RAW or Headache (for not an expert)

[sami_palta1]

<p>Hello everybody,</p>

<p>Coming from a film background and bought a digital camera (5dII) last year. So I am new to digital and do not use/don't know any photoshop or digital photo correction programme.<br>

So I basicly shoot L/M Jpeg files and sometimes I shoot RAW only for "anyhow/any case" files and store them only in HDDs.</p>

<p>I like to have clear and detailed pictures. So I shoot Large files. Also like to have large prints sometimes.</p>

<p>Should I shoot RAW or Jpeg only?</p>

<p>When shooting RAW which programme you advice to use and most important, as a beginner what should I need to correct in RAW pictures? and how?</p>

<p>May somebody advice me a website to learn "how to do it".</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Sami</p>

<p> </p>

[Wayne Melia]

<p>My advice (which will no doubt be contradicted by others), is to shoot jpeg large fine, and rely on on your camera's built in jpeg rendering engine do the conversion from the initial raw file produced by the camera to a recognizeable image).<br>

This is not to say that one cannot produce better results on an individual file by shooting raw, and hand tweaking the demosaicing process (if you have to look up "demosaicing", it only strengthens my case); but the jpeg conversion engines in current cameras are pretty damn fine.<br>

Fine enough that managing a raw workflow is likely (notice I did not write certainly, naysayers) to result in a step backwords until the necessary time is spent to learn the above mentioned raw workflow, which can easily become a diversionary exercise in itself, expanding into experimentation with multiple software choices, learning each well enough to make an informed choice, etc.<br>

All of which takes <strong>time that is not shooting time</strong>.<br>

Herin is the problem. Shooting time leads to an understanding of light and it's nature. Processing is devoted to compensation for imperfect light, wherever that imperfection comes from.<br>

Understandment of light is the fundemental of photography.<br>

Let the flames rage.<br>

Closing caveat and acknowledgement: I shoot raw, use proprietory (CNX2) software, and deviate from the camera conversion engine as I see fit. I further acknowledge that I do not have the self-stated fundemental mastery of "the_nature-of-light", (or natural sense of composition, colour, etc.) to make great photographs. But in my learning efforts, I try to recognize where the truth (if "truth" is even the appropriate word ?) is, and comment with my limited knowledge.</p>

[Wayne Melia]

<p>My advice (which will no doubt be contradicted by others), is to shoot jpeg large fine, and rely on on your camera's built in jpeg rendering engine do the conversion from the initial raw file produced by the camera to a recognizeable image).<br>

This is not to say that one cannot produce better results on an individual file by shooting raw, and hand tweaking the demosaicing process (if you have to look up "demosaicing", it only strengthens my case); but the jpeg conversion engines in current cameras are pretty damn fine.<br>

Fine enough that managing a raw workflow is likely (notice I did not write certainly, naysayers) to result in a step backwords until the necessary time is spent to learn the above mentioned raw workflow, which can easily become a diversionary exercise in itself, expanding into experimentation with multiple software choices, learning each well enough to make an informed choice, etc.<br>

All of which takes <strong>time that is not shooting time</strong>.<br>

Herin is the problem. Shooting time leads to an understanding of light and it's nature. Processing is devoted to compensation for imperfect light, wherever that imperfection comes from.<br>

Understandment of light is the fundemental of photography.<br>

Let the flames rage.<br>

Closing caveat and acknowledgement: I shoot raw, use proprietory (CNX2) software, and deviate from the camera conversion engine as I see fit. I further acknowledge that I do not have the self-stated fundemental mastery of "the_nature-of-light", (or natural sense of composition, colour, etc.) to make great photographs. But in my learning efforts, I try to recognize where the truth (if "truth" is even the appropriate word ?) is, and comment with my limited knowledge.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Google "RAW file processing" and start reading You find tons of info like this:<br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml</a></p>

 

[ed_avis2]

<p>If you have a new, fast computer with lots of memory, and a fast card reader to transfer the files from camera to computer, then try raw. (I use the free program Raw Therapee.) You may not need to 'correct' anything - I find the most common tweak is to adjust the exposure if the camera got it slightly wrong. You also have some scope to rescue photographs which had a very incorrect exposure, but I hope you won't need to attempt that often.</p>

<p>If you prefer to spend time behind the camera rather than on the computer, or if you find you just don't have the patience to process each file with the raw converter, then JPEG will be fine. For pictures taken in daylight, there won't be any difference. Once you get to darker scenes, raw gives more scope to bring out details in the shadows, but even there your camera has good performance at high ISO settings, so it can do a reasonable job without your help.</p>

[kerry_grim]

Why not give Canon DPP a try. It is free and not difficult to use.

[jim_larson1]

<p>What makes you think you have to spend hours slaving away processing RAW photographs?</p>

<p>I use a program (Lightroom) to catalogue images; Quite often I push the "auto" button; then press "export as small JPEG" and I am done. So. . .for 95% of my images . . .no muss. . .no fuss. . .for the other 5%; photoshop slave.</p>

<p>Now, here's the rub: I do not know in advance which photos are in the 5%. Sometimes. . I don't know for months. The key is to have CHOICE.</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>I only shoot raw. I use Lightroom as my main post processing software.<br>

How do you learn Lightroom? I'm a big fan of online education. For photography I like Scott Kelby's training site. Many different professionals teaching what they know. Check it out. You can subscribe for a month for only 25 dollars... there are enough lightroom tutorials to teach you everything you need to know.<br>

<a href="http://kelbytraining.com/">http://kelbytraining.com/</a></p>

[kezia]

<p>I second the use of DPP. It allows you to batch convert the pictures with the settings you set in-camera with no knowledge of Raw conversion, so you don't have to spend time in front of a computer if you don't want to. So why would you bother to do that? Well, in addition, it allows you to choose settings for picture style, white balance, sharpness, all very intuitively with the click of a button on the main page (it's like being able to change the film in the camera after the fact). These are also extra settings you didn't have to think about in film days, so it's less stressful knowing you can change them later if you want to. Of course, there are lots of creative things you can do to save badly exposed pictures, or change the colour, b&w conversion etc. but you aren't forced to do any of these things if you aren't interested in them. But for the few pictures you want to choose for large prints, or for a good picture but with detail lost in the shadows, being able to fine-tune adjustments (e.g. sharpness to bring out the finest detail) is really valuable. I live where constant sunlight and harsh shadows are a problem and I often find myself making slight adjustments to bring back colour to washed-out skies or to reveal details lost in the shadows. I also used to have problemswith oversaturated greens in Velvia in the springtime (I wasn't too experienced so I have no idea whether this was a general problem or just me). In digital I can just pull back the saturation of the greens to reveal the detail, because though I find the in-camera Jpeg conversion very good it doesn't always recognize when one colour is nearing saturation point (though this may not be a problem with the 5dII).</p>

[daveinwilton]

<p>I will never present myself as an expert, but I have some knowledge that I will share. Unfortunately, every moment of the day is not great photographing time, matter-of-fact, not even every day is a good photographing day. Why not learn post processing on these rainy, windy, nasty days. Personally, I capture both, Large Raw and .jpg on each image. It is about a 2:1 split in data stored on the card, but it gives me endless possibilities to work (or not work) on my captures. Often, the .jpgs are fine, but I like having the raw material to make changes if I desire. How do you like that, maybe I am just non-committal.</p>

[nail33]

<p >I'm far from an expert on the topic of raw vs jpeg, but I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would shoot jpeg instead of raw, other than not enough memory on the card to complete a photo session or the need for a faster burst of shots because of the buffer in the camera. The camera only records the raw file. You can't see a raw file until the camera's jpeg engine (or a software program) generates a jpeg from the raw information. I use Canon's raw editing program DPP to view and edit my photos. When I download my raw files from the camera to my computer, I first see them as they would be seen in the lcd screen on my camera (generated by the picture style I selected on my camera). This is a starting point for further editing if need be. If I'm happy with what I see, all I have to do is select all in batch mode, then convert/save, and press one button. Viola......they all turn into jpegs (or whatever format I choose) to then be used for prints or to be viewed on the web (or to be further edited with another software program). I don't see the difficulty here in letting the computer generate the jpegs (unless your computer is very slow) vs letting the camera do it. I mean it's only the matter of pressing a few buttons. As others have stated, you have much more latitude to edit a photo with the raw information than with a jpeg. If you only shoot with your camera set to jpeg, all that raw information is lost forever. It's somewhat similar to throwing away your negatives (film) after you've had prints made. Some will say shooting jpeg forces a beginner to get it right (exposure, etc.) to start with......what's up with that? I shoot raw and try to get it right the first time too. That's only common sense. I first started shooting just jpeg because I didn't know any better. Now I regret it, as I'm sure I could improve on those old jpegs with the editing skills I've gained over the years (and the improved editing programs), had I shot raw instead. What possible harm could it be to shoot raw instead of jpeg? You have absolutely nothing to lose, and everything to gain. I my honest opinion, it's a no brainer.</p>

[kezia]

<p>One extra point in favour of DPP: it will minimize the extra work you do compared to other programs because the default conversions are identical to the in-camera settings you chose. This is generally not true of programs other than the native Canon software -- the conversions may be close, but they are approximations, not identical. I find I spend much more time tweaking Raw files in Adobe Raw because the Jpeg conversions are not identical to the in-camera ones. You have more choice with Lightroom or Camera Raw, but it can get more complicated. </p>

[alan_bessler]

<p>I used to go the jpeg route,but no more.I use DPP for the quick jpegs and LR4 for the more advanced editing. My 2 cents...</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>If you find yourself often shooting subjects in challenging lighting situations, sunrise/sunset, backlit, to name a couple then the advantages of RAW and the graduated neutral density filter in the Photoshop RAW converter are very powerful tools.</p>

<p>Generally 99% of RAW files are bland and require tweaking. In the Photoshop RAW converter I reduce vignetting and chromatic aberation from lenses that produce them, correct white balance, and apply the GND filter as required. Time required is 1 to 5 minutes, depending on the GND filtering required. Once the RAW file is converted to tiff then in Photoshop I make adjustments to exposure, brightness/contrast, colour saturation (by colour) and sharpness and crop as necessary. Time required is 2 to 5 minutes.</p>

<p>Beyond that I often shift and stitch images using Photomerge in Photoshop and have experimented with HDR in Photoshop and in Photomatix.</p>

<p>The only thing I know about jpegs is that each time you save them, and of course this can be limited, you degrade the file. </p>

<p>If you are interested in taking your photography to the next level and take advantage of the capabilities of your 5D II and good lenses then RAW is the best way to go. <br>

</p>

[ljwest]

<p>Let me see if I can put together an analogy to film shooting:</p>

<p>Shooting RAW in the camera is like having your own darkroom at home. You "process" the "film", but you have a much greater ability to make adjustments for errors in the camera settings, exposure, white balance, etc. like you would with an enlarger and paper, etc. You can make multiple versions of an image, and always have the RAW data (the negative/the RAW file) from the camera to fall back upon.</p>

<p>Shooting JPEG in the camera is a lot like taking your shots, dropping the film off at your local camera shop or drug store, picking them up later, <strong><em>and throwing away the negative</em></strong>. You can take them back to the same place for enlargements later, if you wish, but enlargements or duplicates made from a print are never as good as they could be coming from a negative.</p>

<p>That said, there's nothing wrong with shooting only JPEG, if you are satisfied with what the camera produces for you. It is (well, can be) a big investment in storage to shoot RAW exclusively.</p>

<p>One thing I like about RAW shooting is that you can correct for mistakes made in the camera. If the white balance is off, or the exposure is off (by a little, anyway. It can't work miracles, unfortunately!).</p>

<p>On the other hand, when I went on a Scandinavian trip last summer, I shot almost exclusively JPEG for the storage. The vast majority of my shots would be "touristy" type shots, and so I decided that I could switch to RAW when I liked, but save the storage for a lot of other shots by shooting JPEG (600 RAW images vs over 2,000 JPEGs at 18MP on a 16GB CF card... Over 2k images that trip, and only barely needed a second card...).</p>

<p>Other than that trip, though, I shoot RAW with my Canon 7D. I import them into Apple's Aperture, and I can review them, and select those I want to share on Flickr, or other places. I'm usually cropping and making some adjustments. You get used to it after a while.</p>

<p>One other tip: get in the habit of ruthlessly culling out the bad shots in the camera before they ever get to the computer. Your hard drives will thank you. By "bad", I'm talking about things like: out of focus, hopelessly bad exposure (if it looks all black or all white on the LCD...), unwanted blur (from subject motion or photographer motion), cut off heads, eyes closed, etc. etc... I've shot over 20,000 images with my 7D, but only around half of them made it to my computer.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

 

[hjoseph7]

<p>I second Kezia to give DPP a try. It's not Photoshop, but the guys at Canon did a really great job with the software. It's easy to use, a little cumbersome, but does a great job of rendering RAW images from a Canon camera on your monitor and with printing those images. It is also good at Resizing and Batch Editing. I usually pass my images through DPP before I export them to other packages such as LR and PS if I ever do. <br>

Back in 1995 I got my first Digital SLR. I was told that there was no real difference between RAW and Large Jpeg, but I could swear that by looking at the RAW images in DPP I could barely tell the difference ? If I remember correctly the RAW images did seem to have a bit more resolution and a bit more dynamic range, but not by much. <br>

The real advantage of RAW is when it comes time to editing, when you need all the pixels you can get, also to get the proper white balance at the touch of a button.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>With DPP and DxO you can find RAW conversion settings that you like and apply those settings to all pictures in a batch. Make sure you turn on DLO ("Digital Lens Optimization") in DPP so that the software corrects for the geometric, CA, vignetting, softness, etc. that the 5D MkII does not correct for in-camera.</p>

<p>Once you've gained a little experience with DxO or DPP, it takes only seconds to review each image and tweak the picture from you standard settings.</p>

<p>I like the results of both DxO and DPP, but find DxO much more user friendly and quicker to process. DxO will process my 25MB RAW files in 4 to 6-seconds each, using a Window 7, 64-bit machine, with 8GB of RAM and i7 processor and Open CL enabled. Your 5D MkII RAW files contain tons of information and demand a relatively powerful machine to process.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I always shoot RAW + JPEG. I have immediate access to the JPEGs via many programs for viewing and reviewing. When I've selected my "keepers" I have the corresponding RAW file available if the image needs any correction (which it almost always does!).</p>

<p>The only cost of shooting JPEG + RAW is storage, but these days storage is pretty cheap. It also means the buffer depth is smaller, but I can't recall the last time that was a problem. I don't tend to "machine gun" shots so I don't tend to fill the buffer (EOS 7D)</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I'm a bit of a duffer as well.</p>

<p>Still, I settled on RAW only (currently using a Canon 5D), pretty quickly. I could not get used to DPP; I actually preferred Canon's other RAW processor (embedded in their catch-all camera program, something-utility?), but dropped it too.</p>

<p>I've settled on Adobe's Camera Raw, which I typically used via Adobe Bridge. There's a bit of a learning curve with Adobe's programs (and they're pricey), but at least the interface stays pretty consistant between releases, is doable and do pretty much anything you need.</p>

<p>If you're on-the-fence, and shooting something that matters, and have the space, set your camera to save <em>both</em> jpeg and raw? For a while?</p>

<p><Note to moderators, if you do multiple "Updates" before posting, the editor for creating messages is sometimes <em>very</em> sluggish, almost unresponsive.></p>

[zml]

<p>There is SO MUCH post processing imvolved in film photography that any post in digital pales in comparison...<br>

One had to make a slew of decisions with film, every step of the way, or the results would be less then optimal/intended:</p>

<ul>

<li>film, exposure and chemical processing choices</li>

<li>paper/positive and chemical processing choices</li>

<li>filtration, both in shooting and post stages</li>

<li>sharpening (unsharp mask wasn't invented by photoshop...)</li>

<li>burning in and dodging</li>

<li>etc...</li>

</ul>

<p>If you are careful, the digital camera does all the above for you, just set your white balance right each time (=custom WB), expose carefuly and your post processing of RAM images will comprise of small adjustments for 99% of typical shots, so shoot RAW and a small JPEGs (for quick sharing) and enjoy the results.<br>

Yes, many cameras deliver great in-camera JPEGs but you need to make many important decissions beforehand (investigate Picture Style Editor...)</p>

[paddler4]

<p>As someone who grew up doing my own B&W darkroom work, I think Arnold's answer is spot on.</p>

<p>The conversion to JPEG--whether it is done in camera or by software--is analogous to developing film and photographic paper. It also throws out a lot of information. Yes, newer cameras have pretty good developing algorithms built in. Still, you are choosing a developing algorithm <em>in advance</em>, which the camera will then apply mindlessly, just like the drugstore used to do with film. Sometimes it will work, sometimes it won't.</p>

<p>The analogy breaks down in one way: modern postprocessing software gives you far more control than most of us could manage in the darkroom. So what you give up by not processing your own images is even greater in the case of digital than it was in the old days.</p>

<p>IMHO, if you are serious about maintaining control over your images, there is no alternative but to shoot raw. Like Bob, I shot raw+JPEG for a while, until I realized that I was almost always deleting the JPEGs.</p>

<p>As one of the other posters said, shooting raw does not necessarily mean hours hunched over the computer. Modern software offers a lot of shortcuts, and you can also copy settings from one image to another. When what you want is snapshots, or a step or two above that, you can often get images done in very little time.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I'd like to emphasize Bob's suggestion to shoot RAW +JPEG. I like being able to preview my images quickly and easily full screen and then 100% or even 200% with one of many viewers available for JPEG. It's very quick and easy to select the "keepers". The viewers that come with most RAW conversion programs are slow and clunky compared to simply using something like Windows Gallery and scrolling in and out to examine details and decide on the sharpest or best composed of two very similar images.</p>

<p>I don't think that I saw mention of ETTR ("Expose to the Right"). When you expose to the right of the historgram you increase the available dynamic range of your files. Be sure to avoid blowing out important highlights (turn on your blinky warning lights in the Preview screen). JPEGs that are ETTR will look washed out, but remember, we're not shooting Kodachrome here. We're trying to create a file with the most digital information possible. In RAW conversion we'll adjust level to best taste, but we'll preserve more shadow detail and give the program more digital information to work with.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I have not read the entire thread, so bear that in mind.</p>

<p>Before I get to the jpg versus raw question, I want to comment on the transition from film to digital since you seem to be making that. For many with extensive film backgrounds, the switch to digital capture per se is not the major issue. A much larger issue is switching the rest of your workflow and expectations to something that is very new and very unfamiliar. Out of all the people I have seen who encountered difficulties with the transition, in virtually every case it was not due to the intrinsic quality of one medium or the other but instead due to the <em>challenge of learning new tools and new ways of working.</em></p>

<p>I say this because I noticed your comment that you have not yet gotten any particular software for doing your "development" and printing work. ("... do not use/don't know any photoshop or digital photo correction program me.") Far more than switching to a digital camera and do digital files, this is the most central change that you will have to come to terms with in your photography. The sooner the better. It may or may not be an easy process, but give yourself a half year to a year to fully transition from film processes to digital processes, and it is virtually certain that you will not look back after finishing that process. On the other hand, try to move forward without addressing this, and you will be one frustrated photographer. <br>

<br>

I recommend that you start with Adobe Lightroom. There are a whole bunch of reasons for this recommendation, but I'll share just a few. The program can, at first, do some things in a fairly automatic way - yet it is also very powerful and adaptable once you learn more about how it works and about digital post-processing in general. I does an excellent job of managing and categorizing your files. It is not too expensive. The interface is fairly logical and reasonably friendly. It is easy to find good instructional material on the program. <br>

<br>

As to the raw versus jpg question, there are a few things you should know and understand:</p>

<ul>

<li>jpg files are compressed - this allows many more of them to be stored on a card, among other things. Because of this they have less "bit depth." In addition, in-camera image adjustments (such as those mentioned above) are "baked into" your file at the time the shot is made and you have to live with them.</li>

<li>The raw format (essentially) holds the actual data from the photo sites on the camera sensor, mostly unaltered from what was captured at the time of exposure. Aside from some proprietary noise reduction, little or no adjustment is made to the image data in camera - no color adjustments, no sharpening, etc. Raw data is normally not compressed, to the full 14-or higher bit depth is retained in the file.</li>

<li>A perfectly exposed and perfectly color balanced jpg file that needs little or not adjustment in post can be excellent and can make a very good print, as long as you used the ideal in-camera settings for things like sharpening, curves, color adjustments, and so forth. </li>

<li>If any adjustments to color balance, black/white point, curves, contrast, and so forth is likely to be needed, the raw file has distinct advantages. When significant adjustments are made to a jpg file, there is a good chance that careful photographers and printers will notice banding and other issues. This is especially true when it comes to trying to pull detail out of shadows, where the raw file has considerable advantages, to the extent that you may be able to coax several additional stops of dynamic range out of the image. To a lesser extent you can get back highlight detail in areas that might be blown out in a jpg.</li>

<li>The raw file is unsharpened, so you will need to apply at least default sharpening in post. (A common complaint from newbies is "my raw files are not as sharp as my jogs.") In reality, the sharpened raw file will always have at least as much detail as the jpg.</li>

</ul>

<p>To make a rough analogy, having the raw file is like retaining the original negative or transparency with film shooting. Having a raw is like having a service develop your film, having them make a print, and then throwing away the negative. For some kinds of photographers, this is perhaps OK. For many others it is not OK.</p>

<p>At a minimum, if you are not ready to actually work the raw files quite yet, at least put your camera in the raw+jpg mode. This creates both file types - the easily accessible and probably at least OK jpg and the highest quality raw. Use the jpg if that is good for you now, but retain the raw files for a time when your abilities to use the post-processing software mature.</p>

<p>There are a few situations in which shooting jpg can make a lot of sense. For most serious photographers they are exceptions rather than rules. They might include certain situations in which you shoot burst mode and don't want to fill the camera's buffer quite so fast. In a few cases where speed to transmitting the files is very important, one can simply upload the jpgs straight out of the camera. </p>

<p>I have noticed that some who still shoot jpg can be very adamant about their approach. I sometimes sense a bit of defensiveness about this, and I think that it can make them very passionate about their position. However, among serious photographers I know and shoot with, almost no one shoots jpg these days. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

[nathangardner]

Since you're coming from film think of it this way; the Raw file is like the negative and a Jpeg is like a 4x6 print. You may

not be good at post production NOW, but if you learn in the future it will be beneficial to have those raw files so that you

will have the most potential with them. The raw file is the complete and uncompressed image file with all data necessary for maximum editing potential. The jpeg is a compressed file with the camera's preset settings applied to it and stamped out onto your card; once the Jpeg is made, you have significantly less latitude on the post side. An example of the latitude you have with raw files can be seen with the white balance; if you accidentally shoot on the wrong white balance setting with jpeg then you're stuck with an off colored photo, but the raw file contains the image data to correctly adjust th white balance after shooting the photo to get perfect color tones. If you're a novice at post production and like what the camera gives you in jpeg format, then I would suggest shooting in Raw + jpeg so that you get the photo you want now and have a full potential file for the future when you become more comfortable with post production.

[dcstep]

<p>Here are a couple of Don'ts:</p>

<ul>

<li>Don't start with Photoshop. It's an incredibly flexible program, but has a non-intuitive interface. Lightroom, Digital Photo Professional and DxO Optics Pro are much more intuitive.</li>

<li>Don't shoot a digital sensor like you're shooting film, unless you're only going to shoot jpegs. Sensors behave much differently than most films, so shoot accordingly and ETTR for you RAW images.</li>

</ul>