RAW Question

[rosemanbridge]

I have recently taken delivery of my 20D and I am new to the RAW capture procedure. As I understand it the rules are:

1. Take the picture and save it as RAW.
2. Convert it to a TIFF file.
3. Open in Photoshop, edit, levels, USM etc.
4. Save as a highest quality JPEG.
5. Delete the TIFF ( I don't need a 46Mb copy).
6. I am left with the original RAW and an edited JPEG.

Have I got the right order? Any advice will be most welcome.

[ejwebb]

I am just starting with RAW myself but I think you are missing part of the point of shooting RAW. The primary benefit of shooting RAW is the ability to make adjustments/corrections to the image BEFORE you convert it to a TIFF or JPEG format. Basically, when shooting in RAW the camera does little processing to the image information, allowing you to do it - and have more control over the results. Your camera came with software specifically for this purpose or you can use the RAW converter in compatable versions of Photoshop or other software.

The theory is that making adjustments to the color balance, exposure, brightness, contrast, saturation, etc. before the RAW file is converted makes more of the original image information available for the adjustments which usually results in a better (arguably) image.

Check out your Canon software and experiment with it.

[rosemanbridge]

OK thanks. So I work on the RAW file, then save as a TIFF or JPEG, and leave the RAW in it's original state much like a negative?

[ejwebb]

Also, I am not sure I would delete the TIFF. Why spend all that time processing and then throw it away? If you save it as a layered TIFF you can go back and make adjustments later if you need to without repeating all your work. You can keep the TIFF as a master working copy and then open it to do final cropping or sharpening depending on whether you need a JPEG for the web or printing a 4X6 or a 5X7 or whatever.

You will find that by making more of these adjustments in RAW, your use of levels, curves, etc. in Photoshop will likely decrease.

Hopefully I have not gotten this all wrong as I am in the learning boat with you!!

[ejwebb]

Yes - ALWAYS keep the RAW as a negative and burn them to cd's/dvd's for backup. If you need to you can always go back to them. And as your processing skills improve you will want to go back and redo the processing on some of them anyway!!

[Scottes]

OK thanks. So I work on the RAW file, then save as a TIFF or JPEG, and leave the RAW in it's original state much like a negative?

You want to open the RAW, adjust exposure, white balance, saturation, and so on until you are close to what you want. Save as TIFF. Open the TIFF is PS and adjust contrast with levels or curves, do Shadow/Highlight if you have PS CS, fine-tune saturation, sharpen, then save as JPG.

Some things are better done in RAW - like exposure and white balance. Other things are better done in PS, like saturation and sharpening. Many things can be done in both, like saturation and contrast and sharpening, but often these things are better done in one or the other. Rough saturation is good in RAW, but it's a little rough and you can't fine-tune certain things, like just the red.

Well, actually you can, but it's more advanced in RAW and so PS is easier at first. Actually everything *can* be done in PS, but many things, like exposure, are "destructive" in PS and not detructive in the RAW converter.

[ejwebb]

I should clarify. Processing in RAW occurs before you process in Photoshop - not in the place of it. You process in RAW and then open it into Photoshop for further processing. If you are not using Photoshop to do the RAW processing and conversion then you will need to save it as a TIFF and then open it in Photoshop for further processing.

Hope this is more clear. RAW does add steps but the benefits are arguably worth it.

[rosemanbridge]

That's much clearer now, thanks for the advice, I'll give it a go.

[rosemanbridge]

Scottes, what do you mean by "destructive"?

[Scottes]

Many changes (most??) in PS are destructive, that is, they change the pixels in ways that can't be changed back.

An example, simplified... Let's say that you have a picture and you add boost red saturation by adding 10 points to the red channel. So any pixel with a value of red 240 becomes red 250, and red 245 becomes red 255, and red 250 becomes... red 255, because that's the maximum.

So every pixel with a red value of 245 or greater is changed to red 255.

Now if you change again, subtracting 10, then every pixel at red 255 becomes red 245. So pixels that were once red 250 were changed to 255, and then changed back to 245. 250 is lost. You now have no pixels with anything between red 246 to 255.

So the process of adding saturation was destructive - there were pixels (246-254) where the original value was destroyed and can never be retrieved.


RAW files don't work this way. They hold raw data, not specific color values. The color values are not defined until the image is processed and saved as TIFF or JPG. So you can change the exposure or white balance without effect, because you're not really changing it, but rather changing the way it will be interpreted when converted to TIFF.

[rosemanbridge]

Geez, I've just read that 3 times to get my head round it. I understand it though how you know something like that in the first place is beyond me! I think I'm now getting to grips with the RAW process. Thanks again.

[Scottes]

Darn, I thought it was a good example, and simple.

Another try without all the details:


When making an edit in Photoshop/etc you are changing the values of the pixels. It's possible to change them in a way that can not be reversed. Thus it's destructive.

When you edit a RAW image you are not changing the pixels themselves, but rather how they will be changed when they are converted to TIFF. You never edit the RAW file itself, you just edit the conversion process.


OK, that's a very simplified definition of destructive vs non-destructive, but it's hardly the whole story, and in ways it's not completely accurate. But it's enough for now.

[PacAce]

Many changes (most??) in PS are destructive, that is, they change the pixels in ways that can't be changed back.

An example, simplified... Let's say that you have a picture and you add boost red saturation by adding 10 points to the red channel. So any pixel with a value of red 240 becomes red 250, and red 245 becomes red 255, and red 250 becomes... red 255, because that's the maximum.

So every pixel with a red value of 245 or greater is changed to red 255.

Now if you change again, subtracting 10, then every pixel at red 255 becomes red 245. So pixels that were once red 250 were changed to 255, and then changed back to 245. 250 is lost. You now have no pixels with anything between red 246 to 255.

So the process of adding saturation was destructive - there were pixels (246-254) where the original value was destroyed and can never be retrieved.


RAW files don't work this way. They hold raw data, not specific color values. The color values are not defined until the image is processed and saved as TIFF or JPG. So you can change the exposure or white balance without effect, because you're not really changing it, but rather changing the way it will be interpreted when converted to TIFF.

A good way around the "destructive" nature of thse adjustments is to use the Layers adjustment layers for adjusting levels, curves, saturation and a whole slew of other stuff. Not only are adjustment layers non-destructive (you can make as many changes to them as you want) but they hardly use any memory unlike image layers which do use up memory.

[Hellashot]

The whole point of RAW is to never put it in a JPG (compressed) format. You might as well just take images in JPG then and save yourself a lot of time.

RAW is primarily for printing purposes. If you'll only ever look at your image on a screen, use JPG.

[PacAce]

The whole point of RAW is to never put it in a JPG (compressed) format. You might as well just take images in JPG then and save yourself a lot of time.

RAW is primarily for printing purposes. If you'll only ever look at your image on a screen, use JPG.

The whole point of RAW is so you have a bigger latitude for editing and working with the image. Once you're done with the editing and are ready to print, there's no reason why you can't save the file as a JPEG file. If you're not going to do any editing of the image before printing, then, yes, you should shoot directly in JPEG.

BTW, the same goes for images used for the screen and for the web. RAW is for editing. It doesn't matter where the end product is going to be used...print or screen.

[Scottes]

RAW is for editing.

I agree. Though I think RAW is for editing *some* things, and PS for the rest. The final format does NOT dictate the editing used, the image dictates the editing used.

[rosemanbridge]

I found this article quite informative...

Introduction to RAW Images


One of the first major decisions that you make when using a digital SLR is whether to shoot RAW or JPEG. Lots of varying opinions exist about the difference between the two and most, wrongly, centre on proving that there is no difference in quality between the two and therefore JPEG is the preferred format. Well it's true that if you view a JPEG HIGH Quality output against a converted RAW (an RGB TIFF) in an image editor (such as Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro) you will not discern much, if any, difference at 100%. Modern JPEGS, with their sophisticated compression algorithms can be assumed visually lossless at their highest quality settings. The problem is that at the bits and bytes level there must be a reduction in quality between the two as the RAW produces a 31MB output (for the 1Ds) and the JPEG a 4MB output. Clearly the argument is a little deeper than you might think.

A JPEG can be thought of as a digital slide (I hate the constant comparisons to film); once out of the camera it is fully developed and ready to print. A RAW can be thought of as a digital negative, containing purely RAW image data from the camera that is still in need of "developing" (for want of a better word). The problem with a JPEG is that user defined shooting parameters such as white balance, saturation, contrast and very importantly sharpening, are applied in the DSLR buffer before the final image is written to the storage card. Therefore they are fixed in the final image. Sure they can be changed at the Photoshop level but this is difficult because:

A JPEG is limited to 8 bit image data instead of the 12 bit / channel RAW data, which means that you have less image data to play with.
Once sharpening is applied to the JPEG in the DSLR buffer it cannot be reversed; over sharpening an image ruins it completely and there is no going back.
If you expose your picture wrongly, select the wrong white balance or colour tone, then correcting these within an image editor is time consuming, sometimes frustratingly close to impossible and always degrading to the image (more noticeable in large prints).

A RAW file suffers from none of these limitations since the DSLR does not apply any of the shooting parameters to the RAW image in the buffer. Instead, like two young friends skipping hand in hand through a hay field, the RAW image and its shooting parameters are kept apart until they meet at the RAW conversion stage. This means that changes can be made to the exposure (brightness and contrast), white balance, saturation, sharpness and many other parameters using the RAW image data from the DSLR. These changes take place on RAW data that has a much (arguably 50%) greater tonal range (colour information) than an 8 bit JPEG.

Noise is also a big issue. All digital files are prone to signal noise, which manifests itself in certain climatic / shooting conditions. It is generally known that JPEG images exhibit more noise than their RAW counterparts, but the main difference comes in the choose of method to reduce this noise. Using in-camera noise reduction technology may seem like the best choice but this, like the shooting parameters, is an irreversible process. Once the JPEG has been "cleaned" you are stuck with it. So the obvious choice is to use one of the image editor noise reduction tools that are widely available and post process the JPEG. Whilst most do an admirable job, they are working with compressed data. Removing the noise must result in more data being removed from the image, which further degrades the image (especially when it is saved again in compressed format).

All is not lost for JPEG though, as many photographers, both professional and amateur alike, shoot exclusively in this format. Some professionals, like sports for example, need the performance benefits of a JPEG image, whilst others in the fields of social and PR need to have the quickest time to print for their clients. Most amateurs whom I talk to use JPEG because they either want to minimise any time spent in front of the workstation, just want simple prints or are scared of using the RAW format owing to all the flannel surrounding it. The common belief that shooting RAW is an elitest skill that takes too much time before you get a usable image and requires a wealth of technical knowledge. When I wrote my forthcoming book, "The DSLR Masterclass" (published in February 2004 - a shameless plug!) I was of the opinion too that RAW processing did take much longer than JPEGS, although the flexibilityt of a RAW image made this worthwhile.

In fact I held this belief right up until I first tried Capture One PRO DSLR a few months ago. I didn't try the package by choice; I was prompted by two factors - the comments of my agents and my ever-growing queue of unprocessed RAW images (it was upto 3000 at its peak). With regards to the former, one of my main agents (well known worldwide) commented that some my digital files were too noisy for them to accept and were not high enough quality to stand interpolation to poster size and beyond. I was shocked, as I'd always processed everything carefully and had previously had no negative comments about my digital work. The queue of unprocessed RAWs, admittedly my fault for shooting so prolifically over the past few months, was growing and I could see no way out of the situation. So I tried the product out; the first converted RAWS from it showed me what I'd been missing. Not only were the outputs beautifully noise free and sharp, but also the workflow was so fast that I realised I could easily win the battle against my unprocessed RAWs. Now I use Capture One DSLR every day, and can see the benefits to all levels of photographer. For professionals the ability to control every aspect of the RAW image to get the maximum quality results is the main advantage. For amateurs, the simplicity of the workflow and the speed of processing make RAW processing easily compete with JPEG in terms of time. In terms of image quality, a RAW image when processed by CaptureOne will outstrip a JPEG everytime. In fact converting RAWS is now less difficult than using the automatic washing machine, which for some us remains the benchmark of our technical ability!
ages

[rgravel]

I'm new to RAW, as I just recently purchased PSE-3, and I find this thread very informative.

Thanks all for sharing.

8)

[RomanB]

The "whole point of raw" is to preserve the image as it was taken and to allow you to change the format to whatever you wish, i.e., Jpeg, Tiff, or whatever. The first thing I do after I transfer the images to my computrer into PS using my cardreader is then to copy all the raw images to a CD. That way no matter what I do I will always have the originals plus the ability to make any changes on the files in the computer. They don't call them "digital negatives" for nothing; just like film negatives, I have the "digital negatives" on the CD in the original state. Another advantage is after I transfer the images I can then format my CF card and free it up for future usage.

I have never used the Canon software that came with my Canon 20D, not that I think it's no good, but because I don't think it is as good as PS CS, additionally, why should I when I have PS CS.

[Scottes]

The "whole point of raw" is to preserve the image as it was taken and to allow you to change the format to whatever you wish, i.e., Jpeg, Tiff, or whatever.

I can't agree with this. Besides, *any* image lets you do this.

The whole point of RAW is that it allows you to change some things - like Exposure & White Balance - non-destructively.

[RomanB]

The "whole point of raw" is to preserve the image as it was taken and to allow you to change the format to whatever you wish, i.e., Jpeg, Tiff, or whatever.

I can't agree with this. Besides, *any* image lets you do this.

The whole point of RAW is that it allows you to change some things - like Exposure & White Balance - non-destructively.

You can make any change anything you like ( exposure , white balance, colour temperature, etc,) and still preserve the raw files in their original form. One does not exclude the other.

[Scottes]

You can make any change anything you like ( exposure , white balance, colour temperature, etc,) and still preserve the raw files in their original form. One does not exclude the other.

As I said, this can be done with any file. With RAW the change is made non-destructively.

If you take a JPG or TIFF or PSD and make a change to it - like levels or curves or saturation - you have destroyed some information in the process. That is, if you adjust the middle point on Level to make it brighter you are "squishing" colors on one end of the histogram and "spreading" them on the other end. In the "squishing" process you may have forced 128 levels into 100. On the other end , in the "spreading" process, the 128 levels of colors are spread out to become 156 levels of color. Image data is destroyed in this process.

This is not the case with RAW. If you increase exposure the values for all colors are increased equally, and no image data is harmed in this process.


Don't think of it as changing the file, think of it as changing the data.

[evilenglishman]

and what about sharpening and noise reduction? that can only be destructive

[Scottes]

and what about sharpening and noise reduction? that can only be destructive

Yes, they are. That's why I originally said "some things."

But also remember that all your changes aren't applied until you convert. You are always in preview mode in a RAW editor. If you did NR and then sharpening in PS the only way to modify the NR is to undo BOTH steps. In RAW you just change the number you entered for NR.

With RAW you can tweak and twiddle all the knobs until you are satisfied. At that point you convert, and the RAW data *values* are *interpreted* in a way that will achieve the final colors. All the tweaking and twiddling will be done at the same time.

In PS you are taking *colors* and *changing* them at each step.

[RomanB]

I stand 100% behind everything I said, period. And I will not belabor the point any further.

[Scottes]

I stand 100% behind everything I said, period. And I will not belabor the point any further.

Everything you've said is correct, but you really are missing or misunderstanding the *real* power of using RAW files. Calling them a "digital negative" is a huge understatement. Huge. Heck, *any* original image is a "digital negative" because it's the original. It's really a poor analogy, since "film negatives" are simply the original image. "Digital negative" says nothing about the ability to non-destructively process a RAW image.

[robertwgross]

I found this article quite informative...

Introduction to RAW Images


One of the first major decisions that you make when using a digital SLR is whether to shoot RAW or JPEG. Lots of varying opinions exist about the difference between the two and most, wrongly, centre on proving that there is no difference in quality between the two and therefore JPEG is the preferred format. Well it's true that if you view a JPEG HIGH Quality output against a converted RAW (an RGB TIFF) in an image editor (such as Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro) you will not discern much, if any, difference at 100%. Modern JPEGS, with their sophisticated compression algorithms can be assumed visually lossless at their highest quality settings. The problem is that at the bits and bytes level there must be a reduction in quality between the two as the RAW produces a 31MB output (for the 1Ds) and the JPEG a 4MB output. Clearly the argument is a little deeper than you might think.

A JPEG can be thought of as a digital slide (I hate the constant comparisons to film); once out of the camera it is fully developed and ready to print. A RAW can be thought of as a digital negative, containing purely RAW image data from the camera that is still in need of "developing" (for want of a better word). The problem with a JPEG is that user defined shooting parameters such as white balance, saturation, contrast and very importantly sharpening, are applied in the DSLR buffer before the final image is written to the storage card. Therefore they are fixed in the final image. Sure they can be changed at the Photoshop level but this is difficult because:

A JPEG is limited to 8 bit image data instead of the 12 bit / channel RAW data, which means that you have less image data to play with.
Once sharpening is applied to the JPEG in the DSLR buffer it cannot be reversed; over sharpening an image ruins it completely and there is no going back.
If you expose your picture wrongly, select the wrong white balance or colour tone, then correcting these within an image editor is time consuming, sometimes frustratingly close to impossible and always degrading to the image (more noticeable in large prints).

A RAW file suffers from none of these limitations since the DSLR does not apply any of the shooting parameters to the RAW image in the buffer. Instead, like two young friends skipping hand in hand through a hay field, the RAW image and its shooting parameters are kept apart until they meet at the RAW conversion stage. This means that changes can be made to the exposure (brightness and contrast), white balance, saturation, sharpness and many other parameters using the RAW image data from the DSLR. These changes take place on RAW data that has a much (arguably 50%) greater tonal range (colour information) than an 8 bit JPEG.

Noise is also a big issue. All digital files are prone to signal noise, which manifests itself in certain climatic / shooting conditions. It is generally known that JPEG images exhibit more noise than their RAW counterparts, but the main difference comes in the choose of method to reduce this noise. Using in-camera noise reduction technology may seem like the best choice but this, like the shooting parameters, is an irreversible process. Once the JPEG has been "cleaned" you are stuck with it. So the obvious choice is to use one of the image editor noise reduction tools that are widely available and post process the JPEG. Whilst most do an admirable job, they are working with compressed data. Removing the noise must result in more data being removed from the image, which further degrades the image (especially when it is saved again in compressed format).

All is not lost for JPEG though, as many photographers, both professional and amateur alike, shoot exclusively in this format. Some professionals, like sports for example, need the performance benefits of a JPEG image, whilst others in the fields of social and PR need to have the quickest time to print for their clients. Most amateurs whom I talk to use JPEG because they either want to minimise any time spent in front of the workstation, just want simple prints or are scared of using the RAW format owing to all the flannel surrounding it. The common belief that shooting RAW is an elitest skill that takes too much time before you get a usable image and requires a wealth of technical knowledge. When I wrote my forthcoming book, "The DSLR Masterclass" (published in February 2004 - a shameless plug!) I was of the opinion too that RAW processing did take much longer than JPEGS, although the flexibilityt of a RAW image made this worthwhile.

In fact I held this belief right up until I first tried Capture One PRO DSLR a few months ago. I didn't try the package by choice; I was prompted by two factors - the comments of my agents and my ever-growing queue of unprocessed RAW images (it was upto 3000 at its peak). With regards to the former, one of my main agents (well known worldwide) commented that some my digital files were too noisy for them to accept and were not high enough quality to stand interpolation to poster size and beyond. I was shocked, as I'd always processed everything carefully and had previously had no negative comments about my digital work. The queue of unprocessed RAWs, admittedly my fault for shooting so prolifically over the past few months, was growing and I could see no way out of the situation. So I tried the product out; the first converted RAWS from it showed me what I'd been missing. Not only were the outputs beautifully noise free and sharp, but also the workflow was so fast that I realised I could easily win the battle against my unprocessed RAWs. Now I use Capture One DSLR every day, and can see the benefits to all levels of photographer. For professionals the ability to control every aspect of the RAW image to get the maximum quality results is the main advantage. For amateurs, the simplicity of the workflow and the speed of processing make RAW processing easily compete with JPEG in terms of time. In terms of image quality, a RAW image when processed by CaptureOne will outstrip a JPEG everytime. In fact converting RAWS is now less difficult than using the automatic washing machine, which for some us remains the benchmark of our technical ability!
ages

Rosemanbridge, this is an interesting article you wrote. Where did you get the concepts for it? I say "interesting" because I do not agree with it 100%.

---Bob Gross---

[Scottes]

Rosemanbridge, this is an interesting article you wrote. Where did you get the concepts for it? I say "interesting" because I do not agree with it 100%.

Actually it was written by Andy Rouse.

[robertwgross]

Actually it was written by Andy Rouse.

Then rosemanbridge should have credited him for the article. Somebody needs to append that to the text so that Mister Rouse won't have any legal action against the forum.

---Bob Gross---

[RomanB]

"Well it's true that if you view a JPEG HIGH Quality output against a converted RAW (an RGB TIFF) in an image editor (such as Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro) you will not discern much, if any, difference at 100%."

Not so, JPEG files are inherently sharper than RAW filesl the difference is discernable. The reason is that RAW files are anti-aliased and, as a result, they are "softer" than JPEG. Another significant difference is that every time you change a JPEG file it degrades. They are not loseless files. That is one of the reason it is advantageous to preserve the RAW file in a manner that permits you to produce other JPEG's in the event one becomes corrupted beyond your preferences.

To make a RAW file as sharp as a JPEG it is NECESSARY to sharpen the image in one of two methods: You can sharpen an image using the ill-named "unsharp mask" that is neither an unsharpener or a mask. There are three setting: The amount, which I usuall keep between 450 and 500; the radius, which I set at 0.3 and the threshold, which I set at 0. These are the numbers that work for me; you may prefer different settings. Also be aware that too much sharpening can lead to "noise." In that event you can use the process described in Photoshop help. Just type in, "noise" and follow the instructions.

The second method of sharpening is by using the high-pass filter.

[Scottes]

JPEG files are inherently sharper than RAW filesl

That's because the camera sharpened the JPG.

The reason is that RAW files are anti-aliased...

Camera JPGs are also anti-aliased. Almost all digital cameras have an anti-alias filter that covers the sensor. So *all* images are anti-aliased by the camera by such cameras.

using the ill-named "unsharp mask" that is neither an unsharpener or a mask.

Actually it is both. If you understood the process you'd know that. The process is done by taking a copy of the image and blurring it ("unsharp") and then laying the blurred copy over the original ("mask"). This enhances the contrast of the edges, which is what sharpening is.

The amount, which I usuall keep between 450 and 500; the radius, which I set at 0.3 and the threshold, which I set at 0.

It all depends on the final output. Those settings are fine for web output, but usually won't look very good on an 300dpi 16x20 inkjet print.

Also be aware that too much sharpening can lead to "noise."

Actually, too much sharpening can lead to sharpening artifacts, which can look similar to noise but these artifacts are definitely not noise.

[RomanB]

Stop what??

[RomanB]

Unsharp Masking is the way that everyone who works with digital image processing knows to sharpen their files. Of course the use of this ill-named tool has nothing to do either with masking, or unsharpness. It's just a carryover from the days when an unsharp negative was sandwiched with a sharp one to enhance edge contrast. And that is in fact what the Unsharp Mask tool in Photoshop does, it increases edge contrast. (For a look at the best methods for doing Unsharp Masking have a look at my tutorial Instant Photoshop.)

But, as useful as it is, the USM tool has problems, and one of these is that it also increases any noise present in the file. Particularly noisy photographs therefore can suffer when USM is applied.

[Tom Camilleri]

Is there a plug-in which will work with PS 6? I'm waiting until the next version to upgrade.

What alternatives to Canon's File Viewer are available? It's so slow and clunky to work with. For example, not being able to view original and changed versions, coupled with the slowness, makes it really inefficient to use.

[tim]

Canon has DPP - digital photo professional. You can download it from their website.

I've never heard of a plugin for PS 6 that can do RAW. You might be better off with capture one or breezebrowser.

[Charlton Heston's Brain]

Associated but new topic from a fresh ignoramus. 'Scuse the interrupt.

Just got the outstanding 20D. Love it. Shoot generally in RAW format for higher res and greater editing possibilities for my art directors. However, when I load the images onto my Sony Vaio, each file comes up as two files - one 1-3MB jpeg that I can view and alter easily and one 5-7MB CR2 RAW image impossible to view at all and seemingly in need of some software that I ain't got. Question: how do I make it so that all the files just pop up as one simple large JPEG to make my life easier? Second, I burned CDs of all these files and sent them to various mags. They can't read them either, MAC or PC. Question: How can I burn the CD in order to make sure all images are copy-able and modify-able by all art directors on Earth? Third, I loaded the DPP program onto my Vaio and tried CR2-to-JPEG Batch Edits. It seems to do it just fine, but then I reopen the file afterwards and nothing has changed so far as I can see - all of the CR2 RAW files are still Microsoft Photo Editor-iconed and impossible to open. All of this started happening when I had to switch out my old 60GB hard drive when it fried itself recently. The new hard drive is good stuff, but my old simple CD-burning program didn't seem to make it into the software re-load. It's now Roxio Easy CD and DVD Creator 6.0. Help wanted urgently please.

[tim]

CSB, turn your camera from RAW + JPG to Large JPG. If you don't understand RAW then don't shoot in it. Use Raw Shooter (free) or Photoshop CS Camera RAW to view CR2 files, or IrfanView with it's plugin pack (both also free).

The best image exchange format is TIFF.

[Tom Camilleri]

The RAW data itself will be unchanged no matter how you adjust it. In the Canon software you can reset the file back to its unedited state after any number of changes and even after closing and reopening the program.

[kevinma]

You want to open the RAW, adjust exposure, white balance, saturation, and so on until you are close to what you want. Save as TIFF. Open the TIFF is PS and adjust...

Scottes, thanks for all the help in this thread. I'm confused about something you wrote. Using CS2, when in the RAW dialogue window, after making the adjustments, why SAVE the file as a TIFF and then open it in PS rather than using the OPEN command to open the image in PS (without saving it), do further adjustments, and then save as a TIFF?

Is there a reason to have the workflow like this?

Kevin.

[goatee]

Tom - Raw Shooter Essentials (from www.pixmantec.com) is free, proper workflow, and many find to be better than Photoshop CS handling of RAW. I'm no pro, and have only been shooting RAW (and using RSE) for a short while, but I find it to be excellent.

Once you have processed (will do batch processing) your RAW images, you can then open them in Photoshop (any version) and do any other editing needed.

Is there a plug-in which will work with PS 6? I'm waiting until the next version to upgrade.

What alternatives to Canon's File Viewer are available? It's so slow and clunky to work with. For example, not being able to view original and changed versions, coupled with the slowness, makes it really inefficient to use.

[Desertraptor]

I downloaded RSE but unfortunately I have an Athlon and it wont work. It says I need a bios update but I fear my system too old to have the capability.

[pfuller88]

The whole point of RAW is so you have a bigger latitude for editing and working with the image. Once you're done with the editing and are ready to print, there's no reason why you can't save the file as a JPEG file. If you're not going to do any editing of the image before printing, then, yes, you should shoot directly in JPEG.

One point I'll make. I have shot tens of thousands of pictures, mostly in RAW and some in JPEG. I am a hobbiest. My work flow is to view the RAW and clean up the shot, if needed, before converting to JPEG for storage and viewing.

I have noticed a difference in the 20Ds quality of JPEG vs. RAW. The RAWs have a clear advantage. So even though I like to end up with JPEGs I always shoot in RAW and convert. :D

[goatee]

The whole point of RAW is so you have a bigger latitude for editing and working with the image. Once you're done with the editing and are ready to print, there's no reason why you can't save the file as a JPEG file. If you're not going to do any editing of the image before printing, then, yes, you should shoot directly in JPEG.

BTW, the same goes for images used for the screen and for the web. RAW is for editing. It doesn't matter where the end product is going to be used...print or screen.

Surely, the whole point is that it gives you more latitude full stop. You can shoot someone in detail, and the sky will be blown out, with RAW, you can then adjust the exposure so the person is in silhouette, and then grab decent detail of the sky.

Even if you're not planning on editing, it gives you more latitude with the exposure, so that it's more resilient to your mistakes, and allows you to do more interesting things, which are simply not possible if you're shooting straight to JPG.

[AndreyD]

My workflow is similar to somebody mentioned before. I shoot (G6) only in RAW (feels that I have got sharper, better resolution images with a good flexibility for correction. Actually, I love to fiddle with a corrections - from my childhood times when I did wet processing of BW images in a lab). So I shoot it RAW, then process in RSE doing some exposure, white balance, saturation, sharpness, etc, adjustments - convert to tiff (got about 20M file) then open it in PS SС2, do additional contrast correction if needed, resize, Smart Sharpen (if it's for Internet) and convert to JPEG (again, if it's for Internet, if it's for print - I stop on TIFF stage). For a while - I love the results.

[Sathi]

I downloaded RSE but unfortunately I have an Athlon and it wont work. It says I need a bios update but I fear my system too old to have the capability.

I don't see why an athlon wouldn't be able to run RSE. What gave you that bios needed updating message? RSE?

[goatee]

RSE requires SSE (an add on command set for the CPU effectively). It could be that earlier Athlons did not have SSE.

[Desertraptor]

RSE requires SSE (an add on command set for the CPU effectively). It could be that earlier Athlons did not have SSE.

That's what I get when I try to run it. I tried for an update to my bios as it states but I guess my system is too old. My an upgrade opportunity ;)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Scottes, thanks for all the help in this thread. I'm confused about something you wrote. Using CS2, when in the RAW dialogue window, after making the adjustments, why SAVE the file as a TIFF and then open it in PS rather than using the OPEN command to open the image in PS (without saving it), do further adjustments, and then save as a TIFF?

Is there a reason to have the workflow like this?

Kevin.

Essentially.. the moment the RAW files leaves the CS raw converter and you open it in PSCS.. whether you have saved it yet,. or not.. you are at that point working on a Tiff file.. More precisely a .psd which is in essence a tiff file with some added bells and whistels.

the reason Scottes mentions saving as tif in the first place is most likely becuase other RAW converters don't send the file directly to PSCS.. a program like BB, C1, DPP or RSE converts to file.. not to an application.

Lastly.. contrary to what many are saying in this thread.. I NEVER output to jpeg.. except for the small ones I upload. I ALLWAYS keep the .tiff/.psd file for printing.

[mdm]

Good stuff here.