What I've learned is that, for web production/display, RAW is largely overkill. Unless you're a picky artiste. That's my impression after using it for a week or two.



We'll see what some other dudes have to say about it.

[bigreen505]

Raw gives you flexibility in your images and using them however you want as well as the ability to re-process them in the future when better converters are available.

[goodtimes]

I look at raw like car insurance. Most of the time, it is useless. but that ONE time you need it, you REALLY need it!

FWIW, I don't do anything with the great majority of my pictures. Maybe 10%, probably less. Of that 10%, maybe half of them get tweaked in lightroom or p'shop. So it really doesn't cost me much time....so it is worth the [minimal] extra effort to shoot and store in raw....to me at least.

[Ursidae69]

It's not that bad to get used too.

[cshontz]

This past weekend I went out for two hours, took 300 pictures (really 100 w/ AEB), and when I came home I sat down in a chair for another two hours and filtered out the duds. 70 pictures remained, most of which were mediocre, and maybe 10 were good. Then I spent another two hours tagging them and uploading them to Flickr.

So you can see why I'm a little concerned by what RAW management adds to my workflow - although it does offers a viable alternative to AEB.

I currently use Picasa, and just looked at the Lightroom tour on the web. That looks like it'd certainly be more efficient than swapping between Photoshop and Picasa, so I might give that a try.

[Ursidae69]

Have you considered shooting raw plus jpeg combined? Just carry more memory.

[pathfinderdriver]

I tend to agree. If you are doing web work it is much easier to just shoot in jpg, however if you want to print or just want to make sure you get "the shot" then shoot in RAW. You have more options on how much you can fix/adjust a pictures.

[Lost Canadian]

I've been using RAW most of the time lately, but I do shoot jpg if it's just normal fun shots. I was back and forth for awhile between RAW and jpg but what I learned, at least in my case, is a lot of the time a good number of shots I take will be taken in series, under the same conditions. For situations like that I found batch processing to make things a ton easier. I just apply the correct settings to one picture in the series and batch process the rest with the same adjustments. There maybe a few that need tweeking but most of the time it works out.

Getting things right using RAW takes some time and practice though, but the results are worth it when it's right. I'm still learning as well.

[cshontz]

To play devil's advocate, why not just adjust the JPG? I haven't tested, but do the two formats modify differently, or is RAW preferred simply because its not lossy out of the camera?

[DaktariEd]

When I shoot with my DSLR, I always shoot in RAW/jpeg mode.

The RAW files include more color and exposure data and allow me to pull out a very large tiff file to print from.

When I did side by side comparisons of 8.5x11 prints, the RAW/tiff won every time compared to jpegs.

If the final product is going to be web-based or perhaps small prints, the jpeg is fine.

But my framed photos are always printed from RAW/tiff...

Just my 2 centavos...

http://www.geocities.com/daktaried/safari.gif

[Lost Canadian]

To play devil's advocate, why not just adjust the JPG? I haven't tested, but do the two formats modify differently, or is RAW preferred simply because its not lossy out of the camera?

Here's a good read I was pointed to a while back.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

[Photog]

When you edit a JPEG, the pixels are modified. Once it is saved, there is no going back. When you edit a RAW file, it justs adds instructions to the existing file. You can go back any time and make adjustments. JPEG is an 8bit color file, RAW is a 12 to 16 bit color file. Adding 1 bit doubles the data available for modifications (e.g. A 14 bit file has 64 times more color shades and data to work with). A 16 bit file has 256 times more colors/shades.

With a RAW file, you canbring detail out of the shadows, and tone down the highlights. With a JPEG, there just isn't enough data to do this type of work.

This was mentioned earlier - To simplify your work flow, you can do work in batches. If all your files need more saturation, contrast and exposure; fix the first one, and apply the adjustment to all the rest. It is all done in a couople clicks. Then if you need 10 of them for the internet, highlight them and batch process them into properly sized jpegs using "Prepare for Web" or "Batch Process", in Photoshop.

The end product is almost always a JPEG, but your RAW file is like a high quality negative.

Start shooting RAW abd never look back.

I still shoot in RAW/JPEG mode; but I almost always end up throwing out the JPEGs, since I can always recreate them as a batch job.

When I shoot for a client, I shoot in RAW/JPEG. We can use the JPEGs for a quick review of the work, and image selection. Then I use the RAW file as the basis of the end product that gets printed and delivered.

Cheers :wavey:

[Photog]

Here's a good read I was pointed to a while back.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

That is an excellent link, and great info.
I have always enjoyed their work and information.
Thanks

[jokeplayer]

When you edit a JPEG, the pixels are modified. Once it is saved, there is no going back.

The end product is almost always a JPEG, but your RAW file is like a high quality negative.


Ditto. JPEG's get modified, and actually decrease quality every time they are saved. (From what I've read)

I shoot 100% raw for work and for fun. And when I edit other stuff our photographers shoot, the RAW files have saved their butts a few times when something was off, like distance from an off camera flash and a dancing couple at a reception. RAW contains sooooo much more information that you can pull back the highlights and bring up the shadows.

Does it cost you more in terms of space? You betcha. I carry 10gb of Secure Digital cards and we just purchased a 1 terrabyte back up drive. But it's worth it!

[cshontz]

Thanks guys - all good information. I've been actually reorganizing and experimenting all evening. I think I can optimize my workflow to make RAW more viable. The biggest issue is space. When I purchased my Canon XTi, I was coming from point-and-shoot and expected a 2 gigabyte CF card to be more than adequate. For JPG, this is true, but in RAW... forget about it. Fortunately, they're not that expensive. An 8 gig'r should be adequate.

I also have a 500 gig USB drive that is mostly empty and should also really help. The problem is, its too slow to work off of, so I'm going to have to manually off-load files from my laptop every thousand pics or so. That makes perfect sense anyway.

Mark, what are you using to manage your photos? Lightroom? I gave it a whirl for the first time tonight, and I think I'm sold. Very intuitive, streamlined photo management app makes RAW handling a breeze. There is even a third-party export-to-Flickr plugin that I consider to be pure gold.

[articulate]

The end product is almost always a JPEG, but your RAW file is like a high quality negative.

. . . When I shoot for a client, I shoot in RAW/JPEG. We can use the JPEGs for a quick review of the work, and image selection. Then I use the RAW file as the basis of the end product that gets printed and delivered.
Good points, good advice. Noted. I didn't think about that reviewing bonus of shooting in JPG and RAW.


Mark, what are you using to manage your photos? Lightroom? I gave it a whirl for the first time tonight, and I think I'm sold. Very intuitive, streamlined photo management app makes RAW handling a breeze. There is even a third-party export-to-Flickr plugin that I consider to be pure gold.
I haven't tried Lightroom, mainly because I've shot fewer than 60 frames so far. I suspect I'll end up with Lightroom because everyone else likes it.

[cshontz]

Wow. I just dropped the boy off at school, turned around in my seat to snap a picture, came home and made a couple of quick adjustments and voila. I'm very happy.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2032/2247103152_5a2325c68e_b.jpg

[jokeplayer]

Nice colors! What camera are you using?

[Ursidae69]

Good picture Chris. :costumed-smiley-007

I checked into Lightroom, it retails for 299. Too bad it doesn't come with Photoshop, I've already invested in that. I might download the free trial to check it out.

[cshontz]

Nice colors! What camera are you using?


Good picture Chris.

Thanks, guys!

I'm using a Canon XTi and shot this with 10-22 EF-S.

[Robthebrit]

It all depends on what software you are using.

The setting the camera would of applied to the image are stored within a chunk in the raw file (CR2 files only, this data is not in the old canon CRW format and I know nothing about Nikon). The pixels in the raw file are exactly what came from the sensor but if you apply these settings the resulting image will give exactly the same colors as the jpeg the camera would of made.

The CG industry uses this all the time, we convert all files to HDR. We use custom software but I beleive commercial software such as Lightroom can extract and apply these settings.

Rob

[Photog]

In the menus of your camera, you can change the way the camera processes the JPEG file. You can add more/less saturation, extra sharpness, B&W, more contrast, etc. All of these adjustments should show up in the RAW file too. But the nice thing about the RAW file, is you can change them later (oops, too much saturation in that photo). With the JPEG you can make some small adjustments; but you are usually just SOL.

I think that is another way of saying what Rob just said.

[Robthebrit]

Lightroom and photoshop certainly have problems with raw files.. I wouldn't expect anything less from Adobe...

I just did some tests and shot in jpeg+raw. When these pictures were loaded into lightroom the raw is identical to the jpeg. However, it seems Lightroom is applying only some of the settings that are in the file when initially loading it - for example color balance is always applied. The picture controls in my 5D are set to "faithful" which is all zeros for the adjustments but If I mess with the picture controls, the jpeg changes but the raw doesn't. At the extreme case I can set the controls to monochrome and the jpeg is monochrome, as expected, but the raw is initially color. Sure I can redo the monochrome settings in Lightroom but by default it is not applying the camera saturation settings.

In all the cases I have tried the correct parameters are in the raw file, in fact the canon software handles it properly and initially the raw file appears in monochrome, even window vista handles it properly. Neither Lightroom or Photoshop CS3 handle it and the raw file appears in color.

YMMV depending on your software and the settings you use.

Rob

[goodtimes]

. . . expected a 2 gigabyte CF card to be more than adequate. For JPG, this is true, but in RAW... forget about it. Fortunately, they're not that expensive. An 8 gig'r should be adequate.


You might consider multiple smaller cards as opposed to one large card. The story I hear is that you can only over-write these so many times...so if you are not using the full 8 gigs every time you use it...you are not getting full benefit from a life expectancy stand point. In addition, having multiple cards reduces the risk of loss due to damage. 8 gigs of photos spread out over 4 cards...lose a card and you only lose 25% of the images.

At least that is the logic that the fine expo croud used to convince me to get 4 two gig cards instead of one 8 gig card last year.

[Ursidae69]

Lightroom and photoshop certainly have problems with raw files.. I wouldn't expect anything less from Adobe...Rob

I'm always looking for a better mouse trap. If you've had less than stellar results with Adobe products, what do you like Rob?

[Lost Canadian]

The the one problem I have with Lightroom is, as Rob said, it strips all in camera presets and the opens the file using ProPhoto RGB color space. This is good in some cases but can really increase your chances of making a mess a things if you don't know a thing about color management.

I love the workflow layout and possibilities of Lightroom, it's very powerful, but I still use Nikons Capture NX if I want to get the best out of my photo's, it doesn't strip my in camera adjustments, and I can work in, and convert to any color space I want. I'm not limited like I am in Lightroom. Unfortunately for you Canon guys and gals Capture NX is of no use to you as a RAW converter because it only works with Nikons NEF files.

[pathfinderdriver]

I've had really good luck with Lightroom, and it seems from the magazines allot the pros use at least some of Lightrooms functions. I've been using Both Lightroom and Adobe Bridge/ Photoshop.

[Photog]

Canon has DPP (Digital Photo Professional). It can be downloaded for free. But it only works with the SLR cameras, not the cameras like the G9.

[Ursidae69]

Canon has DPP (Digital Photo Professional). It can be downloaded for free. But it only works with the SLR cameras, not the cameras like the G9.

Hey Photog, I use DPP for my adjustments if needed, usually it's tweaking the exposure a bit. I use Photoshop for batch resize and bordering and sometimes other tweaking. I like it, but I am just an amatuer and am wondering if I should be learning more powerful packages.

[Robthebrit]

I'm always looking for a better mouse trap. If you've had less than stellar results with Adobe products, what do you like Rob?

Adobe are the typical big company, I think their products are stagnant but unfortunately there is not much left to compete with photoshop, at the moment there are lots of options for photo management.

Everybody involved in CG be it research, movies or games, has a dislike for Adobe in the same was as people have a dislike for Microsoft - some of it is irrational but a lot of it isn't. Their view, at least at the management level, is they are the market leaders and how could anything possibly be wrong. Its easier for them to spend money to try and convince us that our problems are not their problems than to actually fix them. Regrardless of what Adobe say, Photoshop is for editing photos, it is not for general image processing and its terrible as a batch tool in the middle of a production pipe. A simple example: what do the filters do at the edges of the image? In a CG image you can usually see that the border pixels are treated differently, for a real world photo this is not a big deal but for CG it can be a huge problem especially when the image may represent depth information, the reflectivity of a surface or the bumpiness of surface or the hundreds of other images we use which are not real photographs. A place where it always bites is when stitching images together, if they have been touched in any way by photoshop there is a visible seam. This causes us to have to write our own code and now we have so much invested in this code it makes no sense to switch to photoshop regardless of how much they kick and scream.

After saying that I do like lightroom for my own photographs. I like its filing system and I really like how it never modifies the original image although I have had the database go bad a few times.

Rant over....

Rob

[nwoods]

I just tried RAW for the very first time. Very powerful, but quite frankly, it gave me a headache. To what extent do you guys use RAW? Lets say you're on an adventure or shooting an event and you take a few hundred pictures. Do you really go back and edit RAW for every one?

With PhotoShop CS3, working with RAW became is now the same as working with JPG in terms of speed. As mentioned earlier in this thread, I can batch all my exposure settings, and virtually all the other settings in the Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) utility. ACR is leaps and bounds better this year than with CS2, and can now work with JPG and other image types also, but to a lessor extent.

Because the speed and convienance is the same, I shoot all RAW, and I don't bother with the JPG thumbnail image. With my Canon 20D, I get about 145 RAW images on a 2GB card. I carry a few cards with me, and delete photos that I know are bad along the way from within the camera if space becomes an issue.

The comment was made about shooting hundreds of images and taking the time to process them in raw. I think the final count mentioned was 10 images uploaded to Flickr? It doesn't take much to edit 10 images, so I think the question answered itself?

Also, I am really digging Bridge in CS3. I somewhat painfully weaned myself off of ACDSee, but I am faster in Bridge now. The trick is to play with your screen setup to get it to work for you. Definately spend a few minutes watching the How To videos from Adobe.com or the Bridge help menu.

[cshontz]

The comment was made about shooting hundreds of images and taking the time to process them in raw. I think the final count mentioned was 10 images uploaded to Flickr? It doesn't take much to edit 10 images, so I think the question answered itself?

Well... not exactly. I uploaded 70 pictures to Flickr, but there were only 10 that I thought were good. The rest were okay. On this occasion, and many others, I was geo-photographing. Every release of the shutter is essentially a new waypoint in my GPS. The purpose of this is not only to take interesting pictures (which I try to do), but to also record and share geographical information about a specific location with others. It is one of the things I love to do, and it usually yields numerous photos.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2187/2162337349_77da7f2a42.jpg

Although I didn't realize it at the time of my initial post, my problem was not with RAW, but with software and workflow. I managed my pictures using Picasa, edited them (if needed) using Photoshop CS2, and then used yet another app to send 'em to Flickr. It wasn't a very RAW-friendly setup. This was solved by Lightroom, which does everything I need, very quickly, and very easily.

[Lost Canadian]

While we're talking RAW and Lightroom, one important tip Micheal Slade passed onto me was to be sure to calibrate and profile your monitor, especially when working in big color spaces like ProPhoto. Most monitors I guess are set by default to display only sRGB, which means if you're woking in ProPhoto color space, as is the case in Lightroom, you'd be seeing the colors wrong.

[Photog]

Rob,
You have a tremendous knowledge about the subtle workings of these softwares. This is great information!

For all the portrait work I have done, and most of the landscape work, I have not had any need to use anything but Photoshop. I know there are differences in file handeling, between the different softwares; but my clients can't tell the difference. I am starting to add the DPP software into my workflow.

I do like the way the DPP software handles the Canon RAW files; I just wish I didn't have to then save it to a TIFF, before going into Photoshop. But, by saving as a TIFF, it prevents Photoshop Raw Converter from stripping off the adjustments. It makes a better file; but it adds to my workflow, and it makes for storage of one more large file, for every image that I work on. I knew I would need that terabyte of memory for something.

[cshontz]

One thing though - shooting in RAW makes me feel obligated to post-process, and also makes me feel like I have to put somewhat less thought into the composition.

So I look at the camera's LCD and I think, "Well, that looks like hell.", and then I hesitate - "No problem. I can post-process that turd."

I honestly feel a little dirty... like I'm somehow less of a photographer.

[Photog]

One thing though - shooting in RAW makes me feel obligated to post-process, and also makes me feel like I have to put somewhat less thought into the composition.

So I look at the camera's LCD and I think, "Well, that looks like hell.", and then I hesitate - "No problem. I can post-process that turd."

I honestly feel a little dirty... like I'm somehow less of a photographer.

The inner thoughts of Ansel Adams? (He would create an exposure, knowing there would be a lot of post processing in the dark room).

You make an excellent point. How much time do you want to spend at the computer? Make it the best it can be, when you shoot it. If it looks like a turd, adjust your settings, and shoot it again. The better it is to start, the better it can be in the end.

Digital has made many photographers lazy about their "in camera" work. I fight withthis myself.

[Streakerfreak]

The inner thoughts of Ansel Adams? (He would create an exposure, knowing there would be a lot of post processing in the dark room).

You make an excellent point. How much time do you want to spend at the computer? Make it the best it can be, when you shoot it. If it looks like a turd, adjust your settings, and shoot it again. The better it is to start, the better it can be in the end.

Digital has made many photographers lazy about their "in camera" work. I fight withthis myself.

A thumbs up to that:26_7_2:

[Ursidae69]

While we're talking RAW and Lightroom, one important tip Micheal Slade passed onto me was to be sure to calibrate and profile your monitor, especially when working in big color spaces like ProPhoto. Most monitors I guess are set by default to display only sRGB, which means if you're woking in ProPhoto color space, as is the case in Lightroom, you'd be seeing the colors wrong.

So, if I sent my monitor, photo software workspace, and scanner settings all to Adobe RBG that takes care of this right?

[Photog]

So, if I sent my monitor, photo software workspace, and scanner settings all to Adobe RBG that takes care of this right?

Until the printing equipment can produce something better than sRGB, there isn't much point in working in a larger color space, as long as you are starting with a RAW file.

When the printers and monitors are up to producing larger color ranges, you can go back to your select files, and work them over in the larger color space. For some people, that will not be very many images to go back to; because your photography will improve everey year. In a couple years, you will look back at older images, and wonder why you kept them.

The professional and commercial folks will refer back to their files for years. Any of them that would be improved by a larger color space, can be post-processed again, and with newer software.

Until then, shoot in RAW, set everything to the same color space (sRGB or Adobe'98, etc.) and calibrate your monitor.

You must calibrate your monitor. The software and color sensor, compare the monitor output to input, and create a correction file for the color management portion of your video card. This way, what you see on your monitir, is the same thing the lab sees on their monitor, before printing.

[Lost Canadian]

So, if I sent my monitor, photo software workspace, and scanner settings all to Adobe RBG that takes care of this right?

I would check out the book "Real World Color Management" by Bruce Fraser. It's helped me out, and it will explain things far better than I ever could. Bill Green also has a ton of knowledge about color management, perhaps he'll chime in or you may want to PM him.




Until the printing equipment can produce something better than sRGB, there isn't much point in working in a larger color space, as long as you are starting with a RAW file.
Check out Epsons printers that use UltraChromeK3 ink. I've been thinking hard about picking up a 2400. The K3 inks can, according to all the hype, produce a huge gamut of color.

[Ursidae69]

Thanks guys, I've learned a lot in this thread and the critic thread. :26_7_2: I have a 17" on the diagnonal notebook, so calibrating the monitor is not really going to get me anywhere from what I've read on some photo forums out there. I simply set the monitor to display at sRBG. I'll look into that book.

[Photog]

Thanks guys, I've learned a lot in this thread and the critic thread. :26_7_2: I have a 17" on the diagnonal notebook, so calibrating the monitor is not really going to get me anywhere from what I've read on some photo forums out there. I simply set the monitor to display at sRBG. I'll look into that book.

You need a decent monitor, no matter which computer you are using. You will also want to calibrate all your monitors (if you have the calibration equipment, just do all monitors, including the laptop).


I would check out the book "Real World Color Management" by Bruce Fraser. It's helped me out, and it will explain things far better than I ever could.

I agree, it is an excellent book. Bruce Fraser also has a book "Real World RAW"; I think the RAW books may be Photoshop version specific (i.e. CS or CS2 or CS3....)