RAW Capture.

macolgan

Good day all. I've been taking photos for a few years now on my Nikon D50. Always set on jpeg fine/large, in other words, the largest setting excluding RAW. ( saved as NEF files ).

Currently the D50 on the above setting, takes photos at around 2.8mb. I'm not quite sure how large the files would be with RAW + JPEG. but are 3008 x 2000 pixels.
Now that I'm trying to get fairly serious about my photos, and having set up my Smugmug galleries, I would like to know the following.

What is the benefit of saving them in Raw + Jpeg ( basic ).

Is there a need/benefit to do this for displaying on Smugmug ?

I take it I would have to transfer photos to my computer ( imac ) and then do what ?

The jpeg taken at the time would be " basic ".. so only good for quick reference ! and I would "have" to deal with the Raw photo each time !?

Can you advise on the above.... it would be gratefully appreciated.

Regards.... macolgan.

Richard

macolgan wrote: »

What is the benefit of saving them in Raw + Jpeg ( basic ).

There are many benefits to shooting raw. In brief, it takes advantage of all the data the sensor captures and gives you more control over how those data are rendered in an image. You will find it much easier to compensate for exposure and color balance problems if you have a raw file. You get to make these decisions rather than leaving it to an algorithm in the camera. This has been discussed extensively on Dgrin--do a Google search for "raw vs jpg" and you will find many threads. Here's one to start with that contains links to other sources of information: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=119538

Raw + jpg can be convenient for some situations in which you need to rapidly turn around a set of pics, typically event or photojournalism shooting. You can use the jpgs if they're OK but still have the raw files if they need adjustment. I think most people who start using raw end up shooting raw only.

macolgan wrote: »

Is there a need/benefit to do this for displaying on Smugmug ?

Smugmug does not display raw files. You have to convert them to jpg before you upload them. The benefit of doing so is that the final image will probably look better.

macolgan wrote: »

I take it I would have to transfer photos to my computer ( imac ) and then do what ?

Then you run it through a program that converts them to jpg while allowing you to make adjustments to improve the image. Lightroom, Aperture, Photoshop, Picasa and many others all have this capability. Your camera probably came with software that also could be used.

macolgan wrote: »

The jpeg taken at the time would be " basic ".. so only good for quick reference ! and I would "have" to deal with the Raw photo each time !?

If the jpg looks good enough, you can use it. I think that once you see the possibilities offered by raw files, you will form a new opinion of what "good enough" means. The main downside to shooting raw+jpg as opposed to raw only is that fewer shots will fit on a card. Same is true of shooting only raw as opposed to only jpg--jpgs are smaller because the data is compressed and information is lost in the process. All of the programs I mentioned above will give you a fast preview of a raw capture, so you don't need to actually convert them to see whether you like them. For most of us, the majority of the shots we take end up in the trash as soon as we see the previews, so no time is wasted on those.

arodney

Here’s a long but excellent article that explains why photographers want to shoot raw (and not JPEG):http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

pathfinder

I agree with Richard and Rodney that RAW files offer the possibility of visibly greater image quality - but one must know and understand RAW processing to obtain it.

And one must understand that RAW files ( before RAW rendering ) may ( indeed probably ) look poorer straight out of the camera than good quality jpgs SOOC. This is a frequent source of confusion to new users of digital cameras. Many folks have heard that RAW files are better, but then their RAW images, straight out of the camera, look much worse than their high quality jpgs rendered within the camera, and they get confused.

RAW converter engines work quite quickly to those of us who have used them for years, but can be intimidating from someone who has never seen one before.

It is worthwhile to take the time to understand RAW processing, and the link Andrew posted is a great explanation of why we do spend the extra time and effort to process our RAW files ourselves, rather than let our cameras do the digital rendering with its small built in computer chip.

jhefti

Agree with most of the comments here. I started shooting RAW early on, and would never consider going back to any other format. It does take practice to edit raw files, and is more time-consuming. However, there is a middle ground, and that is to simply batch convert raw files based on the suggested jpeg rendering of the camera. At least with Canon, all raw files show up in a suggested jpeg form, so you can simply convert to jpeg (or any other supported format) and see if you like the results. If so, your work is done; if not, you can go back to the raw file(s) and edit.

That said, it's a very rare exception that the suggested rendering is the one I end up using.

pathfinder

I always have said that real professionals know many ways to accomplish a task, rather than a single, only true way.

I usually shoot RAW; but I shoot jpgs sometimes for specific reasons - one being that in high speed frame rate my buffer fills up with RAW files much faster than in camera jpgs, and I find I cannot keep shooting until the buffer clears. That is a very good reason to switch to jpgs, and one that I think is quite appropriate. The important thing is to know why you made the choice you did.

I even shoot RAW + jpgs at time and even Raw + monochrome jpgs. Richard hammers me for this since we can create better monochrome image in software than the camera can incamera, but it is nice to be able to visualize the tonalities of a red filtered shot on the screen at the time of shooting sometimes.

Like I said, it is great to know more than one way to skin a cat.

jhefti

Yep, usually when someone says 'never' or 'always' there are usually some exceptions.

I rarely use burst mode, so buffering is not an issue for me. I certainly can see how it would be for some, though. I can also understand the photographer who goes out to shoot a soccer tournament and comes home with many thousands of shots per day might want to shoot jpeg as well. Workflow is always a consideration, especially for the pro.

My big peeve of photography religion is the mantra to always shoot in full manual mode. As a matter of routine, I usually do, but there are some important exceptions. Lately I've been trying to do candid shots of people in the street, without even bringing the camera to my eye. Often times I am literally shooting from the hip, so putting the beast into Av mode is really the only way to get anything close to a decent exposure. I'll deal with less than ideal exposures to get really good candid shots; as soon as someone sees a camera trained on them, they pose (or get angry). Not what I want...

pathfinder

I am in full agreement that there can be real advantages to shooting in Av, or A, or P at times, and I do just that. I prefer to shoot in Manual mode if it is suitable, as I feel I get more consistent exposure from frame to frame if the light is consistent. Hip shooting is a great reason to use Av, but with a bright sky as a background, manual mode might have its place too.

Michael Reichman admits to using Av or Program mode for shooting street scenes from time to time. I watched a video with Jay Maisel shooting street scenes in New York in Av mode with a 70-300mm lens, when I thought it was heretical to use anything longer than 50mm.

Like I say, more than one way to skin a cat.

For beginners, who do not fully understand the relaitionships of ISO, aperture, and shutter speed, I do think the Auto modes can ( sometimes at least ) interfere with a real appreciation for exposure settings. Just my opinion, of course.

DsrtVW

My D50 Raw files run about 6MB a piece add that to the size of your jpegs. I shoot Raw and jpegs a lot for event type shooting. When shooting for optimum quality and final adjustment, I shoot RAW like most other have said. D50 came with Rawshooter software for RAW processing originally.
I use ViewNX2 and CaptureNX2 (Nikon Products) for processing RAW now they came with my newer D300 and D7000. They are good inexpensive alternatives to photoshop(though some will argue that they do not come close to PS). Much easier workflow and faster than the original. I also use Corel Products but not that often for image editing that is mostly used for graphics.
Bigger files and processing take more computer power and speed. But it is worth it in the long run in what you can acomplish with your images.
They have trail downloads (CaptureNX2) and Free download for ViewNX2 on the UK Nikon site if you want to play with them. CaptureNX2 is much better for RAW adjustments. ViewNX2 is good for picture management and will do some raw functions but not fluid as CaptureNX2

macolgan

Thanks everyone for your replies, help and information. I've followed the links you supplied, and read through Karl Lang's excellent pdf on understanding how Raw works.

I shall now look into some of the software mentioned in your replies. !

I have iphoto on my imac, and it recognises a Raw image ( I took a couple of Raw photos yesterday to experiment ).
It allows me to edit the image, just as it does with any jpeg image, but supplies the same ' tools '.
I'm guessing this is not real RAW conversion/editing !?

Do any of the software programs mentioned, work better on the mac's ?

Thanks again.... macolgan.

arodney

macolgan wrote: »

Do any of the software programs mentioned, work better on the mac's ?

For me, Lightroom. I hate how iPhoto ‘stores’ images (goofy).

pathfinder

The two most common Raw engines on the Mac are probably Lightroom3 ( or Adobe Camera Raw which ships with Photoshop and Photoshop Elements ) and Aperture. There are several others, including Digital Photo Pro that ships with Canon DSLRs, Raw Therapee, DXO, and others.

I use Lightroom3 almost exclusively today for my Raw rendering.


All of the Raw engines I listed work on both Macs and Windows machines equally well.

arodney

A Mac only raw converter that produces just stunning rendering (but without all the goodies of Lightroom like DAM, print module etc) is Raw Developer.
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200607_rodneycm.pdf

Its still being updated and continues to be a great raw converter although Lightroom/ACR is getting there.

pathfinder

arodney wrote: »

For me, Lightroom. I hate how iPhoto ‘stores’ images (goofy).

I have never found satisfaction with iPhoto either; although folks shooting out of the camera snapshots seem to like it a lot.

macolgan

Thank you all once again !

Just a matter of sourcing / selecting one of these and getting down to the job.

I agree on iphoto's " handling " of photos, it can be frustrating when trying to move and/or arrange photos / folders etc.

Let you know what I settle for......... regards, Macolgan.