Help...RAW, a complete mystery to me.

Dave in Wales

Dave in Wales

Messages
3,391
Edit My Images
Yes
As the title says, I've never understood RAW.:shake:

I have a D90 and want to try and get the best out it.

It came with ViewNX, which I understand is more of an organiser.

I know what it is but, I don't know what to do with it, RAW that is.

How do I view a RAW image?

Can I store a RAW image?

Can I manipulate a RAW image?

Do I need special software for RAW?

How do I print a RAW image?

Can I get 'free RAW' software?...We're tight down here :D

The list goes on :thinking:

Can someone please recommend an on-line idiots guide to the black art of RAW?
 
Bit of a list there Dave, but I can answer one or two for you.
I have a D90 and use the software that came with the camera for dragging raw's off the camera to the pc and for deleting viewing etc. Nikon Transfer and NXview do the job fine.

For processing, converting I downloaded a trial of Nikon Capture NX2 (60 days trial) decided it was excellent for Nikon raw files (and will process jpg's) and ended up buying it 150 quid as I recall.

Must admit I've never tried to print a raw file as 99% of my images are converted to jpg. I archive all the raw files on a usb drive.

Hope some of that helps, bit of a rush job as I'm off to work in a mo.

Final note, Microsoft have a Nikon raw codec to enable viewing of Nikon raw files (.nef) within windows explorer and media viewer etc, just Google got it. :)
 
RAW files contain a lot more information than jpeg - they can be edited NON-destructively - then you produce a jpeg or tiff for final printing. Keep your RAW files - after they are edited - you can always go back and re-edit the file later on. Buy something like Lightroom to process them - very fast - easy to use - and organises and catalogues your files on disk too.
 
Dave i would always advise you to shoot in RAW.
There is much more information in a RAW image over a jpeg. You have more control over the final image and as stated above the editing is non destructive to the original RAW file. WHen you shoot in RAW the image will look softer but that's because Jpeg instantly inputs sharpening algorithms into the picture along with it's own idea of saturation, White balance so forth. Shooting in RAW puts you in control and not what the camera thinks your photo should look like. You will need a RAW converter to enable your PC to read the RAW files and i believe Nikons Capture NX is very good. Good luck and remember it's no coincidence that probably 90% of keen amateur enthusiasts shoot in RAW.
 
awp said:
RAW files contain a lot more information than jpeg - they can be edited NON-destructively - then you produce a jpeg or tiff for final printing. Keep your RAW files - after they are edited - you can always go back and re-edit the file later on. Buy something like Lightroom to process them - very fast - easy to use - and organises and catalogues your files on disk too.
Click to expand...

Lightroom non-destructively edits JPGs too.

Raw is overrated. If you're happy you've made the correct decisions as you're shooting, you won't need to change much in the raw conversion and you might as well have shot a JPG. If you make a pig's ear of the shot (wrong white balance, blown highlights) the raw data will help you rescue it. It'll end up as a JPG 9 times out of 10 anyway if you publish or print it.

Life's too short for raw. Until raw came along, one had to be happy with the decisions one made at the time of pressing the shutter. I gather rather a lot of good images were made using this method.
 
martsharm said:
Lightroom non-destructively edits JPGs too.
Click to expand...

But with far fewer options and less data to work with.
It doesn't matter that a RAW file 'ends up as a jpeg' - you should always start the process with as much information in the picture as possible - only RAW gives you that. It doesn't take long to process a RAW in LR if you know what you're doing.
 
The raw does contain much more data than a jpeg which is why it is better to use raw if you are going to make changes on the computer with PP. With jpeg when you make changes on the computer the quality can suffer.

The raw also allows you to select what changes you wish to make after you have taken the shot. With jpeg changes such as sharpening, contrast, white balance etc are made in the camera and have to be chosen before you take the picture. With raw you can change these after and see the effects.

The changes can also be finer and selective. For example contrast changes in camera may be 2 or 3 steps, +1, +2 etc. on the computer the changes will often be from 0 to 100 so you can get much finer adjustment. It is also possible to change the contrast in one part of the picture only whereas in camera the whole picture is affected. Obviously the same applies to sharpening, saturation etc.

Most programs do not apply any camera settings when you import the raw file so the raw file straight from the camera will actually look worse than the jpeg!

Have a look here for more info. http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm it may be a bit too technical but the last bit of the 3rd article summarises it.
 
awp said:
But with far fewer options and less data to work with.
It doesn't matter that a RAW file 'ends up as a jpeg' - you should always start the process with as much information in the picture as possible - only RAW gives you that. It doesn't take long to process a RAW in LR if you know what you're doing.
Click to expand...

So we're agreed Lightroom non-destructively edits both JPG and raw. And I would say it gives the same options for editing both JPG and raw data, indeed LR makes it transparent whether the source info is JPG or raw which is some of what makes it such a powerful and easy to use tool. The sliders are all the same whichever format you use.

I don't think anyone's saying it takes longer to edit raw in LR. It takes a bit longer to import.

To address the OP's questions... just get Lightroom :D Then you don't have to worry which format you shoot in, LR treats everything the same.
 
martsharm said:
To address the OP's questions... just get Lightroom :D Then you don't have to worry which format you shoot in, LR treats everything the same.
Click to expand...

Or get Nikon Capture NX2. :D

It reads and applies all the camera data saved with the raw, NEF, files so if you get it right in camera you just print what you have got. If you want to change anything like WB, Contrast etc you can. You then save as a NEF file which does not alter the raw data but saves the editing data, and then print without saving as anything else.
You can also non-destructively edit JPEG or TIFF files - as long as you save them as NEF files afterwards.
 
NX just takes forever - it's very slow to work with compared to LR.
 
Hi Dave,

If you're anywhere near Aberystwyth, you're more than welcome to meet up and we'll go through all sorts of camera chat (and take a few shots too). :)

Regards,
Si
 
I have only recently moved to using RAW (at least for personal use) but I still tend to shot saving a Fine JPEG as I am still playing with the Digital Darkroom and presently lack much of the necessary software and hardware (and knowledge) to do it justice.

My view though is that if I have the RAW file saved I can go back to it at anytime in the future, although you can edit the JPEG the choices are limited.

RAW is the true "digital negative" and much like a film negative it is not the thing you actually "hang on the wall"; you first need to make it an image and this usually means converting to either a JPEG or TIFF (post editting).

The only downside to RAW files is that they are all proprietry files created by the camera manufacturers, not "open" like JPEGs of TIFF. (potentially meaning access in furture to old files could be difficult as the necesary software is no long available or during the intervieing years software updates have removed features needed to open older RAW file formats)

I purchased a copy of Nikon NX to edit raw files (cheaper tha NX2) only to find that it won't open the RAW files generated by the D5000 and I would need to upgrade to NX2 :( . Looking to get lightroom in future, either use UFRaw plugin for GIMP or Google Picasa for now.
 
DrRusty said:
I have only recently moved to using RAW (at least for personal use) but I still tend to shot saving a Fine JPEG as I am still playing with the Digital Darkroom and presently lack much of the necessary software and hardware (and knowledge) to do it justice.
Click to expand...

I am on a netbook and I manage to process RAWs fine. It is a bit... slow, yes, but not undoable.
 
I always shoot in RAW when using my GF1 but if using my little Lumix TZ6 i have to edit Jpg files as it does not shoot RAW. I have just uploaded a load of Jpg files from the TZ6 to my flickr that were processed in Lightroom 2.5 and they have come out pretty good i think.

I still shoot Raw when using my GF1 and process these again in Lightroom.

I also have GIMP which is a bit tricky to use but it is FREE plus you can download a free RAW viewer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top