Why I hate raw: the files are huge, slow to upload, load into software and save, take up obscene amounts of hard-drive space (I shoot a 7d), and windows file manager can't display them as images (only generic tiles, which is a nuissance when it comes to deleting them since I have to view them iin another program).
Hint: irfanview (irfanview.com) with plugins will read raw, and loads 'em faster n' snot. And you can load up any program you want through it - me, I have my default editor to photoshop, natch.
Oh, and it's free. Which my Scottish genes like. I don't have many, and they congregate around my wallet.
Newspaper photogs specialize in drive-by shootings.
Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
My only issue with your article (and remember, I'm a raw shooter, meself ) is that you're setting your jpeg settings to auto. And if you are going to shoot jpeg, you need to get it right in the camera-- that includes setting the correct white balance (not AWB!, setting the sharpness, saturation, etc.)
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
My only issue with your article (and remember, I'm a raw shooter, meself ) is that you're setting your jpeg settings to auto. And if you are going to shoot jpeg, you need to get it right in the camera-- that includes setting the correct white balance (not AWB!, setting the sharpness, saturation, etc.)
HUGE point there. Shooting JPG effectively, in my opinion, requires a THOROUGH understanding and mastery of exposure, white balance, and in-camera processing.
A lot of people liken JPG to either shooting slides, or shooting polaroids. Well that's the difference right there. Throwing the camera in auto-everything and just shooting JPG will give you polaroid-quality images. HOWEVER, master all the camera settings, from exposure to sharpness and saturation, and you get slide-film-like images that may not be flawless, but are certainly presentable... If you know me, you know that I consider it an art form. Dunno why, it's just something I enjoy doing, maybe I got it from my Velvia days. (Which are still not over, I might add!)
(Yes, believe it or not, each of those images was created completely using in-camera settings. Aside from re-sizing & light 0.2 radius sharpening, of course. Some were actually captured in JPG, and some were shot in RAW and converted straight to JPG from Nikon View NX, the world's best RAW browser. :-)
My only issue with your article (and remember, I'm a raw shooter, meself ) is that you're setting your jpeg settings to auto. And if you are going to shoot jpeg, you need to get it right in the camera-- that includes setting the correct white balance (not AWB!, setting the sharpness, saturation, etc.)
Sigh. Please scroll down in the article to where I set the white balance to shade.
Sure, there are situations when you can take the time to set white balance, contrast, saturation, color balance, and sharpness accordingly. Shooting sports or events or kids in variable light are not one of them, at least not for me. If you can, my hat is off to you. But you can never set the black point in-camera, so in many situations you will have to edit the jpg in Photoshop anyway. May as well shoot raw then.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Sigh. Please scroll down in the article to where I set the white balance to shade.
Sure, there are situations when you can take the time to set white balance, contrast, saturation, color balance, and sharpness accordingly. Shooting sports or events or kids in variable light are not one of them, at least not for me. If you can, my hat is off to you. But you can never set the black point in-camera, so in many situations you will have to edit the jpg in Photoshop anyway. May as well shoot raw then.
Yeah, reading comprehension, not my strong point. That's why I stick with the *visual* arts.
*In an interview, he stated that he does shoot raw "because everyone tells me to." but then ends up using the in-camera image anyway. He also (very very rarely) crops an image if there is no other way to get it right in camera.
That's great. I just can't fathom changing white balance, contrast, color balance, and saturation during an event in variable light, especially when you can easily do all of that after the fact. Also when there is back-lighting, you must set the black point!
In the baseball example I provided, home plate was shaded while the rest of the field was sunny. You couldn't shoot the batter and then turn around and shoot the fielders in jpg with the same settings.
I think this scenario is representative of many. Like walking around an outdoor wedding or a family weekend at the lake. Sure, in a gymnasium or theater or at the beach or anywhere with constant, consistent light, set it and forget it!
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
HUGE point there. Shooting JPG effectively, in my opinion, requires a THOROUGH understanding and mastery of exposure, white balance, and in-camera processing.
A lot of people liken JPG to either shooting slides, or shooting polaroids. Well that's the difference right there. Throwing the camera in auto-everything and just shooting JPG will give you polaroid-quality images. HOWEVER, master all the camera settings, from exposure to sharpness and saturation, and you get slide-film-like images that may not be flawless, but are certainly presentable... If you know me, you know that I consider it an art form. Dunno why, it's just something I enjoy doing, maybe I got it from my Velvia days. (Which are still not over, I might add!)
(Yes, believe it or not, each of those images was created completely using in-camera settings. Aside from re-sizing & light 0.2 radius sharpening, of course. Some were actually captured in JPG, and some were shot in RAW and converted straight to JPG from Nikon View NX, the world's best RAW browser. :-)
The plain hard fact of it is, for the vast majority of photographers, their skill at taking photographs and processing photographs never reaches the point where any "visible" advantage that "may" be gained by shooting raw will never be realized.
Shooting jpeg, keeping it simple and fun, is the best option for at least 80% of photographers.
Opinions will vary but this is what I firmly believe to be true.
Yes Ziggy but since you said that http://rawtherapee.com/
I tired it anyway just to see, sorry.
I will try the raw therapee tonight , what else can I try if my computer is too slow to manage such software. I kind of misplaced the software that came with my 30 D 4-5 years ago since I didnt have any use for it then. Can I find a free one online or should I just keep trying to find a converter and edit with photoshop 7 that I have.
Thank you again and sorry if my question seem really silly and lack of undertsanding
Now Im getting confused Mark said (Photoshop CS or CS2 had the first bundled ACR ... but it wasn't nearly as good as it has become. )yet you have the cs3 and you still need a converter???
No, you just need to convert the raw file to a tif or dng, as outlined earlier by Ziggy and others. It will work just fine once you've changed the format to something the older program can read (I do it all the time with my 7d and s95 files since I use Photoshop CS3 which doesn't support either of those cameras).
Now Im getting confused Mark said (Photoshop CS or CS2 had the first bundled ACR ... but it wasn't nearly as good as it has become. )yet you have the cs3 and you still need a converter???
Each camera has it's own raw "format." So the raw files from a Pentax (.pef) are different from a Nikon (.NEF) are different from a Canon (.CR2). Not only that, but a .pef from a Pentax K100d is different from a .pef from a K20D, which is different from a K5.
Adobe's ACR from CS2 only directly supports cameras from that era. The workaround if you have a newer camera that the older ACR doesn't support, you can convert to a format called DNG, which Adobe created, and then open them.
You should be aware, however, that ACR has gotten exponentially better in the last 2-3 versions. The earliest editions of ACR were ... not that great, imho.
What Mark said ^^. It depends on your camera. My camera, a 7d, is "newer" than CS3, and thus not supported by the built-in ACR converter. Adobe stopped offering updates for CS3 before the 7d came out.
I have Lightroom, however, which DOES support my camera(s). My workflow:
1. Upload photos to my computer through Picasa (I just prefer its upload interface; others prefer going straight into Lightroom - both work.)
2. "Import" my photos into Lightroom (without moving them - I create the directory during step 1 and just leave them there by selecting "add photos to lightroom and leave in current location")
3. Do 80% of my editing in Lightroom, but when I want to use Photoshop, select "edit in another program" - I have LR set up so the default is to send it to CS3 in .tiff format.
While this sounds like a lot of extra steps, it really isn't. I use Picasa because I find it a quicker and more reliable uploader from my card reader (LR is more powerful but I find the Picasa upload interface quicker for me). I'm using LR to do the bulk of my editing anyway, so I'd be importing them no matter what. I have some actions in PS that I like to use, but it's only a few seconds to right click and let the software create the tiff and open it for me.
It works for me!
ETA: THe price on LR has come down a LOT with v4 - you might want to consider adding it if the $ are available. It is a wonderful, WONDERFUL program once you learn it and while there is a learning curve, it's pretty easy to come to terms with it. Best of all NO changes made in LR are permanent until you export or actively save them - you can keep messing around with your images and backtrack even after you open/close the program etc I didn't think I "needed" it initially (I was fortunate to be given a copy of LR2 from the college where I work), but I honestly don't know how I would handle my images and workflow without it now.
... EDIT: Apparently, ACR has been around since Photoshop 7. (!)
In Photoshop 7 the RAW converter was an extra and a download. It did not ship with the product, or at least it did not ship with the early copies (which I used at work).
I didn't even find out about it until it was no longer available, probably because of PS CS where it was included.
The reason I didn't get it at first was because the dSLR that we were still using, the Kodak DCS 460, required the use of the proprietary Kodak converter for its RAW files, which were just a TIFF files (which is still what most camera RAW files are today, i.e. they are just TIFF file structures with some proprietary headers and a proprietary file suffix.)
Shooting jpeg, keeping it simple and fun, is the best option for at least 80% of photographers.
Adjusting in-camera settings for white balance, color balance, saturation, and contrast while shooting is simpler and more fun? Working in Photoshop with compressed images that quickly degrade is simple and fun? We have different ideas of simple and fun I guess. I doubt 80% of photographers agree with you. Or do you just delete any jpeg that doesn't come out perfectly? That would be a waste.
Opinions will vary but this is what I firmly believe to be true.
Sounds like you haven't spent much time working with raws. It is definitely more simple.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Adjusting in-camera settings for white balance, color balance, saturation, and contrast while shooting is simpler and more fun? Working in Photoshop with compressed images that quickly degrade is simple and fun? We have different ideas of simple and fun I guess. I doubt 80% of photographers agree with you. Or do you just delete any jpeg that doesn't come out perfectly? That would be a waste.
Sounds like you haven't spent much time working with raws. It is definitely more simple.
Many cameras allow you to choose from various presets, so you aren't manually adjusting a dozen different variables independently.
As a second point, jpegs aren't the fragile snowflakes of data that some people like to say they are. Back before I had access to raw, I was able to push, pull, twist, and bend 5 MP images with a lot of success. Sure it's lossy, and I was tossing pixels-- but if the final print looks good, who cares?
The time "wasted" getting it right in camera is time "saved" not having to sit in front of a computer and do editing work. It's a pick your poison thing, I think.
Wow !!!!!!!!!!Im sure most people have no idea what you are all speaking of, for they get lightroom or the latest software that does it all.
In my case however I m starting from the botom level. I m also going to get a 7 D in a couple months so it would just make sense to get a software to open my raw file with the 30 D and 7 D I guess. It looks so far that people are really liking lightroom and element.
I have to shop around price wise and maybe I can get a good used on, who knows.
Wow !!!!!!!!!!Im sure most people have no idea what you are all speaking of, for they get lightroom or the latest software that does it all.
In my case however I m starting from the botom level. I m also going to get a 7 D in a couple months so it would just make sense to get a software to open my raw file with the 30 D and 7 D I guess. It looks so far that people are really liking lightroom and element.
I have to shop around price wise and maybe I can get a good used on, who knows.
Thank you all
Bounty
Start with Canon Digital Photo Professional. It's very powerful and it's free - it comes in the box with the camera.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
They are if you're trying to fix a bad exposure. Check out the mother and baby example in my article.
But the point is that you wouldn't have a bad exposure. You'd get it right at the time of capture. Again, it's a "spend the time to get it right" vs. "spend the time to fix it later."
Come on, that's not what I'm saying. I'm interested to know how you can say shooting jpg, where you have to get everything right in-camera at the time of the shot is simpler. Sure, when you have the time to do so, I can see it. That's just rare for me, and I imagine anyone shooting in an active setting.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
RAW files are superior for paying jobs for the following reasons:
1) WB set after-the-fact in the RAW processing software.
2) Potential for superior noise reduction from RAW source.
3) Finer gradation for smooth and gradual tone transitions. (Skin tones, sky, clouds, etc.)
4) Ability to retain more data for longer portion of processing workflow.
5) Ability to change color space without serious degradation.
There are plenty of photographers, professional and otherwise, who can do lovely work starting from JPGs, but the fact remains that there can be improvement starting from RAW files.
Case in point: 3-4 years ago I had an assistant at a wedding return the camera and several cards of files to me, and the WB on the camera had been inadvertently changed to something bad (I don't remember what). The embedded JPG preview images looked hideous.
Since the camera was set to record to RAW files I just set up the RAW converter with "my" selection for WB and ..., no problem. Since RAW files have no intrinsic WB absolutely no data was lost, and no one ever knew the difference. What could have been heartbreaking was no problem at all.
JPG files are intrinsically lossy compression and 8-bit, so any strong correction is working against those 2 prior factors. JPG files were primarily designed as a "delivery" format, not an "acquisition" format.
My rule is to shoot to RAW unless I have a good reason not to shoot to RAW, as in sports/action where the sheer numbers of images may indicate that JPGs are a better way to go. In that case I also use Auto WB and Auto Exposure (of some sort) because there really is no time to be changing those things manually during the action. Even then, I'll adjust the contrast down a bit just to extend the dynamic range a bit. That can keep me from clipping the highlights too soon and from crushing/squelching the shadows too hard.
By all means, if you do shoot to JPG files for general photography, use the least compressive and largest files size available. We fairly regularly get questions on DGrin about "banding" in skies; what caused it and how to fix it. Often, it's because people used JPG files and especially when they also use a high compression. That's just the nature of JPG files, and the banding is one manifestation of a problem relating to JPGs.
Another problem is "stair-stepping" or ragged edges, commonly visible around the boundaries between light and dark sharply defined objects. This too generally results from the combination of JPGs and compression, although multiple iterations of corrections can exacerbate the problem.
The proper way to post-process JPG images, is to first convert the images into 16 bits. This will allow finer gradations as you apply post-processing filters and corrections, resulting in less visible artifacts. It's not as good as starting from RAW files, but it is an improvement and sometimes an obvious visual improvement.
I finally got hold of the software that came with my camera ( I borrowed it from a friend) and installed it so now I can view my raw files and sent them to photoshop 7 which is great for a start. So far Im not super impressed by what I see but what do I know. I opened both jpeg and raw files they both convert to tif files but when I modified them equally I don t see a huge difference on my screen?????
Bounty
:photo
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
Come on, that's not what I'm saying. I'm interested to know how you can say shooting jpg, where you have to get everything right in-camera at the time of the shot is simpler. Sure, when you have the time to do so, I can see it. That's just rare for me, and I imagine anyone shooting in an active setting.
Often times I just simplify everything by throwing the camera in Black & White. No more worries other than exposure! A little spot metering in aperture priority, (on Nikon the spot meter follows the active focus point) ...and you get instant art. It's really fun, actually.
Other than that all I can say is, well, if you never find yourself with enough time to get your JPG settings in order, then that's fine, stick with RAW. But it is possible, for some styles of shooting. I personally thoroughly enjoy it. Or, even if I do shoot RAW, quite often for personal work I just browse the images in Nikon View NX, so that i still get back my in-camera processing, and I just create JPG's from the SOOC images; it's as if I had shot RAW+JPG but without the wasted space of actually having to shoot both. ;-)
I finally got hold of the software that came with my camera ( I borrowed it from a friend) and installed it so now I can view my raw files and sent them to photoshop 7 which is great for a start. So far Im not super impressed by what I see but what do I know. I opened both jpeg and raw files they both convert to tif files but when I modified them equally I don t see a huge difference on my screen?????
Bounty
If you are using DPP (Digital Photo Professional) to process your RAW files, I believe that it will try to emulate your camera's JPG settings by default. If you retain the default conversion settings it should look very similar to the JPGs from the camera.
If you save the processed image from DPP as a 16 bit TIFF file, it has a massive extra amount of data compared to either an 8 bit TIFF or JPG file. (JPG files are 8-bit by definition.) Further processing by Photoshop of the 16 bit TIFF files should yield better post-processing as a result. Whether you can see much difference in the results depends upon:
The exact amount and type of post-processing in Photoshop.
How long you stay in 16 bit mode. (Much of Photoshop 7 is 8-bit only. More recent versions of Photoshop allow you to stay in 16-bit mode longer.)
Ultimately RAW workflow is a benefit, but if you just use default settings you won't realize many of those benefits. That is by design, not by accident. Taking a class/course in image post-processing would allow you to learn many valuable techniques, assuming the class/course covers RAW workflow. RAW workflow is not intuitive.
Wow! And I thought that I had arrived. It looks to me like a lot to know and kind of takes the fun out of taking pictures, really.
Ive always been really conscious about making sure I got everything right in my viewfinder before pressing the shutter, but now Ill be even more careful. I didnt know I had to save from dpp to 16 bits? IF I get a lightroom in the future will it save me the time to cobert it to a 16 bits?
I jheard lots of people talking about RAW but am sure than half of them are probably not doing it the right way. Just like photographer using auto mode setting with their flagships fancy camera.
... IF I get a lightroom in the future will it save me the time to cobert it to a 16 bits? ...
Adobe Lightroom could be your RAW converter and then either work as the image processor alone (completely independent of other image processing software) or you can use it as a pre-processor software and feed the image data directly into Photoshop, somewhat negating the need for an intermediate file.
I believe that Raw Therapee will also allow you to feed directly into Photoshop, but Lightroom is more refined, potentially more capable, and certainly better supported, both by Adobe and in the user community.
Adobe Lightroom could be your RAW converter and then either work as the image processor alone (completely independent of other image processing software) or you can use it as a pre-processor software and feed the image data directly into Photoshop, somewhat negating the need for an intermediate file.
I believe that Raw Therapee will also allow you to feed directly into Photoshop, but Lightroom is more refined, potentially more capable, and certainly better supported, both by Adobe and in the user community.
Alternately, for $59 you could look into AftershotPro. This is the product that used to be Bibble, and while the database features aren't as robust as Lightroom or Aperture, it does have some nice editing tools, (including layer/regions,) and a wide range of plugins.
Comments
Hint: irfanview (irfanview.com) with plugins will read raw, and loads 'em faster n' snot. And you can load up any program you want through it - me, I have my default editor to photoshop, natch.
Oh, and it's free. Which my Scottish genes like. I don't have many, and they congregate around my wallet.
Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
My only issue with your article (and remember, I'm a raw shooter, meself
HUGE point there. Shooting JPG effectively, in my opinion, requires a THOROUGH understanding and mastery of exposure, white balance, and in-camera processing.
A lot of people liken JPG to either shooting slides, or shooting polaroids. Well that's the difference right there. Throwing the camera in auto-everything and just shooting JPG will give you polaroid-quality images. HOWEVER, master all the camera settings, from exposure to sharpness and saturation, and you get slide-film-like images that may not be flawless, but are certainly presentable... If you know me, you know that I consider it an art form. Dunno why, it's just something I enjoy doing, maybe I got it from my Velvia days. (Which are still not over, I might add!)
(Yes, believe it or not, each of those images was created completely using in-camera settings. Aside from re-sizing & light 0.2 radius sharpening, of course. Some were actually captured in JPG, and some were shot in RAW and converted straight to JPG from Nikon View NX, the world's best RAW browser. :-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Sigh. Please scroll down in the article to where I set the white balance to shade.
Sure, there are situations when you can take the time to set white balance, contrast, saturation, color balance, and sharpness accordingly. Shooting sports or events or kids in variable light are not one of them, at least not for me. If you can, my hat is off to you. But you can never set the black point in-camera, so in many situations you will have to edit the jpg in Photoshop anyway. May as well shoot raw then.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Download DNG Converter 6.7 for Windows (EXE, 84.3 MB)
Is this converter for jpeg to raw rather than raw to jpeg??????????????DNG files are just a "dialect" of RAW files, but one which earlier Adobe ACR could understand. There is nothing JPG about the DNG converter.
Please read my post above to understand why DNG conversion will not work in your situation:
http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1754521&postcount=31
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Yeah, reading comprehension, not my strong point. That's why I stick with the *visual* arts.
OTOH, you might want to look at http://studio.jaymaisel.com/collections/portfolio and http://www.jaymaisel.com/recent-work/. Maisel does NOT post-process.* And a lot of his work is street-shooting, decisive moment work.
*In an interview, he stated that he does shoot raw "because everyone tells me to." but then ends up using the in-camera image anyway. He also (very very rarely) crops an image if there is no other way to get it right in camera.
That's great. I just can't fathom changing white balance, contrast, color balance, and saturation during an event in variable light, especially when you can easily do all of that after the fact. Also when there is back-lighting, you must set the black point!
In the baseball example I provided, home plate was shaded while the rest of the field was sunny. You couldn't shoot the batter and then turn around and shoot the fielders in jpg with the same settings.
I think this scenario is representative of many. Like walking around an outdoor wedding or a family weekend at the lake. Sure, in a gymnasium or theater or at the beach or anywhere with constant, consistent light, set it and forget it!
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
At least that s what Im aiming for.
Bounty
Shooting jpeg, keeping it simple and fun, is the best option for at least 80% of photographers.
Opinions will vary but this is what I firmly believe to be true.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
I tired it anyway just to see, sorry.
I will try the raw therapee tonight , what else can I try if my computer is too slow to manage such software. I kind of misplaced the software that came with my 30 D 4-5 years ago since I didnt have any use for it then. Can I find a free one online or should I just keep trying to find a converter and edit with photoshop 7 that I have.
Thank you again and sorry if my question seem really silly and lack of undertsanding
Bounty
Each camera has it's own raw "format." So the raw files from a Pentax (.pef) are different from a Nikon (.NEF) are different from a Canon (.CR2). Not only that, but a .pef from a Pentax K100d is different from a .pef from a K20D, which is different from a K5.
Adobe's ACR from CS2 only directly supports cameras from that era. The workaround if you have a newer camera that the older ACR doesn't support, you can convert to a format called DNG, which Adobe created, and then open them.
You should be aware, however, that ACR has gotten exponentially better in the last 2-3 versions. The earliest editions of ACR were ... not that great, imho.
Here is a list of cameras supported by ACR version: http://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html
EDIT: Apparently, ACR has been around since Photoshop 7. (!)
I have Lightroom, however, which DOES support my camera(s). My workflow:
1. Upload photos to my computer through Picasa (I just prefer its upload interface; others prefer going straight into Lightroom - both work.)
2. "Import" my photos into Lightroom (without moving them - I create the directory during step 1 and just leave them there by selecting "add photos to lightroom and leave in current location")
3. Do 80% of my editing in Lightroom, but when I want to use Photoshop, select "edit in another program" - I have LR set up so the default is to send it to CS3 in .tiff format.
While this sounds like a lot of extra steps, it really isn't. I use Picasa because I find it a quicker and more reliable uploader from my card reader (LR is more powerful but I find the Picasa upload interface quicker for me). I'm using LR to do the bulk of my editing anyway, so I'd be importing them no matter what. I have some actions in PS that I like to use, but it's only a few seconds to right click and let the software create the tiff and open it for me.
It works for me!
ETA: THe price on LR has come down a LOT with v4 - you might want to consider adding it if the $ are available. It is a wonderful, WONDERFUL program once you learn it and while there is a learning curve, it's pretty easy to come to terms with it. Best of all NO changes made in LR are permanent until you export or actively save them - you can keep messing around with your images and backtrack even after you open/close the program etc I didn't think I "needed" it initially (I was fortunate to be given a copy of LR2 from the college where I work), but I honestly don't know how I would handle my images and workflow without it now.
In Photoshop 7 the RAW converter was an extra and a download. It did not ship with the product, or at least it did not ship with the early copies (which I used at work).
I didn't even find out about it until it was no longer available, probably because of PS CS where it was included.
The reason I didn't get it at first was because the dSLR that we were still using, the Kodak DCS 460, required the use of the proprietary Kodak converter for its RAW files, which were just a TIFF files (which is still what most camera RAW files are today, i.e. they are just TIFF file structures with some proprietary headers and a proprietary file suffix.)
Sorry for the digression.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Adjusting in-camera settings for white balance, color balance, saturation, and contrast while shooting is simpler and more fun? Working in Photoshop with compressed images that quickly degrade is simple and fun? We have different ideas of simple and fun I guess. I doubt 80% of photographers agree with you. Or do you just delete any jpeg that doesn't come out perfectly? That would be a waste.
Sounds like you haven't spent much time working with raws. It is definitely more simple.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Many cameras allow you to choose from various presets, so you aren't manually adjusting a dozen different variables independently.
As a second point, jpegs aren't the fragile snowflakes of data that some people like to say they are. Back before I had access to raw, I was able to push, pull, twist, and bend 5 MP images with a lot of success. Sure it's lossy, and I was tossing pixels-- but if the final print looks good, who cares?
The time "wasted" getting it right in camera is time "saved" not having to sit in front of a computer and do editing work. It's a pick your poison thing, I think.
In my case however I m starting from the botom level. I m also going to get a 7 D in a couple months so it would just make sense to get a software to open my raw file with the 30 D and 7 D I guess. It looks so far that people are really liking lightroom and element.
I have to shop around price wise and maybe I can get a good used on, who knows.
Thank you all
Bounty
Start with Canon Digital Photo Professional. It's very powerful and it's free - it comes in the box with the camera.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
They are if you're trying to fix a bad exposure. Check out the mother and baby example in my article.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
But the point is that you wouldn't have a bad exposure. You'd get it right at the time of capture. Again, it's a "spend the time to get it right" vs. "spend the time to fix it later."
Ok thanks.
Come on, that's not what I'm saying. I'm interested to know how you can say shooting jpg, where you have to get everything right in-camera at the time of the shot is simpler. Sure, when you have the time to do so, I can see it. That's just rare for me, and I imagine anyone shooting in an active setting.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
2) Potential for superior noise reduction from RAW source.
3) Finer gradation for smooth and gradual tone transitions. (Skin tones, sky, clouds, etc.)
4) Ability to retain more data for longer portion of processing workflow.
5) Ability to change color space without serious degradation.
There are plenty of photographers, professional and otherwise, who can do lovely work starting from JPGs, but the fact remains that there can be improvement starting from RAW files.
Case in point: 3-4 years ago I had an assistant at a wedding return the camera and several cards of files to me, and the WB on the camera had been inadvertently changed to something bad (I don't remember what). The embedded JPG preview images looked hideous.
Since the camera was set to record to RAW files I just set up the RAW converter with "my" selection for WB and ..., no problem. Since RAW files have no intrinsic WB absolutely no data was lost, and no one ever knew the difference. What could have been heartbreaking was no problem at all.
JPG files are intrinsically lossy compression and 8-bit, so any strong correction is working against those 2 prior factors. JPG files were primarily designed as a "delivery" format, not an "acquisition" format.
My rule is to shoot to RAW unless I have a good reason not to shoot to RAW, as in sports/action where the sheer numbers of images may indicate that JPGs are a better way to go. In that case I also use Auto WB and Auto Exposure (of some sort) because there really is no time to be changing those things manually during the action. Even then, I'll adjust the contrast down a bit just to extend the dynamic range a bit. That can keep me from clipping the highlights too soon and from crushing/squelching the shadows too hard.
By all means, if you do shoot to JPG files for general photography, use the least compressive and largest files size available. We fairly regularly get questions on DGrin about "banding" in skies; what caused it and how to fix it. Often, it's because people used JPG files and especially when they also use a high compression. That's just the nature of JPG files, and the banding is one manifestation of a problem relating to JPGs.
Another problem is "stair-stepping" or ragged edges, commonly visible around the boundaries between light and dark sharply defined objects. This too generally results from the combination of JPGs and compression, although multiple iterations of corrections can exacerbate the problem.
The proper way to post-process JPG images, is to first convert the images into 16 bits. This will allow finer gradations as you apply post-processing filters and corrections, resulting in less visible artifacts. It's not as good as starting from RAW files, but it is an improvement and sometimes an obvious visual improvement.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Bounty
Often times I just simplify everything by throwing the camera in Black & White. No more worries other than exposure! A little spot metering in aperture priority, (on Nikon the spot meter follows the active focus point) ...and you get instant art. It's really fun, actually.
Other than that all I can say is, well, if you never find yourself with enough time to get your JPG settings in order, then that's fine, stick with RAW. But it is possible, for some styles of shooting. I personally thoroughly enjoy it. Or, even if I do shoot RAW, quite often for personal work I just browse the images in Nikon View NX, so that i still get back my in-camera processing, and I just create JPG's from the SOOC images; it's as if I had shot RAW+JPG but without the wasted space of actually having to shoot both. ;-)
Here's a handful of SOOC B&W's...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
If you are using DPP (Digital Photo Professional) to process your RAW files, I believe that it will try to emulate your camera's JPG settings by default. If you retain the default conversion settings it should look very similar to the JPGs from the camera.
If you save the processed image from DPP as a 16 bit TIFF file, it has a massive extra amount of data compared to either an 8 bit TIFF or JPG file. (JPG files are 8-bit by definition.) Further processing by Photoshop of the 16 bit TIFF files should yield better post-processing as a result. Whether you can see much difference in the results depends upon:
The exact amount and type of post-processing in Photoshop.
How long you stay in 16 bit mode. (Much of Photoshop 7 is 8-bit only. More recent versions of Photoshop allow you to stay in 16-bit mode longer.)
Ultimately RAW workflow is a benefit, but if you just use default settings you won't realize many of those benefits. That is by design, not by accident. Taking a class/course in image post-processing would allow you to learn many valuable techniques, assuming the class/course covers RAW workflow. RAW workflow is not intuitive.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Ive always been really conscious about making sure I got everything right in my viewfinder before pressing the shutter, but now Ill be even more careful. I didnt know I had to save from dpp to 16 bits? IF I get a lightroom in the future will it save me the time to cobert it to a 16 bits?
I jheard lots of people talking about RAW but am sure than half of them are probably not doing it the right way. Just like photographer using auto mode setting with their flagships fancy camera.
Adobe Lightroom could be your RAW converter and then either work as the image processor alone (completely independent of other image processing software) or you can use it as a pre-processor software and feed the image data directly into Photoshop, somewhat negating the need for an intermediate file.
It's a pretty flexible workflow.
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&biw=1111&bih=537&sclient=psy-ab&q=raw%20workflow%20lightroom%20photoshop&oq=raw%20workflow%20lightroom%20&aq=2v&aqi=g1g-v3&aql=&gs_l=hp.11.2.0j0i15l3.1373l8904l0l11832l14l14l0l0l0l0l451l1532l4j4j1j0j1l10l0.frgbld.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=adcb350d65902750&pf=p&pdl=300
I believe that Raw Therapee will also allow you to feed directly into Photoshop, but Lightroom is more refined, potentially more capable, and certainly better supported, both by Adobe and in the user community.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
Alternately, for $59 you could look into AftershotPro. This is the product that used to be Bibble, and while the database features aren't as robust as Lightroom or Aperture, it does have some nice editing tools, (including layer/regions,) and a wide range of plugins.