Shooting in RAW

[mark_pierlot]

I recently acquired a used 5D after years of film photography with FD and, lately, EOS gear. I would like to shoot in

RAW, but have a few questions.

 

Since I've always had my film processing lab do all of the colour correction, I have no experience doing it. But if I

want to shoot in RAW, I will have to do it myself. My question is this: while shooting in RAW, does it matter what

picture settings (white balance, colour temperature, sharpness, contrast, etc.) I set on the 5D? My crude

understanding is that because these things are all done in post processing, I can leave the settings on default. Is

this correct?

 

My second question is about combining RAW with jpeg while shooting (for example, using the RAW + L setting). Is

there any

advantage to doing this? Can't RAW files be converting to jpeg files in post anyway?

 

Sorry for the simplistic questions, but I am a real neophyte when it comes to digital photography.

[jimstrutz]

You are right that when shooting raw you should not have to be concerned with white balance, et al, but if you process your raw images in Canon's DPP it will take the camera settings as the default parameters, so it's easier later to get it right in camera before. You can still over ride those settings though. And if you use Adobe's or other software it's not an issue at all.

 

The advantage to shooting raw plus JPG is if the JPG image looks good you don't have to mess with the raw image. Personally, I shoot raw only, and process them all. I think it's better that way.

[robert_tan1]

Thanks for the update..however if some people are running os less than winxp will that be a problem?

[elliot1]

While your premise is correct, it is in your best interest to get everything right when you are shooting and not have to correct your images on your computer later on.

 

While I always shot RAW/JPG with my 5D, I rarely used the RAW files as 98% of my JPGs were perfect right out of the camera. By adjusting the picture control settings to your liking, you should be able to get great JPGs right out of the camera. But it is always nice to have the RAW files for backup.

 

RAW files can easily be converted to JPG files but it can be time consuming, especially if you take a lot of pictures.

[alan_bryant1]

I shoot RAW+L and usually use the jpgs. The RAW is nice to have if you need it.

 

With my current software, it's quite a bit faster to flip through a bunch of jpg files than a bunch of raw files. Not a small concern if you shot 1000 pictures at an event.

 

From an archival standpoint, I'm concerned about the long-term readability of raw files. It is a Canon proprietary file format and is currently poorly supported. If they change the file format in the future, the format on current cameras may drop through the cracks, in five years there may be few programs available that can read it, in ten or twenty years perhaps nothing at all. On the other hand, Jpg is a deeply entrenched format and will always be readable. (This may seem like a ridiculous concern to computer noobs. Believe me, file formats do wither and die, and people who depended on those formats are out of luck.)

[robin_sibson1]

I would never NOT shoot in RAW. It's not at all difficult to learn how to use Digital Photo Professional, an increasingly impressive piece of software that comes with the camera (but do update to the latest version). You can print directly from it, convert to TIFF format to allow high-grade manipulation in, say, Photoshop, and convert to JPEG, including through a batch capability if you have a lot of photos needing the same conversion parameters (and if you have some need for JPEGs - they are useful for display on the web and in presentations, but you should think of them as an end-product, like a print, and always go back to the RAW file or a TIFF if you want to make any modifications).

 

There are sometimes good reasons for shooting RAW+ high quality JPEG. The RAW file contains an embedded JPEG which is used for viewing it on the camera LCD, and on portable storage units. The embedded JPEG written by the 5D is of significantly lower resolution than the RAW file, so, for example, does not provide a reliable check on the sharpness of the RAW image. If you shoot RAW+JPEG and set the JPEG parameters to full resolution (L) and, preferably, high quality, then you can overcome this by inspecting the separate JPEG, and some portable storage devices (like the Canon M30/M80) are smart enough to treat the files as a pair and automatically display the separate JPEG, allowing a higher zoom level as well. The price you pay is the use of about 50% more storage space, and correspondingly more data flowing through the camera processing system which may reduce burst length.

 

The only camera parameter that actually affects the 5D RAW file is the ISO setting. All other parameters affect the embedded JPEG, however, and serve as default settings in DPP for how the RAW file is interpreted, so it's worth giving at least a little thought to them.

[rainer_t]

-- "however if some people are running os less than winxp will that be a problem?"

 

It depends ... All new SW releases from Adobe do only support XP and Vista. (Win2K and older are no longer supported).

 

Canon's recent versions of DPP is still running fine on Win2K.

[ty_mickan]

One thing to consider is that if you shoot raw and chimp, the image you see on the camera LCD is a JPEG image thatis obtained by the JPEG settings that you have in the camera. It will still output a raw file however you may be basing your expsoures on the JPEG image on the screen. So if you generally will be cranking up the saturation in the raw converter, then it may be wise to have your JPEG defaults set on Vivid (or whatever your camera equivelant is).

[dan_hall4]

I am with Jim.

 

But I should admit that Jim was one of the guys willing to help me out when I got my first dslr last Nov. I took his advice then and it has worked very well for me. RAW is not the rocket science I was making it out to be. Very easy to do and has many advantages. As others have said, I would not consider shooting anything but RAW at this point. Memory cards are cheaper than ever. I shoot in RAW, convert to DNG which I archive, and use Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0. Wonderful software and easy to use once you get your feet wet. If you are new to post processing like I, I would suggest shooting RAW, using PSE 6.0, and buying a book by Scott Kelby "Photoshop Elements 6.0 for Digital Photographers". Great book. You could get PSE 6.0 and this book and be in great shape in no time at all. This book is very easy to learn from and has lots of images with clear talk. Check Amazon for both.

[pierre_c1]

One option I loved on the 20D is that it could shoot RAW + small JPEGs. This is great to upload the small JPEGs on the web when you're in vacation. My new 450D only has RAW + large JPEGs, so I don't shoot JPEGs anymore.

 

However as Tom says, if you set the camera to "vivid", then what is on the screen is processed with the "vivid" settings. This includes the histogram. Then generally you get blown-out highlights or pitch black shadows. Then you'll wonder, is the data in the RAW so you can recover it later in Lightroom ? You can't really know. So, I always set the camera to the mode with the least contrast, and least saturated colors, so the histogram looks a bit closer to the real RAW. Then I know I can process it correctly in Lightroom.

[harold_motte]

Hi, RAW is not as difficult at a lot of beginners think. It is a good idea to shoot in RAW.

The only other thing I can say is a little blunt, but; "Try and get it right, in the camera, to start with."

Act as if Photoshop did not exist. I think you will become a better photographer for it.

[john_barrett1]

I shoot only in RAW. With the new software Instant JPEG from RAW you can export images from the RAW format very quickly. For both Windows and Mac it's a contextual plugin that allows you to right mouse click on the raw file and create a jpeg. http://www.rawworkflow.com/

[wgpinc]

Just to be contrary I recommend that you just set your 5D to large fine jpeg, set the camera on Standard and shoot with the P setting concentrating on learning exposure control/compensation for the first 6 months or so. You will get a lot of good pictures and you will learn a lot about many things without stressing in front of the computer. Before long you'll have a much better idea about whether you need raw or not and may decide like many amateurs and professionals that jpeg is as much as you need. Keep life simple and concentrate on making images not making RAW. Raw is just another tool in the digital arsenal not some holy grail. Here's an argument on the subject by a guy many here would consider opinionated but it's worth a read. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm Good luck!

[dmanthree]

Regarding Rockwell; anyone who makes this statement...

 

"I never shoot raw. Why would I? Raw is a waste of time and space, and doesn't look any better than JPG even when you can open the files."

 

...has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Regarding that entire site, well, read it if you like, but be aware that the author freely admits that he makes it all up and offers no apologies about not verifying anything as factual. Read this and make up your own mind:

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm

[keith reeder]

Rockwell's an utter jackass who will say black is white just to get hits on his site.

 

Avoid.

[JDMvW]

RAW is the "negative" - large jpg is your print back from the processor.

 

For snap shots I sometimes shoot only large jpgs, sort of like using a Polaroid. For anything I might want to keep, the RAW is very handy. Like others above, I almost always shoot anything I can't get back to easily in RAW+L jpg.

[mark_pierlot]

Thanks, guys. The preponderance of opinion seems to be to go with RAW + L, and to not ignore my 5D's settings completely.

 

Gil, thank you for the contrarian viewpoint. In my years of shooting film with FD gear (F-1N's and T90's with the best of the FD glass) I've never once felt that I missed "P" mode, and I also feel that I have a pretty good grasp of the fundamentals of exposure. And even though I now have bodies that have P mode (1V, 3, and 5D), I can say with certainty I'll never use it. 99% of my shooting is in Av; the rest is in M (when I'm using my older F-1's, 'cause that's all they've got).

 

And thanks alot, guys, for the heads up on Rockwell. I'll definitely take his claims with a very large grain of salt.

[wdgodwin]

Mark,

See http://www.whibalhost.com/products/DVD/index_new_sample.html for a graphic illustration of the camera operation of raw and jpeg processing.

 

David

[wdgodwin]

Mark, Here is an excerpt from the North Amercian Photo web site - I could't say any better my self and I quote "Most camera's RAW formats capture at least 12 bits of data for each of the three colors. This calculates out to 4096 tonal values, which equates to greater than 68.7 Billion colors. JPEGS, on the other hand, use only 8 bits per color which equals 256 tonal values. This is equivalent to a little more than 16.7 Million colors. So, when you save a JPEG in your camera, you are leaving it up to your camera's built in RAW converter to throw away a substantial amount of the original data. Theoretically this can be more than 90% of all tonal values. Hopefully what is left is what you saw when you took the picture. Additionally, camera vendors apply a rather steep contrast curve to the data in order to produce a snappier more pleasing image. This eliminates about a stop of available dynamic range. Again, you have given over control of what data is deleted to the camera, not you!"

 

Plus the changes done to the raw file are NONDESTRUCTIVE. I vote for RAW.

 

David

[alan_myers]

Hi Mark,

 

Good advice about RAW. I nearly always shoot straight RAW, the only exception being when I just don't have time to process the images. Then I'll soot RAW + L JPG. For example, when we are shooting an event and printing on site, it's impractical to process the RAW files then and there. Another example would be if shooting on deadline for a publication.

 

If you haven't already done so, get a good calibration setup for your computer monitor. It's very handy to have something to calibrate your printer, too. But the monitor is the most critical of the two. Make that essential. It is possible to get by with whatever ICC profiles you can get hold of for your printer/ink/paper combos, if you don't have any means of calibrating the printer yourself. It's also possible to have custom profiles made.

 

David is right in his explanations. Think of RAW as everything that the camera's sensor manages to capture. It's essentially a TIFF, by the way, but tweaked by each camera manufacturer to work with their own system. A JPEG, on the other hand, throws away a lot of the data that's deemed unnecessary.I The way I look at it, who's to say what's necessary until you view and evaluate the image on a big, calibrated computer monitor. I'd rather make the decision what to toss and what to keep, than leave it up to the camera to decide for me. JPEGS have some latitude for corrections, of course. But nowhere near as much as RAW files do. There's just so much more info in a RAW file.

 

There are some excellent books that every newcomer to digital should read. The Magic Lantern (and similar) Guide books for your particular camera pick up where the manual left off. Mikkal Aaland has written excellent books on using the various versions of Photoshop and Adobe Camera RAW.

 

Peter Krogh's "The DAM Book - Digital Asset Management for Photographers" is another I'd highly recommend. He's very specific about certain softwares, file types (he's a DNG fan) and methods, but the overall concepts can be applied to a number of different setups.

 

BTW, you could use an older version of PS, such as CS2, since the 5D has been around for awhile. The 40D and all the later 14 bit cameras require at least CS3. Of course, there have been some other nice improvements to CS3, as well. I'm sure we'll see the same in CS4, which is due out soon.

 

If you get set up and runnig right at the beginning, your life will be much easier and the learning curve less frustrating. I suspect that you'll be scanning and handling your film digitally, too, in short order. Hope you have plenty of hard disk space on your computer!