I'm shooting RAW!!!

[IanD]

No...not what Tom and a couple of others are thinking. :shock:
Too damn cold for that nonsence...
Anyway, installed PS CS last night and shot a couple of RAW images this morning just to see what all the hype was about.
Tom, you should have told me about this sooner. The difference between RAW and Jpeg is like night and day. The latter was great, the former fantastic.
Sure the images take up a lot of disc space but storage space is cheap and we all burn to CD/DVD as soon as we download don't we :lol:
Going to stay with Jpegs for fast action shots because of the faster write times but everything else will be RAW. Now all I have to do is go out and buy a couple more 512,s.
Ian

[rusand]

:) I like the Capture One program for the Digital Rebel instead of using the Canon program..

[Canuck]

Anyway, installed PS CS last night and shot a couple of RAW images this morning just to see what all the hype was about.
Tom, you should have told me about this sooner. The difference between RAW and Jpeg is like night and day. The latter was great, the former fantastic.
Ian

Ian,

Now you know why we we are this way about shooting RAW. If only others knew...

I just wish I could afford PS CS...I can't at the moment. At the rate it is going it might be shareware by the time I can afford it. :)

[IanD]

Canuck,
I'm a lucky guy. The son-in-law gave me PS 7.0 last year so I broke down and bought the upgrade. Staples had a special so I went for it. I tried C 1 and Breezebrowser but found that CS was more to my liking with everything intergrated.
I am absolutly amazed at the difference between RAW and JPEG. However I am going to have to put the new grandson out to work in order to purchase more CF cards :D
Now what can a 2 month old do :?:
Pampers tester :?: :?: :?:
Ian

[CyberDyneSystems]

Isn't it amazing! :)

I was completely blown away the first time a processed a RAW file sucesfully.

It is truly remarkable the info that is at your disposal.

[Canuck]

Canuck,
I'm a lucky guy. The son-in-law gave me PS 7.0 last year so I broke down and bought the upgrade. Staples had a special so I went for it. I tried C 1 and Breezebrowser but found that CS was more to my liking with everything intergrated.
I am absolutly amazed at the difference between RAW and JPEG. However I am going to have to put the new grandson out to work in order to purchase more CF cards :D
Ian

Ian,
LOL! I'm hoping I can get lucky like you did or something (sell and organ???) to afford it. I wouldn't go that far. I like having the backup organ. However, the cost of PS CS is a little over the top, IMO. (I can hear the flaming coming on already!) I have been flamed here already and the popper thingy like on the thanksgiving turkey has popped already. That said, I have no doubt it is an awesome product. Amybe when I get back to the US, I will get the Best Buy (or similar) card and able to spreadd it out and make it more affordable. Until them it is Elements 2.0 and Canon FVU which even I really don't like, but really am kinda short on luck for now anyway.

Yes, you too are a convert. It is why we say to shoot RAW. I still need practice shooting sunsets in RAW. I think that you need to underexpose them to get it right. Now perfecting it, and England isn't known for having sunsets like the one Tom (belmondo) put in the forum within the past few days.

[IanD]

However, the cost of PS CS is a little over the top, IMO.
Canuck,
I have to agree, without the upgrade it is rather insane to pay $1000.00 + CDN for CS, espically if it is for "amateur" usage.
Instead of selling an organ, I have an old Casio keyboard that might work in a pinch. Would be more than happy to send it over to you :lol:
I am anxious to get out and find some deer and see the results. It has been wicked cold here for the past week or so but today it is -9C and snowing like the bejeezes. Can't win :)
Oh well, at least the sparrows and grackles are busy at the feeder and will become my victims of the day. :lol:
Ian

[/quote]

[IanD]

[quote="CyberDyneSystems"]Isn't it amazing! :)
quote]
CDS,
Amazing is an understatement. It seems that I can spend hours just goofing around with a shot. Not really productive but a lot of fun and the results are unreal.
Going to have to develope a good workflow or else the better half will be serving meals in the office :lol:
Ian

[toglenn]

One of the biggest advantages I find in shooting RAW is that as my skills in PS improve and new techniques evolve I can go back to older images and start fresh.

JPEG images suffer generation losses each time they are processed!

The color balance controls that Capture One offers for RAW image processing is better than anything else I’ve tried.

toglenn

[CyberDyneSystems]

Isn't it amazing! :)

CDS,
Amazing is an understatement. It seems that I can spend hours just goofing around with a shot. Not really productive but a lot of fun and the results are unreal.
Going to have to develope a good workflow or else the better half will be serving meals in the office :lol:
Ian

Yes,. but with time your "goofing around" will evolve in to a streamlined work flow that will result in the best possible images from your camera in seconds!

Practice, pratice, practice!

[defordphoto]

JPEG images suffer generation losses each time they are processed!


Only if you resave as JPEG. Always keep the original and save edits as TIFFs and you have NO quality loss whatsoever from the original photo.

[timmyquest]

Ya, i was reading up on this, grabed my phone and snapped two quick macros with identical settings except the format.

When i could see finger prints on the RAW i was sold and havnt looked back since.

[toglenn]

JPEG images suffer generation losses each time they are processed!


Only if you resave as JPEG. Always keep the original and save edits as TIFFs and you have NO quality loss whatsoever from the original photo.

Well I would say that in order to create a generation, the image would have to be saved. I thought that would be understood without saying.

toglenn

[Moses]

Some of you guys are making it sound like the RAW pictures converted with PS CS are better than (fill in the blank) converters. Is this true? Or, are you just exclaiming about RAW in general? I just received PS CS in the mail on Friday, but I haven't installed it yet.

Would PS CS render the RAW image better than say Breeze Browser?

[defordphoto]

JPEG images suffer generation losses each time they are processed!


Only if you resave as JPEG. Always keep the original and save edits as TIFFs and you have NO quality loss whatsoever from the original photo.

Well I would say that in order to create a generation, the image would have to be saved. I thought that would be understood without saying.

toglenn

Not to all. We have new people joining these forums every day and alot of unexperienced people would not know that. I have run into some so-called experienced folks that are not aware of that fact.

[defordphoto]

Some of you guys are making it sound like the RAW pictures converted with PS CS are better than (fill in the blank) converters. Is this true? Or, are you just exclaiming about RAW in general? I just received PS CS in the mail on Friday, but I haven't installed it yet.

Would PS CS render the RAW image better than say Breeze Browser?

I depends on your skill and workflow. Some people swear by CS and don't like C1 or BB. Some people love C1 or BB and think PS7 and CS both suck. Some people shoot 100% RAW and many do not. Some choose Nikon. Some Canon.

Use what works best for you is my philosophy. We have all these choices of cameras, shooting formats and software. Whatever works best for you is what's best for you. Might not be for me, but that does not make either method wrong or right.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Some of you guys are making it sound like the RAW pictures converted with PS CS are better than (fill in the blank) converters. Is this true? Or, are you just exclaiming about RAW in general? I just received PS CS in the mail on Friday, but I haven't installed it yet.

Would PS CS render the RAW image better than say Breeze Browser?

RAW in general Moses.
However PSCS adds a lot of tweeks that the original Adobe Camera RAW plug in didn't have. Which in turn had a lt of features that the Canon utility didn't have.. :)

But I doon't think you can go wrong,. I just found the Canon tool a little cumbersome,. and thus I never got good at using it.

I do not think that PSCS is any better than C1.

[Mikesht]

[quote=CyberDyneSystems]Isn't it amazing! :)
quote]
CDS,
Amazing is an understatement. It seems that I can spend hours just goofing around with a shot. Not really productive but a lot of fun and the results are unreal.
Going to have to develope a good workflow or else the better half will be serving meals in the office :lol:
Ian

I hate to be a black sheep, but I must say that I do not support all the hype. I do shoot RAW most of a time because I get used to and "it's a right thing" but I would like to shoot 2 pictures from a tripod, one RAW and one JPEG and challenge somebody to tell me which is which. I would be willing to bet that it is difficult if not impossible.
Another point: yesterday I took a JPEG image and saved it with a smallest compression 5-6 times. The quality of a picture did not degrate as far as I can see.

I usually print my pictures 11X14", sometimes 16X20", and the good picture to begin with look good, regardless of format, and bad one look bad. I think it is not fair to a beginners to confuse them into thinking that RAW is the answer to all blown highlights and dark shadows...
Just my 2 cents.

[timmyquest]

[quote=CyberDyneSystems]Isn't it amazing! :)
quote]
CDS,
Amazing is an understatement. It seems that I can spend hours just goofing around with a shot. Not really productive but a lot of fun and the results are unreal.
Going to have to develope a good workflow or else the better half will be serving meals in the office :lol:
Ian

I hate to be a black sheep, but I must say that I do not support all the hype. I do shoot RAW most of a time because I get used to and "it's a right thing" but I would like to shoot 2 pictures from a tripod, one RAW and one JPEG and challenge somebody to tell me which is which. I would be willing to bet that it is difficult if not impossible.
Another point: yesterday I took a JPEG image and saved it with a smallest compression 5-6 times. The quality of a picture did not degrate as far as I can see.

I usually print my pictures 11X14", sometimes 16X20", and the good picture to begin with look good, regardless of format, and bad one look bad. I think it is not fair to a beginners to confuse them into thinking that RAW is the answer to all blown highlights and dark shadows...
Just my 2 cents.

I'll take you up on that...

[Mikesht]

[quote=CyberDyneSystems]Isn't it amazing! :)
quote]
CDS,
Amazing is an understatement. It seems that I can spend hours just goofing around with a shot. Not really productive but a lot of fun and the results are unreal.
Going to have to develope a good workflow or else the better half will be serving meals in the office :lol:
Ian

I hate to be a black sheep, but I must say that I do not support all the hype. I do shoot RAW most of a time because I get used to and "it's a right thing" but I would like to shoot 2 pictures from a tripod, one RAW and one JPEG and challenge somebody to tell me which is which. I would be willing to bet that it is difficult if not impossible.
Another point: yesterday I took a JPEG image and saved it with a smallest compression 5-6 times. The quality of a picture did not degrate as far as I can see.

I usually print my pictures 11X14", sometimes 16X20", and the good picture to begin with look good, regardless of format, and bad one look bad. I think it is not fair to a beginners to confuse them into thinking that RAW is the answer to all blown highlights and dark shadows...
Just my 2 cents.

I'll take you up on that...


Unfortunatelly I am sick today, but next weekend that's what I am going to do: shoot one RAW and one JPEG with smallest compression and process it with Adobe Camera RAW defaults and post somewhere...

[Mikesht]

I would like to stess out one more point: technically sound picture to me is not necesserily a good picture. In other words, and I have seen this more than I can remember, perfectly sharp image of your neighbour's fence is not necesserily interesting picture, even though perfectly exposed. I would value much more a picture that tells a story, even though somewhat blurry, to a perfect "family album pic" about nothing.
The fact that you have a good camera and processing software does not make you a photographer IMHO.

I think Steve's Digicam site can be a great example of that, although his purpose of shooting is different than ours (my anyway). His pictures are sharp and clear, but what is an artistic value there? He is testing cameras, but what are we doing? Is that why we spend so much money on L-glass and cameras and filters, to test them on your neighbour's backyard? I hope not.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The fact that you have a good camera and processing software does not make you a photographer IMHO.

I think Steve's Digicam site can be a great example of that, although his purpose of shooting is different than ours (my anyway). His pictures are sharp and clear, but what is an artistic value there? He is testing cameras, but what are we doing? Is that why we spend so much money on L-glass and cameras and filters, to test them on your neighbour's backyard? I hope not.

I have yet to shoot anything like a ruler,. or do any side by side tests...

I go strictly on what works for me while doing the photography I enjoy (mostly wildlife and the occasional theatrical event)

I'm pretty sure that in all the times I have championed shooting in RAW, or any peice of equipment or software,. I have allways done so from the point of view of what either does work for me,. or what I suspect may work for the individual style of the person asking advice...

I do not beleive that shooting a side by side comparison will reveal flaws in the jpeg,. rather it is in the ease of processing the RAW file to a more complete image than the processing the camera applies that will reveal the fundamental difference of the two files.

It is a strange contradiciton that as every time Canon realeases a new less costly DSLR we get dozens of posts from individuals who ask "why are my pictures soft? why are they flat? where's the color saturation? where's the contrast...etc.."

......that we in unison respond,. "The DSLR is not like the point and shoots,. it doesn't do it all for you." "this is in fact an advantage,. the processing has been left to you to decide in you editing software"... etc

To offer up this principle to the proper use of the Canon DSLR and then backpedal on this argument when the perenial jpeg Vs. RAW question rears it's ever so ugly head is a contradiction.

If you like the way the camera processes the image,. then jpeg is indeed just as good as RAW,. in fact in that case the jpeg benifits DO outweigh those of RAW.

But if you think you can do a better job of post processing than the camera can (like Canon itself recomends here: http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/articles/article.jsp?article.articleId=1240 )
Then RAW is by far the best choice.

So the only side by side I can offer is this.

Any shot I have taken that I am in any way proud of,. if I take the RAW file and do my own post processing work to create the final image,. that final image WILL be a much more pleasing photograph than the embedded jpeg,. on it's own or after post processing on the jpeg. The jpeg simply will not offer the same flexibility to create the final peivce of artwork that the RAW fill will.

If anyone is interested,. this is a test I can easily post the results of,. but the problem is it won't alter any ones perceptions and the results really only matter to me! :mrgreen:

But they do mater to me a great deal,. :wink:

[Mikesht]

The fact that you have a good camera and processing software does not make you a photographer IMHO.

I think Steve's Digicam site can be a great example of that, although his purpose of shooting is different than ours (my anyway). His pictures are sharp and clear, but what is an artistic value there? He is testing cameras, but what are we doing? Is that why we spend so much money on L-glass and cameras and filters, to test them on your neighbour's backyard? I hope not.

I have yet to shoot anything like a ruler,. or do any side by side tests...

I go strictly on what works for me while doing the photography I enjoy (mostly wildlife and the occasional theatrical event)

I'm pretty sure that in all the times I have championed shooting in RAW, or any peice of equipment or software,. I have allways done so from the point of view of what either does work for me,. or what I suspect may work for the individual style of the person asking advice...

I do not beleive that shooting a side by side comparison will reveal flaws in the jpeg,. rather it is in the ease of processing the RAW file to a more complete image than the processing the camera applies that will reveal the fundamental difference of the two files.

It is a strange contradiciton that as every time Canon realeases a new less costly DSLR we get dozens of posts from individuals who ask "why are my pictures soft? why are they flat? where's the color saturation? where's the contrast...etc.."

......that we in unison respond,. "The DSLR is not like the point and shoots,. it doesn't do it all for you." "this is in fact an advantage,. the processing has been left to you to decide in you editing software"... etc

To offer up this principle to the proper use of the Canon DSLR and then backpedal on this argument when the perenial jpeg Vs. RAW question rears it's ever so ugly head is a contradiction.

If you like the way the camera processes the image,. then jpeg is indeed just as good as RAW,. in fact in that case the jpeg benifits DO outweigh those of RAW.

But if you think you can do a better job of post processing than the camera can (like Canon itself recomends here: http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/articles/article.jsp?article.articleId=1240 )
Then RAW is by far the best choice.

So the only side by side I can offer is this.

Any shot I have taken that I am in any way proud of,. if I take the RAW file and do my own post processing work to create the final image,. that final image WILL be a much more pleasing photograph than the embedded jpeg,. on it's own or after post processing on the jpeg. The jpeg simply will not offer the same flexibility to create the final peivce of artwork that the RAW fill will.

If anyone is interested,. this is a test I can easily post the results of,. but the problem is it won't alter any ones perceptions and the results really only matter to me! :mrgreen:

But they do mater to me a great deal,. :wink:


You are absolutely right, the results will not alter the perseption, and it should not IMHO. Because it is not a main factor.
I think (and I strongly beleave) that a person that bought a great expensive nice camera with a purpose of taking pictures (creating pictures rather) of something other that his uncle eathing turkey on Thanksgiving dinner, should ask himself a question "what do I want to shoot, what result should I acheave" rather than "will my picture be sharp or blurry?". Maybe that person should study a principles of composition first, rather than how to convert files?
That is the main thing I am trying to convey, and you probably can tell that it has been bothering me for a while. When I look at those meaningless but sharp pictures, I am thinking: why in the heck did you get this camera? Why do you shoot those pics and call them "fine art"?

[Mikesht]

Let me illustrate my point. Here is a picture of my daughters, that my wife asked me to take for a family album:
http://images4.fotki.com/v51/photos/1/149429/542859/IMG_0404_4by6-vi.jpg?1071940457

And here is a picture of my daughter and magician:


http://images5.fotki.com/v55/photos/1/149429/546694/198336-vi.jpg?1074538837

The first picture, even though sharp and clear is a family album material, I could have taken it with a $100 point and shoot.
THe second one I am truly proud of, even though it's somewhat blurry. I took a second to compose it right, show the mood and action. It took me a while to learno to do something like that, and I am a novice still.
But I think that's why I bought that camera for.

[jrm]

Figure I'll throw my two cents in here. Been reading much on the RAW/Jpeg debate.

Recently got a DRebel and one things that I was dissappointed with was results of shooting in low light. Granted, this problem is not specific to the DRebel, and can be helped with a faster lens, or higher ISO setting. Maybe I was expecting more from the built-in flash or some "magic" in the presets.

I wanted to go out the other evening and take some shots of my yard - the snow looked great. By the time I acutally left the house, however, the light was gone... it was beyond sunset and practically dark. Add to that the heavy cloud cover. Seems the only light was some ambient light reflecting off the snow.

Anyway, I was determined to see what I could do with RAW in the "creative zone." I tried some flash shots (knowing only the foreground would be exposed). Then I tried some non-flash shots (knowing that there would be no acceptable hand-held f-stop/shutter speed combo.

All three shots were with the standard 18-55 kit lens. ISO was kept at 100 since I just wanted to experiment with RAW.

The point of this is that with the expection of the flash shot, the images appeared almost completely black in the viewfinder and on initial import. (Histogram was a big bump on the left - nothing on the right 4/5ths of the screen). With a few simple settings in PhotoShop CS, I was able to bring back much of the image. Granted, there is a lot of noise - so much so that I had to apply some blurring in one shot.

If jpeg files, these images would have been completely lost. I use PhotoShop on a regular basis - jpegs could not have withstood the heavy editing of these non-flash shots.

Is RAW for everyone? - absolutely not. Not everyone (or every shot) will benefit from the extra work or time.
Does RAW have some benefits? Of course.

(built-in) flash shot: 1/60 f5 43mm
http://www.familymedia.com/pics/darkplant.jpg

taken just after the above from almost the same spot, no flash
1/40 f3.5 18mm
http://www.familymedia.com/pics/house.jpg

now is was really dark out. no flash. applied "dust and scratches" filter in PS CS to reduce noise artifacts (of which quite a bit still remain). It blurred the shot, but I liked the effect.
1/40 f5.0 38mm
http://www.familymedia.com/pics/softsnow.jpg

[timmyquest]

Let me illustrate my point. Here is a picture of my daughters, that my wife asked me to take for a family album:
http://images4.fotki.com/v51/photos/1/149429/542859/IMG_0404_4by6-vi.jpg?1071940457

And here is a picture of my daughter and magician:


http://images5.fotki.com/v55/photos/1/149429/546694/198336-vi.jpg?1074538837

The first picture, even though sharp and clear is a family album material, I could have taken it with a $100 point and shoot.
THe second one I am truly proud of, even though it's somewhat blurry. I took a second to compose it right, show the mood and action. It took me a while to learno to do something like that, and I am a novice still.
But I think that's why I bought that camera for.

I dont think you need to illustrate this point to most of us...but i think you would agree that if the second picture was more clear then it is then it would be a better picture, and if it was more blurry then it is, then it would be a lesser picture then it is.

(this is assuming there is no blur used for some...artistic creativity)

[Mikesht]

Let me illustrate my point. Here is a picture of my daughters, that my wife asked me to take for a family album:


And here is a picture of my daughter and magician:



The first picture, even though sharp and clear is a family album material, I could have taken it with a $100 point and shoot.
THe second one I am truly proud of, even though it's somewhat blurry. I took a second to compose it right, show the mood and action. It took me a while to learno to do something like that, and I am a novice still.
But I think that's why I bought that camera for.

I dont think you need to illustrate this point to most of us...but i think you would agree that if the second picture was more clear then it is then it would be a better picture, and if it was more blurry then it is, then it would be a lesser picture then it is.

(this is assuming there is no blur used for some...artistic creativity)


The first picture would be technically worste family album material and the second - I would be even more proud of because it's technical level, but I am still proud of it's creative level as is. As I said, that's why I spent all those money, to try and create something, don't you? We are mixing two things here, and I think that it should be said time and time again: good camera and sharp image does not create a good photograph. It's what on a picture that counts. Imagine if Cartie-Bresson would have only one task in mind: to make as sharp image as possible!
I do not think that he was after that...

[Canuck]

However, the cost of PS CS is a little over the top, IMO.
Canuck,
I have to agree, without the upgrade it is rather insane to pay $1000.00 + CDN for CS, espically if it is for "amateur" usage.
Instead of selling an organ, I have an old Casio keyboard that might work in a pinch. Would be more than happy to send it over to you :lol:
I am anxious to get out and find some deer and see the results. It has been wicked cold here for the past week or so but today it is -9C and snowing like the bejeezes. Can't win :)
Oh well, at least the sparrows and grackles are busy at the feeder and will become my victims of the day. :lol:
Ian

[/quote]

Ian,
You make me laugh. I definitley am an amateur, but a keen amateur at that. I had no clue that PS CS was 1000 Canuck Bucks. That's unreal! It would likely take my skills to get better and then start marketing the pics. I could fall into the "whore" category in the wold of photogs where as I am in any number of them. It could prove a step in the wrong direction. Geez, only -9 C? I have been talking with family back home (south of you in the US) and it was -40s and -50s F. I know that -40 is the same F or C but beyond that Idunno. Gotta love the Alberta Clipper!

Look at the birds you are shooting, you won't kill them and allow someone else to enjoy them another day!

[timmyquest]

Let me illustrate my point. Here is a picture of my daughters, that my wife asked me to take for a family album:


And here is a picture of my daughter and magician:



The first picture, even though sharp and clear is a family album material, I could have taken it with a $100 point and shoot.
THe second one I am truly proud of, even though it's somewhat blurry. I took a second to compose it right, show the mood and action. It took me a while to learno to do something like that, and I am a novice still.
But I think that's why I bought that camera for.

I dont think you need to illustrate this point to most of us...but i think you would agree that if the second picture was more clear then it is then it would be a better picture, and if it was more blurry then it is, then it would be a lesser picture then it is.

(this is assuming there is no blur used for some...artistic creativity)


The first picture would be technically worste family album material and the second - I would be even more proud of because it's technical level, but I am still proud of it's creative level as is. As I said, that's why I spent all those money, to try and create something, don't you? We are mixing two things here, and I think that it should be said time and time again: good camera and sharp image does not create a good photograph. It's what on a picture that counts. Imagine if Cartie-Bresson would have only one task in mind: to make as sharp image as possible!
I do not think that he was after that...

I think we're saying the same thing really...a good racer can still win a race if he has a car that competes, but if the cars is faster then everyone elses then he will surely win.

If the equipment didnt matter at all the canon couldnt sell $4000 lenses to go on $8000 cameras.

[rockyc2]

I'll stick with JPEG's. I have shot in RAW, and for my type of shooting, (All outdoors) I can't tell the difference between RAW, and JPEG. I always save my images to TIFF before I even work on them. I don't see any degredation of the TIFF Files.
Rocky