Shooting in RAW?

Noah_

Noah_

Messages
1,038
Name
Ashly
Edit My Images
No
I'm struggling with RAW shooting & despite reading thru various threads I'm just lost & unsure.

I'm vaguely aware that working with RAW is like working with a digital negative & that you can adjust exposures more in-depth during post processing but that's about as far as it goes. Can anyone talk me thru the basics? I work with a Canon 5D MKII & I've recently downloaded the 'Camera RAW' plug-in for Photoshop CS4 ~ Do I open the RAW file in Photoshop & edit it much like a JPEG photograph or do I have to put it thru Lightroom first? Can I adjust the exposures? I'm eager to experiment with it but there are things I don't understand. I apologise for the amateur questions, thank you in advance to anyone who offers some explanations.
 
When you open the raw file in photoshop you'll get the camera raw window, the controls are pretty much the same as the lightroom ones, just laid out on tabs instead, after ajusting the raw file you can either save it out or open in photoshop proper for further work.
 
@swanseamale47 Thank you.
 
Alternatively, you can import it into Lightroom and do preliminary processing there and if you want to do anything involving selections, layers, masks, and brushes, you can edit a copy (including the adjustments you did in LR) in Photoshop from within LR.

LR will create a .psd file and open PS. You do your edits and do a Ctrl+S to save it then Ctrl+Q to quit PS. You'll then find yourself back in LR with the PS-edited version.

Here's how that all works:
http://layersmagazine.com/photographic-workflow-from-lightroom-to-photoshop.html
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/adobe-eva...ightroom-3-to-photoshop-cs5-hdr-pro-workflow/
 
I might be wrong here Ashly, but will Canons DPP software not convert it :shrug: If it does then I suggest you try this first as it is simple to use and will give you a good insight into converting Raw images before progressing on to more complicated adjustments.
 
@garryknight Thank you ~ that's amazingly helpful, I'll probably try that.

@u8myufo Perhaps but the main benefit in changing to RAW shooting is the complicated adjustments it'll enable me to do!
 
Last edited:
Just curious, what would everyone say that the main benefits are to shooting in RAW? :}
 
main benefit/s
1. full control of your image in processing yes you have a degree of control in jpeg but no where near as much as in raw.
2. If you mess it up in camera see point 1 lol
 
@AndyB1976
The 5D MKII has the option to save both RAW & JPEG files of the same photograph, think I'll be doing that whilst I'm experimenting! Thank you for posting that link :} I created this thread to get more information like this.
 
Last edited:
RAW files contain much more image data than JPEGs. The RAW files from my Nikon D5100, for example, contain 14-bit colour/tonal information whereas JPEGs only contain 8-bit data. If you lighten up the darkest shadow areas in a RAW, you'll retrieve a fair bit of previously-hidden detail; if you do the same with a JPEG, you'll retrieve a lot of noise. The same thing goes for darkening the highlights.

Also, if you get the white balance 'wrong' you can change it quite easily with a RAW file. If you try it with a JPEG, the results won't be as good, and the image is likely to change in luminance as well (i.e. lighten up with warmer WB, darken down with cooler WB).

Since the biggest changes to a photo that you're likely to do (apart from adding or removing content) are changing the colour balance and the tonality, these two features on their own make RAW files quite a bit more flexible than JPEGs.
 
IamAshlyRose said:
@AndyB1976
The 5D MKII has the option to save both RAW & JPEG files of the same photograph
Click to expand...

You'll probably find that the JPEG versions look better straight out of camera, and when you load the RAW files into whatever software you use, you'll find that you have more work to do to get them looking good. But that's one of the prices you pay for quality photos.
 
@garryknight
Oh I see, I've heard it's much like working with a 'digital negative' & obviously when printing from an actual film negative, you can burn in to get extra detail & all that. I suppose this is the same theory? RAW captures/retains more detail right? Flexibility is definitely what I'm after ~ I just wanted to understand more about RAW files & converting them blah blah before I experimented. I don't mind putting the time in, I'm one of those photographers' that just has to adjust every photograph I take, be it drastic or just a little tweak here & there hahaha. I find that, for me, the post production is part of the process & no photograph is complete without it. Thank you for explaining things in a way that I can comprehend.
 
IamAshlyRose said:
@AndyB1976
The 5D MKII has the option to save both RAW & JPEG files of the same photograph, think I'll be doing that whilst I'm experimenting! Thank you for posting that link :} I created this thread to get more information like this.
Click to expand...

That is what I'd advise and what I do currently. Shoot both.

If you only need the JPEG then you have it. If you want the RAW to tinker with and learn some elements of post processing then you have it.

Even if you do not use RAW at the moment or think you ever will - there is just a chance in the future you might wish you had taken them. I wish my earliest point n shoot from 12yrs ago had it - at the time I had absolutely no interest in or even heard of RAW... :LOL:

In Canon DPP you can also batch process RAW with a recipe option so you can edit WB and sharpness for example on one RAW file and paste the recipe to the others so that they are all modified at the click of a button. So the 'editing takes too long' argument can be negated somewhat.
 
@AndyB1976
Oh I never believe that editing can take too long, no photograph is ever truly finished, there is always room for improvement! Despite what people say. I'm quite looking forward to seeing what more I can do with my photographs using RAW. Thank you :}
 
IamAshlyRose said:
.... RAW captures/retains more detail right? Flexibility is definitely what I'm after ~ I just wanted to understand more about RAW files & converting them blah blah before I experimented. I don't mind putting the time in, I'm one of those photographers' that just has to adjust every photograph I take, be it drastic or just a little tweak here & there hahaha. I find that, for me, the post production is part of the process & no photograph is complete without it. Thank you for explaining things in a way that I can comprehend.
Click to expand...


You're right there Ashly, RAW retains much more information than Jpg so when you are editing you have much more to work with. I shoot in RAW and output in Jpg but always retain my RAW files.

Enjoy your ' digital darkroom ' ;)
 
@Houston1863 Cheeers :}!
 
IamAshlyRose said:
@AndyB1976
Oh I never believe that editing can take too long, no photograph is ever truly finished, there is always room for improvement! Despite what people say. I'm quite looking forward to seeing what more I can do with my photographs using RAW. Thank you :}
Click to expand...

You can still do a fair bit of editing on a JPEG as has been shown on other threads here before that debate the RAW JPEG argument.

However in my opinion, if you are going to edit in depth as you imply then RAW would surely be most recommended!
 
@AndyB1976
Of course, I've been post-processing fairly drastically on JPEG files for a couple of years but I do find that when adjusting curves & levels, it sometimes decreases the quality or 'ruins' the photograph for me which I find a shame. I read a little about RAW shooting & was intrigued by the idea that it's like working with a negative {which of course can be exposed correctly using different techniques to get the final print} but I didn't understand all of the information given hence this thread. I'll read about the much more technical details once I've began mastering actually working with it as I'm interested in the theory of most things {ever curious hahaha}. I always keep live PSD files of anything I've worked on & my old lecturer often used to tell me I'd get better quality edits if I worked with RAW files as they aren't compressed. S'about time I explored RAW I think!

Just to show an example of the sort of retouching I do →
_MG_9577.jpg
_MG_95772-1.jpg

I like to touch up details & what not so being able to adjust any exposures would be amazing!
 
Last edited:
IamAshlyRose said:
@garryknight

@u8myufo Perhaps but the main benefit in changing to RAW shooting is the complicated adjustments it'll enable me to do!
Click to expand...

Well you did ask for someone to talk you through the basics of Raw processing which is why I mentioned trying DPP first as a Raw converter, it might be basic but it is still pretty powerful in it`s own rights. Cs will give you the same but with more options once you are happy with moving on.
 
rob marshall said:
Hello Ashly

Lightroom, and canon DPP are pretty good, but not as good as Photoshop CS.
Click to expand...

Rob - I'm curious about this statement. My understanding was that the RAW processing engine in CS is the same as the one in Lightroom. So in terms of processing, they will be the same, won't they? Obviously they both have other strengths in terms of batch processing vs single image editing, but I'm wondering if my understanding about the actual processing is wrong.
 
rex008 said:
My understanding was that the RAW processing engine in CS is the same as the one in Lightroom.
Click to expand...
You are correct. LR is effectively a wrapper on top of ACR.
 
rob marshall said:
Lightroom, and canon DPP are pretty good, but not as good as Photoshop CS.
Click to expand...


Nope. In terms of RAW processing, as others have pointed out, LR is just a different interface for ACR with more user friendly access to metadata and a cataloguing system. Photoshop doesn't process RAW files at all so if you tried using it for that by itself you'd be stuffed.

Likewise until about ACR 3.2, DPP was reckoned to be producing better rendering of Canon RAWs than Adobe.

If you are going to try and push your own tutorials, make sure that you get your facts straight first! :)
 
@garryknight Thank you, you've been a real help!
 
I think of the raw/jpeg thing this way...

ALL cameras produce a raw image. However, this image is of no use to us humans with our eyesight until a conversion is made to allow us to see our picture in all it's glory. Either this is done in-camera by the software to produce a jpeg, using the criteria set out by the camera manufacturer, or the raw is passed through a convertor program. Assuming the latter, there is the opportunity to adjust various aspects to provide something pleasing to us, the photographer.

In the case of the jpeg, the settings are baked in, with reasonable, although limited adjustment possibilities and in the case of the raw, using parametics (as in Lightroom), endless adjustments can be made for as long as one might like.

Anthony.
 
@Anthony.Ralph Mm, I'm seriously eager to compare the results I get when shooting & post processing with RAW.
~ I'll have a little experiment this afternoon!
 
Sorry, another question →
What is the difference between RAW SRAW1 & SRAW2? I'm dead confused!
 
IamAshlyRose said:
Sorry, another question →
What is the difference between RAW SRAW1 & SRAW2? I'm dead confused!
Click to expand...
RAW is the full resolution of the sensor. SRAW1 & 2 are half and quarter resolution, which reduces the file size. (Does anyone ever use them???)
 
@gridlock Oh I see, I had a flick thru the manual & it makes sense now hahaha. Think I'll use RAW rather than the half & quarter resolutions.
 
Yes so was I Ashly especially when my Aperture software wouldn't process the SRaw files. That was back in '09. I think they may do so now.

sRaw files are quite simply smaller version of the standard RAW file. Both use lossless compression and differ in the number of pixels. An sRAW1 file is half the size of an original RAW file while an sRAW2 file is 1/4 of the size of the RAW file.

In practical terms if you know you will be making small prints, then an sRAW file will probably suffice. However shooting in RAW will get you all the information in the image that you would wish to keep and which will allow you a great deal more processing leeway. I suppose they wouldn't produce them if there wasn't the demand but I don't know anyone who shoots in sRAW!!!


Edit - Slow typing at this time of the night and I didn't see the pageover - I see you have found the answers!!! ;)
 
Last edited:
IamAshlyRose said:
@gridlock Oh I see, I had a flick thru the manual & it makes sense now hahaha. Think I'll use RAW rather than the half & quarter resolutions.
Click to expand...

Hi - I find rather than reducing the file sizes I just work around bigger memory cards and hard drives which I think is where your thoughts are heading too?

When I started, my first camera only shot jpegs, my second shot RAW and I used to shoot RAW with a jpeg copy. Recently I stopped this and went to just RAW as I now process everything in Lightroom so no need for the jpeg straight out of the camera - i can just export one from LR once I've tweaked it.

If I am shooting something that I know is literally some snaps - lets say they are some items I'm selling in the classifieds as an easy example, I'd shoot these as small jpegs as I know I'm not going to edit etc.

If I am shooting something that is "important" then I always shoot in RAW. I always try and get my shots right in the camera but often they may be under/over exposed; incorrect white balance etc. The RAW file allows me to tweak these without losing any quality.

I like the way that I can go back with my RAWs and re-edit to try new styles/thinking. This I'm guessing from the photo you have posted is something that may well work for you with your designs.

One final thought. When shooting RAW I find it important to have your own workflow set out. How do you go about processing those shots out of the camera (and into Lightroom as an example)?

three that I do off the top of my head are: -
Apply batch metadata
Apply lens correction
Correct White Balance

There are others but the above hopefully gives you an idea.
 
For what Little it may help Ashley Rose, i am fairly new and like to shoot RAW and Jpeg. Obviously this takes up your card space a lot quicker but it helps me when going through my images. I can view the Jpegs in windoze explorer and delete any plums leaving me more time to process the RAW files that are actually worth it.
I had never heard of RAW until i came on here, after reading the details on here and seeing demo videos on a DVD with digital photo magazine, if i had to choose only 1 it would be RAW everytime.

Best wishes
Cliff
 
@Houston1863 Thank you for the explanation none-the-less, every little helps!

@Buck Yeah I've had a little experiment working with full-resolution RAW & a JPEG copy. I've been using Adobe Photoshop CS4 to make adjustments 'cause altho I have Lightroom, I find it saves time without transitioning from one to the other & I find Photoshop has more capabilities. I'll only be shooting in RAW for portfolio or client work, personal & experiments can still be shot in sharp large JPEG. Yeah, I quite like the flexibility & the ability to revisit photographs as well. I haven't quite found the editing process that works best just yet but I'm still having a play. Thank you.

@*gold* I can imagine it takes a considerable amount more of card space but I've recently invested in a couple of 8GB 30MB/s CF cards & I've found that it gives me enough room to still shoot a decent amount without filling all the space. I've heard of RAW before & a few photographers I've admired have discussed RAW during interviews but I'm only just exploring it myself ~ better late than never?

I took a couple of experimental photographs & converted them using the "Camera RAW" Photoshop plug-in. Hopefully if I continue to mess around with various adjustments I'll get the hang of it all! Thank you to everyone who talked me thru things hahaha. Any other tips are greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
*gold* said:
For what Little it may help Ashley Rose, i am fairly new and like to shoot RAW and Jpeg. Obviously this takes up your card space a lot quicker but it helps me when going through my images. I can view the Jpegs in windoze explorer and delete any plums leaving me more time to process the RAW files that are actually worth it.
I had never heard of RAW until i came on here, after reading the details on here and seeing demo videos on a DVD with digital photo magazine, if i had to choose only 1 it would be RAW everytime.

Best wishes
Cliff
Click to expand...

Cliff - you may not be aware, but last July Microsoft released a codec pack for windows that means you can view RAW directly in Explorer just like any other picture file format. Works fine for CR2 files off my Canon anyway, and the list of supported formats is pretty decent.

http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=26829

Might save you some space if that's the only reason you do RAW+JPEG.
 
One other really useful feature of editing RAW files is that the changes (usually) are stored in a separate 'sidecar' file (xmp). So, delete this and you are back to your original shot.

Very useful as your editing skills improve.
 
rex008 said:
Cliff - you may not be aware, but last July Microsoft released a codec pack for windows that means you can view RAW directly in Explorer just like any other picture file format. Works fine for CR2 files off my Canon anyway, and the list of supported formats is pretty decent.

http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=26829

Might save you some space if that's the only reason you do RAW+JPEG.
Click to expand...

Andrew, you are a star, downloaded and working great, not compatible with the images from my Nikon but thats gone now.
Working perfectly with my 50D files though (y)

Many thanks :D
Cliff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top