Raw

sara505

Switching over to RAW - there must be some great turorials out there? Advice, comments?

Art Scott

sara505 wrote:

Switching over to RAW - there must be some great turorials out there? Advice, comments?

What are you post processing with? If it is lightroom, then I recommend Scott Kelby's book " Lightroom for Photogs".

If it is ACR with Photoshop CS or CS2 then I recommend one of the REal World Raw books by Bruce Fraizer......

See 'em all the time at the local Barnes and Noble and also Borders ......if you need to order due to lack of good bookstores in your town.....then I highly recommend www.bookpool.com ....... great discounted prices

Strav

The Bruce Fraser books are very good - waiting for the CS3 guide to come out in Aug.

sara505

Art Scott wrote:

What are you post processing with? If it is lightroom, then I recommend Scott Kelby's book " Lightroom for Photogs".

If it is ACR with Photoshop CS or CS2 then I recommend one of the REal World Raw books by Bruce Fraizer......

See 'em all the time at the local Barnes and Noble and also Borders ......if you need to order due to lack of good bookstores in your town.....then I highly recommend www.bookpool.com ....... great discounted prices

Thanks, Art. Using an antiquated version of ps, combined with Canon Digital Photo Professional.

I'm the "leap, then look" type. I never read instructions until after I've put the thing together. I have a friend who has given me the basics - he has been goading me to do this, and now I'm ready. Will check out those books, and poke around here. Thanks so much. I'm excited about the possibilities, nervous about the learning curve, extra time at computer. Here's a sample of a family shoot from last evening here on the Vineyard - perfect late afteroon/hazy light. minimal processing - needs to be lightened up a bit, imo. I think it may be simply a matter of "doing it," and perusing books, discussions. Seems I can simply "save as jpg," and retain original RAW file - how to do this in the most time efficient manner would be one question - also wondering if I will be doing preliminary processing in DPP, other stuff in PS after converting?

sara505

Here's the same image, tweaked (levels and a little sharpening) in ps, as I already know how to do, quickly and well. Do I have to do this every time - RAW utility, then PS? Or?

claudermilk

IMHO Bruce Frasier's Real World Camera RAW book is a good read, even if you aren't using ACR. Yes, it is heavily ACR-centric, but the concepts translate across all RAW converters & he gets into the why, which to me is more important than just "twiddle the dial to here" recipes.

Thanks for the bookpool link, Art. I'm always on the lookout for other good book sources (I tend to look at allbookstores.com). I refuse to use Amazon.

sara505

claudermilk wrote:

IMHO Bruce Frasier's Real World Camera RAW book is a good read, even if you aren't using ACR. Yes, it is heavily ACR-centric, but the concepts translate across all RAW converters & he gets into the why, which to me is more important than just "twiddle the dial to here" recipes.

Thanks for the bookpool link, Art. I'm always on the lookout for other good book sources (I tend to look at allbookstores.com). I refuse to use Amazon.

What's ACR?

jfriend

sara505 wrote:

What's ACR?

ACR = Adobe Camera RAW - the RAW processor that comes with Adobe Photoshop and built into Adobe Lightroom.

sara505

jfriend wrote:

ACR = Adobe Camera RAW - the RAW processor that comes with Adobe Photoshop and built into Adobe Lightroom.

Perhaps I should upgrade my antiquated PS version and use ACR/Lightroom, bypass the Canon utility altogether?

claudermilk

If you're happy with DPP (Digital Photo Professional--we tend to shorten these long converter names), then stick with it. There are a number of people who prefer its output to any third party converters; I happen to hate the UI enough to go looking elsewhere. Updating PS and looking at other tools can get expensive quickly. ...someone did warn you DSLRs are expensive, didn't they?

mrcoons

Sara, you can pick up some good tips on Canon's DPP site. DPP is a little limited compared to the other converters but it can still be useful.

Van Isle

If you haven't already, set aside a good day or so to search "RAW" on this forum and read and take notes! There are more than a few "RAW for Dummies" threads here. It's all I've done, and I've got it down (the CONCEPT, anyway !) I'm still tidying up my workflow, of course, because there are more steps involved as opposed to JPEGs right out of the camera. But the control and flexibility is awesome. It's akin to having your own darkroom instead of just getting your 35mm done at the drug store.

VI

sara505

Van Isle wrote:

If you haven't already, set aside a good day or so to search "RAW" on this forum and read and take notes! There are more than a few "RAW for Dummies" threads here. It's all I've done, and I've got it down (the CONCEPT, anyway !) I'm still tidying up my workflow, of course, because there are more steps involved as opposed to JPEGs right out of the camera. But the control and flexibility is awesome. It's akin to having your own darkroom instead of just getting your 35mm done at the drug store.

VI

Thanks for the replies. I spent some time yesterday messing with DPP, and have some questions and concerns.

I am sure RAW is the way to go, have been putting it off for a while. But
if RAW is so great, and part of its value is in being able to convert to TIFF files for superior prints, what's the point if I can't upload tiff files to my smugmug site - this is a big part of my photo business - my customers love being able to see and share their photos, and it's a convenient way to market prints.
Will I now have to save as tiff and jpg?

DPP seems a little cumbersome, so far, especially when it comes to saving images - so far have only figured out how to save one image at a time - and it is very slow.

I was unable to access the tutorials at the DPP site.

I guess I'm about to embark on yet another learning curve!

Is RAW really worth it?

What about disk space?
An external hard drive will take care of this issue?

I am happy with the family shoot from the other evening, great images, but have not yet figured out what to do with the pictures - do I want to shoot a wedding coming up this weekend and trust I'll figure out how to deal with it all later? Oh my, I've opened Pandora's box!

Yes, will browse d-grin for RAW conversations, and I have a few books back in Brookline (I'm on the Vineyard right now).

Thanks, everyone, going swimming now.

jfriend

sara505 wrote:

I am sure RAW is the way to go, have been putting it off for a while. But if RAW is so great, and part of its value is in being able to convert to TIFF files for superior prints, what's the point if I can't upload tiff files to my smugmug site - this is a big part of my photo business - my customers love being able to see and share their photos, and it's a convenient way to market prints.
Will I now have to save as tiff and jpg?

TIFF or PSD are useful as storage formats for images that you are in the middle of modifying (you can save layers in them too) and want a lossless way to save them. When printing or displaying a final result, however, a high quality JPEG (JPEG quality level 10) will give you just as good a results and there is no need to use TIFF.

Van Isle

Tiffs are really big files as they contain lots of data used in the making of the image and are lossless. When you save as JPEG a conversion takes place that eliminates lots of data which is virtually invisible to the eye, as well as info like "layers." A (high quality) JPEG is still really good to print. However, not only does the conversion lose data, but it does so EVERYTIME you open and save the file.

Workflow idea: do basic RAW conversion stuff. Convert to TIFF or PSD for PS work. Once you've got your product, convert to JPEG and upload to website, print, etc.

Disk space is a concern. But once you've made the JPEG and uploaded it, you can delete because you still have the RAW file (digital negative) from which you made the "print".

And is it worth it? YES! snap a few images of slightly yellow wedding dresses, and you'll agree that changing the white balance after the shoot is a very nice thing!

Remember, you don't have to shoot RAW all the time, nor do you have to fully process every single image you take. Try it, and if it has no value for you forget about it!

Happy shooting!

Seefutlung

I prefer DPP (version 3) for ISO 400 and under. I prefer RSP (no longer available) at ISO 400 and higher.

I prefer both to ACR and Lightroom.

Gary

sara505

jfriend wrote:

TIFF or PSD are useful as storage formats for images that you are in the middle of modifying (you can save layers in them too) and want a lossless way to save them. When printing or displaying a final result, however, a high quality JPEG (JPEG quality level 10) will give you just as good a results and there is no need to use TIFF.

Okay, John. Thanks.

sara505

Van Isle wrote:

Tiffs are really big files as they contain lots of data used in the making of the image and are lossless. When you save as JPEG a conversion takes place that eliminates lots of data which is virtually invisible to the eye, as well as info like "layers." A (high quality) JPEG is still really good to print. However, not only does the conversion lose data, but it does so EVERYTIME you open and save the file.

Workflow idea: do basic RAW conversion stuff. Convert to TIFF or PSD for PS work. Once you've got your product, convert to JPEG and upload to website, print, etc.

Disk space is a concern. But once you've made the JPEG and uploaded it, you can delete because you still have the RAW file (digital negative) from which you made the "print".

And is it worth it? YES! snap a few images of slightly yellow wedding dresses, and you'll agree that changing the white balance after the shoot is a very nice thing!

Remember, you don't have to shoot RAW all the time, nor do you have to fully process every single image you take. Try it, and if it has no value for you forget about it!

Happy shooting!

iow, I'm keeping the unchanged RAW file as my "source, " or negatives, then delete the jpg? after all that work adjusting? Don't I want to file it somewhere? And the RAW files themselves are huge - the family shoot fromthe other evening, slightly under 200 images is 1.56 GB. This could add up!

A jpg loses info every time you open it and save it?? Really? Even if you don't alter it?

Thanks for your help, I'm feeling a bit encouraged.

sara505

Seefutlung wrote:

I prefer DPP (version 3) for ISO 400 and under. I prefer RSP (no longer available) at ISO 400 and higher.

I prefer both to ACR and Lightroom.

Gary

Good to know. Why do you prefer RSP for ISO 400 and higher?

sara505

Another question: I'm working on a batch from Fourth of July - shot in RAW - Maybe it's my imagination, but I notice most of the images are very good quality, they look great, actually, with very little adjustment needed, just a tweak on the WB (awesome!) Is this the nature of RAW, or am I just getting better?

sara505

Ok, I'm getting the hang of this. So, I'm doing basic RAW and RGB adjustments in DPP. Seems simple enough. I can see, in some ways, it's more straightforward - with vastly more latitude! - than working a jpg image in ps. But obviously, I would use ps for cropping, moving heads, layering, etc. The save mechanism even doesn't bother me as much, as once I hit "enter," I am able to quickly move to the next image, by the time I've figured out what I wnat to do, if anything, "save" is completed.

Question: in the "convert and save" window there's an option for dpi output - do I need to mess with this? It's set at 350dpi.

What's the difference between setting the brightness, sharpness, tone, etc. in RAW and RGB?

I'm quite impressed, so far.

Seefutlung

Once you get reasonably familar with DPP ... it is really fast. I've heard that anything more than 300 DPI is wasted ... but I still save at 350 just in case. The sharpening is the same in RAW and RGB, the other tools work a bit differently. Also you can grab the bars on all edges of the graphs, and by pulling them in or out will effect the image in both RAW and RGB. I like the curves better in DPP than CS2. And in RGB you can play with Liminance RGB or RGB R G B and individual colors. ... And I like the monochromatic conversion in DPP. If you're in LA, LAShooters has the occasional workshop for DPP.

Gary

Seefutlung

sara505 wrote:

Good to know. Why do you prefer RSP for ISO 400 and higher?

RSP has better noise control and it is a bit muddy (less contrast) when compared to DPP. One of the trade offs of high ISO is that your images get more contrasty ... DPP seems to pile on more contrst on an already contrasty shot while RSP tones the image down a bit.

Gary

sara505

Seefutlung wrote:

Once you get reasonably familar with DPP ... it is really fast. I've heard that anything more than 300 DPI is wasted ... but I still save at 350 just in case. The sharpening is the same in RAW and RGB, the other tools work a bit differently. Also you can grab the bars on all edges of the graphs, and by pulling them in or out will effect the image in both RAW and RGB. I like the curves better in DPP than CS2. And in RGB you can play with Liminance RGB or RGB R G B and individual colors. ... And I like the monochromatic conversion in DPP. If you're in LA, LAShooters has the occasional workshop for DPP.

Gary

Thanks, Gary - That's what I'm seeing- faster than PS with adjustment layers, etc. I think I'm pretty much sold on this so far. I'm in New England - Boston and the Vineyard, the best of two worlds - but my daughter is in LA. Don't know why I can't access the DPP tutorials - it starts to open, then the little turning gizmo "breaks." Something to do with installing the active-x, I think.

sara505

Seefutlung wrote:

RSP has better noise control and it is a bit muddy (less contrast) when compared to DPP. One of the trade offs of high ISO is that your images get more contrasty ... DPP seems to pile on more contrst on an already contrasty shot while RSP tones the image down a bit.

Gary

But RSP is no longer available? Is there an equivalent?

pyrtek

sara505 wrote:

But RSP is no longer available? Is there an equivalent?

Adobe Lightroom 1.1 can be considered RPS's replacement.

ziggy53

sara505 wrote:

But RSP is no longer available? Is there an equivalent?

Raw Shooter Essentials 2006 is still available (for free) and works pretty well. It allows a degree of semi-automation, in that you can copy settings to use against other, similarly exposed images, and then process those images as a batch.

It allows saving as 16 bit or 8 bit TIF as well as 8 bit JPG and different colorspace options. It's also pretty fast.

In really contrasty light, I often use the output of RSE and the output from i2e, combining them in PS. I found that the resulting images look better printed than either of the two applications alone (yes it's a lot of work.)

Both mentioned applications require Windows 2000 or above (XP Pro or XP MCE highly recommended.)

RSE 2006 free download:
http://www.photo-freeware.net/raw-shooter-essentials.php

i2e Image Editor discussion and discount thread:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=51034

claudermilk

pyrtek wrote:

Adobe Lightroom 1.1 can be considered RPS's replacement.

I wouldn't. But then I don't care for either (RSP's awful color rendition--a shame as the rest was very nice, LR's jack-of-all-trades compromises--bleh). RSP is an orphan app with no support--I'd personally prefer to stick with a current, supported app that will see improvements and will support newer cameras (sooner or later you will update & RSP will no longer be an option).

Anyway, my method is convert to 16-bit TIFF (65k levels vs 256), do final tweaking in PS and save to JPEG. The TIFF gets erased & the JPEG stays. I only convert the RAWs that I want to spend the time on, so they get rated & at a minimum threshold I start converting.

It sounds like you're well on your way climbing the learning curve. Once it all strats making sense things go faster & the edits get better.

sara505

claudermilk wrote:

I wouldn't. But then I don't care for either (RSP's awful color rendition--a shame as the rest was very nice, LR's jack-of-all-trades compromises--bleh). RSP is an orphan app with no support--I'd personally prefer to stick with a current, supported app that will see improvements and will support newer cameras (sooner or later you will update & RSP will no longer be an option).

Anyway, my method is convert to 16-bit TIFF (65k levels vs 256), do final tweaking in PS and save to JPEG. The TIFF gets erased & the JPEG stays. I only convert the RAWs that I want to spend the time on, so they get rated & at a minimum threshold I start converting.

It sounds like you're well on your way climbing the learning curve. Once it all strats making sense things go faster & the edits get better.

But you save the RAW negatives?

IOW, DPP is an okay utility with which to do the basic RAW adjustments?

I'm still wondering - maybe it's psychological, but it seems my original RAW image is better, in general, than shooting in jpg?

This is all very helpful info - thank you! I'm very excited about having entered the new world of RAW, with all its possibilities.

claudermilk

Yes, I save all the RAW files. Well, except the complete loser images (OOF, awful composition, etc.) which find their way to the round file.

Yes, DPP is a perfectly good converter. There are many photographers who prefer it and are willing to put up with the clunky interface for the end result. I'm not one of those, I went looking at what else was out there; I cut my teeth on Adobe Camera Raw as it did a decent enough job of conversion, opended the files right into PS and I could get my head around the interface quickly. I then tried demos of every converter I could find and settled on Bibble Pro as my converter of choice; I'm going to add LightZone as a second option soon.

The RAW vs JPEG thing is a personal choice. I do both depending on the situation. When I'm doing family snaps-type shooting, I'll shoot JPEG and ake sure the camera is set to get exposure nailed--that allows me to quickly process the images & get them up on my private family galleries. For personal artistic work and paying jobs, I shoot RAW so I can get every bit of quality out of the hero shots that I can. I guess this is why I'm finding the RAW vs JPEG online debates so tiresome these days (fair warning, I'm not real nice on those threads. :grim:gun2)

Van Isle

And as far as saving RAW files go, in most editors when you save the RAW file you also save the file that contains all your adjustments. So when you delete the JPEG to save space after it's been uploaded to a website or printed, you can easily go back to the RAW file and make another JPEG, same size, quality, or different. The scope is infinite!

VI

PS it also sounds like your getting the hang of making the shot in-camera. Although you can PP the heck out of pictures, there is nothing better than a great shot made on site. PP is good for little tweaks if you need it; much more becomes noticeable and detracts from final quality.