RAW :|!!!

S

Set_Nights

Messages
387
Edit My Images
Yes
Right, I have only ever shot in jpeg and have a friend that constantly says I should switch to RAW. The thing though is that I know I probably should but I don't actually know why and the whole idea actually terrifies me/makes me feel a bit ill :p! I guess because I have no idea of what it actually involves. At the moment I shoot in full manual and use flickr's "Picnik" software to edit exposure/contrast/saturation etc. How is RAW post-processing different?

Why should I switch and what can post-processing do? I would only be interesting in "fixing" things in photos such as exposure and colours etc, rather than actually altering/moving things.

What software should I use and are there any good guides on how to use it effectively?!
 
Raw captures the data off the sensor and applies very little post processing. It's therefore quite easy (and lossless) to apply things like exposure compensation, colour balance, sharpening etc... without losing fidelity. Basically, it gives you access to the camera data before it converts it to JPEG (which is lossy). Yes, you can do the same things in JPEG, but you have camera->JPEG (lossy) -> processing->JPEG (lossy) which is a double degradation.

As to software, I'd say the best starter is Photoshop Elements 9.
 
I use RAW and then use Lightroom to play around with them till I have something I like. Unfortunately I don't know enough about what I am doing to understand before hand what I will need to do :help:. Because of this I have decided to try a local evening class - five week starter course followed by anther five weeks intermediate.
 
Absolutely. Raw is basically an electronic negative and captures all the data, and retains it, no matter what you do during post processing. The original raw image does not change. JPEG applies the camera settings and discards the unused data. This is irreversible - the data is lost. Raw gives you more flexibility in post processing and, for me, the ability to adjust the white balance is one of the most important features. This isn't an option with JPEG.

JPEG images degrade very slightly every time you edit/save them. It's debatable just how noticeable this is, providing you don't overdo it, but it is there.

There's nothing wrong with shooting JPEGs. You can't print or view raw images (without a raw converter), so you have to convert them to JPEG or TIFF at some point anyway, but shooting raw does have advantages. Up to you really, I'd experiment and see which you prefer.

I fully agree with the endorsement for Photoshop Elements. Version 9 is the latest. You can download a 30 day free trial from the Adobe website as far as I know. It can do most things very well indeed, and can also be used as a primer for the full Photoshop package if you think you might want to get this eventually. GIMP (free, open source) has much of the same functionality as Photoshop, and might be worth downloading, but it has a fairly steep learning curve.
 
"Absolutely. Raw is basically an electronic negative and captures all the data, and retains it, no matter what you do during post processing."

:plus1:

That pretty much sums it up. Why not take full advantage of what your camera is capable of?(as long as you have the free time available to do so).

If you want quick images for Facebook or small photos then only you can decide if it is worth the extra effort. I only ever shoot in RAW as it gives me full control of my images and I have lots of free time.

I use Lightroom and Photoshop. Almost all of my photos go through Photoshop but Lightroom can do all the standard adjustments quickly and very easily. (y)
 
If raw worries you that much then stick to JPEG until you feel confident enough to move on.

I always shoot in raw but I use Nikon software (as I have a Nikon :) )that applies all the settings that I made on the camera, white balance, contrast, shapness etc etc. (when I say that the software applies the settings it does not actually change any of the raw data from the sensor, in simple terms what it does is take the raw data and as the data is passed to the screen or printer it then applies the settings )

However I would say that 80% - 90% of my shots require no, or minimal editing and that could easily be done on a JPEG without any noticeable loss of quality.
I use raw however as it does give me the option of making larger changes without so much loss of quality should I need to.
 
As others have said raw gives more leeway for error and more options at the processing stage, but with the software your using it might be easier to stick with jpeg for the time being.
Photoshop is considered the industry standard and theres not much it can't do, but Lightroom also offers a convenient editing package, although more limited it'll still do all the basic editing your doing now and probably a lot more (I haven't used picnik)
 
Just an Idea but, if you can on canons, shoot raw and jpeg until you are confident with raw editing all you have to lose is some memory space which you can get back when you delete what you don’t like
 
If you are happy with jpeg from the camera stick with it. There are plenty of professionals who shoot in jpeg as a matter of course. Using RAW has become rather a "status symbol", showing how "good" a photographer you are !!! - rather like buying the most expensive camera you can, regardless of whether you know how to use it or not.

RAW is the "negative" if you want to "process and print" all your own stuff, by all means have a play with RAW, if not, let your camera do it for you in jpeg. Most people were happy to let Bonusprint do that previously ! Not many had their own darkroom which is what fiddling with RAW amounts to.

Don't save your stuff in the PC in jpeg though, use tiff or psd and convert that to jpeg only when you need it in that format.
 
paulminus273 said:
Just an Idea but, if you can on canons, shoot raw and jpeg until you are confident with raw editing all you have to lose is some memory space which you can get back when you delete what you don’t like
Click to expand...

Good idea - on the 450D you can set it to save the RAW file alongside the JPEG. That way you can play around with the "negative" but still have the JPEG to fall back on.
 
Bythesea said:
Good idea - on the 450D you can set it to save the RAW file alongside the JPEG. That way you can play around with the "negative" but still have the JPEG to fall back on.
Click to expand...

no point wast of space, your JPG is all ready there in the RAW file, all the camera setting are with the RAW so just use the default camera settings and you have your JPG with out wasting space, and time at the point of taking the photo..
 
Chaz Photos said:
no point wast of space, your JPG is all ready there in the RAW file, all the camera setting are with the RAW so just use the default camera settings and you have your JPG with out wasting space, and time at the point of taking the photo..
Click to expand...

That's assuming you know exactly what the camera is doing to the RAW file and you are able to duplicate it in a software package. From the OP's question it doesn't look as though that would be too easy, hence the chance to play with the RAW while having the JPEG as a backup.
 
Bythesea said:
That's assuming you know exactly what the camera is doing to the RAW file and you are able to duplicate it in a software package. From the OP's question it doesn't look as though that would be too easy, hence the chance to play with the RAW while having the JPEG as a backup.
Click to expand...

? the camera will do as you tell it in the settings this is carried with the RAW file you can apply the Camera setting when you open it EASY you have a JPG as you would have if you set it to save both...... the software just duplicates it for you as per the camera settings.....
 
MartynK said:
Absolutely. Raw is basically an electronic negative and captures all the data, and retains it, no matter what you do during post processing. The original raw image does not change. JPEG applies the camera settings and discards the unused data. This is irreversible - the data is lost. Raw gives you more flexibility in post processing and, for me, the ability to adjust the white balance is one of the most important features. This isn't an option with JPEG.

JPEG images degrade very slightly every time you edit/save them. It's debatable just how noticeable this is, providing you don't overdo it, but it is there.

There's nothing wrong with shooting JPEGs. You can't print or view raw images (without a raw converter), so you have to convert them to JPEG or TIFF at some point anyway, but shooting raw does have advantages. Up to you really, I'd experiment and see which you prefer.

I fully agree with the endorsement for Photoshop Elements. Version 9 is the latest. You can download a 30 day free trial from the Adobe website as far as I know. It can do most things very well indeed, and can also be used as a primer for the full Photoshop package if you think you might want to get this eventually. GIMP (free, open source) has much of the same functionality as Photoshop, and might be worth downloading, but it has a fairly steep learning curve.
Click to expand...


I've noticed this after I've PP my pics from RAW....I always choose TIFF but to be honest I have no idea what TIFF is????? don't suppose you could be knid enough to enlighten me on this...?

Cheers..

(sorry to slightly but in on your thread/topic) :naughty:
 
Chaz Photos said:
? the camera will do as you tell it in the settings this is carried with the RAW file you can apply the Camera setting when you open it EASY you have a JPG as you would have if you set it to save both...... the software just duplicates it for you as per the camera settings.....
Click to expand...

Just to clarify please, are you saying that when a RAW file is opened in say, LR, it has the camera settings already applied ie, the same appearance as it would had it been a jpeg. If that makes sense.

jeff
 
paulminus273 said:
Just an Idea but, if you can on canons, shoot raw and jpeg until you are confident with raw editing all you have to lose is some memory space which you can get back when you delete what you don’t like
Click to expand...

Agreed, best of both until your happy with RAW, tis what i do, although RAW takes up alot of space on the Memory card plus jpeg files so might be worth having plenty of spare memory.:clap:
 
Jeff.B said:
Just to clarify please, are you saying that when a RAW file is opened in say, LR, it has the camera settings already applied ie, the same appearance as it would had it been a jpeg. If that makes sense.

jeff
Click to expand...

Usually only the cameras own make software will read these built in picture styles, but you can download LR presets that mimic the different styles for nikon/canon, they may be others as well but I haven't looked.
Normally LR will apply a default Adobe style.
 
You should already have some software capable of decoding raw images. Canon's Digital Photo Professional should have come with your camera (DPP).

One benefit of RAW, is that it can store the data from the camera in a much higher 'resolution' per pixel.

Explanation (possibly skip this bit):
This doesn't mean that the quality of the image is better, I am not talking about the resolution of the image itself, but each pixel (X,Y) co-ordinate of an image is made up of a Red, Green and Blue value. These values, in a JPEG file, are stored in 8 bits . (that means 2 to the power of 8 values are possible). So there are 256 shades of grey possible for example (a grey being the same value of Red, Green and Blue mixed together for the sake of this example). These bits are based on the values that the camera has 'resolved' to be at that pixel's position. This means that there are in total 256^3 ( 256 possible reds, 256 possible greens and 256 possible blues) combinations of 'colours' i.e. 16.7 million
In a TIFF image, you can store 32 bit values. Your camera, stores images effectively as a 12bit raw (plus a bit of extra things). A 12bit image, gives you 68billion values, or 4096 times the values more than a JPEG image.

The test:
What does the above mean in reality. Try a simple test. Assuming that you have DPP, set your camera to shoot an image in RAW and JPEG at the same time (for this test). Now, intentionally, set up a shot, and knock off 1.5 steps from one of the settings (how about aperture, then you have a greater depth of field).
Load the images up into DPP (you might need to make sure the option to hide files of the same filename off), and you should see two very dark images. Click the JPEG, and load it up in edit window, then open up the tool panel. Try turning the brightness up. You can only really get it up by 1 stop I think (+100%?).
Next try the RAW image. There should be another usable TAB in the tool panel. The RAW tab. Set the brightness to +1.5 here. The image will not be perfect, but it should in theory look a lot better in the shadows than the JPEG.
From here, you should be able to go to either, Tools->Transfer to splat it directly into your image editing software, or File-> Convert and Save to save it as either a JPEG, or better still a TIFF.
Leaving it as a 16 bit TIFF means that the resolution per pixel is still there in the image, so your editing program can undo changes in areas of the file where they are not needed.

The downside(s):
RAW files store more information than JPEGs, thus are larger. However, they should compress a bit with a good compression program, if space is a problem.
As they are a higher bit depth, they take up more memory when being manipulated.
If your image editing program doesn't support RAW natively, then there is an extra step of decoding them. Photoshop doesn't natively handle them, so I use DPP almost as a negative viewer, select the image from a set that I want to edit/use, right click and either mod the image if necassary with the tool panel (if I need to tweak colour, contrast or brightness a lot, recently a lot less of this has been required), or I select transfer to photoshop. a couple of seconds later, a 16 bit TIFF of the image appears in photoshop. Not a major extra step, but some might find it annoying.
 
I've traditionally always worked in JPEG as I've been mostly an Olympus user, and olympus JPEGs are the best there is and Raw was too much extra effort.

However now with the Panasonic, the JPEGs are much much worse, although I can generally get them the way I want them in PP, it's got to the point where so much is being done in PP that I may as well be using Raw! So now I shoot Raw+JPEG, and if it comes out OK then the Raw gets deleted, if theres a little tweaking to be done I'll adjust the JPEG. if The JPEG can't do it then I'll develop the raw and work from that.

Here's an example:



1. Is the Raw file developed to look pretty natural
2. is the raw file tonemapped in PSP
3. Is the JPEG straight from camera
4. is the JPEG With similar processing to no.2 applied.

I've also used RAW to pull back the sky when it's blown on the JPEG by setting it's Exposure compensation down to -3EV and then twiddling the curve to bring everything else back out a bit and finally finishing off in PSP.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
I've traditionally always worked in JPEG as I've been mostly an Olympus user, and olympus JPEGs are the best there is and Raw was too much extra effort.

However now with the Panasonic, the JPEGs are much much worse, although I can generally get them the way I want them in PP, it's got to the point where so much is being done in PP that I may as well be using Raw! So now I shoot Raw+JPEG, and if it comes out OK then the Raw gets deleted, if theres a little tweaking to be done I'll adjust the JPEG. if The JPEG can't do it then I'll develop the raw and work from that.

Here's an example:



1. Is the Raw file developed to look pretty natural
2. is the raw file tonemapped in PSP
3. Is the JPEG straight from camera
4. is the JPEG With similar processing to no.2 applied.

I've also used RAW to pull back the sky when it's blown on the JPEG by setting it's Exposure compensation down to -3EV and then twiddling the curve to bring everything else back out a bit and finally finishing off in PSP.
Click to expand...

great post this! the pictures make it really easy to understand the differences of jpeg and raw!
 
I have found this thread really helpful, was pretty much the same question i was going to ask. It also makes sense that i have always been really happy with my JPEGs from my olympus (well, for it's low price!) but the canon seems to look a bit flat and lifeless, like picture 3 above. I have tried RAW before on the olympus (RAW + JPEG shooting = sloooooooow!) but i think it's about time i made better use of the capibilities of the canon. So this weekend, RAW it is. I guess learn by doing is the best way in this case, but i agree OP, that first step is rather daunting after the safety of JPEGs.
 
Chaz Photos said:
? the camera will do as you tell it in the settings this is carried with the RAW file you can apply the Camera setting when you open it EASY you have a JPG as you would have if you set it to save both...... the software just duplicates it for you as per the camera settings.....
Click to expand...


That depends on what software you are using, if using lightroom, or ACR in photoshop then it has an approximation of the jpg settings that the camera uses but the manafacturers don't give out their jpg settings to 3rd parties and often the default RAW-jpg conversion in something like lightroom doesnt look much like the jpg the camera would have created. This is one of the reasons a lot of people back away from RAW at first, they are using the LCD to get the exposure etc they want and then are dissapointed at how the RAW file appears.


But I would say if you are serious about your photography RAW is the way to go, yes there are some pros who still shoot jpg, but there are usually very specific reasons for it. It may be they are a press/sports photographer and they have to upload their files for publication within minutes of taking the images. But if you don't fall into that category, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to shoot jpg IMO.

No one will ever nail every shot in terms of white balance and exposure no matter how good they are, so why would you potentially throw away a great shot by shooting jpg. There is no question that RAW gives more lattitude in the highlights, with jpg once they are gone they are gone. And if you dont nail white balance you can never achieve the relationship between colours properly with jpg, you can fix the colours to some extent but there are times where even getting a reasonable balance is almost impossible.

If colour is critical you can shoot a colour target like the xrite colour passport and generate a custom camera profile for the lighting conditions that will allow you to get your colour closer than anything the manafacturer will supply. Thats because even 2 cameras made on the same day by the same maker will vary slightly and the custom profile is for your camera AND the light you are using at the time.

You also have more control over noise reduction, sharpening, contrast, lens correction etc on a picture to picture basis, not a one size fits all setting that the manafacturer has decided will do all things for all situations/lenses/tatstes.

The only thing to be aware of is don't let the lattitude of RAW become a crutch for poor exposure, you should still try to nail the exposure because the end result will be so much better.
 
Well, after nearly a decade of playing about with the JPEG format, I, too, thought it was about time to pop my RAW cherry.

And . . . *phew* I have to admit, it is a bit hard work. For a start, my creaking ancient software collection won't open RAW files, so I have to use Nikon's own raw converter to be able to view it.
My lightroom 2.5 doesn't have the update to support the new version of RAW (I have the Nikon D3100) so I have to use the roundabout option of converting RAW into DNG, thus eating up memory on cards and hard drive faster than I can finish saying Tom Robertson.

And once I was able to view the DNG file, I'm still yet to be overtly impressed with the "renewed" processing ability.

But then again, I guess my "traditional" view of photography (I generally take landscapes and if it looks good straight out of the box then it's only a good thing) means that there isn't room for RAW in my way of thinking regarding photography - at least not just yet.

I think for now I'll stick to the comfort zone that is the JPEG format, until I can really see any obvious flaws with using it.
 
Why not set your camera to raw + large jpeg? That way you get the best of both worlds, you get a jpeg your comfortable working with and a raw file with a lot more data for when or if you get more experienced at the processing stage and feel you need the extra quality.
 
At the risk of repeating myself, the important thing to remember is that RAW is NOT a photographic file - it is a data file.

I think the most common mistake amongst many RAW users (not necessarily new ones either) is the idea, that once converted and opened as a visible photographic file, RAW will automatically produce a better quality photograph than Jpeg - it won't - it will be worse !
Before you even think about using RAW make sure that you know how to use your processing package first - if you don't, you are wasting good photographs which would have been better taken in Jpeg in the first place. Regrettably there are far too many good photographs (on this site even!) that suffer from this.

A good way to practice - pull photographs off this site, open them as RAW and see if you can improve them. Some you can't, they are superb to start with, but there are some that are just crying out to be worked on - and dramatically improved. You can put them alongside each other on your screen and see the difference that YOU made. If you can make very noticeable improvement on a poor quality file off flickr, imagine what you could do with the full sized RAW file.

Don't try and do everything at the same time: New camera, latest version of Photoshop/Lightroom, using RAW - take your time, learn each one properly first.
IT IS worth it - but it takes a while....................:D
 
Moonrakerz said:
At the risk of repeating myself, the important thing to remember is that RAW is NOT a photographic file - it is a data file.

I think the most common mistake amongst many RAW users (not necessarily new ones either) is the idea, that once converted and opened as a visible photographic file, RAW will automatically produce a better quality photograph than Jpeg - it won't - it will be worse !
Before you even think about using RAW make sure that you know how to use your processing package first - if you don't, you are wasting good photographs which would have been better taken in Jpeg in the first place. Regrettably there are far too many good photographs (on this site even!) that suffer from this.

A good way to practice - pull photographs off this site, open them as RAW and see if you can improve them. Some you can't, they are superb to start with, but there are some that are just crying out to be worked on - and dramatically improved. You can put them alongside each other on your screen and see the difference that YOU made. If you can make very noticeable improvement on a poor quality file off flickr, imagine what you could do with the full sized RAW file.

Don't try and do everything at the same time: New camera, latest version of Photoshop/Lightroom, using RAW - take your time, learn each one properly first.
IT IS worth it - but it takes a while....................:D
Click to expand...
You can't open a jpeg as raw, you can open it in the raw converter but thats a different thing, it's only 8 bit for a start, raw are 12 or 14 bit, big difference, a jpeg also has a colour space, the raw doesn't, jpeg has the white balance set, raw doesn't. Easy way to tell the difference open a jpeg in ACR and look at the colour options, you'll have, as shot, auto and custom, no shady, sunny tungstun etc
And for you information your jpeg started as a raw file, your camera just threw away 3/4 of the data before saving it.
 
swanseamale47 said:
You can't open a jpeg as raw, you can open it in the raw converter but thats a different thing, it's only 8 bit for a start, raw are 12 or 14 bit, big difference, a jpeg also has a colour space, the raw doesn't, jpeg has the white balance set, raw doesn't. Easy way to tell the difference open a jpeg in ACR and look at the colour options, you'll have, as shot, auto and custom, no shady, sunny tungstun etc
And for you information your jpeg started as a raw file, your camera just threw away 3/4 of the data before saving it.
Click to expand...

Oh dear !

Firstly, I note that you have made very little comment on the bulk of my post, just rather pedantic barbed comments about one particular phrase that I used.

When I said "open as RAW" - I meant go to "File", "Open as" in the Editor, then select "File name", then "Open as" - "Camera raw". If your pedantry will allow; to me, and most people that is best described as "Open as RAW" - if you wish to split hairs over nomenclature, feel free - it makes no difference to what I was trying to point out.
If it is opened in ACR it is "opened as RAW" for all intents and purposes. Adobe seem to think that as well, going by their menu choices.

I am fully aware that the file isn't a RAW file and what the bit structure, white balance, etc, etc, is - for what I was suggesting people do, that is completely irrelevant. Once the file is open in ACR just the use of "Recovery" "Exposure" and "Fill Light" alone can make an enormous difference to a poor jpeg photograph - before any more "fine tuning" is done in the Editor proper.
Just looking at the file in ACR can tell you an awful lot.

I am also fully aware that my "jpeg started as a raw file .....your camera just threw away 3/4 of the data before saving it" - thank you anyway ! Perhaps I could point out to you that my (or your) camera could have thrown away half the data before it saved what was left as a RAW file anyway, although this is claimed to be almost "lossless" .

I regret to say that your response to my post is a classic example of the "mystification" of photography that is cast over the subject by far too many people. This just bamboozles and baffles many beginners when they see the "experts" talking in such lofty terms. They are terrified to do anything !

Perhaps you would like to try doing just as I suggested and see if you can improve a few photographs taken off the site, then you might see what I was getting at.

I was going to have a "play" with one of your photographs but I can't find any - apart from just one, 3 years old, in your gallery. Of course, yours could all be perfect in every respect and I would be only too happy to comment on that fact.

In fact, below, I will post a particularly awful jpeg (I saw one worse than this posted on a site which a resident "expert" then described as "spot on" ! ) - I would ask anyone who wishes to, to "Open as RAW" and play with it. Forget the bits, white balance and all the other hocus pocus - play with it, and see what you can do !


2ngd46o.jpg




PS: "tungstun" isn't spelt like that...........:D
 
Moonrakerz said:
Oh dear !

Firstly, I note that you have made very little comment on the bulk of my post, just rather pedantic barbed comments about one particular phrase that I used.

When I said "open as RAW" - I meant go to "File", "Open as" in the Editor, then select "File name", then "Open as" - "Camera raw". If your pedantry will allow; to me, and most people that is best described as "Open as RAW" - if you wish to split hairs over nomenclature, feel free - it makes no difference to what I was trying to point out.
If it is opened in ACR it is "opened as RAW" for all intents and purposes. Adobe seem to think that as well, going by their menu choices.

I am fully aware that the file isn't a RAW file and what the bit structure, white balance, etc, etc, is - for what I was suggesting people do, that is completely irrelevant. Once the file is open in ACR just the use of "Recovery" "Exposure" and "Fill Light" alone can make an enormous difference to a poor jpeg photograph - before any more "fine tuning" is done in the Editor proper.
Just looking at the file in ACR can tell you an awful lot.

I am also fully aware that my "jpeg started as a raw file .....your camera just threw away 3/4 of the data before saving it" - thank you anyway ! Perhaps I could point out to you that my (or your) camera could have thrown away half the data before it saved what was left as a RAW file anyway, although this is claimed to be almost "lossless" .

I regret to say that your response to my post is a classic example of the "mystification" of photography that is cast over the subject by far too many people. This just bamboozles and baffles many beginners when they see the "experts" talking in such lofty terms. They are terrified to do anything !

Perhaps you would like to try doing just as I suggested and see if you can improve a few photographs taken off the site, then you might see what I was getting at.

I was going to have a "play" with one of your photographs but I can't find any - apart from just one, 3 years old, in your gallery. Of course, yours could all be perfect in every respect and I would be only too happy to comment on that fact.

In fact, below, I will post a particularly awful jpeg (I saw one worse than this posted on a site which a resident "expert" then described as "spot on" ! ) - I would ask anyone who wishes to, to "Open as RAW" and play with it. Forget the bits, white balance and all the other hocus pocus - play with it, and see what you can do !


2ngd46o.jpg




PS: "tungstun" isn't spelt like that...........:D
Click to expand...



I'm not sure why you were so offended by the other persons comment on your post. The fact that you might not be able to improve a jpg pulled off this site or any other site doesn't mean much, it was probably already pretty good to start with. The only way you can make a proper comparison is to shoot the same image in both RAW and in camera JPG, then compare the camera's efforts to your own on the RAW file.

And just because you can improve a poor jpg image somewhat doesn't mean you couldn't do a much better job with the RAW file.

BTW the camera shouldn't be throwing away half the data when you shoot RAW.
 
Moonrakerz said:
Oh dear !

Firstly, I note that you have made very little comment on the bulk of my post, just rather pedantic barbed comments about one particular phrase that I used.

When I said "open as RAW" - I meant go to "File", "Open as" in the Editor, then select "File name", then "Open as" - "Camera raw". If your pedantry will allow; to me, and most people that is best described as "Open as RAW" - if you wish to split hairs over nomenclature, feel free - it makes no difference to what I was trying to point out.
If it is opened in ACR it is "opened as RAW" for all intents and purposes. Adobe seem to think that as well, going by their menu choices.

I am fully aware that the file isn't a RAW file and what the bit structure, white balance, etc, etc, is - for what I was suggesting people do, that is completely irrelevant. Once the file is open in ACR just the use of "Recovery" "Exposure" and "Fill Light" alone can make an enormous difference to a poor jpeg photograph - before any more "fine tuning" is done in the Editor proper.
Just looking at the file in ACR can tell you an awful lot.

I am also fully aware that my "jpeg started as a raw file .....your camera just threw away 3/4 of the data before saving it" - thank you anyway ! Perhaps I could point out to you that my (or your) camera could have thrown away half the data before it saved what was left as a RAW file anyway, although this is claimed to be almost "lossless" .

I regret to say that your response to my post is a classic example of the "mystification" of photography that is cast over the subject by far too many people. This just bamboozles and baffles many beginners when they see the "experts" talking in such lofty terms. They are terrified to do anything !

Perhaps you would like to try doing just as I suggested and see if you can improve a few photographs taken off the site, then you might see what I was getting at.

I was going to have a "play" with one of your photographs but I can't find any - apart from just one, 3 years old, in your gallery. Of course, yours could all be perfect in every respect and I would be only too happy to comment on that fact.

In fact, below, I will post a particularly awful jpeg (I saw one worse than this posted on a site which a resident "expert" then described as "spot on" ! ) - I would ask anyone who wishes to, to "Open as RAW" and play with it. Forget the bits, white balance and all the other hocus pocus - play with it, and see what you can do !


2ngd46o.jpg




PS: "tungstun" isn't spelt like that...........:D
Click to expand...
I'm sorry I haven't put lots of my obviously terrible pictures on here for you to show me how much better you can make them by using fill, recovery and exposure in ACR. But seeing as I actually start with a raw image they have normally been through a raw converter and I can usually find those sliders myslf. I must admit though I haven't managed to find the "hocus pocus" slider maybe your using a different version of ACR to me ;).
 
Ok, I'll bite, here is a jpeg from a raw-jpeg, I was trying some Macro, and the flash couldn't fire at the sync speed.
Lets see what the quality is like, if you feel like trying to recover it.
 
Strangely enough, I was talking to a tog who explained how to "Open as Raw" in CS5.

Never knew such a thing was possible and having tried, it does work to a degree.

However no point for me, as LR gives Fill light, recovery, WB etc. on the JPEG, obviously not to the same extent as you would get from RAW.

I am quite happy in my JPEG world, with a shoot in RAW policy as well, for important occasions.
 
Mikesphotaes said:
Strangely enough, I was talking to a tog who explained how to "Open as Raw" in CS5.

Never knew such a thing was possible and having tried, it does work to a degree.

However no point for me, as LR gives Fill light, recovery, WB etc. on the JPEG, obviously not to the same extent as you would get from RAW.

I am quite happy in my JPEG world, with a shoot in RAW policy as well, for important occasions.
Click to expand...


You can open a jpg file in lightroom or the RAW software with ACR but it's still a jpg file. The software allows you to edit these files but it's not the same as working on a RAW file. The only way to make a proper comparison is to shoot the same pic in JPG and RAW in the camera, then see how much more you can do with the RAW file.

If the white balance is right in camera and the exposure is spot on, you probably wont see that much difference between what you can do to the RAW file and what the camera has done itself. But when your white balance is off and your highlights are slightly overexposed, the RAW file will be superior.
 
I found this video a few weeks ago on Youtube and it is an excellent demonstration of the benefits and limitations of RAW and Jpeg with Adobe Camera Raw.

Obviously it is not the whole story of Jpeg and RAW, but I think it shows the possible benefit of shooting RAW, and the extra information which may be contained in the RAW file. :)
 
Sorry for the delay folks, my 'phone line died on me - then several lengthy calls to Bombay !! Two visits from Openreach and they are coming back again to dig up my garden/pavement :bang:

Everyone (bar one) seems to be not reading/understanding my original point.

This was the main point:- "I think the most common mistake amongst many RAW users (not necessarily new ones either) is the idea, that once converted and opened as a visible photographic file, RAW will automatically produce a better quality photograph than Jpeg - it won't - it will be worse !
Before you even think about using RAW make sure that you know how to use your processing package first - if you don't, you are wasting good photographs which would have been better taken in Jpeg in the first place. Regrettably there are far too many good photographs (on this site even!) that suffer from this."

I know how to use RAW and process it, but there seems to be be far too may people who post poor quality RAW (yes - I know they are really jpeg on this site too !) photographs on various photo websites, in the belief that because they were taken in RAW they MUST be great photographs.
If I can take a poor quality jpeg photograph from TP/Flickr and improve it dramatically why didn't the OP do a better job with it when he had the full sized RAW file ?

Everyone is going off at a tangent: I know it isn't RAW, it is still jpeg - I said that to start with. I know you cannot back-convert jpeg to RAW (if only !!)

PS: Lensflair: Different makes of camera dispose of different amounts of data before making the RAW file - Nikon apparently ditches most !!

PPS: Swansaemale47: - you show me yours and I'll show you mine .........(y)
 
Moonrakerz said:
PS: Lensflair: Different makes of camera dispose of different amounts of data before making the RAW file - Nikon apparently ditches most !!
Click to expand...
Can you provide a link that states this. My understanding was that raw was basically what comes out of the A->D process in camera...
 
swanseamale47 said:
Too bad you didn't use the image posted by coldpenguin. I don't see a caterpillar on a tree in yours.

PS I won't show you mine because I certainly don't want to see yours.
Click to expand...

I must plead guilty there, didn't look too closely as wifey was waiting for the taxi driver this morning.....................

Anyway - thank you for the post coldpenguin - proves my original point quite admirably !
Below is a very quick (about 30 secs) stab at "improving" your photograph - as I keep on saying: if I can improve it that much from an "appalling" (sorry, but it is !) jpeg what could be done with the original RAW ?

Still a lot of comment from S Wales, but not many photographs though :D:D

2zi0sx3.jpg



PS: Framing isn't too good :LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top