PDA

View Full Version : RAW a Matter of Choice?



benjikan
04-21-2007, 04:07 AM
I would strongly suggest that all of you who have the capacity to shoot in RAW do so. The latitude potential for future requirements are such that you can always go back to the original files and tweak them using the newest software available, which in the future may be capable of extracting even more of the nuances that our software is capable of doing today. JPEG is like analogue tape. The more you open and adjust the more the degradation.

Just a bit of advice that I feel is crucial for all of your future file manipulation.

Ben

D Thompson
04-21-2007, 05:12 AM
I've shot only RAW for 2-3 years now. Sure, it takes more storage, but it's worth it to me.

Bob_Benner
04-21-2007, 05:45 AM
I would like to start shooting in Raw, but I need to learn more about it. When someone says that the original Raw file is never damaged does that mean that you can change the image, tweek it, rotate it etc. without degrading it? So, if I take a raw file, change the white balance, exsposure, etc., save it then reopen it later and change it again it will have not been damaged by previous manipulation like a Jpeg? I think I will start shooting everything in Raw if that is the case. Anyone have any pointers for me to start out with. Thanks.

benjikan
04-21-2007, 06:40 AM
I would like to start shooting in Raw, but I need to learn more about it. When someone says that the original Raw file is never damaged does that mean that you can change the image, tweek it, rotate it etc. without degrading it? So, if I take a raw file, change the white balance, exsposure, etc., save it then reopen it later and change it again it will have not been damaged by previous manipulation like a Jpeg? I think I will start shooting everything in Raw if that is the case. Anyone have any pointers for me to start out with. Thanks.

As long as you save the manipulated file to another "name" your original "RAW" file will not be affected.

Ben

Prospero
04-21-2007, 07:01 AM
Bob, if you would use Nikon Capture NX, you don't even need to save as a different RAW file. If you safe the rawfile in this program it will also safe all the things that have been edited with it. If you open it again, you can change these settings again without losing any quality.

Just to add to Ben's advice for those thinking that RAW takes too much time: Many RAW editors offer batch converting. This way you can convert all the images you have taken in one go.
The advantage of that over shooting JPEG is that you always have the RAW file of the images that require extra editing (e.g. the white balance is off, the exposure needs adjustment, etc.).

Bob_Benner
04-21-2007, 06:16 PM
Thanks guys. I will actually be using CS2 for editing my raw files. I have already updated to the newest camera raw plug in for CS2.

zmikers
04-21-2007, 08:25 PM
I have read some comments in this forum saying things like, "I don't shoot RAW. I get the image I want straight out of the camera. If you have skill then you don't need to shoot RAW." To this, I say, "CRAP!" Sure, it's great to be able to take your pic straight from the camera and be happy with it. But if you shoot in RAW, its like insurance for those times that you have just missed the shot. It happens to everyone. I always shoot RAW and do not think it is too much of a hastle to work with. RAW has saved many a picture. This is my opinion anyways:D

LR Max
04-21-2007, 09:08 PM
Depends on the situation. My new photo gig requires me to take RAW. This is a pain, because its outdoor action shooting and I end up taking A LOT of photographs. Large quantity of large photo files are quite the pain in the ass to deal with. However, it does pay the bills so I will do what The Man wants.

If I am doing studio-ish type work, I'll use RAW. These usually lend themselves to a lot of adjustment and are low quantity of pictures.

Sometimes I'll do an outdoor event for free (to sharpen my skills for the real deal as shown above). These mass of photos get put up for free on the internet. I do no photo editing on these, and therefore I shoot medium size at normal quality. This setting is good enough for larger-ish prints, take up less space, and its easier for me.

I believe my main loathing of RAW is my current computer's inability to handle the large files.

Bob_Benner
04-23-2007, 06:02 PM
A quick question. When saving a Raw file after editing it what extension should I use (Tiff, Dng, Jpeg, etc). Thank you in advance for any replies.

benjikan
05-07-2007, 02:06 PM
A quick question. When saving a Raw file after editing it what extension should I use (Tiff, Dng, Jpeg, etc). Thank you in advance for any replies.

Generally I save in either TIFF (uncompressed) or in PS (Photoshop) Format my preference. Don't save in JPEG unless you have backed up on TFF or PS.

Ben

Norm in Fujino
05-07-2007, 07:45 PM
I do most of my conversions with Silkypix, and it's easy to save the conversion files with Silky's settings, so there's no problem with saving to jpegs for ordinary use. The original raw files remain untouched. I normally save to tiff only when I need a 16-bit file for HDR tone mapping.

Rhys
05-08-2007, 07:18 AM
Here are two images. The second is straight from the camera with just a shot settings conversion to JPEG. The first is post processed in RAW. Which is better?

Norm in Fujino
05-08-2007, 09:47 AM
Of the two, I think the from-the-camera jpeg appears to have the more natural white balance. It looks like the raw conversion used a higher color temperature and higher saturation as well, thus causing the yellow tint to the granite (?) and the strange vertigris effect (CA?) on the top of the statue. Both are underexposed for the shadows, which may be normal given the pointing direction to the sky, but in a shot like this I think I'd prefer to blow the highlights and get the detail in the dark areas below. You might also have more luck by reducing the contrast in raw.

Rhys
05-08-2007, 04:14 PM
Of the two, I think the from-the-camera jpeg appears to have the more natural white balance. It looks like the raw conversion used a higher color temperature and higher saturation as well, thus causing the yellow tint to the granite (?) and the strange vertigris effect (CA?) on the top of the statue. Both are underexposed for the shadows, which may be normal given the pointing direction to the sky, but in a shot like this I think I'd prefer to blow the highlights and get the detail in the dark areas below. You might also have more luck by reducing the contrast in raw.

The statue did have verdgree. I set the RAW conversion to "cloudy" - which it was. The colours look pretty accurate although I do agree a shade over-saturated.

My favourite photo from Washington is this though....