Shooting in Raw, need help

dugmar

I'm embarassed to admit it but I have never shot in RAW with my Digital Rebel. I want to learn. Why do I want to shoot in RAW compared to JPEG? What are the advantages?

Once I do, what is the best way to retreive photos from the card? What software works best?

Thanks...

Doug

lynnma

dugmar wrote:

I'm embarassed to admit it but I have never shot in RAW with my Digital Rebel. I want to learn. Why do I want to shoot in RAW compared to JPEG? What are the advantages?

Once I do, what is the best way to retreive photos from the card? What software works best?

Thanks...

Doug

Hi Doug.. others will probably answer this more in depth than I but when I first got my rebel someone told me to shoot raw as I may want to go back and retrieve a shot and rework it later? when I knew more? thank goodness I did.
When you shoot jpeg you are kinda stuck with the settings the camera decides on? colors, exposure, sharpening etc. when you shoot in raw and open it in say Photoshop CS you can adjust your exposure 2 stops up or down, change the WB, saturation... etc etc etc.. the shadows.. it's wonderful. Then when your done in the raw settings you can start on your usual post processing leaving the raw file intact. I just feel it gives you way way more processing power.. you are not relying on the camera but on your own eye. When I shoot in jpeg now I always feel dissapointed that I have lost some of that control. I like Photoshop CS best.. I used to use zoombrowers software to adjust the raw but it's slow I feel and I really love cs. I believe that Photoshop Elements is either out with a raw process capability or is coming out soon.. I'm not sure on that one.
You won't regret shooting in raw if you like to get into a lot of post.
HOpe this helps.. it's a bit convoluted..:D
Lynn

DavidTO

lynnma wrote:

I like Photoshop CS best.. I used to use zoombrowers software to adjust the raw but it's slow I feel and I really love cs. I believe that Photoshop Elements is either out with a raw process capability or is coming out soon.. I'm not sure on that one.
You won't regret shooting in raw if you like to get into a lot of post.
HOpe this helps.. it's a bit convoluted..:D
Lynn

PS Elements supports RAW.

PS is a good choice because you likely already have it, so RAW support won't cost you any extra dough.

I much prefer Capture One. You can download a demo, and give it a whirl. Better workflow, and I get better results. But, then again, I'm used to it.

Here's the link to the Pro version. LE is $100, SE is $250 and Pro is $500. Give it a whirl.

ginger_55

dugmar wrote:

I'm embarassed to admit it but I have never shot in RAW with my Digital Rebel. I want to learn. Why do I want to shoot in RAW compared to JPEG? What are the advantages?

Once I do, what is the best way to retreive photos from the card? What software works best?

Thanks...

Doug

PHotoshop CS works for me like a dream. There is a book out that I just bought. I don't care who says the book is a waste of money. It looks like gold to me.

I fought shooting in RAW, absolutely did not want to. I also fought the tripod.

I am still not comfortable with a tripod and have no, or little, use for one.

But RAW, how do I love thee?, let me count the ways...........

I shoot only in RAW now unless on a trip with family. I don't have storage.

I have 2 1 gb CF cards, and two 512 mb CF cards. They do me.

If everyone else hasn't told you all about RAW, I will after my four hour drive home.

The one thing I can say is that it makes my pictures look better. I can look at a photo and tell if I shot it in RAW, or if I didn't. It is so obvious, I can do it almost immediately, then I check it out, and I have always been right. I think I started the RAW thing about the start of autumn. And I was kicking and screaming. Ask Lynn, anyone.

The one thing I would like now is more hard drive, a small price to pay, actually. And I am coping without it.

g (PS, CS)

Andy

some blending help here and here

and loads more in dgrin's hall of wisdom

DavidTO

I wanna second what Ginger said.

I never regret shooting RAW.

I almost always regret shooting JPEG.

I love RAW.

damonff

Contrary
Against the grain here...I shoot RAW about 10% of the time. I use it when I'm doing a shoot for pay in low light, like a party or wedding/reception. Other than that, I use jpeg. I just think it looks better for me. I understand all of the RAW stuff, have plenty of external storage, and plenty of memory card space in the camera. I just don't like the cumbersome workflow of RAW and, in general, not using RAW doesn't adversely affect my work. I'm just not an everyday RAW guy...jpeg for me.

Andy

ask lynn?

ginger_55 wrote:

...I think I started the RAW thing about the start of autumn. And I was kicking and screaming. Ask Lynn, anyone.

i have ginger boot marks on my butt! see?

cmr164

damonff wrote:

Against the grain here...I shoot RAW about 10% of the time. I use it when I'm doing a shoot for pay in low light, like a party or wedding/reception. Other than that, I use jpeg. I just think it looks better for me. I understand all of the RAW stuff, have plenty of external storage, and plenty of memory card space in the camera. I just don't like the cumbersome workflow of RAW and, in general, not using RAW doesn't adversely affect my work. I'm just not an everyday RAW guy...jpeg for me.

Shooting 99% raw since 11/1999 The additional dynamic range of 12bits vs 8bits and the white balance are my big reasons. (12 bits is 4096 shades of grey and 8bits is 256 shades of grey)

pathfinder

dugmar wrote:

I'm embarassed to admit it but I have never shot in RAW with my Digital Rebel. I want to learn. Why do I want to shoot in RAW compared to JPEG? What are the advantages?

Once I do, what is the best way to retreive photos from the card? What software works best?

Thanks...

Doug

I'm kind of an AC/DC kinda guy I think

I shoot RAW most of the time when I am after artistic or scenic shots or the lighting is variable and lousy. I like the ability to alter color balance after the fact, and the ability to decide the sharpening and exposure values by direct inspection in Adobe raw converter.

I shoot jpgs for snapshots at family gatherings and for high speed sporting events or if I'm running low of CF space and don't want to stop and swap chips in the field because things are happening fast and I dn't want to miss that one best shot of the day.

You need to remember when you shoot jpgs to keep an eye on the lighting - I strongly prefer to not use AWB, but adjust the light balance to sunny, shade, overcast, tungsten, whatever - and IF I shoot jpgs this REALLY needs to be done right. With RAW, I can be more cavalier because I am going to set the color balance in raw conversion anyway.

As for workflow, Adobe Raw converter ( which is also in PS Elements 3 now - but I have not had a chance to play with it yet - gimme a coupla weeks ) is so nicely coupled with PS that it really does not seem much more work to shoot RAW than with jpgs except that they require more storage space.

Ultimately to me it is kind of like are you going to shoot at ISO 100 or ISO 400, or f2.8 or f11, 1/25th or 1/4000th - it is just another level of control of your image that you can decide how you want to use it. I do not realy think one is better than the other, UNLESS you specify what you intend to do with the images - small prints, newspaper images, sporting events, landscapes, funky colored mixed lighting etc.

I use a USB2.0 card reader to read the card after removal from my camera. If the camera has a FIrewire or USB 2.0 ( but NOT 1.1) I would probably consider that but the card reader is always plugged in on my desktop and I use a PCMCIA adapter for CF on my laptop.

I use Adobe PS CS but many folks prefer to use PS ELEMENTS 3 ( the newest version which now has a RAW converter also)

Expect to spend a little time learning Photoshop CS. It is the most daunting software program I have ever used. Buy and read Real World's "Camera RAW with Adobe Photoshop" by Bruce Frasier for a fuller understanding why RAW gives significantly better result frequently.

JPGs can and are excellent, and many pros prefer them, but they frequently shoot in the studio where they have total control over their lighting and that makes a real difference in jpg quality.

fish

I shoot raw maybe 20-25% of the time, when I absolutely, positively have to get the shot right. However, I have yet to be able to duplicate the rich look that my 20D produces on jpegs.

So while I shoot some raws, I rarely have to go back and use them.

To each his own.

DavidTO

fish wrote:

However, I have yet to be able to duplicate the rich look that my 20D produces on jpegs.

That's my experience with PS, and why I use Capture One. Chalk it up to my own inability to get PS to work as it should, perhaps, but Capture One also has a much better workflow.

lynnesite

I started shooting in RAW the same time Ginger did, also somewhat kicking and screaming because of the workflow. Using PS CS for the conversion, now I enjoy the control so much I can't fathom going back (do want a body that can do both at the same time, I have a 10D). For shooting fast moving sports events, am still shooting JPG.

DavidTO

lynnesite wrote:

I started shooting in RAW the same time Ginger did, also somewhat kicking and screaming because of the workflow. Using PS CS for the conversion, now I enjoy the control so much I can't fathom going back (do want a body that can do both at the same time, I have a 10D). For shooting fast moving sports events, am still shooting JPG.

Hey, Lynne, doon't forget to mention Dr. Brown's Actions.

I hear you use it all the time

dugmar

Then when your done in the raw settings you can start on your usual post processing leaving the raw file intact.

Okay, when you say "Start your usual post processing", what format are you doing this in? RAW still? What do you save your final work as? JPEG?

Why can't I just copy a JPEG, make changes and have the original saved as well? Wouldn't this be the same?

Still confused...

Thanks,

Doug

DavidTO

dugmar wrote:

Okay, when you say "Start your usual post processing", what format are you doing this in? RAW still? What do you save your final work as? JPEG?

Why can't I just copy a JPEG, make changes and have the original saved as well? Wouldn't this be the same?

Still confused...

Thanks,

Doug

Well, yes, you could. But you're missing out on the latitude that's available in RAW.

RAW is said to be like having digital negative. You have a huge amount of latitude in exposure, contrast and white balance that you simply will not have in JPEG.

It varies slightly with software. In Capture One, you make your adjustments, and then when it processes the image it outputs the file format or fomats ( you can output multiple files in one processing) that you specify. You could also go back and reprocess a file that you really want to treat special as TIFF, saving all the JPEG compression. You decide how to process the raw data, instead of leaving it to the camera. Once the camera blows out those hightlights, you're stuck. In RAW you can probably save it, and you can blend multiple "exposures" to greatly enhance the latitude of the final image.

dugmar

I'm slowly grasping this.

Thanks everyone, once I start I'm sure it will be much more clear to me.

Doug

DoctorIt

everyone's going to talk your ear off on this...


Just do it! It'll be clear as day why its better. Then make your own decision. If you have software that'll do it, just try it. Ask for help on that, but don't ask a wide open question for these monsters!!!

fish

DavidTO wrote:

That's my experience with PS, and why I use Capture One. Chalk it up to my own inability to get PS to work as it should, perhaps, but Capture One also has a much better workflow.

I just downloaded Capture One demo. Kinda different...kinda interesting. Kinda easier to use than Elements. I'll play with it some more, but I'm thinking I might have to cough up the dough for LE.

Bryan

*gulp* I think I may shoot raw this weekend...Oh man.

I you go RAW you will never go back, huh?

ginger_55

I remember at the beginning, Andy or someone said as far as all the controls are concerned, to just get the light balance right, and the exposure. And that was fine for grasping that bit, I did it slowly. Still am. I would advise that book, but geez, I wouldn't memorize it in a sitting.

After I set those two, exposure and WB (as shot, auto, outdoors, etc) to my liking, I clicked on OK, took it up to PS, and now I definitely remember to immediately save it as a DSL, with a diff name than the RAW, like I add 2 to the file numbers. Then play with it and save as a jpeg. (Then worry about how much is on your hard drive, lol.) I have stuff to upload now, and I don't want to clear off my hard drive right now.

I am nothing if not not technical. Not overwhelming myself probably helped. Just try it, do a bit, play, etc.

I just this week bought that book on RAW, having played with it so long, I have a better idea of what I want to know, so get it now (I would) or later, but don't overwhelm yourself.

ginger

Oh, everything looks smoother, etc. in RAW. Jpeg is fine sometimes. Maybe you have to nail it more. Also I can certainly understand sports, who cares, gotta get the shot. Smooth misses don't count.

tmlphoto

I converted to RAW about 6 months ago & wouldn't go back. The primary reasons for me are exposure control ( much more control than adjustings levels on a JPEG) and White Balance control. I find post processing to be almost as fast when using PS CS. You must remember to add some contrast, some saturation and some sharpening to all of the RAW images (this is done to every JPEG in camera). Perhaps the folks that prefer JPEGs over RAW conversion are not adding in enough contrast, saturation & sharpening. The farther up the food chain your camera is (at least in Canon land) the more you have to add in post. ( this is done on purpose by Canon) Even the JPEGs are less processed on a 1DmII than on a 20D. I'll have to check out Capture one, although it sounds like you would have to drop some fairly serious cash for the upgraded version. Soryy for the long post. How about some "Shoot Me RAW" t-shirts .

DavidTO

tmlphoto wrote:

I'll have to check out Capture one, although it sounds like you would have to drop some fairly serious cash for the upgraded version. Soryy for the long post. How about some "Shoot Me RAW" t-shirts .

The $100 version of Capture One should be good for most. When I bought it the only mac versions were SE and Pro, so I bought SE. Then when I was having problems with skin tones being too magenta, I wanted to proof in CMYK, which is only available in Pro, so I upgraded. Aside from that, the lower versions would do me fine.

tmlphoto

DavidTO wrote:

The $100 version of Capture One should be good for most. When I bought it the only mac versions were SE and Pro, so I bought SE. Then when I was having problems with skin tones being too magenta, I wanted to proof in CMYK, which is only available in Pro, so I upgraded. Aside from that, the lower versions would do me fine.

I've also had problems with the magenta skin tones. Using CS PS it is hard to "eyeball" the skin tones and there is not a way to check them out until you get the JPEG. I would be very interested in being able to check the CMYK values when adjusting the RAW file. With PS CS is seems to be adjusted with the "Tone" slider, but I find it difficult to eyeball on the monitor. My Canon i9900 prints seem to be the worst when it comes to exaggerating the magenta skin tones, but when I checked out the CMYK values I found that the magenta was indeed higher than the yellow (I just recently saw this info in a post by Baldy).
Thanks for the info David. I'm going to check Capture one out very soon.

fish

DavidTO wrote:

The $100 version of Capture One should be good for most. When I bought it the only mac versions were SE and Pro, so I bought SE. Then when I was having problems with skin tones being too magenta, I wanted to proof in CMYK, which is only available in Pro, so I upgraded. Aside from that, the lower versions would do me fine.

Just for grins, I took a really lousy direct flash portrait of my daughter, then processed as best I could in both Elements and C1 demo, then put the small jpeg, elements image, and CI demo image side-by-side on my lovely 20" iMac screen for FW to evaluate. She chose the C1 image (no further processing in elements, btw) immediately and said that our daughter's hair "looked like spun gold". I'm sold and so is FW.

I've been mucking with the demo since I read your first post. fish likes it! fish will prolly buy it. thanks mate.