shooting raw pictures

amadeus

if someone wouldn't mind can you either give me a laymens rundown of what that term means. is it pretty much for digital SLRs? would my Canon A95 be able to do it? if there is another thread anyone knows about and you can point me there that would be great. thanks in advance for any input. I haven't bought myself a xmas present yet and the new digital rebel XTI is at the top of the list.

merry xmas and thanks in advance.

Scott_Quier

There are many non-dSLRs that shoot RAW. But, according to the review found here, your camera does not shoot stills in RAW format, only JPG.

For an overview of RAW, take a look at this thread (for a start).

DavidTO

Amadeus,

The most important question before you set out on shooting RAW is why? What do you want to accomplish with your photography?

amadeus

DavidTO wrote:

Amadeus,

The most important question before you set out on shooting RAW is why? What do you want to accomplish with your photography?

well I don't know because I don't know what raw is. I guess the reason I'm asking is that I've seen it mentioned that you're always better shooting raw shots.

DavidTO

amadeus wrote:

well I don't know because I don't know what raw is. I guess the reason I'm asking is that I've seen it mentioned that you're always better shooting raw shots.

No, not always. Plenty of events shooters would be worse off, since it adds another step to their workflow and would slow them down too much.

RAW lets you make decisions that the camera makes for you otherwise. Color temperature, exposure, etc.

If you want to spend time working on your images, you should learn RAW and then decide whether you need it or not. But you may want to spend your time riding, shooting and drinking, I dunno.

Phyxius

I have to agree with David's post. I don't really have a RAW editor, just a very basic converter in Photoshop that allows me to adjust exposure up or down a tad and a white balance editor.

RAW simply means that your camera does not edit or compress the image you take, so there are no jpeg artifacts. You have a little more leway when adjusting exposure in post production, but will still get noise if you were too far off proper exposure when setting up the image.

There are much better programs that allow some great editing of RAW files, but I'm am totally unaware of their wonder. I also mainly shoot horse shows, and it would take me FOREVER to go through 400-500 pictures and edit every single one before uploading them. Since I also have a day job I would never get the pictures online in a timely manner if I shot all RAW. Of course you can also shoot RAW+small JPG, but that's a waste of time and memory for me.

So, there are advantages and disadvantages to RAW. I recently tested RAW shooting at a high school Christmas concert and I was very happy with the fact that I could play with exposure after the fact, though it took a rather long time to get through the 80 shots.

hgernhardtjr

Amadeus ...

To answer your question somewhat simply:

Between the picture snap and the final printed picture is significant computerized in-camera processing. In a JPG image the camera's built in computer and algorithms decide how the photo should look, compresses it, and produces the JPG image. This is usually a very nice, average photo file, and ready to print.

RAW (by what ever name or extension) files take much of the middle step out of the mixture. In a Canon 30D for example you get a RAW file named CR2. Many of the otherwise automated/computerized in-camera steps are bypassed and, in some formats, only the raw data off the sensor is saved as a possibly very large file, several times bigger than a .jpg file.

YOU, when you open the file in appropriate software, have to make all those previously-automated-in-camera decisions based on your likes and dislikes. You are working on the raw data and depending on your skills may be able to out-think those built-in algorithms and ultimately produce a better printed shot.

DavidTO

When in doubt, read the Wikipedia.

wolfwoods

Eat it RAW!
RAW is the digital data before it is converted into a jpg or TIFF or other common format. RAW files are very large by comparison because the data has not been processed in a way to preserve "only the important stuff." Saving RAW allows you to use out-of-camera algorithms to convert the data to jpg rather than settling for what is in -the-camera.

The real advantage of RAW is the ability to make adjustments without leaving behind artifacts. Shooting and making adjustments and saving JPEG means an immediate loss of quality and additional losses each time you save your edits. If you shoot RAW, you can alter many things in like (WB, curves, sharpening) without altering the original data and with no loss of quality. Finally, JPEG is limited to 8 bits per channel. You get 12 bits with RAW, which makes a lot of difference if you like editing your pictures.

The downsides are needing larger memory cards, larger disk drives and computer memory, longer transfer times, recording DVDs instead of CDs and check to make sure your RAW files are compatible with your favorite software.

You might ask yourself what you intend to do with the pictures you take. If you are going to email them or put them on a web-based slide show, JPEG may be good enough for you. If you are going to print 11 x 14's for critical review and/or sale, better shoot and adjust RAW.

pathfinder

With the cost of storage falling, I have begun shooting RAW + medium jpgs. This lets me use jpgs if they are acceptable, but makes RAW available if they are not.

My Canon G5 can shoot in RAW, but it is more time consuming to create images from RAW than straight from the camera.

Scott_Quier

Some, if not all, Canon RAW files inlcude a JPG image in the file that can be easily extracted by any number of pre-viewers. Adobe Camera Raw, Canon Digital Photo Professional, Breeze Browser are just a few of the many programs that enable you to do preview your images without really needing to open/process the RAW file. This allows for the quick/easy culling of images that don't deserve to see the light of day. Take those that made the first cut and go from there.

Jeffro

wolfwoods wrote:

If you are going to print 11 x 14's for critical review and/or sale, better shoot and adjust RAW.

Better? Not really. I have shot and sold many a 20x30 print, both from my 6mp Rebel and 8mp 20D, shooting large jpeg, straight from the camera. I even let the lab(s) do all the upsizing. I have never had a bad print. Most people can't believe the prints came from digital.

I don't shoot RAW for my event photography but do use it for portrait work, and landscape / wildlife from time to time, as it will give you a digital "negative" that you can adjust, and readjust without image loss.

There is a time and a place for using RAW, and I've found it's more of a personal choice thing.

gus

amadeus wrote:

if someone wouldn't mind can you either give me a laymens rundown of what that term means. is it pretty much for digital SLRs? would my Canon A95 be able to do it? if there is another thread anyone knows about and you can point me there that would be great. thanks in advance for any input. I haven't bought myself a xmas present yet and the new digital rebel XTI is at the top of the list.

merry xmas and thanks in advance.

Everyone has told you what it is & hell google will keep you reading for several years on the subject. The more i learn about RAW the more i shoot jpeg.

Thats just my 2 bob on the subject anyway.

amadeus

thanks for all the input from everyone.

I think I have enough of an understanding to know that I'll stick with JPEG for now.

Matthew Saville

JPG is the new RAW...

amadeus wrote:

thanks for all the input from everyone.

I think I have enough of an understanding to know that I'll stick with JPEG for now.

The HUGE advantage of a RAW processor such as Adobe Bridge or Lightroom is this:

You don't edit the original photo. Now before we get into a fight- I'm not talking about what you're probably thinking. What I mean is this: With a raw processor, you get to edit and un-edit and re-edit your images almost instantly, because the software is just "pretending" to edit it, showing you what it would look like IF you were to edit it, and storing all those edits in a little .XMP file that is just a few KB. No more freaking enormous .PSD or TIF files!

When it comes time to actually, truly edit your images, you just click "output" or whatever the interface calls the button, dictate the file type and location, and let it run. This is where you get up and go make a sandwich or do your laundry, while your photos edit themselves. Sure, you spent SOME time editing them, but everything you did happened relatively instantly. compared to opening it up in photoshop, clicking Image > Adjust > Levels / Contrast / Color etc. etc.



Here's why I said "JPG is the new RAW":

RAW processing software previously would only do this for RAW files. If you shot JPG and wanted to do a little editing, you HAD to open it up in Photoshop and twiddle your thumbs while each edit ran it's work.

But not anymore. Software such as Adobe Lightroom, and now the new version of Photoshop, CS3, will give you the RAW processing interface for almost ANY file type. You can even edit a RAW and a JPG image side-by-side! (I think)

Of course if you're shooting JPG you don't have all the true camera presets at your disposal, but those are minor extras that you can easily do without if the shooting conditions are predictable and you've mastered your camera. You still get a slider for WB and exposure etc, and more importantly you still get to edit your images without actually editing them, until you're ready to click "output" and walk away...

So, while I can't recommend shooting RAW as strongly as I used to, I CAN highly recommend editing with software that does give you this interface. It will revolutionize your workflow...

Take care,
-Matt-

Angelo

beyond any discussion of quality / processing etc etc
there is one very important factor of RAW files relative to copyright protection / ownership...

only one person can have a RAW file of any photo and that's the original photographer. Like a film negative, in any discussion of legal copyright, only the original shooter, who holds the RAW file can prove ownership.

BillyVerden

Angelo wrote:

beyond any discussion of quality / processing etc etc
there is one very important factor of RAW files relative to copyright protection / ownership...

only one person can have a RAW file of any photo and that's the original photographer. Like a film negative, in any discussion of legal copyright, only the original shooter, who holds the RAW file can prove ownership.

...awesome answer! I totally agree. If anyone doesn't believe or see the difference in processing RAW vs JPG. Then they at least need to read your statement as to why RAW is THE way to shoot. Not that all my shots need protection. But one never knows when or if they get a winner.

"Thanks Angelo"

wolfwoods

Jeffro wrote:

Better? Not really. I have shot and sold many a 20x30 print, both from my 6mp Rebel and 8mp 20D, shooting large jpeg, straight from the camera. I even let the lab(s) do all the upsizing. I have never had a bad print. Most people can't believe the prints came from digital.

I don't shoot RAW for my event photography but do use it for portrait work, and landscape / wildlife from time to time, as it will give you a digital "negative" that you can adjust, and readjust without image loss.

There is a time and a place for using RAW, and I've found it's more of a personal choice thing.

I yield! I didn't say he HAD to shoot RAW, I was only tring to suggest it was better to shoot RAW. I agree a well produced JPEG can yield very attractive photos. But I sometimes wonder if they would be better if I'd started with RAW.

dmcreations

Angelo wrote:

beyond any discussion of quality / processing etc etc
there is one very important factor of RAW files relative to copyright protection / ownership...

only one person can have a RAW file of any photo and that's the original photographer. Like a film negative, in any discussion of legal copyright, only the original shooter, who holds the RAW file can prove ownership.

That's presuming that the photographer does not sell/distribute his RAW files?? Or is there some sort of hardware ID/serial number that gets recorded into the file in-camera that can be matched to the photographer's camera?

Jeffro

amadeus wrote:

if someone wouldn't mind can you either give me a laymens rundown of what that term means. is it pretty much for digital SLRs? would my Canon A95 be able to do it? if there is another thread anyone knows about and you can point me there that would be great. thanks in advance for any input. I haven't bought myself a xmas present yet and the new digital rebel XTI is at the top of the list.

merry xmas and thanks in advance.

You can relate RAW to film then going to your own darkroom, and jpeg with film and sending your shots to the lab. Your PC is your darkroom with RAW and the camera is the lab with jpeg.

That's as simple as I can make it.....:D

Scott_Quier

dmcreations wrote:

That's presuming that the photographer does not sell/distribute his RAW files?? Or is there some sort of hardware ID/serial number that gets recorded into the file in-camera that can be matched to the photographer's camera?

Sure. The EXIF records camera serial number. But, data is data and can be changed should one want to.

Hmmm, I wonder if CR2 files have a CRC or check-sum value stored in the file?

kdog

Scott_Quier wrote:

Sure. The EXIF records camera serial number. But, data is data and can be changed should one want to.

Hmmm, I wonder if CR2 files have a CRC or check-sum value stored in the file?

Wouldn't help. It would be just as easy to update the checksum after buggering up the EXIF info. Even if you or the camera cryptographically signed the image, there's nothing to prevent somebody taking the same image and resigning it. (Although signing it would guard against somebody altering your image and attempting to attribute the altered work back to you.)

Frankly, I see no benefit to using RAW images over JPG for proof of ownership. The original JPG image from the camera is just as unique as the RAW image. Nobody can recreate the original JPG from a smaller web-copy. And you're just as hosed if you give away the RAW image as you are the original JPG. It's like hitting your head against the wall. Don't do that. :giggle

-joel

dmcreations

So basically there's nothing inherently more secure about using RAW than JPG. You're just less likely to distribute your RAW files to clients, so if you have the RAW file, and the other person only has the JPG, then you could 'prove' ownership. In other words, you can create a JPG from a RAW, not a RAW from a JPG.

mkress65

Not regarding the use of RAW as proof of ownership, but back to the OP's broader question, there is a nice, relatively simple article at the Luminous Landscape here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml