Could any of you good people please explain in laymans terms what exactly it is I have to do to convert RAW files into viewable photos on my laptop? I'm having trouble getting my head around what exactly it is that I have to do so any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you.
and the site receives a small commission
How to convert RAW files?
- Thread starter Shnarf76
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,502
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
All you need is a RAW file program such as Adobe DNG which will allow you to open the raw file, make any adjustments such as exposure, white balance etc and then save it in a more usable format such as JPEG.
If I remember rightly Adobe DNG is free to download.
Also your camera should of come with a CD with software on it or there at least be a website address in the owners manual to the manufacturers website and there own software for RAW file processing.
Whatever option you choose, there will be lots of videos on YouTube demonstrating how to do various aspects of RAW processing.
If I remember rightly Adobe DNG is free to download.
Also your camera should of come with a CD with software on it or there at least be a website address in the owners manual to the manufacturers website and there own software for RAW file processing.
Whatever option you choose, there will be lots of videos on YouTube demonstrating how to do various aspects of RAW processing.
- Messages
- 11,788
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
You need software to convert the RAW files into something that will be viewable.
You may have got some free software with your camera, or there some free alternatives, or you can try (for example) Lightroom or Photoshop. My preference is Lightroom - if you can get a standalone copy of Lightroom 6 you will avoid having to pay for a subscription.
You may have got some free software with your camera, or there some free alternatives, or you can try (for example) Lightroom or Photoshop. My preference is Lightroom - if you can get a standalone copy of Lightroom 6 you will avoid having to pay for a subscription.
- Messages
- 1,602
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- No
RAW files are pure data with no in camera processing done to them. To view them on the laptop you need the appropriate codec (software that lets you view files in file explorer) installed. Alternatively you can view them with the software that came with your camera.
You do not mention what camera you have. If you like to post that on here then I can point you in the right direction for the codec.
Of course you can open RAW files in Photoshop, Photoshop elements or any good graphics package.
You do not mention what camera you have. If you like to post that on here then I can point you in the right direction for the codec.
Of course you can open RAW files in Photoshop, Photoshop elements or any good graphics package.
- Messages
- 2,868
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Depends if you want to look at them or edit them.
As has been said above you need a RAW converter this http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm is OK for viewing but I have never tried it for editing
As has been said above you need a RAW converter this http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm is OK for viewing but I have never tried it for editing
Thank you for the replies, my camera is a Canon EOS 1300D (rebel T6) it is an import and didn't come with any software. I was thinking of purchasing Affinity photo for editing. I have seen the option to convert to jpeg or TIFF but I don't know what that is and whether it's preferable to jpegs?
Last edited:
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 16,655
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Brilliant, thank you for that. I'm guessing DPP will be the best bet out of those choices?
- Messages
- 4,517
- Name
- droj
- Edit My Images
- No
DPP will provide a good starting point as well as being free. The idea is to do as much of the processing (of the raw file) as possible in the raw converter (DPP) before saving out the result as (say) tif or jpg. This is least destructive to the qualities inherent in the original.
If you have space to keep your raws, do so, especially at the beginning. Then as your processing skills improve you'll be able to revisit the raws and do a better job. But sometimes it pays to be ruthless about what you keep & what you don't, to avoid being swamped.
It could be that that'll do you without having Affinity or anything else, but Affinity will definitely enable you to do things that DPP can't.
Tif or jpg? Depends on how much further work you might want to do on the image after DPP, and what the end use (and size) of the image might be. If you want to print big or send to a publisher, at least whilst you're still working on a file stick to tif - but there are more choices such as bit depth and colour space - maybe best to ignore those things for now whilst you take the essentials on board.
Try things out and compare the results, there's nothing like seeing for yourself. Examine files at 100% to see what gives. And think tone curves and histograms. Go go go!
If you have space to keep your raws, do so, especially at the beginning. Then as your processing skills improve you'll be able to revisit the raws and do a better job. But sometimes it pays to be ruthless about what you keep & what you don't, to avoid being swamped.
It could be that that'll do you without having Affinity or anything else, but Affinity will definitely enable you to do things that DPP can't.
Tif or jpg? Depends on how much further work you might want to do on the image after DPP, and what the end use (and size) of the image might be. If you want to print big or send to a publisher, at least whilst you're still working on a file stick to tif - but there are more choices such as bit depth and colour space - maybe best to ignore those things for now whilst you take the essentials on board.
Try things out and compare the results, there's nothing like seeing for yourself. Examine files at 100% to see what gives. And think tone curves and histograms. Go go go!
Last edited:
Yes - download DPP.
It's free and has minimal distraction between you and getting the job done. Once you are more familiar with the process and how it works for you, you can look at other 3rd party software such as Affinity, but for the moment, keep it simple.
You can skip this step all together and just set your camera to shoot JPG (either JPG alone and RAW+JPG if you want one copy of each). JPG are viewable by all computers, so no further conversion needed. There are a lot of opinions on this, but if you're starting out, or a seasoned professional, JPG is a viable option - don't feel that you have to shoot RAW - very few people actually do for 95% of pictures they might take.
- Messages
- 11,788
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Definitely. Be absolutely sure that you won't need the RAW's before deleting them.
"Digital negatives" and all that.......
- Messages
- 3,294
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- No
I would suggest that shooting RAW + JPEG would be the ideal solution at the start. Then they can try and process the RAW file to match the JPEG if they like the look of it. No one can tell you how to process a RAW file just offer guidelines to the process.
I'm as guilty of doing this as anyone else, but it does make me laugh. We have a raw file and a jpg file, we spend hours trying to get the raw file look like the jpg file, and then save it as a jpg.
Just use the jpg!
Keep the raw for those rare occasions when you need to go that little bit further.
- Messages
- 3,294
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- No
I only shoot in RAW. That’s were the best results come from as far as I’m concerned. Having said that I don’t have any time constraints to produce anything. Only way to learn is give it a go. I’ve seen lots of demos of processing RAW files in LR at club level but never seen anyone actually explain what each slider does to the image and why you would want to use it.
- Messages
- 7,701
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm as guilty of doing this as anyone else, but it does make me laugh. We have a raw file and a jpg file, we spend hours trying to get the raw file look like the jpg file, and then save it as a jpg.
Just use the jpg!
Keep the raw for those rare occasions when you need to go that little bit further.
On the other hand, the camera manufacturer's own raw converter generally does a good job of producing something that matches an in-camera jpeg pretty closely when you use the default settings without tweaking (which is one reason to install it even if you otherwise prefer a third party converter). So one useful experiment is to shoot raw+jpeg initially to see if this is true for your kit and, if so, whether there's any point in shooting in-camera jpegs.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 4,517
- Name
- droj
- Edit My Images
- No
I nearly always want to go that little bit further, so that'll be 98% of the time for me, then ...
The whole point of a raw workflow is to maximise control over the final images and to make them how you want them. This is photography. An automated jpg engine can only make technical choices (and might often fall down making them) - it has no emotional judgement at all.
And nothing wrong with that. Others might put that creative emotion into the process before pressing the shutter. Most will do an element of both, and it’s not as if you can’t edit a jpg; you can just with less latitude. Horses for courses and all that.
Just remember this post was in response to the OP. When you’re first starting out, you don’t have to do everything at once and starting with jpg plus raw means you can focus on the taking of the photos sooner without learning all the raw processing needs on day one.
Thank you all for your insightful advice, saving in both RAW and JPG is a good idea I would never have thought of. I'll practise using Canon's own software then when I feel ready I think I'll move on to Affinity. Again thank you for your advice, it's been a great help.
- Messages
- 9,590
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Emotional judgement,interesting,
Interesting thinking about this ,mood and tone of first the composition and secondly how the composition is painted in light and colour.
Is one more important than the other,.? If the emotional content of the composition works how important is the tones etc,possibly just as much or maybe not or does the composition working out right depend on the tones,and if so one can use settings that result in what one is trying to achieve if one knows ones camera and how jpeg settings work in such a case,without having to shoot raw or maybe I’m rambling through lack of sleep,maybe it can evoke one to ponder on this