RAW for Newbie

[neil5054]

Ok, so my DSLR (Canon XSI) is only a month old and I expect to take a lot of photos in Europe next month and all of you are advising me to shoot RAW instead of JPEG. Before I go off over my head (my post processing ability using Photoshop Elements is very basic), I could use a tutorial or forum string discussing what to expect in processing RAW photos for someone that never has tried it before.

[white fire.]

You have more editing options, and have more control over the detail.

It's a step..I would not take back.
I love shooting RAW.
One downfall of RAW is..
Takes up way more memory!

[neil5054]

Yes, I may need to buy a few more cards. I was all set for 11 days in europe with about 12 GB of memory using 12MB Jpegs but using RAW really does eat the memory!

[gjl711]

Raw processing can be as easy or complex as you would like to make it. You can simply let DPP do the work for you applying a style and creating the jpeg with zero processing, just as if the camera did it, or you could adjust each and every picture tweaking every single parameter, or something in between. What RAW really gives you is insurance. You have the data that the camera captured and if one photo did not come out perfect, you have way more latitude in adjusting things possible saving a marginal pic. There is a real nice tutorial Canon put out describing all the things you can do to a raw file with DPP. The same concepts apply with elements.
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=HomePageAct
Click on DPP3.2 and walk the pages to the tutorial. It’s a bit of a busy page but you’ll get there eventually.

[neil5054]

thanks, I'll check out the tutorial. Would I apply a basic set or parameter of sharpness,contrast, saturation in batch conversions?

[nwa2]

My advice is to take it all in RAW and as gjl711 says let DPP do the PP work if you have little experience. You will get the same results as if you had shot jpeg and the advantage of being able to go back and do more work on the 10% of shots you really love.

12 GB of cards is plenty, think more, shoot less. If you do run out, we sell cards in Europe.

[gjl711]

thanks, I'll check out the tutorial. Would I apply a basic set or parameter of sharpness,contrast, saturation in batch conversions?
Yes, DPP also allows you to choose the preset styles as well.

[Nathan]

shoot (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml) RAW and expose to the right (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml).

[neil5054]

shoot (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml) RAW and expose to the right (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml).
I just read up on "expose to the right" yesterday. I understand basics of the histogram - if I shoot in RAW can I rely at all on the LCD capture? if I expose to the right will I be in danger of overexposures?

[gjl711]

..if I expose to the right will I be in danger of overexposures?
Yup, that’s why setting the review with histogram is important. You want to move the histogram to the right without falling off the end. Once the highlights are oversaturated, blown, there is nothing you can do to get them back. Take a test shot if your iffy, check the histogram and adjust EC appropriately.

[neil5054]

that much I think I can do. any recommendations on conversion? DPP or Elements?

[PixelMagic]

Actually if you have Lightroom or Photoshop CS3, slight overexposure is not a problem. And in fact, since the histogram is based on the thumbnail image embedded in every RAW file, it may show clipping or overexposure when none has actually occurred. Both Adobe Camera RAW and Lightroom allow you to recover image detail even when two of the three channels are clipped.

[gjl711]

that much I think I can do. any recommendations on conversion? DPP or Elements?
You don't mention what camera you are shooting with. I believe Elements can’t handle 14 bit raw files without an intermediate step but I could be wrong. Anyway, DPP is really a pretty nice program, easy to use and allows batch conversions for similar pics.

[neil5054]

You don't mention what camera you are shooting with. I believe Elements can’t handle 14 bit raw files without an intermediate step but I could be wrong. Anyway, DPP is really a pretty nice program, easy to use and allows batch conversions for similar pics.
I checked and believe my Canon Xsi is 14 bits.

[gjl711]

Whoops, I missed that in your OP.:oops: Sorry. :oops:Starting with DPP is easier then. One less step.

[neil5054]

thanks. I just ordered another 8MB card. Hopefully I won't have a of of problems when I get back from my trip with cards full of RAW photos w/o a clue as how to process them!! I need to read the DPP software instructions. Once I convert in DPP, do I import the photo into Photoshop? or is the post processing of the RAW file done prior to it being converted into a Jpeg?

[-Douglas-]

I need to read the DPP software instructions

OMG, people still read instructions?? ;)

I thought that is what the forums are for ! hahaha:lol:

(found on the floor, LMAO, covered in books, printed docs, and pdf's)

[rooeey]

I vote you stay with RAW DPP is pretty easy just stick with it and as said before the preset options are pretty good and you can tweak from there..

It will up your keeper rate then do a batch process to Jpeg...I take very few shots into PSE....DPP is usually enough for me......

[gjl711]

Also, the nice thing about raw files are that as your post processing skills improve, you can go back to the raw file and re-process it. The raw data remains unchanged.

[neil5054]

ok, so once you set initial parameters and process the image via DPP into a Jpeg, sounds like additional processing goes back to the original RAW file rather than JPEG? I am a bit confused as to where Elements now fits in after using DPP.

[gjl711]

ok, so once you set initial parameters and process the image via DPP into a Jpeg, sounds like additional processing goes back to the original RAW file rather than JPEG? I am a bit confused as to where Elements now fits in after using DPP.
It can be either. You can re-process the raw using DPP. It remembers you last settings, or post process the jpeg in elements, or process the raw in elements sometime later, it’s your call. Developing a workflow is a very personal preference type of thing. To start with I would stick to one program until I get comfortable with it, like DPP. As you learn new techniques and start to fine tune things you might want to go back and touch up some of the first ones. With the raw file all the data is there so your not loosing quality as if you were touching up a jpeg file.

[neil5054]

It can be either. You can re-process the raw using DPP. It remembers you last settings, or post process the jpeg in elements, or process the raw in elements sometime later, it’s your call. .
I'd better do some reading on DPP. Are you saying that all of the post processing, color, saturation, highlights and fixing spots, etc. that I would do with a Jpeg in Elements would be done from RAW in DPP w/ no need for Elements? I think I am missing post processing step.

On another note, I believe I read somewhere that in camera sharpening/saturation adjustment is not affected in RAW? I'm not sure about this one

[gjl711]

...all of the post processing, color, saturation, highlights and fixing spots, etc. that I would do with a Jpeg in Elements would be done from RAW in DPP w/ no need for Elements? ...You can do all that except for the spots. DPP does not have a clone tool, but saturation. WB, sparpness,tone and such is all adjustable.

... in camera sharpening/saturation adjustment is not affected in RAW? I'm not sure about this one None of the in camera defaults are applied directly to the raw file. They are used as a default starting position for the pic, but all are modifiable.

[René Damkot]

DPP does have a spot removal tool: The Stamp tool.
It has it's limitations, but will work for dust spots.

[gooble]

DPP does have a spot removal tool: The Stamp tool.
It has it's limitations, but will work for dust spots.

2nd that. Also certain cameras like the 40D append dust data to the picture (if you set it up and update it periodically) and as far as I can tell (anyone know for sure) automatically fixes it if you process in DPP.


I just posted this in another thread. It's basically my DPP & PS workflow:

I take my shots, dump them off the CF card into a folder. I open that folder in DPP, rename them, look through all mark junk and mark my favorites and then delete junk.

It was a little different with my 20D, but with the 40D I kind of like the Standard Picture style but I may still use the neutral one if I want. For images that I expect to print, I set contrast to 0, sharpness to 0, saturation to 0 and maybe adjust tone if it needs it. I fix the WB if need be and then adjust exposure as needed then export a 16bit TIFF that I open in PS where I fix as needed: levels, curves, local contrast and high-pass sharpening.

From here I set to 8bit mode, crop and resize as needed and export TIFF for prints and jpeg for web.

I've used ACR and Lightroom multiple times and both of them just get in the way and slow me down. DPP is fine for what it does and the only thing I really wish it did better was to be a better collection tool as far as viewing, sorting, clasifying etc.

[neil5054]

2nd that. Also certain cameras like the 40D append dust data to the picture (if you set it up and update it periodically) and as far as I can tell (anyone know for sure) automatically fixes it if you process in DPP.


I just posted this in another thread. It's basically my DPP & PS workflow:


this is helpful. I just read the Chapter on RAW converter in Photoshop Elements and also downloaded DPP. Someone mentioned Elements having problem with more than 8 bits and my Xsi shoots in 14. The manual says that over 8 bits and Elements may have limited corrections and won't work with layers or some filters or other functions. DPP might be better. that leaves me with an obvious question. Where does the full program like Photoshop fit in if using DPP to make adjustments before saving to Jpeg?

[gooble]

this is helpful. I just read the Chapter on RAW converter in Photoshop Elements and also downloaded DPP. Someone mentioned Elements having problem with more than 8 bits and my Xsi shoots in 14. The manual says that over 8 bits and Elements may have limited corrections and won't work with layers or some filters or other functions. DPP might be better. that leaves me with an obvious question. Where does the full program like Photoshop fit in if using DPP to make adjustments before saving to Jpeg?

You might reread my post.

[René Damkot]

PS can be used for things DPP doesn't do: Local adjustments, crop at an angle and "pixel pushing". (edits at pixel level, liquify, removing a BG, whatever)

[-Douglas-]

Also Neil, you might want to check out this (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=80337), tons of great info!

[neil5054]

You might reread my post.
your post is helpful. pardon the pun, but for the big "picture" what you are saying is that the basic color, contrast, sharpness, crop, can be done by batch or individually in the converter to Jpeg or Tiff.

I need to practice more in the conversion process, but I am confused when you say you do the basic adjustments and export in 16 bit TIFF (I assume this is the 'conversion'), then import into PS for more adjustments and then resize to 8bit for cropping. Can you explain the steps better?

[neil5054]

PS can be used for things DPP doesn't do: Local adjustments, crop at an angle and "pixel pushing". (edits at pixel level, liquify, removing a BG, whatever)
Ok, I am so new to digital processing and just getting to understand PS Elements. With all the power of PS, it seems like what I am hearing is that, if I use RAW, then most of the color, saturation, contract, sharpening, WB, adjustments are done in the converter program like DPP and not in Elements.

BTW, thanks for the great links on RAW (I guess I fall into needing the RAW for Dummies link).

[-Douglas-]

(I guess I fall into needing the RAW for Dummies link).

I think we've all been there at one time or another :)

I fell into the stickies and got stuck ! :eek:

[neil5054]

I think we've all been there at one time or another :)

I fell into the stickies and got stuck ! :eek:

Here's my dilema. This is my first DSLR. I've never processed a RAW image in my life. I leave for two weeks in Europe in August. I have plenty of memory cards. Do I wimp out and take Jpegs, or bite the bullet, take in RAW and then pull my hair out when I get back with my hundreds of photos??

[white fire.]

I suggest pulling your hair out.

[neil5054]

I suggest pulling your hair out.
Is that before, during or after I am also learning how to shoot in Manual mode?

[-Douglas-]

Hey Neil, just set your camera to take raw+jpeg, sounds like you are taking plenty of memory with you. Learn more about how to use your camera before you go. You will have plenty of time to research about RAW when you get back and you'll already have both file formats saved on your cards to play with when you get back---then pull hair out!

[neil5054]

Hey Neil, just set your camera to take raw+jpeg, sounds like you are taking plenty of memory with you. Learn more about how to use your camera before you go. You will have plenty of time to research about RAW when you get back and you'll already have both file formats saved on your cards to play with when you get back---then pull hair out!

Maybe not enough cards to take both, though. I'll have to do a new calculation. I just ordered another 8mb card...but that is really the best idea.

[gooble]

Ok, I am so new to digital processing and just getting to understand PS Elements. With all the power of PS, it seems like what I am hearing is that, if I use RAW, then most of the color, saturation, contract, sharpening, WB, adjustments are done in the converter program like DPP and not in Elements.

BTW, thanks for the great links on RAW (I guess I fall into needing the RAW for Dummies link).

I don't think you read post #25?

Most of the stuff I do is in Photoshop. The WB is done in the RAW converter as that is one of main benefits shooting in RAW affords, other than that, as I stated in that post, most everything else I do, I do in Photoshop.

[René Damkot]

Partly it's personal preference.

I tend to do things a bit different: I set as much as possible in the Raw converter (DPP, by the way; here (http://www.usa.canon.com/content/dpp2/index.html) is a tutorial.)

That includes:


WB
exposure
color tone and saturation
curves

and, for a part, as needed and as far as "easy to do in DPP":

contrast
sharpness (capture sharpening)
NR
Lens corrections
curves


Then I convert and open in PS.

Generally speaking, quality wise, it's best to do anything you can do in the Raw converter, in the raw converter.
However, PS offers better control for some things, for instance curves, and it's more user friendly.

Also, all *local* adjustments are done in PS, as well as (as needed) output sharpening and (very seldom) NR.

[neil5054]

Partly it's personal preference.

I tend to do things a bit different: I set as much as possible in the Raw converter (DPP, by the way; here (http://www.usa.canon.com/content/dpp2/index.html) is a tutorial.)
.
This helps a lot. Would you do things like cloning out distracting objects after you convert from Raw to Jpeg?

[neil5054]

I fix the WB if need be and then adjust exposure as needed then export a 16bit TIFF that I open in PS where I fix as needed: levels, curves, local contrast and high-pass sharpening.

From here I set to 8bit mode, crop and resize as needed and export TIFF for prints and jpeg for web.



Can you explain why you set to 8 bit after saving in TIFF and processing in PS??

[gooble]

Can you explain why you set to 8 bit after saving in TIFF and processing in PS??

A little explanation first. If I'm not mistaken cameras other than the lastest round by Canon saved files in a 12bit mode. The latest, 40D, 1Ds III, 1D III etc use 14bits. However, when converting to TIFF the space that the file holds this data in is actually 16bit or 8bit. Since you have more than 8bits of data in either case if you want to make use of all of it you have to save to 16bit.

Once you've made your corrections in PS in 16bit mode you then need to convert to your final output, JPEG or TIFF. JPEGs only have an 8bit space (that is one of the major reasons to shoot in RAW in the first place - You might wonder why shoot in RAW at all if you're just gonna end up with an 8bit JPEG in the end. Well besides the leeway you have with WB and exposure in the RAW converter, once you go to work with a file in PS you're less likely to end up with posterization and possible other issues) so you have to convert to 8bit mode in order to save it.

If you're making a TIFF you can leave it in 16bit or put it in 8bit, however the print lab I send my pictures to want them in 8bit mode.

[neil5054]

A little explanation first. If I'm not mistaken cameras other than the lastest round by Canon saved files in a 12bit mode. The latest, 40D, 1Ds III, 1D III etc use 14bits. However, when converting to TIFF the space that the file holds this data in is actually 16bit or 8bit. Since you have more than 8bits of data in either case if you want to make use of all of it you have to save to 16bit.

Once you've made your corrections in PS in 16bit mode you then need to convert to your final output, JPEG or TIFF. JPEGs only have an 8bit space (that is one of the major reasons to shoot in RAW in the first place - You might wonder why shoot in RAW at all if you're just gonna end up with an 8bit JPEG in the end. Well besides the leeway you have with WB and exposure in the RAW converter, once you go to work with a file in PS you're less likely to end up with posterization and possible other issues) so you have to convert to 8bit mode in order to save it.

If you're making a TIFF you can leave it in 16bit or put it in 8bit, however the print lab I send my pictures to want them in 8bit mode.

Now that makes total sense. thanks. I am getting excited about trying RAW since I usually spend time picture by picture enhancing the keepers before printing when I take vacation shots anyway. I expect to take anywhere from 500-800 photos over a two week span in Europe and probably end up with 400 keeperss give or take. Since I am using RAW for the first time, is it a good ideal to batch process this many with some basic parameters? Or is it a bad idea?

[gooble]

Now that makes total sense. thanks. I am getting excited about trying RAW since I usually spend time picture by picture enhancing the keepers before printing when I take vacation shots anyway. I expect to take anywhere from 500-800 photos over a two week span in Europe and probably end up with 400 keeperss give or take. Since I am using RAW for the first time, is it a good ideal to batch process this many with some basic parameters? Or is it a bad idea?

It's a good idea if you want it to go fast. :) Seriously though, it's good if all those pictures need the same setting.

Say you had 400 pictures taken at various locations and lighting. I'd look at them and get WB set if your in camera setting didn't get it right. BTW in DPP you can quickly apply a certain WB, even custom WB to as many as you want in a few seconds as well as adjust styles or exposure for that matter. You may only need to adjust WB and exposure on a small portion of them and once you've done that you can select them all and convert in a batch which will also let you rename, resize and choose between several TIFF and JPEG outputs including both at the same time.

Like the above scenario, I usually have a set of pictures with groups of those in slightly different lighting and the WB in some of them is not right. So I open one of the images with off WB and I fix it. At this point I can change the picture style if I wish or adjust it's components, ex set sharpening to 0 if I plan to PP in PS. Then I right click the image and copy recipe.

Next select all the images that you want that recipe to apply to, right click and apply recipe. Warning: remember that if the image you first open is underexposed by a stop and you fix it, when you copy and paste that recipe to the group you'll increase the exposure by a stop on all of them even though they needed no adjustment. If you do this though it's easy enough to fix. When you've done this with all like groups you can batch process the whole lot.

[neil5054]

It's a good idea if you want it to go fast. :) Seriously though, it's good if all those pictures need the same setting.

.
I am less comfortable about batch processing a WB adjustment. I am used to taking P&S photos with auto WB and experimenting with manual WB (although I found that my P&S Canon did a great job with most auto WB a high percentage of time), but I would be concerned with applying one WB to a whole bunch of photos at the same time. Maybe my concerns are unfounded, for example, for a large number of bright sunny day light photos.

[gooble]

I am less comfortable about batch processing a WB adjustment. I am used to taking P&S photos with auto WB and experimenting with manual WB (although I found that my P&S Canon did a great job with most auto WB a high percentage of time), but I would be concerned with applying one WB to a whole bunch of photos at the same time. Maybe my concerns are unfounded, for example, for a large number of bright sunny day light photos.

There's nothing to be concerned about as you can apply every different WB setting to a group in just a few seconds and if you still don't like it you can return it to the original settings in a flash. And it's not really a batch file, you're just selecting and applying a recipe that takes about 1 second.

That's the beauty of RAW. You can't mess up the underlying RAW data at all. It's impossible. The changes you make are saved to a seperate portion of the file. Lightroom and ACR work a bit differently and save changes to what they call a sidecar xml file but DPP saves changes in the cr2 file itself, but at any time you can revert the whole image back to the original settings if you choose.

[neil5054]

There's nothing to be concerned about as you can apply every different WB setting to a group in just a few seconds and if you still don't like it you can return it to the original settings in a flash.
The more I learn the less worried I am about using RAW (other than the large number of memory cards I will need), but seriously, I might not even bother with RAW+Jpeg.

This WB adjustment has be wondering - do you just choose say all daytime bright outdoor shots to set at a daylight WB? I am very used to Auto WB, or do most people set WB picture by picture? Is there a reasonable default methodology?

[gooble]

The more I learn the less worried I am about using RAW (other than the large number of memory cards I will need), but seriously, I might not even bother with RAW+Jpeg.

This WB adjustment has be wondering - do you just choose say all daytime bright outdoor shots to set at a daylight WB? I am very used to Auto WB, or do most people set WB picture by picture? Is there a reasonable default methodology?

When I started out I was greatly concerned with WB so I got a WhiBal card (look it up if you're interested) and used it for a while but I pretty much quit using it. Although in certain situations I'd still use for outdoor nature/animal shots which I do a lot of it's not that useful.

For one thing for late evening pics where you get the great warmness of the sun if you "correctly" white balance you'll remove that warmness. For these shots if I'm in shooting in direct sun I'll set daylight and if the subject is in shade I'll select shade. Sometimes I just leave in in auto and worry about it later but most of the time it's ok but if it's not warm enough for my liking I'll adjust it in DPP.

Where you'll run into problems is with artificial indoor lighting. Auto WB does not do well with tungsten lights. It usually makes them too warm even if you set to tungsten oftentimes (not all tungsten light is the same). Using something like the WhiBal is more useful here or just using the eyedropper in DPP on a white object.

Now even more problems arise when you mix light, flash+tungsten or flash+flourescent or even flourescent+tungsten which I won't even go into here. If you're interested search for flash gels or balancing flash and ambient light.

As for the number of shots you're gonna take and the storage you need, are you sure you're not underestimating the amount you're gonna take?

If it were me I'd allocate 2000-4000 shots and bring if possible a laptop and backup external drive. I wouldn't want to keep all the pictures on cards. For one, that's a lot of cards which are much more expensive per GB than a hard drive. For a 40D 4,000 shots is about 52GB which would be perfect for an external 60GB hard drive which could be found for less than $80. However you'd need a laptop too or get one of those Digital Foci or Epson digital photo vaults. These are much more expensive but allow you to view the pictures on the unit and you just stick the card in and it pulls it off, no computer needed. And they're smaller than a laptop.

[neil5054]

When I started out I was greatly concerned with WB so I got a WhiBal card (look it up if you're interested) and used it for a while but I pretty much quit using it. Although in certain situations I'd still use for outdoor nature/animal shots which I do a lot of it's not that useful.

For one thing for late evening pics where you get the great warmness of the sun if you "correctly" white balance you'll remove that warmness. For these shots if I'm in shooting in direct sun I'll set daylight and if the subject is in shade I'll select shade. Sometimes I just leave in in auto and worry about it later but most of the time it's ok but if it's not warm enough for my liking I'll adjust it in DPP.

Where you'll run into problems is with artificial indoor lighting. Auto WB does not do well with tungsten lights. It usually makes them too warm even if you set to tungsten oftentimes (not all tungsten light is the same). Using something like the WhiBal is more useful here or just using the eyedropper in DPP on a white object.

Now even more problems arise when you mix light, flash+tungsten or flash+flourescent or even flourescent+tungsten which I won't even go into here. If you're interested search for flash gels or balancing flash and ambient light.

As for the number of shots you're gonna take and the storage you need, are you sure you're not underestimating the amount you're gonna take?


I shouldn't need laptop or big storage. I generally take in the 500-700 range for couple of weeks of vacation to Europe so I expect that the cards I have will be ok.

I will take mainly outdoor travel shots and limited indoors (churches, museums) and some indoor people photos (those would require some balance) - what I think you are saying is that if the Auto or Daylight setting in camera is close to correct, additional WB adjustments should not be needed in RAW processing?