RAW - confused

[mrtoad]

Cheers guys

good post...i am half in the boat with the raw idea

my take is not tech its practical
why take it as an option
is your card big enough to take all the shots you would in raw
after processing what does one do with the results...which are jpeg eventually
is it a process really for print producers of high quality etc

i would like to try it out first..i have the software...but not the cam
before buying up into equipment out of my league or needs

i am interested...but then again i dont get the best from my jpegs not being so familiar with photoshop etc...

glad to see your OP

 

[hollis_f]

OK, here's an example of the difference - I shot an image of a sundial but it had the wrong white balance and was over exposed. Here's the jpeg:

Pretty lousy, eh! And impossible to recover. Luckily I shot raw and jpeg, so I could try manipulating the raw file. Here's the jpeg I got from that:

Now this is an extreme example, deliberatley shot wrong to provide this example. But it does show one of the big advantages of raw - it's easier to recover from your mistakes. So, until I get everything right first time, I shall continue to shoot in raw.

 

[malc1]

That depends on the default parameters of your raw processor. There is no such thing as a viewable, untweaked, raw.

When I open a cr2 in Elements without intentionally applying anything, its obviously viewable but what am I seeing in the way of adjusments.

 

[Mike54]

Raw files have nothing added and nothing taken away, the information is that which is on the the sensor. When you take a picture in Jpeg the information (colour, etc) is procesed in the the camera, when this is done some of the the information can be discarded and options such as White Balance allowed for. If you save the image as a raw file on your computet and you want to use e.g the camera supplied software or photo shop it you will be working with the maximum information and you can decide how you want the picture to look. Letting the camera do the processing may, I don't know, shorten battery life, some people I was with on one occassion seemed to be changing batteries more often, they were shooting Jpeg, mind you it was sub-zero.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

When I open a cr2 in Elements without intentionally applying anything, its obviously viewable but what am I seeing in the way of adjustments.

Not sure how Elements work but you will probably see a image that has either the camera's jpg settings applied (if the software can read it and the function is enabled - these settings are embedded within the raw data, as is picture styles with canon) or you will see the default settings of Elements Raw processor software, with bridge Photoshops raw processor you can set sharpening ,exposure, noise reduction,scenes, and loads of other stuff. so to see a original image all you software and camera settings need to be zeroed / disabled.

 

[jomike]

When I open a cr2 in Elements without intentionally applying anything, its obviously viewable but what am I seeing in the way of adjusments.

You are seeing the default settings that ACR (the Adobe raw "engine") is set to. You can change these defaults to suit your preference. The only camera setting ACR can read is white balance. (in Nikon nefs, not sure about others).
The manufacturers own software (in the case of Nikon anyway) can read the camera settings in the raw file and use that as a starting point.

 

[hollis_f]

Letting the camera do the processing may, I don't know, shorten battery life, some people I was with on one occassion seemed to be changing batteries more often, they were shooting Jpeg, mind you it was sub-zero.

No, the camera always creates a jpeg, even if you just shoot raw. It uses that, embedded, jpeg to display the image on the LCD. With some cameras the jpeg is small but with others (the Canon 50D and 5D MkII for example) the embedded jpeg is full-sized.

 

[Mike54]

No, the camera always creates a jpeg, even if you just shoot raw. It uses that, embedded, jpeg to display the image on the LCD. With some cameras the jpeg is small but with others (the Canon 50D and 5D MkII for example) the embedded jpeg is full-sized.

One was a 50D, the other a 40D, at that time I was using a 400D, so that matches. One thing that was noticeable at that the time to store the data, they were 30 second exposures, on mine it took almost as long as the exposure time. The Jpegs were saving a lot quicker, I know its a much smaller file but at the time I thought that's odd, and Dave with the 50D was swapping batteries long before me, but he probably was just taking more pictures. We were in Finland for the Northern lights, and they had just packed up to go for a warm when they started to show, I got a few shots before we had to go, and they were spectacular on the way back and everyone was packed away:bonk:

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

One was a 50D, the other a 40D, at that time I was using a 400D, so that matches. One thing that was noticeable at that the time to store the data, they were 30 second exposures, on mine it took almost as long as the exposure time. The Jpegs were saving a lot quicker, I know its a much smaller file but at the time I thought that's odd, and Dave with the 50D was swapping batteries long before me, but he probably was just taking more pictures. We were in Finland for the Northern lights, and they had just packed up to go for a warm when they started to show, I got a few shots before we had to go, and they were spectacular on the way back and everyone was packed away:bonk:

if you have long exposure noise reduction set the camera will take twice as long than the exposure time to create the image , so for a 30sec exposure will actually take 60 sec to complete - its not the file format thats slowing it down.: