Another RAW Q

[aam1234]

This thread here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=48536) corrected some misconceptions I had about RAW. I thought you can't view or edit a RAW file unless you convert it to either TIFF or jpeg first. It seems you can. The question is, if you edit the RAW file, what do you do next...is that the end result, and you can print it.

[tommykjensen]

It depends on personal preferences what the next step is.

Me I use PS CS converter to convert the raw, I usually don't save a TIF or PSD file. I then crop and do the final processing such as adding a frame and my name. Then I save the file for web. If I am processing for print I save as jpg highest quality.

I only save as PSD if I for example remove disturbing elements in the photo.

[aam1234]

Thanks Tommy,

That's great news! so in your scenario you end up with a RAW file plus a jpeg (just want to make sure, I'll tell you why later).

[tommykjensen]

Yes thats correct though the raw is not a product of the processing, the raw is the original from the camera. I don't modify my raw files.

[aam1234]

See now where I get confused.

According to the thread above (as I understand it):

1- Take a pic in raw
2- Open and edit the file.....now the file is semi-cooked, so to speak.
3-A (optional) Open in your prefered program (ie PS) and do further editting.
or
3-B Convert to jpeg (or tiff) for printing.

How does that sound.

[scottbergerphoto]

The corrections you make to the raw file are actually made in conversion and applied to the converted image and they do not alter the raw file. You don't save a changed .crw file. What you save is a converted file in jpeg or 8 bit/16bit tiff. The preview you see is what your image would look like after conversion with those changes applied to the raw data. You can not print a raw file.
Scott

[aam1234]

and applied to the converted image

We are getting closer. If you have a minute, let me run this by you, if it's ok:

1- Take a photo (in raw).
2- Open it in a program that can read raw files. You can see it too.
3- Edit the file (still raw at this stage).
4- Don't know what this step is honestly.
5- Convert to either jpeg or tiff.

How does that sound?

[tommykjensen]

You are getting there :D


1- Take a photo (in raw).
2- Open it in a program that can read raw files. You can see it too.
3- Edit the file (not raw, it is in an internal working format).
4- Convert to either jpeg or tiff.

[chris.bailey]

My basic workflow for RAW goes roughly as follows:

Do the RAW thang (normally in CS Camera RAW) aiming to get as close to what I want as possible.

Take the processed RAW into CS

Tweak levels and saturation on adjustment layers in CS

Clone out any nasties and other Photshop tweakies

Crop to print size

Convert to LAB, apply USM to the L channel, convert back to RGB

Save as TIFF (including layers) eg _KSK1130_8x10.tiff. I may then step back and re-crop and save as _K"K1130_7x5.tiff. If for a client I may also crop and sharpen for 1 x 1.5 to do a contact sheet.

[aam1234]

WOW Chris. You are teaching a toddler how to drive a Ferrari.
I'm just trying to understand the very basics of raw. But hey, thanks for the help, much appreciated.

[aam1234]

3- Edit the file (not raw, it is in an internal working format).
4- Convert to either jpeg or tiff.

After you do that you end up with a RAW (unedited) + either jpeg or tiff (depending on your choice of conversion).

How does that sound.

[scottbergerphoto]

3- Edit the file (not raw, it is in an internal working format).
4- Convert to either jpeg or tiff.

After you do that you end up with a RAW (unedited) + either jpeg or tiff (depending on your choice of conversion).

How does that sound.
Yes. When you are done, you have the original Raw file and a jpeg or tiff file (8bit or 16bit) that has the modifications you applied in the Raw converter. You then can further modify the jpeg/tiff in your image editor.
Scott

[aam1234]

Got it! now I know why I was scared of RAW. No more.

Thank you guys.

[CyberDyneSystems]

and applied to the converted image

We are getting closer. If you have a minute, let me run this by you, if it's ok:

1- Take a photo (in raw).
2- Open it in a program that can read raw files. You can see it too.
3- Edit the file (still raw at this stage).
4- Don't know what this step is honestly.
5- Convert to either jpeg or tiff.

How does that sound?

Close but this is more accurate;

1. Open RAW File in Converter of choice.
2. Tweek (edit) the image using the RAW converter.
3. Save a copy of the IMAGE The output file will be a COPY of the RAW file with your editing applied. You can save in a number of file formats.. but the original RAW file remains unchanged. (or "uncooked" it is allways "raw")
4. You can then re-open the now converted image in your PP program like PSCS (in the case of using PSCS for RAW conversion the converted tif will open in PSCS automatically)
5. Re-save the converted image after Post processing.

[aam1234]

Now I'm confused again. Not in the process but in the logic of things. If I may use the previous steps:

1- Take a photo (in raw).
2- Open it in a program that can read raw files. You can see it too.
3- Edit the file (still raw at this stage).
4- Convert to either jpeg or tiff.

Step no.4, and sorry if it sounds stupid. But why do you convert to jpeg. In other words, the end result of using RAW will be a jpeg, then why not capture it in jpeg in the first place. Again, sorry if it sounds very dumb :oops:

[Scottes]

But why do you convert to jpeg. In other words, the end result of using RAW will be a jpeg, then why not capture it in jpeg in the first place.

When you edit a RAW file you can do some things you can't do any other way. Like add a couple stops of exposure, or change the white balance. Yes, you an simulate these things in PS, but not to the extent or quality that you can do them when editing a RAW file.

RAW captures the image with 12 bits of color data, compared to 8 bits in JPG. This isn't always a huge difference, but when combined with the above it is.

JPG compresses the image, and it's a lossy compression. So not only do you lose 4 bits of color info, you will actually lose colors when saving as JPG - it's just the nature of the JPG compression algorithm.

With RAW you are working on the *purest* possible version of the image. You're editing *exactly* what the camera saw. When you capture to JPG the camera puts the image through several post-processing steps - like saturating and changing contrast - that don't exist in RAW. With RAW, you change contrast and saturation to *exactly* what you want. (OK, you can turn this stuff off when saving JPG in the camera, but it still gets post-processed when the camera saves as JPG. No matter what you turn off, you do not get *exactly* what the camera saw.)


RAW is pure. It's not some machine's interpretation of the image, but *your* interpretation of the image.

[aam1234]

Thanks Scottes, as always.

Let me ask another silly question, if I may. Is there a difference between a converted jpeg from raw and a straight jpeg from the cam.

The reason I'm asking is that people are talking how good and how much info RAW can capture. All well and good. We all know that by now, even me. However, I'm not sure where the RAW file comes into play visa-a-vis the end output.

[CyberDyneSystems]

See Scottes post above... it pretty much explains why a RAW file converyted to jpeg has the potential to be better than shooting straight jpeg..

If you add to the end of his post,
So.. by shooting raw and making a conversion to jpeg you can create a jpeg file that is higher in quality and more to your own level of post processing skill than the camera can. ... this should explain the theory.

Back to your other question.. you asked;

But why do you convert to jpeg. In other words, the end result of using RAW will be a jpeg, then why not capture it in jpeg in the first place.

You are better off NOT converting to jpeg... and most raw shooters don't. So asking why we do leaves us answering "in theory" :)

Really .. other than small jpeg copies for web sharing.. most RAW files are destined to become .tif or .psd

[Scottes]

Let me ask another silly question, if I may. Is there a difference between a converted jpeg from raw and a straight jpeg from the cam.

As I said: "It's not some machine's interpretation of the image, but *your* interpretation of the image." So the resulting JPG from RAW will be how *you* want that JPG to look, *not* how the camera thinks it should look.

For instance, when shooting JPG you can set all the parameters for Contrast, Sharpness, Saturation, and Color Balance. Any of these can be set to your choice of -2, -1, 0, +1 or +2. Once set, you take the picture, the camera applies these settings, and you're done.

With RAW you can set Contrast and Saturation to anything between -100 to + 100. Color Balance goes from -150 to + 150. Sharpness can be set between 0 and 100. Color Temp can go from 2,000 to 48,000. You can adjust the exposure up to 4 stops lower or higher. And so on.

Once you change any or all of these you convert to TIFF or JPG. Or not. Or do it twice, but with different settings. Or again with one setting different. And so on, and so on.

With RAW you're always allowed to change these things without ever changing the original data. YOU are in control and YOU get to do things your way.


Did you ever shoot film, even disposable? You take the pictures and bring them to the lab to get processed, and you get your pictures back. And one is underexposed and another has too much green for some reason. So you go back to the lab and ask the folks to expose the first one more, and remove some of the green on the other. So they do, and the green one is better but not perfect, but lab folks said that the underexposed one was hopeless and couldn't be fixed.

This won't happen with RAW. YOU will get them both right the first time (within reason). YOU are the lab, you do you want, exactly how you want it.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Bruce Frasers book--Real World Camera Raw will explain just about everything you would want to know about raw format. It's one of the best books I've ever bought for my digital photography (that and Martin Evening's Adobe Photoshop CS for Photographers).

[chris.bailey]

WOW Chris. You are teaching a toddler how to drive a Ferrari.
I'm just trying to understand the very basics of raw. But hey, thanks for the help, much appreciated.

Ha Ha. I know someone whos seven year old managed to drive his Porshe into their duck pond.

Give my steps a try and come back with any questions. It isnt that tricky and after a while bocomes second nature. I reckon on 30 seconds from RAW to tiff for a typical image. If I get a couple of hours free I may even try to do a Scottes stylee tutorial.

[tim]

Bruce Frasers book--Real World Camera Raw will explain just about everything you would want to know about raw format. It's one of the best books I've ever bought for my digital photography (that and Martin Evening's Adobe Photoshop CS for Photographers).

Are they suitable for beginners? I'm a techie/engineer but I don't have much CS/RAW experience.

[Scottes]

Are they suitable for beginners? I'm a techie/engineer but I don't have much CS/RAW experience.

Both of those books are excellent for beginners. The RAW book is *complete* (and very well written) so it's suitable for beginner to expert.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Yes--both books are great for beginners. I'm a beginner to Photoshop and RAW (I used to be a PaintShop Pro/Jpeg man, now I can't imagine using either!).

[tim]

Right, off to Amazon I go, thanks :)

[RomanB]

I think first everyone should be aware of why a raw file is referred to as a "digital negative." The reason is, just like a film negative, it does not change. You can manipulate the image in PS, for instance, and no matter what you do, unless you manipulate the raw file itfself, it will always be the same. I mean by that you can make a Jpeg, Tiff or whatever, the "digital negative" will remain the same.

I download my images in PS and then I do put my "digital negatives" away. That is, I transfers all the files from my CF to a CD and then put it away as I would negatives. I can then manipulate or tranfer the images in my computer to any form I want. Nothing I do will have any effect on the raw images because they are all on the CD. So if I make some manipulations I cannot undo I can put the CD back in my computer and start over.

[aam1234]

Hi guys again,

First I want to thank you for the great help you have provided, it's really appreciated.

Tomorrow we will have a gathering both indoors and outdoors, so naturally I'll be taking lots of pics. The indoor ones will be in mixed light (three kind of lights to be exact) so I think that's an opportunity to try out RAW. Will report the results if anybody is interested.

Have a side question, though I'm almost sure of the answer, but I'll ask the experts just to make sure. Is it OK to use RAW and jpeg in the same card. I mean, for the indoors RAW will be used then switch to jpeg for outdoors *in the same card*. Is that OK.

Thanks again

[Steven M. Anthony]

That's no problem. But why would you not shoot RAW outside?

[tofuboy]

I mean, for the indoors RAW will be used then switch to jpeg for outdoors *in the same card*. Is that OK.

Thanks again

Yes it is fine to have jpeg and raw on the same cf card. And I'll put in another good word for the Bruce Fraiser book, "Adobe Camera Raw".

[tim]

Have a side question, though I'm almost sure of the answer, but I'll ask the experts just to make sure. Is it OK to use RAW and jpeg in the same card. I mean, for the indoors RAW will be used then switch to jpeg for outdoors *in the same card*. Is that OK.

It's fine.

[aam1234]

Thanks Steven,

This is my first attempt at RAW, so I think it's better to try a small sample first.

[Scottes]

Can the 10D shoot RAW + Large Fine JPG? (It's been 2 months and I already forget.)

If so, try that. Now you'll get 2 version of each pic, one RAW and the other JPG. The JPG will give you the camera's best guess, so now you have a decent target to shoot for when processing the RAW. And if you totally mess up the RAW (you won't) you'll still have a decent pic.

[aam1234]

Thank you guys for the help, it's really appreciated.

(Scottes, I have the 20D, which I believe you have too).

[tim]

Can the 10D shoot RAW + Large Fine JPG? (It's been 2 months and I already forget.)

With the firmware hack, yes. Without it does medium but I can't remember what compression. I've turned it to smallest, if I shoot raw i'd rather not fill my buffer with data I won't use.

[Scottes]

(Scottes, I have the 20D, which I believe you have too).

Definitely shoot RAW + Lg Fine JPG as long as you don't need the buffer. Best of both worlds until you get used to RAW.