RAW file processing

Epicuros · February 25, 2010

I have a "silly" question but I am stuck! (I must be missing something):
I have been shooting raw(+jpg) on my digital cameras since 2006 and have been using DPP Canon software to convert raw into TIFF. I understand that RAW images are not visible untill they are converted to TIFF or JPG. How can I process a raw file if I cannot see the image? In DPP, for instance, I have not been able to see just raw images (without their jpg counterpart) and had to convert them using "Raw Therapee" software. But then they were tiff images and I lost the Raw advantage.
I am utterly confused! Any light to my gloomy mood?

arodney · February 25, 2010

Epicuros wrote:

I understand that RAW images are not visible untill they are converted to TIFF or JPG.

Not really. You need a raw converter (like DPP, or Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom) which “shows” you the current rendering of the image IF you processed the data to a TIFF or JPEG. So all you need is the right software that can handle raw data (render it) as you desire and build pixels into that TIFF or JPEG.

See
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

zoomer · February 25, 2010

Unless you are a working professional there is no need to shoot Raw.
Go back to shooting Jpeg and rediscover the joy of photography, dump the headaches of Raw.

The benefit is not visible, I promise you if there were two photos side by side of the same scene one done in raw and one done in jpeg, 99% of people could not tell you which was which.

That should cheer you up!

arodney · February 25, 2010

zoomer wrote:

Unless you are a working professional there is no need to shoot Raw.
Go back to shooting Jpeg and rediscover the joy of photography, dump the headaches of Raw.

The benefit is not visible, I promise you if there were two photos side by side of the same scene one done in raw and one done in jpeg, 99% of people could not tell you which was which.

That should cheer you up!

Bad advise IMHO. No control over the rendering what is what photography is all about.

Read the URL above.

FWIW, I’d be happy to supply you a JPEG and a raw where you’d have absolutely no way to produce a usable image from the JPEG no matter the hours spent in Photoshop and you’d be able to render a fully acceptable image from raw in a matter of seconds. Want to put your money where your mouth is?

zoomer · February 25, 2010

Actually it is great advice.
95 percent of shooters should have never been steered to raw.
There will always be shots that can't be saved even in raw.
Raw give you marginally more lattitude in saving blown whites in Lightroom.
For the casual shooter not worth the trouble.

If you want to put your money where "your" mouth is I will post two pictures and you tell me which is raw and which is jpeg....I won't actually make you do it because I know it is impossible.

We all have opinions, the OP will need to decide for himself whether it is worth the extra trouble I guess.

PS. I went and looked at your site and watched your slide show from your Amazon trip. That must have been a great adventure, you have a lot of really nice photos in there, nice work.

arodney · February 25, 2010

zoomer wrote:

Actually it is great advice.

Yes, you appear to agree with yourself (with nothing to back it up). You know the old saying about opinions.

95 percent of shooters should have never been steered to raw.

Hogwash.

There will always be shots that can't be saved even in raw.

Shooting raw isn’t about saving someone (perhaps you) that hose a capture. Its about control over rendering.

Raw give you marginally more lattitude in saving blown whites in Lightroom.

More hogwash. See: http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html

And over exposure is over exposure. Do you know how to control this important part of what we call photography?

For the casual shooter not worth the trouble.

Its apparently not worth the “trouble” for you. But so far, you don’t have much to say that isn’t pretty way off base in terms of proper photographic techniques. Where might we see some of your images? (mine you ask, links on the web page below as a start).

If you want to put your money where "your" mouth is I will post two pictures and you tell me which is raw and which is jpeg....I won't actually make you do it because I know it is impossible.

No, that’s not going to fly. It doesn’t prove anything (especially about your skill or lack of, or knowledge about either photography or image processing). No, you are the one who has to prove that a JPEG and a raw are equal when provided with both, not the other way around.

For the OP, you’re getting a large dose of BS from someone who as yet, hasn’t said anything reasonable nor technically correct. We’ve got someone with an agenda considering your original question wasn’t about stopping your sound practice of using raw, but how to use raw. Stick with your initial game plan.

zoomer · February 25, 2010

Wow, that is undoubtedly the most self important response I have ever seen.

Since no one else knows anything and no one else can have an opinion but you I will just stand back and award the awesomeness that is you

I will even go one further just to really make you blow your top.
Most casual shooters would be better served to have never gone the DSLR route at all.
Buying a point and shoot with good photo quality, and getting their settings right in camera with their jpegs, then shooting on P is really all most casual shooters would ever need.

My website is right there under my posts.
www.alloutdoor.smugmug.com

As to the OP's original question and his gloomy mood at having to figure out how to shoot raw, I believe my advice if he were savvy enough to take it would quickly make his photography fun again.
As for agenda, look in the mirror.

craig_d · February 25, 2010

zoomer wrote:

There will always be shots that can't be saved even in raw.

As Andrew pointed out, shooting RAW isn't about "saving" anything as such, it's about having control over all the stuff your camera does automatically when it generates JPEGs. There is always a RAW image; the only question is, does your camera produce a JPEG from it and then throw it away forever, or do you take it and do the work yourself in order to have more control over your images.

You're basically arguing for a Polaroid approach to photography -- point, shoot, and let the picture develop itself. If that's what you want to do, fine, but some of us see the RAW processing as an integral part of the work, just as darkroom work was an integral part of film photography for people who didn't just want to shoot Polaroids or drop their film off at Fotomat.

For the casual shooter not worth the trouble.

For the casual shooter, DSLRs aren't worth the trouble. They're better off with a good P&S.

zoomer · February 25, 2010

Hi Craig D,
I am not against raw at all.
I shoot everything in raw, I am a working pro that gets paid to deliver the best product possible and if I should blow out a once in a lifetime shot you can bet I want as much leeway as possible to save it.

I just don't like to see casual shooters or those new to DSLR's immediately steered to raw, like it is some kind of have to do thing and that they can't be a real photographer unless they do it that way. Easy to see the fun sucking frustration they are going through trying to figure it out when their energies would be much better spent getting out and having fun learning to use their camera and take quality photographs.

I always recommend that they spend the first year learning the camera and photography, then if they feel it is warranted to move into using raw, by that time hopefully they would have gained enough knowledge to decide for themselves whether raw is really right for them.

craig_d · February 25, 2010

Epicuros wrote:

I have a "silly" question but I am stuck! (I must be missing something):
I have been shooting raw(+jpg) on my digital cameras since 2006 and have been using DPP Canon software to convert raw into TIFF. I understand that RAW images are not visible untill they are converted to TIFF or JPG. How can I process a raw file if I cannot see the image? In DPP, for instance, I have not been able to see just raw images (without their jpg counterpart) and had to convert them using "Raw Therapee" software. But then they were tiff images and I lost the Raw advantage.
I am utterly confused! Any light to my gloomy mood?

All digital photography starts with a RAW image. The RAW image is simply the data that the camera reads from the imaging sensor, along with some additional information like the date and time, the camera settings, and various other tags.

When your camera creates a JPEG for you, it is automatically converting the RAW image for you, and the only control you have over the process is by selecting a white balance and a picture style. When you load a RAW image into Canon's DPP or some other RAW processing software, it reads in the RAW data and shows you one possible way of rendering it, but it allows you the freedom to adjust a variety of settings however you like to get the picture to look as you wish. This is the main advantage of working with RAW images. Then, when you're satisfied, you have DPP generate a JPEG or TIFF file for you.

RawTherapee is another RAW processing program, but I'm sure Canon DPP is able to read your RAW files directly. If it seems unable to, you might check Canon's web site to see if there is an update for it.

If you need to do things to your images beyond what your RAW processing software can do, then you do the best you can with the RAW image and then do the rest of the work with a TIFF file in some more capable program.

arodney · February 25, 2010

zoomer wrote:

Wow, that is undoubtedly the most self important response I have ever seen.

Excellent!

Since no one else knows anything and no one else can have an opinion but you I will just stand back and award the awesomeness that is you

Did you read the Adobe piece by Karl Lang? Need more URLs?

Most casual shooters would be better served to have never gone the DSLR route at all.

Where did “casual” shooters come into play? What is a casual shooter? Do they hang out here?

Did you read the OP’s post? Because it appears you decided to skip it, not answer anything pertinent and instead go into a rant about raw. Read his post again. Where did he say anything about being a “casual” shooter with a point in shoot? Is English your 2nd language? Maybe that would explain where you’re coming from.

Buying a point and shoot with good photo quality, and getting their settings right in camera with their jpegs, then shooting on P is really all most casual shooters would ever need.

Then please address such shooters. So far, there are none (other than perhaps yourself) in this this group posting.

As to the OP's original question and his gloomy mood at having to figure out how to shoot raw, I believe my advice if he were savvy enough to take it would quickly make his photography fun again.
As for agenda, look in the mirror.

Gloomy mood? You’re a psychiatrist now?

Richard · February 26, 2010

:beatwax:smack:duel

Time to calm down, guys. There may be less disagreement than it appears.

The problem seems to be a difference in the interpretation of "casual photographer." The overwhelming majority of people who own cameras have P&Ss and no particular interest in photography as an art form. They just want to take snapshots with as little fuss as possible. RAW and dSLRs are not for them.

Pros will shoot with whatever makes the most sense for the assignment. Usually, this means shooting RAW, but if there is time pressure to make many shots available quickly (event shooting, PJ for a news organization) they may want to have JPGs as well or instead.

Then there are the serious amateur photographers, and here is where the misunderstanding has taken place in this thread. Most Dgrinners fall into this category, but there is a wide range of skill and experience levels among us. If you want to get serious about photography, you will almost certainly end up shooting RAW, but if you are just starting out on the long and expensive road to making art (or making money) with a camera, there are many other things to learn first. You don't need RAW and you don't even need a dSLR to get started with choice of subject, composition, exposure, DOF, understanding light and a host of other skills. But the deeper you go, the more control you want over the final image, and this is where RAW processing and expensive gear and software become necessary.

Let's get back to the original post.

Epicuros wrote:

I have a "silly" question but I am stuck! (I must be missing something):
I have been shooting raw(+jpg) on my digital cameras since 2006 and have been using DPP Canon software to convert raw into TIFF. I understand that RAW images are not visible untill they are converted to TIFF or JPG. How can I process a raw file if I cannot see the image? In DPP, for instance, I have not been able to see just raw images (without their jpg counterpart) and had to convert them using "Raw Therapee" software. But then they were tiff images and I lost the Raw advantage.
I am utterly confused! Any light to my gloomy mood?

I think you might be misunderstanding what DPP is doing. When you open a .CR2 file, DPP shows you a rendering of the RAW data. Its controls let you change the rendering of the RAW data to your taste. This is what we mean by RAW processing. Then you can create a TIFF for further processing or a JPG for printing or Web posting. Raw Therapee does the same thing, so it is unnecessary to use both. And you don't need to create JPGs in camera to see and process the RAW files. You may have been doing RAW processing all along without realizing it. As long as you are starting from the .CR2 and not the camera produced JPG you should be fine.

Jamfore · March 2, 2010

I am glad the question was asked. I just bought the d300s and had the d200. I was processing raw fine in bridge and photoshop. I love the control. There are things you can do with raw that you cannot do with jpeg. I am disappointed however in that the D300s will not let you view the raw images in bridge or photoshop. I had to install the disc that came with the camera just to view them. Is there not a way to get them into photoshop as a raw file without the conversion to tiff. Its really not effective this way. I look down on Nikon for forcing us to use their software to process an image when everyone knows that photoshop is the best place to finish up.

Richard wrote:

:beatwax:smack:duel

Time to calm down, guys. There may be less disagreement than it appears.

The problem seems to be a difference in the interpretation of "casual photographer." The overwhelming majority of people who own cameras have P&Ss and no particular interest in photography as an art form. They just want to take snapshots with as little fuss as possible. RAW and dSLRs are not for them.

Pros will shoot with whatever makes the most sense for the assignment. Usually, this means shooting RAW, but if there is time pressure to make many shots available quickly (event shooting, PJ for a news organization) they may want to have JPGs as well or instead.

Then there are the serious amateur photographers, and here is where the misunderstanding has taken place in this thread. Most Dgrinners fall into this category, but there is a wide range of skill and experience levels among us. If you want to get serious about photography, you will almost certainly end up shooting RAW, but if you are just starting out on the long and expensive road to making art (or making money) with a camera, there are many other things to learn first. You don't need RAW and you don't even need a dSLR to get started with choice of subject, composition, exposure, DOF, understanding light and a host of other skills. But the deeper you go, the more control you want over the final image, and this is where RAW processing and expensive gear and software become necessary.

Let's get back to the original post.
I think you might be misunderstanding what DPP is doing. When you open a .CR2 file, DPP shows you a rendering of the RAW data. Its controls let you change the rendering of the RAW data to your taste. This is what we mean by RAW processing. Then you can create a TIFF for further processing or a JPG for printing or Web posting. Raw Therapee does the same thing, so it is unnecessary to use both. And you don't need to create JPGs in camera to see and process the RAW files. You may have been doing RAW processing all along without realizing it. As long as you are starting from the .CR2 and not the camera produced JPG you should be fine.

Richard · March 2, 2010

Jamfore wrote:

I am glad the question was asked. I just bought the d300s and had the d200. I was processing raw fine in bridge and photoshop. I love the control. There are things you can do with raw that you cannot do with jpeg. I am disappointed however in that the D300s will not let you view the raw images in bridge or photoshop. I had to install the disc that came with the camera just to view them. Is there not a way to get them into photoshop as a raw file without the conversion to tiff. Its really not effective this way. I look down on Nikon for forcing us to use their software to process an image when everyone knows that photoshop is the best place to finish up.

You need to be running ACR 5.x for the D300s. If you have CS4 and it's not working, go to Adobe's site and download the latest version of ACR. If you are running CS3 or earlier, your only Adobe option (besides upgrading) is to convert the raw files to DNG format. Adobe offers a (free) DNG conversion program. It does add an extra step to the workflow.

SittingElf · March 2, 2010

Richard wrote:

...convert the raw files to DNG format. Adobe offers a (free) DNG conversion program. It does add an extra step to the workflow.

Dang! You beat me to the "submit reply" button! I was just about to post exactly the same thing!!

arodney · March 2, 2010

You might also want to wet your feet with the Lightroom beta (3) which is free and will support such files. Keep in mind its a beta, there is no guarantee you’ll be able to migrate a beta catalog to the final version but the raws are never touched so no major harm done.

Zerodog · March 2, 2010

Not sure if I am reading this right, but. If you are converting to TIFF before you have made any adjustments you are really not working in RAW at all. You need to work with the RAW file before any conversions are made.

Richard · March 2, 2010

Zerodog wrote:

Not sure if I am reading this right, but. If you are converting to TIFF before you have made any adjustments you are really not working in RAW at all. You need to work with the RAW file before any conversions are made.

I think that was precisely Jamfore's complaint.

CatOne · March 5, 2010

zoomer wrote:

Hi Craig D,
I am not against raw at all.
I shoot everything in raw, I am a working pro that gets paid to deliver the best product possible and if I should blow out a once in a lifetime shot you can bet I want as much leeway as possible to save it.

I just don't like to see casual shooters or those new to DSLR's immediately steered to raw, like it is some kind of have to do thing and that they can't be a real photographer unless they do it that way. Easy to see the fun sucking frustration they are going through trying to figure it out when their energies would be much better spent getting out and having fun learning to use their camera and take quality photographs.

I always recommend that they spend the first year learning the camera and photography, then if they feel it is warranted to move into using raw, by that time hopefully they would have gained enough knowledge to decide for themselves whether raw is really right for them.

, so you as a professional can use the latitude, but other people while they are learning should generate files that cannot be saved? Then what do they do, re-shoot?

That may be possible for modeling or other non-landscape work, but what about shots from a trip to a location where you can't or won't get back for years, if ever? Yeah, maybe shoot RAW so you have more latitude and can get better results from the same shot as your post-processing skills improve.

If you use good RAW conversion software (Aperture or Lightroom are two such options), it is no more difficult to work with a RAW file than it is to work with a JPEG. So the question then becomes, WHY would you EVER shoot JPEG? You can construct artificial circumstances (deadline, controlled lighting, you always hit it exactly and NEVER do any post work, etc.,) but few of those are relevant to an amateur whose skill sets do not match your professional excellence.

W.W. Webster · March 5, 2010

zoomer wrote:

Unless you are a working professional there is no need to shoot Raw.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but that's a strange one!

denkea · March 5, 2010

Richard wrote:

You need to be running ACR 5.x for the D300s. If you have CS4 and it's not working, go to Adobe's site and download the latest version of ACR. If you are running CS3 or earlier, your only Adobe option (besides upgrading) is to convert the raw files to DNG format. Adobe offers a (free) DNG conversion program. It does add an extra step to the workflow.

Richard, I don't believe that is correct. I have CS3 and have been able to open raw from my D300 in ACR since I got it.

regards,

-d

Richard · March 5, 2010

denkea wrote:

Richard, I don't believe that is correct. I have CS3 and have been able to open raw from my D300 in ACR since I got it.

regards,

-d

Well, I'm a Canon guy, so I'm just going on the basis of what Adobe has published. The D300 requires a minimum of ACR 4.3, but the D300s requires 5.5, which will not run with CS3.

kdog · March 5, 2010

W.W. Webster wrote:

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but that's a strange one!

I must admit it was one of the most absurd comments I've ever seen on this forum.

pathfinder · March 5, 2010

I am sure that MOST advanced amateurs would agree with your post, Joel. RAW shooting and processing is de rigeur for the vast majority of advanced amateurs, even those solely using point and shoots.

kdog · March 5, 2010

An amusing tongue in cheek comment by the authors of Real World Camera Raw is that RAW is becoming so important in processing that soon Photoshop with be a plug-in for ACR. :giggle Actually, the closer one looks at ACR, the more one realizes there's a lot of truth to it.

BigAl · March 5, 2010

Since no-one has given Zoomer what he asked for:

Advantages of RAW:

http://bigal-sa.blogspot.com/2009/12/poor-mans-hdr-for-psp-9.html (and the Dgrin tut where that came from).

No, RAW is not for pros only.

digismile · March 6, 2010

Epicuros wrote:

I have a "silly" question but I am stuck! (I must be missing something):
I have been shooting raw(+jpg) on my digital cameras since 2006 and have been using DPP Canon software to convert raw into TIFF.

I understand that RAW images are not visible untill they are converted to TIFF or JPG.

Not totally correct.

I can only speak for the windows environment, but for many RAW formats, you can view the RAW format in a standard Windows Explorer window if you install a compatible codec. See this Microsoft link.

After installed, you can see the RAW thumbnails just like jpg thumbnails (and even browse the photos in Windows Photo Gallery!). I can view both my Canon 20D and 50D RAW files. I hardly ever use this method to view files, but I like being able to view ALL my image files.

Just my 2 cents,

arodney · March 6, 2010

BigAl wrote:

Since no-one has given Zoomer what he asked for

I thought I did in post #2...

See
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe...enderprint.pdf

colourbox · March 6, 2010

digismile wrote:

I can only speak for the windows environment, but for many RAW formats, you can view the RAW format in a standard Windows Explorer window if you install a compatible codec.

That is true for the Mac as well. It's definitely a disadvantage with RAW files that when a new camera comes out, it can take a while for you to be able to work with it in any software other than the manufacturer's, because you have to wait for the new RAW flavor to be reverse-engineered for:
a) Your favorite RAW processor (Adobe Camera Raw, Aperture, Lightroom, Capture One...), so you can edit them
b) Your operating system (Mac OS X or Windows), so you can see them on the desktop
Often the support is staggered, so that for example, compatibility might be released for your editor before your OS, or vice versa.

But the benefits of RAW are worth the wait.

topcat374 · March 6, 2010

Now I feel like I'm missing something!! I first experimented with shooting RAW about 2 years ago and converted using RAWshooter Essentials which just really meant selecting the white balance post camera. I then didn't really use it much and went back instead to shooting JPEG (with the understanding that this meant the camera would do the rendering for me which would mean that it sometimes wouldn't process the pic quite as I would have liked).

I've recently gone back to shooting in RAW for any 'serious' shots so that I can do some processing without losing the quality that comes with processing JPEGS. All I do to process RAW files now is drop them in Photoshop Elements(V6), tweak things like the white balance and exposure and then click 'open image' to play with levels etc. This answer seems way too obvious for the question having read thorugh this thread so what am I missing?!?!

colourbox · March 6, 2010

topcat374 wrote:

...All I do to process RAW files now is drop them in Photoshop Elements(V6), tweak things like the white balance and exposure and then click 'open image' to play with levels etc. This answer seems way too obvious for the question having read thorugh this thread so what am I missing?!?!

You should probably study (on the Web or in books) what each of the controls in that window actually do, because they're different than the Levels etc. in Photoshop after you click Open Image. A great book is Real World Camera Raw. The fact that the book is 448 pages should be a clue as to how much power is actually in Camera Raw.

For example, Recovery and Fill Light bring back details at the ends of the tonal range using methods that would take many steps in Photoshop with channels and masked curves and such, and they have clean raw data to do it with. Same with the Clarity slider and the Sharpening controls; they are actually condensed, simplified versions of advanced Photoshop tricks that take several steps involving layers, masks, etc. After learning more about what raw converters do I am starting to think of Photoshop as "the long way around." This also explains why Aperture and Lightroom have gotten so wildly popular: They incorporate the latest labor-saving yet pro-quality advanced image processing at the raw level, built on top of a powerful asset manager; in many cases this is all someone needs.

RAW file processing

Comments