Easy way to start processing RAW files

Hi everyone, this is my first time posting on the "Digital Darkroom" forum; my question

is quite dumb, but it's something I need to ask sooner or later.

 

I been, for a variety of ridiculous reasons, a strict JPEG shooter since I converted to

digital. Now I want to experiment with the RAW format, but I'm seemingly clueless about

how to get the work flow going. (I don't have photoshop as of now)

 

What would be a nice and cheap Raw converter to use? How would I/should I process

a RAW file into a usable (preferrably high quality) JPEG? Please explain the process to

me briefly but clearly. Since I'm not starting off, I don't need to get into any fancy stuff

yet.

 

Thank you

The simplest and most inexpensive way is to download the free Raw Therapy and load your RAW files from that program for editing. You can then explore the different tweaking control (best way to learn) to alter the image until you see what you like (watch the histogram though). Once you're satisfied with altered image, then use the export option to convert it to a jpg file in a folder of your choice. That's it. BTW, the Raw Therapy is quite good (more basic version of the $300 Lightroom). If you want to invest on a straight forward but useful program, then download the trial version of the Adobe Lightroom.

Forgot to mention - in terms of workflow, just generally follow the order of the controls from top to bottom of the control panel as laid out on the right side of the program.

Obviously I can't aim for the "best possible" images yet, but will the JPEGs processed from RAW via free RAW Therapy be "better" than JPEGs from the camera?

 

*I have a Nikon D300, which seems to produce very good JPEGs.

If you bought a brand new D300, you probably have a serial (or a CD) for Nikon Capture NX included in the camera box. Capture NX will give the best rendering for your RAW (NEF) files and you will get top quality tiffs or jpegs. And Capture NX can edit tiffs and jpegs coming from any camera too...

If your JPEGS are well exposed and color balanced, no there is no difference providing you work in 16 bit and do not open, change, and close them repeatedly.

 

The raw processor in CS3 and Lightroom is wonderful and will get you to a finished product really easily and fast. You don`t have to open adjustment layers and can edit individual colors without making masks.

 

Other good ones are the, Bible for one.

<I>"....The simplest and most inexpensive way is to download the free Raw

Therapy</I><P>Not if one is using the Macintosh OS.

'Will the JPEGs processed from RAW via free RAW Therapy be "better" than JPEGs from the camera?'

 

'Better' is subjective, but they'll certainly be (at least a bit) different. If you want a close match to the in-camera jpegs using just the default settings (which can also serve as a good starting point for further adjustments), the Capture NX package mentioned by Jack (or the more limited View NX browser) is your best bet. Other raw converters will 'interpret' the raw files rather differently (non-Nikon raw converters ignore most of your in-camera settings, and use their own colour profiles, with varying degrees of 'accuracy'). When you start playing with the settings, all bets are off, and you can get wildly different results even with the same converter. I'd suggest trying several and seeing which you like best. The Adobe products have time-limited demos, as does Capture NX if the CD or serial number wasn't included with your camera (this was a promotional offer). View NX is a free download and should always be included with the camera (though it has only limited raw adjustments).

>> "Capture NX will give the best rendering for your RAW (NEF) files and you will get top quality tiffs or jpegs."

 

I know that it's supposed to do that, but I couldn't/haven't figure it out yet.

 

>> "The raw processor in CS3 and Lightroom is wonderful and will get you to a finished product really easily and fast."

 

Now that's gonna cost some $$.

 

>> ""....The simplest and most inexpensive way is to download the free Raw Therapy

 

Not if one is using the Macintosh OS."

 

It's all good, I have a PC.

 

>> "'Better' is subjective, but they'll certainly be (at least a bit) different."

 

The only thing that's really forcing me into shooting raw is white balance problem. In situations in which white balance is not a problem, most of my JPEGs look good (I generally don't run into problems w/ exposure...).

Shuo, since you have the D300 (which is my dream camera BTW as I only have the D60 for now), I agree with Jack that you should give Capture NX a try first as it is supposed to be the closest program to your in-camera jpg conversion process. If you like the in-camera jpg conversion, the Capture NX should give you considerably more flexibility to "customized" the image to your own liking, including white balance. Doesn't Capture NX come with your D300? Its brochure seems to suggest so.

>> "Doesn't Capture NX come with your D300?"

 

I already have it installed on my computer, but I'm clueless about how to actually do it. So I guess some brief instruction on that would be helpful.

 

Thanks.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00O9J8

The JPEGs are processed in-camera automatically by the software, which does, as you've already noticed, produce very good results. The JPEGs you post-produce from the RAW, which is essentially uncooked image information straight from your sensor, will be processed by your RAW software, whether Capture NX or some other program, according to the decisions you make. The point isn't that they will be "better"--you were right to put that word in quotes--but that they will be yours.<p>As you get into RAW processing, the number of decisions you have to make--initially confusing, I know--will gradually become a rather exhilarating feeling of being in complete creative control.<p>In regard to your D300, the very good JPEGs it produces have as many as 12 megapixels, which is good but not a terribly significant improvement over the 10 megapixels of the D200, and 8 bits of depth, which translates to two to the eighth number of distinct shades of red, green, and blue, or the same as the D200.<p>When you shoot RAW, that 8 bits becomes 12 bits in the D200, and 14 bits in the D300 (when properly set in-camera). That's eight times more distinct tonalities in the D200, or 32 times more tonalities in the D300--a whopping increase in <u>potential</u> image quality. Some new printers are able to take advantage of the extra bits, but most aren't, and you won't get the theoretically possible improvement because of other limitations on throughput, such as lens quality. You do get greatly reduced noise in the D300, whether you shoot RAW or JPEG, and you'll find that your RAW images are much more malleable, meaning that they can be edited more freely without losing continuity of tone.<p>So there isn't any reason you shouldn't be shooting JPEG with your very expensive camera, and letting it decide how to process your images (within rather imprecise guidelines you set in-camera). It's a question of who's to be boss, that's all. ;-)

Good point.

Do your self a favor, save up for CS3 now, don't waste your time and money on anything else. If you can afford D300, you can afford Photo Shop.

One thing to think about, there's a steep learning curve to any photo editing software, and you will be investing a lot time learning the software, so why not start with the best of them all, you'll never look back.