RAW Questions

[AggieHunter]

Was reading on some old posts today and some questions arose from my lack of digital photography knowledge. Hopefully by the end of the week my camera will get here and I'll be able to play w/ what I learn from this thread. Right now I'm just a little confused w/ an overflow of new information.

It allows for a LOT of different adjustments and tweaks while still in the RAW conversion mode. All that means is that you get to work with every last pixel that the camera captured without losing anything in compression, like what happens with JPEGs. Of course, for small prints or posting pics online, you'll never tell much (if any) difference. But you still know that your original RAW file (your digital "negative") is still pristine. If you ever do want to have an enlargement done, it's there. Or if you want to take it back into the "digital darkroom" to process it again in a different way you can do that, and you haven't lost anything.

So can you print from the original RAW file or do you HAVE to convert to jpeg to have a useable image?

Depends on what you mean by photo editing software. For pure RAW mode conversion work, CS is overkill. There are products out there for those that simply want to work RAW to JPEG/TIFF without all the fluff.

Bibble Labs makes a product that does excellent RAW conversion work and you don't have to get a headache to get there. Batch processing for multiple conversions, a very excellent database full of lens calibrations. Some of the lens calibration features offset chromatic aberation and light falloff due to lens vignetting and during the RAW conversion process, all EXIF information is read to optimize output based on camera/lens settings. It's fast, does a good job for the duty at hand and leaves you with pics.

I'm not sure what chromatic aberation, light falloff and lens vignetting are, but what you're saying is that this program is simply a digital darkroom without all the bells and whistles of programs like photoshop?

When you take a picture, your camera converts it to a jpeg. When it does that, it applies some color correction, sharpening, contrast, ect. However, if you under or over expose a photo, there is not much you can do to fix it.

When you set your camera to take RAW photo, you have to go in and "develop" the picture and then convert to jpeg yourself. So, if you want to control white balance and exposure (and some other cool stuff) then you are going to want to shoot in RAW. This really gives you the most control over how your picture looks.

So when I set the white balance and exposure on my camera, these settings take affect AFTER the photo is snapped? They only matter when the camera converts to jpeg? If I'm shooting in RAW do I still have to worry about getting exposure and white balance set correctly when I'm taking the picture or is that not even an issue?

Yes Travis, shooting RAW means you have to edit every photo before you can view them. It's like the film camera days, you shoot a bunch of rolls and don't have a clue what you shot till the development is completed. RAW conversion is the Computerized version of 35mm film processing.

All photography work requires processing before the photo is done. Either you let your camera do the processing or you do the processing.

You can work with JPEG and skip RAW, RAW isn't everything and for most, it might be too much to dive into.

So if I shoot in RAW I cannot view my photos on the camera as I take them? I have to wait until I'm in editing mode?

You can download a powertoy from Microsoft that lets your view RAW files just like jpegs. They'll also show up in your windows explorer as thumbnails. Better yet, use RAW + jpeg on your camera and you'll get a jpeg with the RAW for organizing and cleaning up files. Photoshop also lets you see the RAW files before converting anything.

I can also walk you through creating an action in Photoshop that will automatically take every RAW image, open it and save it as a jpeg...if you needed that.

To get the most out of your digital pics, you need to think about processing with a photo-editing tool and shooting RAW. If you just want to get good pics and remain a light hobbyist, don't sweat it and use what your camera generates. It works for millions of folks these days.

Ansel Adams spent more time in the darkroom manipulating images than he did actually taking pics.

If the RAW image is like a film negative, what will it look like if I view it before I edit it? Will it show up as a normal image? With the photoshop action mentioned does this mean that the photoshop program is automatically creating the jpeg the same way your camera would? If this is the case wouldn't this take away from the benefits of shooting RAW?

If you shoot a lot, don't like to spend a lot of time working on a computer to finalize your pics, RAW may not be for you.

Some of the more active professional photogs, active = guys that shoot thousands of shots quickly, on travel and running light, use JPEG. They have good gear, know their gear and simply are excellent photogs with experience to pull off the shot without having to manipulate the final image further via RAW processing on the PC and converting to JPEG.

A lot of pro's that lean on JPEG vs RAW will use their onboard camera settings to manipulate the image there (white balance, digital colour filters etc) before outputting to a computer. You see the shot, pull off a couple dozen frames (pics) and start feeling like YEAH I DID IT! You can then go back to one of the pics, open up your onboard camera menu and start tweaking the settings there....IE white/balance, add filters etc. Once you tweak it is permanent though......so fire a lot of pics to cover your bases.

Make sure you use high quality and sharp mode settings on all shots.

So you're saying that there are ways to make these adujustments after the picture is taken but before the picture is downloaded to the computer? Basically its like manipulating a RAW image in-camera?

I use to fire off shots like crazy. I knew that my camera did a pretty good job of converting to JPEG. Not the best, but pretty good. Then I would go home and download my pictures. So, I would have 1000 pictures to look through trying to find the good ones. This took time. I also found that I don't have a natural eye for THE shot like some people (Legdog). I knew my settings and how everything worked due to a couple of years worth of Photography classes and lots of studying online but that does nothing for what you actually see and capture.

In an effort to slow down and work on composition as well as getting the exposure right, I decided to start shooting RAW. Now I shoot less, spend less time going through worthless pictures and more time enjoying more keeper shots. Also, I am having a great time in the digital darkroom. It's great for learning, as well. For example, while I am "developing" the photo, I am able to see the picture and all the exif data right next to it. This is a neat tool to see what you did right and what you might need to change next time. I realize that you can do this on your camera while you are out shooting but unless you learn how to read the light histogram, that little 2.5 inch picture on the back of the camera is not going to tell you much. You can under expose a photo or even have it out of focus but it still looks great on that little screen.

I understand that RAW is not for everyone. But, it's really not that difficult of a process. With Adobe Bridge, I can download, back all the files to an external hard drive and organize with the click of one button. I can then quickly go through my RAW files and rate them on quality, and trash the ones that are not worth keeping.

I could keep going for ever on this, but in a nut shell, I feel shooting in RAW has way too many benefits to not do it.

As a beginner will I benefit from shooting in RAW or am I better off sticking w/ jpeg to learn the basics of digital photography? I think I understand the benefits of shooting in RAW, but am still unclear of certain aspects of it. As mentioned above, since I'd be making all these corrections/adjustments on the computer, is it still important get settings like white balance, exposure, etc. set correctly on camera?

I guess basically I'm asking for a run down of what RAW is all about. If someone can point me to a good online reading instead of trying to explain it, that'll work for me too.

Also is there freeware available that will allow me to play around w/ RAW images to try and figure it out?

[Hillary]

I'm with you in the boat of not fully understanding RAW formats either...
Google it and read up on some of it...
This one was pretty good...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

[Shane]

I'm no pro, but I'll try to answer the best I can. I'll put my answers in bold...

Was reading on some old posts today and some questions arose from my lack of digital photography knowledge. Hopefully by the end of the week my camera will get here and I'll be able to play w/ what I learn from this thread. Right now I'm just a little confused w/ an overflow of new information.


So can you print from the original RAW file or do you HAVE to convert to jpeg to have a useable image? If your computer is hooked to a printer, I guess you could print from RAW. I've never tried. I process the pic, convert to JPEG, upload to my SmugMug page and then order prints from them. (Or sometimes email it to WMT or somewhere for a 1-hour print locally.)




I'm not sure what chromatic aberation (distorted colors), light falloff (kin to vignetting.....when the light falls off near the edges of the lens) and lens vignetting (dark shadow-looking ring around the outside edge of an image)are, but what you're saying is that this program is simply a digital darkroom without all the bells and whistles of programs like photoshop? Sounds like it. Many programs will do the same things.


So when I set the white balance and exposure on my camera, these settings take affect AFTER the photo is snapped? They only matter when the camera converts to jpeg? EXACTLY. Your camera takes the RAW data and converts is to JPEG. In the process, it applies sharpening, contrast, brightness, & saturation according to how you have the settings in your setup menu. If I'm shooting in RAW do I still have to worry about getting exposure and white balance set correctly when I'm taking the picture or is that not even an issue? EXPOSURE IS CRITICAL, whether you're shooting RAW or not. Software can adjust exposure up or down a little without creating noise (grainy distortion), but if you get the exposure right the first time your image will be the best it can be. White balance can be changed in post processing easily when you're shooting in RAW. I used to stress about what WB setting to use in different situations, but Russell told me he just shoots in Auto White Balance. I rarely need to adjust WB in post processing since I've started leaving my WB setting on Auto. When I do need to tinker with it, I just use the eye dropper WB tool in post processing. Click on something that's pure white, and bingo!



So if I shoot in RAW I cannot view my photos on the camera as I take them? I have to wait until I'm in editing mode? No, no. They still show up on your LCD screen.


If the RAW image is like a film negative, what will it look like if I view it before I edit it? Will it show up as a normal image? (It looks normal, just a little flat and maybe blah. You need to apply some contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc...., and then it'll come to life.) With the photoshop action mentioned does this mean that the photoshop program is automatically creating the jpeg the same way your camera would? (Sorta...except YOU have much more control with software. Your camera only knows how to apply the handful of settings that you set, and then it applies them all to every picture the same. With software you can finetune the settings for each image individually. If this is the case wouldn't this take away from the benefits of shooting RAW? No. This IS the benefit of shooting RAW.


So you're saying that there are ways to make these adujustments after the picture is taken but before the picture is downloaded to the computer? Basically its like manipulating a RAW image in-camera? Exactly. Your camera has a processor that converts a RAW image into a JPEG, according to the settings you set (when you shoot in JPEG or RAW+JPEG).



As a beginner will I benefit from shooting in RAW or am I better off sticking w/ jpeg to learn the basics of digital photography? I think I understand the benefits of shooting in RAW, but am still unclear of certain aspects of it. As mentioned above, since I'd be making all these corrections/adjustments on the computer, is it still important get settings like white balance, exposure, etc. set correctly on camera? Personally, I think you need to shoot RAW. Don't think of RAW as being some deep dark secret scientific thing. It's just an image file, just like a JPEG. The "magic" of RAW is that it's UNCOMPRESSED. A JPEG is compressed, so that means that the computer (or camera) throws data away to make the file smaller (fewer kilobytes). With a RAW file, you still have every last pixel that the camera caught when you opened the shutter and the lens let the light in. That's why it's like a digital negative.

If you are new to digital photography, chances are your images will need more adjusting in post processing than a veteran photog. (Lord knows mine do.) When I see the adjustments that are necessary in my images, it helps me learn how I should have set the camera for that picture. For example, if a shot looks too bright, then I know I should have set a faster shutter speed or maybe a smaller aperture or maybe lower ISO. If I get the exposure dialed in better when I take the shot next time, then I don't have to make that adjustment in post processing. Make sense?

I guess basically I'm asking for a run down of what RAW is all about. If someone can point me to a good online reading instead of trying to explain it, that'll work for me too.

Also is there freeware available that will allow me to play around w/ RAW images to try and figure it out? Yes. The software that comes with your camera will process RAW files. You can download it from the Canon/Nikon/etc website if you don't have the CD. It's not as robust as Photoshop or Lightroom or whatever, but it covers the basics well.

Go to Luminous Landscape. They have some pretty good info on RAW. The link above is one good article there. There are many others online if you search around. But, like I said, it's really not as mysterious as it seems. It's just an uncompressed digital image file. If RAW files weren't so many kilobytes, I'm sure we'd all be emailing each other RAW files instead of JPEGs. Well, if all the camera companies had a standard RAW encoding. They're all different. That's another reason everybody uses JPEGs - because they're "standardized" so all software can read and/or edit a JPEG. With RAW files, you have to have software that works with your camera brand's version of RAW.

Actually, other than compatability with the rest of the world, there's nothing magic about JPEGs either, except for their smaller size. The appearance of a processed JPEG is improved by the processing (saturation, contrast, sharpening, etc....). It doesn't look better because it's a JPEG. It looks better than the digital negative IF/WHEN you process it well.

Think of processing - whether in camera or in post processing software - as being the chemicals and techniques used in a film darkroom. Shooting JPEG in camera and letting the camera apply cookie cutter settings to every picture is kinda like shooting film and having the roll developed at the 1-hour photo place. It's fast and convenient, but you, the photographer, don't get to have as much impact on the final image that is produced once you click the shutter. Shooting RAW and then processing in software can be like that too, OR it can be like having your own darkroom. You can let the software apply your default settings to all pics and then go. (1-hr photo method) OR..... you can work on each individual image until you get it the way you want it - just like film guys do in the darkroom.

[bowhuntertex]

Ok now I think I am more confused...........

[AggieHunter]

Thanks Shane and Hillary! That makes things a little clearer. I think it will help a lot when I actually get the camera in hand and start trying these things out to see what the results are.

For those that shoot RAW, do you ALWAYS shoot RAW? For instance if you're just out taking random pictures and you're not searcing for that 'perfect' one do you shoot in jpeg or is it just as easy once you get used to it to shoot everything in RAW?

[WyoBull]

AggieHunter - I just recently started shooting in RAW but for the past 3 years since I switched over to the digital scene, I always shot in the highest quality JPG that my camera would support. Although I have not yet purchased Adobe Lightroom 2 (that is the software I have settled on for post processing), I have noticed a big difference in the quality of the images.
I am a Nikon user so the only software I have really used in Nikon's Picture Project that comes with the camera. It has pretty sparse adjustment options compared to Lightroom and the other more expensive software. However, even when using this software with an image shot in RAW (NEF in Nikon speak) the output to JPG is so much better. My RAW files are approximately 15.5 MB each so that is a pretty big file. When I import them into Picture Project, make any adjustments and then export them as a JPG file, they come out at about 6.5 MB each.
The only downside I have seen to shooting RAW versus JPG is that the post processing takes longer because the files are so large. Other than that, I don't think I will go back to shooting just JPG unless it is something where I know I won't be trying to do a lot of post processing work, such as a birthday party etc.
My bottom line input to you just getting into the game is start out shooting RAW and get used to it, especially if you are taking photos that you might want to hang on the wall later. Switch over to JPG is they are just random shots.

[Shane]

The only time I shoot JPG is when I set my camera on the fully automatic setting (little green box) so my kids or wife can shoot. This turns the camera into a point and shoot. The camera won't shoot RAW in that mode. Even in those times, I'll sometimes set it on Program mode (P). That mode allows the user to control the ISO, and then the camera does everything else. It will shoot in RAW in P mode as well.