Never shot in RAW

Rene`

I think that I may need to shoot in RAW this weekend. But I have never done it. when you shoot in RAW can you open the images in PS? What has to be done first?

Any help is appreciated.

wxwax

1/ You'll need Photoshops plug-in for your camera's RAW files. You'll need to go to Adobe's site and download the latest Camera Raw Plugs-In and put it into your Photoshop plug-in folder.

2/ Problem: if you don't have CS2, you can't use their latest plug-in update. This sucks very large objects.

3/ One alternative is to find another raw file converter. Did Pentax include one with your camera? If so, use that one. If not, maybe buy another. I found this free one. Here's a discussion of it.

For the record, I intensely dislike Adobe's practice of making their raw converter updates only work on the latest version of Photoshop. I see it as a form of blackmail to force you to upgrade.

luke_church

I think that if you have a bit of time you can use their free DNG converter to do a

RAW -> DNG conversion

with the latest version of the DNG processor.

Then open the DNG file. I was under the impression that Photoshop CS can open DNGs created by the DNG processor, using the latest version of the Camera Raw plugin that was compatible with CS.

(Having said which, I've never done this, I'd put your camera in RAW+JPG mode to be on the safe side)

Lightroom should also be capable of handling your RAW files, and pushing them into a format Photoshop can open (e.g. PSD). But treat Lightroom's DNG files with a certain amount of trepidation.

wxwax

luke_church wrote:

I think that if you have a bit of time you can use their free DNG converter to do a

RAW -> DNG conversion

with the latest version of the DNG processor.

Then open the DNG file. I was under the impression that Photoshop CS can open DNGs created by the DNG processor, using the latest version of the Camera Raw plugin that was compatible with CS.

(Having said which, I've never done this, I'd put your camera in RAW+JPG mode to be on the safe side)

Lightroom should also be capable of handling your RAW files, and pushing them into a format Photoshop can open (e.g. PSD). But treat Lightroom's DNG files with a certain amount of trepidation.

Can't remember if you need to get a .dng plug-in, but ultimately, yes, you can use a .dng without upgrading Photoshop.

StevenV

Rene` wrote:

I think that I may need to shoot in RAW this weekend.

I think the real question is why you feel that you might 'need' to, without any practice or experience. If this is for a special event, that seems like a potential problem in the making. I'd suggest making sure that you not only have the tools (hopefully the rest of the replies here help with that) but get some practice in beforehand as well. Granted, RAW normally means that there's more room for cleanup & correction afterwards, but I wouldn't want to be counting on a workflow that I'd never done before.

Shay Stephens

I wouldn't recommend converting to DNG at this time. The conversion process is not archive quality and is proprietary to Adobe. For the time being, one would be better off sticking with the original raw file.

So if you convert to dng, do not get rid of the original raw file.

Shay Stephens

wxwax wrote:

For the record, I intensely dislike Adobe's practice of making their raw converter updates only work on the latest version of Photoshop. I see it as a form of blackmail to force you to upgrade.

That is one of the reasons I am leaving Photoshop.

luke_church

Shay Stephens wrote:

I wouldn't recommend converting to DNG at this time.

Hi Shay,

Just to be clear, I was suggesting converting to DNG **only** for the purpose of opening the file in an older version of Photoshop.

I'm not trying to restart our discussion about lock-in, interesting thought that would be , I'm afraid that I'm short on time right now.

Hope you're keeping well, and I'd be very interested how the vendor-free photography world is treating you. Must catch up with you at some point about that.

All the best

Luke

dogwood

Shay Stephens wrote:

I wouldn't recommend converting to DNG at this time. The conversion process is not archive quality and is proprietary to Adobe. For the time being, one would be better off sticking with the original raw file.

So if you convert to dng, do not get rid of the original raw file.

My feeling is similar on this, though I archive my files as tiffs and jpegs. Yeah, I save RAWs too, but as Adobe is showing us, the software to convert RAWs may leave you hangin' (yeah, yeah, it's hard to think of Nikon or Canon going out of business, but twenty years ago who would have predicted film would be in such dramatic decline?)

My point (yeah, yeah, there is one) is to develop an archive system with multiple options. Try not to rely on just one format (even DNG or RAW) that will survive the dramatic changes in digital imaging likely to take place in the next few years. If you shoot RAW, make sure to have a jpeg or tiff too... just in case.

Shay Stephens

dogwood wrote:

My feeling is similar on this, though I archive my files as tiffs and jpegs. Yeah, I save RAWs too, but as Adobe is showing us, the software to convert RAWs may leave you hangin' (yeah, yeah, it's hard to think of Nikon or Canon going out of business, but twenty years ago who would have predicted film would be in such dramatic decline?)

My point (yeah, yeah, there is one) is to develop an archive system with multiple options. Try not to rely on just one format (even DNG or RAW) that will survive the dramatic changes in digital imaging likely to take place in the next few years. If you shoot RAW, make sure to have a jpeg or tiff too... just in case.

That is a good point. I archive the raw and rendered jpg's

Shay Stephens

luke_church wrote:

Must catch up with you at some point about that.

All the best

Luke

That would be great

Ric Grupe

I think that I may need to shoot in RAW this weekend.

I'm too self conscious to shoot in the RAW.

I keep my clothes on and shoot JPEGs.:D

As a hobbyist I see no good reason to bother with RAW.

Rene`

Ric Grupe wrote:

I'm too self conscious to shoot in the RAW.

I keep my clothes on and shoot JPEGs.:D

As a hobbyist I see no good reason to bother with RAW.

This is too funny!

pathfinder

Rene'

Large volume Compact Flash gets cheaper every day - If this is an important shoot, and you are not sure you are comfortable shooting in RAW only, why not set your camera to shoot in RAW + Large jpg?

That will give you the comfort of shooting jpgs like you are used to doing, and the security of RAW if you need more sophisticated white balance and exposure post processing should the need arise.

I have taken to shooting in RAW + med jpgs for most of my shooting. If the jpgs look good, then little editing is required. IF they will not serve, then RAW file to the rescue .

Nikolai

Few thoughts....

1) It's not wise to try something totally unfamiliar on a big event. That's what the practice is for

2) AFAIK, all RAW plugins for Adobe are free. And if one still uses CS or prior version - time to get on the CS3 bandwagon, even if it's only beta

3) RAW is *not* gonna die overnight, at least for all the major brands. Worst case scenario, there will be a way to convert it to some other format with a minimum quality loss. But I really-really don't think it's gonna happen.

Just my 0.0000002 of the f/stop

ccpickre

Rene` wrote:

I think that I may need to shoot in RAW this weekend. But I have never done it. when you shoot in RAW can you open the images in PS? What has to be done first?

Any help is appreciated.

I am a recent convert as well. Never shot RAW, never understood it, never cared to bother and learn.

Until I started working for the school paper and ruined some BEAUTIFUL front pgae photos, because of the "limitations" of JPEG and newspaper printing.

Now, since everyone has convered the tools of the trade, you're probably worried about whether the shooting part is different.

In my experience, it's the same thing. You still want to think about ISO, Aperture, Shutter speed, exposure, etc. And the same rules will apply, as any other photo you shot in JPEG. RAW will just allow you MUCH more flexibility in post manipulations. RAWS are larger because it records much more info, allowing said post work.

I recently bought a 4 gig Kingston card because when I did weekend shoots and the Newspaper room is closed on the weekend, I had no way to store those photos, and ran out of space REAL fast. Most people will tell you 4 gigs is too risky, it's not safe, and it's too much to "lose". So you can do more than one 2 gig (which will be cheaper as well if you already own one).

But I prefer RAW now, because it is easier to work with on the computer, allowing for more manipulation. Just like everyone said, make sure you have the right plug ins, cause it was such a hassle to work with RAWS when I didn't have them for Photoshop.

As for the "forced upgrade" of photoshop, sweet talk a college student to use their student discount for you. Preferably one NOT in a photography field, so they won't have already used it.

douglas

Currently my main reason for shooting in raw (which by the way ive never seen mentioned b4 suprisingly) is for uncompressed quality at a much smaller file size than tiff. I currently only own Canon's stock raw converter that came with my xti, i do not perticularly like it so 90% of the time all i do is convert and save as shot. I do save and process in tiff format, but atleast its not taking up all that extra space on my memory cards. I do plan on getting a raw converter that I like better, i have tried a couple trial versions, when I get one I will do more processing in raw format. But right now its just a matter of raw being an uncompressed format that is alot smaller file size than tiff taking up my memory card space.