RAW or Headache (for not an expert)

[zml]

<p>Keith: True, your (and OP's) sheer presence here means that photography is more to you than just "push the button." Yet, 99% of everybody's shooting is crap, perfectly suitable for JPEG or, better, deletion. (I'm not making any judgment here, just leaning on my 45 years hands-on experience with photography ...) Some photographers seem to be emotionally invested in every frame they shoot which, in most cases, leads to accumulation of terabytes of crap. And yes, you may say that we never know what will become important in the future, but chances are that the pics of cats and dogs will be as insignificant 100 years from now as they are now. (YMMV, of course.)<br /> And "quality" (in purely technical terms) and JPEG are not mutually exclusive. If you don't explore picture styles and other custom settings in your camera you are losing a lot and spend way too much time, and invest in unnecessary storage, to wade through mountains of utter crap, glouriously shot in RAW...</p>

<p>As an aside, the feature of the new 1Dx I like a lot is the "rate" button so I can flag the IMO good frames/sequences while shooting. Enormous time saver!</p>

<p> </p>

[ant_nio_gomes]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Ansel Adams</strong> (...) (to bring up wto film shooting guys who seem to have some following here) had to jump through the hoops (actually, their lab technicians did: both were filthy rich 1 percenters...)<strong> to get a passable print due to the very nature of film photography and their own shooting mistakes</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong><br /></strong>Maybe you should read a bit more about Ansel Adams and his practices to avoid statements like this one, as this doesn't match the use of his Zone System not the known darkroom extended manipulations of his images.<br>

As Sami doesn't have any experience of PS or other image editor, I don't know if the people that advocates the use of "Jpeg only" also excludes it and defend that the out of camera Jpeg file is the optimal output you can get. If not, there we go and time is required for post production...the same time they criticized RAW would require.<br>

Ok, Jpeg can produce fine images <strong>if you set the camera to get the results you want</strong> but you will need to shoot sRGB from the beginning and to customize WB or trust your camera's auto WB (do you?), accepting the narrower color space, only 8 bits per channel, with the implied number of 255 luminosity areas, and that these details will limit your possibilities if you want to edit files.<br>

If you take the opposite side you will loose the flexibility of Jpeg that may satisfy you for certain occasions but, and this is the most important for me, a comparison reference to the way you're converting your RAW files till your expertise gives you the confidence on the results. You will see that sometimes you will try to optimize certain images and you will end up with a result that you'll find not as good as the Jpeg converted by the camera, and the reason lies exclusively on your expertise to perform the conversion.<br>

So, why not to stick with RAW+Jpeg, with the Jpeg size that matches your needs, and leave the final decision to a moment you can take a decision by your own?</p>

 

[zml]

<p><em>> Maybe you should read a bit more about Ansel Adams and his practices to avoid statements like this one, as this doesn't match the use of his Zone System not the known darkroom extended manipulations of his images.</em></p>

<p>If you read Adams (The Positive) or books by his lab techs, you'd realize the amount of darkroom manipulations required (there are examples with diagrams and instructions...) Adams never said that his zone system was a panacea, just help...</p>

[sami_palta1]

<p>Thank you so much all for contributions. I will decide for one and will spend some time and effort.</p>

<p>Which file format you save your RAW files after editing? <br>

TIFF ?<br>

EPS ?<br>

or another ?</p>

<p>which one should I use for saving ? I think TIFF looks sensible ?</p>

<p> </p>

[zml]

<p>Sami:<br>

Workflow is very personal but some people convert RAW to DNG (via Adobe, for instance), then save their work in TIFF files, some have a different workflow involving "sidecar" files or a direct convertion from RAW to TIFF (my method.) Assuming you use photoshop, after editing (but before final sizing and sharpening) most people save their work as a TIFF file with layers (=big files, hundreds of megabytes sometimes) or without (after flattening in photoshop.) Then, resize your pic for your final output at the desired PPI, sharpen it appropriately and print/distribute.</p>

<p>There are many good books on digital workflow and printing but if you can find a good digital photography class, I strongly recommend taking it. Or, better yet, find a competent mentor (without too big an ego...)</p>

[sami_palta1]

<p>Michale, thank you,</p>

<p>Bought a Hasselblad 503 cw years ago and didn't know how to load film and taken it to a master (he was 60 y/o). He said me it is not a child play... Read and burn a few rolls and got it.</p>

<p>2 years later I bought a Sinar X and took film holder to learn how to load it to same guy (yes I don't learn) and 2 years later he said me the same words and even more... He spent years for this job and it is not a few minutes to teach and learn.</p>

<p>So I don't ask to "competent mentors", except internet. </p>

[keith reeder]

<p>One last thought from me, Sami.</p>

<p>Some of us are pretty good at getting the maximum benefit out of our Raw files, and <em>none of us</em> were experts to start with.</p>

<p>Like everything worthwhile, it takes a little bit of work initially, but it soon becomes second nature.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ed, my core i7 computer is three years old. I bought it off the shelf with 9gigs of trichannel RAM from a big box retailer for less than $800. It can easily convert RAW files in a blink of an eye. No need to buy the latest and greatest and break the bank just to convert some RAW files.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The key is to have CHOICE.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly, Jim.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>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>

</blockquote>

<p>Set your camera to shoot Large JPEGs AND RAW files simultaneously. I've been doing that for years. If the JPEG is sufficient I just use that. If I need to tweak it I go to the RAW file. The price of storage and memory has plummeted. Why even bother making a choice between JPEG vs RAW. Trust me once you get into manipulating RAWs you will regret not taking some shots in RAW. It actually saves you time believe it or not. Sometimes it is much easier and cleaner to do a manipulation on a RAW file in Camera RAW than it is to do it in Photoshop. Why don't you shoot Large JPEG AND RAW and when you finally start running out of space on your hard drive you can go back and delete all your RAW files if you determine they are not worth having.</p>

[zml]

<p>Sami, yeah there are assholes out there...<br>

Look and thou shall find :-)<br>

I was lucky to be mentored by true professionals starting at the tender age of 13 and try to repay it by mentoring other people to best of my abilities. <br>

The Internet is the worst possible venue for mentoring because it is so easy to be sucked in trite exchanges and petty arguments :-) Just look at all the meanders of this thread... Besides, most of the advice given is either dead wrong or fragmentary, and most photographic examples are crap. OTOH a consistent feedback from a competent mentor will tremendously accelerate your development as a photographer: photography is a multi-faceted endeavor which lends itself very nicely to the master-pupil training scheme.</p>

[dcstep]

<p ><a name="00aZnj"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5797697">Sami Palta</a>, Jul 04, 2012; 11:54 a.m. asked:</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Which file format you save your RAW files after editing? TIFF ? EPS ? or another ?<br>

which one should I use for saving ? I think TIFF looks sensible ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It depends on what you plan to do. A high quality jpeg will serve almost all internet needs and some printing needs, say up to around 11x14. As you get into larger print sizes, then your might want to have a tiff.</p>

<p>JPEG is the standard for most internet usage, mailing to friends and "normal" printing, while most non-photographers can't deal with a tiff file. My default is to save to the highest quality jpeg. Most of the sites that I post to will resize. Flickr, for instance, takes my orginal sized jpeg file (often 15 to 20MB) and allows me to share a variety of sizes with other site or individuals.</p>

<p>If you need a tiff, then you've still got the RAW file and it's easy to create the tiff, the key being that you've got a filing system that allows you to find things. Figure out what Tags are an Tag your files and put them in logical Folders. At the beginning, it sounds like extra effort, but when you get three years of files and you camera repeats its file numbers a few times (they only go to 9999) then you'll appreaciate. I include the camera generated file # as a tag and the date taken as a tag, along with other descriptors. It's easy to search tags and find all the pictures with any given tag.</p>

 

[cegeiss]

<p>Sami,<br>

I started out shooting jpegs. After 20 years of slide film and a few years of digital point and shoots I bought a brand new DSLR, did not know very much about digital and most of the time I really liked the way my images turned out. As I read a few books, I switched to raw, but initially my digital processing results were hit and miss. So for a while I shot both. The in-camera jpeg gave me an example of what is possible and acted as a benchmark, and if my poor processing failed to nail it I always had a (most of the times) decent image to fall back on.<br>

Over the years I learned about my camera and its shortcomings, adjusted my techniques and now I usually skip the jpeg because the raw file is more flexible. If I really can't get the look I saw and liked on my camera screen I run the raw file through the converter that came with my camera.<br>

Christoph<br>

<br />Christoph</p>

[sami_palta1]

<p>After editing RAW files is it possible to save it as RAW again ?</p>

<p>@ Michael: Thank you so much for very nice words and comment. Wish had opportunity to meet you. </p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Sami,</p>

<p>you don't edit the Raw files themselves - the changes you make are captured in the tiff or jpeg you generate from the Raw, but the Raw files themselves are left untouched.</p>

<p>This is the "non-destructive editing" benefit of Raw that you will often see mentioned - and it's also why some of us liken Raws to film negatives - you make images from the Raw like you do from a negative, but neither change in the making.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>"Ansel Adams and Henri Cartier-Bresson (to bring up wto film shooting guys who seem to have some following here) had to jump through the hoops (actually, their lab technicians did: both were filthy rich 1 percenters...) "</p>

<p>You have no idea what you are talking about, do you. Adams was no 1 per center, though later in his life has fine art photography did achieve enough renown that he was able to live quite comfortably.</p>

<p>Adams did have "technicians" to help him deal with the day to day work of his photography, and he did employ such people (including some who are today known as quite fine photographers in their own right) to create darkroom prints of his better-know images for sale in places like the AAG, where one could actually purchase an 8x10 Adams (printed under his supervision) print done this way. However, he printed his own highest quality work.</p>

<p>Basing your screed on stuff you just made up is a poor practice, it discredits much else that you might post, and it furthers a whole slew of nonsensical mythology about photography and photographers.</p>

<p>HCB did not work the same way as Adams and, in fact, he had labs print a fair amount of his work to his specifications.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>BTW, regarding: "If you read Adams (The Positive) or books by his lab techs, you'd realize the amount of darkroom manipulations required (there are examples with diagrams and instructions...)"</p>

<p>I have read the books. Friends of mine were Adams proteges, and one acquaintance was among those who did a lot of the "supervised by AA" prints.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>For most people with aspirations to produce high quality photographs, shooting raw makes the most sense in virtually (though not quite all - see my earlier post) situations. raw+jpg is a great option if you aren't certain. To those who keep writing that jpg can produce images (which I'll take to mean potential prints) that are as good as those produced using raw, yes - but only in certain limited situations. And to those who say, essentially, that if you make a perfect exposure that a jpg will be as good as raw - well, sort of and yes in a few cases. However, there are a number of cases in which one doesn't regard the shutter click as the end of the journey, and instead one determines exposure specifically with a post-processing-based realization of the print in mind. A very common such situation is when one shoots a very wide dynamic ranges scene, exposing to the right to avoid blown highlights (which verge on being impossible to recover) with the plan of compensating by filling shadow and similar areas via adjustments in post. In this (very common) situation, the "correct" exposure will produce a distinctly better final result if the capture is in raw.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[zml]

<p>G Dan Mitchell:<br>

About Ansel Adams (from Wikipedia)<br>

"Adams was born in the Western Addition of San Francisco, California, to distinctly upper-class parents Charles Hitchcock Adams and Olive Bray Adams."</p>

<p>About HCB (ibid.)<br>

"Cartier-Bresson was born in Chanteloup-en-Brie, Seine-et-Marne, France, the oldest of five children. His father was a wealthy textile manufacturer"</p>

<p>I won't grace your other insinuations with a reply.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Michael, finding a sentence in wikipedia (!) that includes the words "distinctly upper class" does not deserve your insulting characterization of Adams as some 1%'er who didn't do his own work - which was your primary point in the post to which I responded.</p>

<p>Adams' background (it was his paternal grandfather who had a successful lumber business) had been reasonably well off, but his own family was not exactly among the mega-rich. The story was different on the maternal side, and Adams reports that financially supporting some relatives on that side of the family was a burden on his father. And he was not some sort of rich boy living off the family wealth - his family was comfortable, but his father worked. While having a comfortable (roughly upper middle class) family allowed him some advantages not available to some others, there was no silver spoon in his mouth.</p>

<p>And if you are laboring under the misapprehension that he simply lived off of tremendous fees charged for his art prints, read up on the commercial work AA did for many years in order to make ends meet.</p>

<p>It is interesting that you earlier were referencing specific books of Adams and asking (if I recall correctly) if others had actually read them. Now you are using wikipedia as a reference!? ;-)</p>

<p>I'm alternately amused and perturbed when folks invent "facts," reinterpret a quote or two, or otherwise make-up characterizations of people about whom they actually know very little. It doesn't help when they attempt to do so with the pseudo-sophisticated air of someone who really knows this stuff. It reminds me of those who hold Adams' work up as an example of realism in photography or who suggest that he simply and perfectly pre-visualized each image before thoughtfully clicking the shutter or that he only photographed landscapes, etc. Nonsense, every bit of it.</p>

<p>Adams wrote a fun autobiography that you might enjoy. I'm holding a copy in my hands as I write this: Adams, Ansel. <em>Ansel Adams: An Autobiography. </em>Little, Brown and Company. 1985.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[kezia]

<p>Sami,<br>

In DPP just use the save tab when saving the raw and it will save as a raw file with all the changes you made. But in addition, it will also keep the original settings so that you can return to that default mode at any time when you re-open the raw file. Using "save as" and saving as Jpeg will save a separate Jpeg file that will not overwrite your original raw.<br>

Here is what I did when trying to make the Raw vs Jpeg decision. I opened a Raw file in DPP, then I opened the tools menu. On the first screen which deals with the Raw conversion I played with the picture style settings to see what difference they made (the changes mainly involve colour and contrast). Then I opened a file with highlights that were a little too light and played with the highlight slider. Did the same for a file with blocked up shadows (don't overdo it or prints will be greyish and won't have good blacks). Save the file, which will save the Raw with the settings you have just made. Re-open and if you want to see the original, just press the curved arrows to the right of the screen to return to the original, in-camera settings. Play with the white balance on a photo with difficult lighting and see what improvement you can get, and level of sharpening as well. These are all decisions made by your camera during the in-camera Raw conversion to Jpeg process, so can be changed by you at any time afterwards if you have the Raw file, without any degredation to quality, but are set for ever at the original settings if you save only the in-camera Jpeg conversion. Exposure should if possible be got right at the time of shooting because while you can improve a poorly exposed photo even a Raw file will suffer some degredation of quality if changes to exposure have to be made.</p>

<p>To begin with try to restrict yourself to those things that are set during the in-camera Jpeg conversion process to see if they are worthwhile because those are things you can change later from the Raw file wihout any degredation to the file -- white balance, colour balance, sharpening, recovery of some dynamic range, particularly in the highlights. Other things such as exposure settings and focus are already set when the light hits the sensor and before the in-camera Jpeg conversion, so attempts to correct these will degrade even a Raw file so should be got right if possible during the initial exposure in-camera.</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>As has been said, I recommend RAW, your camera came with Canon's <strong><em>Digital Photo Professiona</em><em>l (DPP)</em></strong>, it's a good program and you already own it. Open a RAW photo with it, from the <strong><em>View</em></strong> drop down menu make sure <strong><em>Tool palette</em></strong><em> </em>is checked, you will see the tool palette in your editing window, open the <strong><em>RAW</em></strong> tab and have fun tweaking your shot.</p>

<p>Notice you can manipulate most of the settings of your camera, things like <strong><em>White Balance Shot Settings</em></strong>, <strong><em>Picture Style,</em><em> Highlight and Shadow </em></strong>very useful in helping with Dynamic Range, <strong><em>Sharpness</em></strong>, <strong><em>Saturation, Contrast...</em></strong></p>

<p>All this and more, in JPG mode, you are locked in to only what you set the camera at at the time you take the shot. RAW allows you to reset all this with far more correction control after the fact than could ever be done in JPG format.</p>

<p>There is also a <strong><em>NR </em></strong>tab for noise reduction you may care to play with. Once done tweaking the shot you can <strong><em>Convert and Save</em></strong> under the <strong><em>file</em></strong> drop down menu to JPEG or TIF and it allows you to resize your photo. Under the <strong><em>Tool</em></strong> drop down you can send the file to Photoshop. The latest version of <em><strong>DPP</strong></em> is <em><strong>3.11.31.0</strong></em>, an update is available for free from the Canon website and has some nice new features and is worth taking the time to upgrade (It's free to upgrade your existing version). There is more you can do with <strong><em>DPP,</em></strong>I am just helping you get started as you said you are new.</p>

<p><strong><em>DPP</em></strong> does Batch conversions also. Since you are new to this it's worth playing with this software that came with your camera. You can still run your converted JPG or TIF through your other favorite Photo editing software like Photoshop CS#, or Photoshop Elements, or Paint Shop Pro Photo.... for cropping, frames, effects...</p>

<p>Give it a try, there is nothing to lose.</p>

 

[eva_laxer]

<p>If you just want to learn software, you may try Lynda.com. Just Google for a 7 day free trial for lynda.com, and see if you like what they have. I tried to teach myself Photoshop from books but it was too frustrating to understand, but i like that I can replay the video over and over, stop it anytime while I'm following the instructions. I wish I could ask questions, but for the price you can't beat it. I would recommend to shoot both Raw, and Jpeg that way you have a choice to decide later. Some people mentioned Kelbytrainig.com I have not tried that site, I understand they cover the photography part also, not just learning software.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>What a false dilemma!</p>

<p>Shoot both Raw and JPEG. Keep the Raw files even if you are not yet ready to use them. At first you might want to simply use JPEGs, but sooner or later you are going to want to make adjustments that can only be made to Raw files. At that point the Raw files will be there. ("Raw" is not written "RAW" since it is not an acronym. "JPEG" is an acronym and all letters are capitalized.) You might or might not want to do batch conversions at first. If you convert all the Raw files to TIFFs, then you are going to have a lot of really bulky files that you might not need or use. Until you have established your workflow needs, I would not batch convert everything to TIFFs.</p>

<p>With the cost of storage dropping, and with larger and larger cards, shooting both really is an option most of the time.</p>

<p>By the way, Digital Photo Professional (DPP) really is an excellent Raw converter, regardless of what you might hear in the rumor mills.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>