I [heart] RAW!

[Dubsta]

Oh my god...just finally getting around to testing it out. I'm shooting in RAW from now on! Going to have to pick up some more cards, but it is soooo worth it...wow!

[CyberDyneSystems]

If I dug around I could find my post that was just like yours a few years back....

There was a fellow named Roger Cavanagh who used to drop in more often,. and his response was a very much more diplomatic version of;

"I told you so"

:lol:

It is stunning once you "see it" ,.. isn't it? :mrgreen:

[Dubsta]

It really is...I'm honestly shooting RAW from now on...so much better...so many positives...and it gives me a great excuse to pick up a few more cards...

[Bodog]

In a year come back to the images you're converting now and see even how much better you can make them look then... :)

[tim]

RAW's great for difficult lighting situations, especially when you're a beginner (like me). I think professionals are a little split, some use JPG to reduce their processing time, some use RAW to get better images. I use RAW most of the time, and JPG if I need rapid fire mode.

[pcasciola]

I'm a fairly new RAW convert, too, about 4 months or so, even though my last three cameras supported RAW. I'm very happy with the results, especially where white balance is concerned, but I'm not sure I could live with the effective smaller buffer now that baseball and lacrosse seasons are starting. I can already see being 7-8 shots into a great sequence and getting stuck, while in JPEG mode I can shoot 30-35 shots in a sequence with no slowing down. What I'm wondering is, if the difference between RAW and Large/Fine JPEG will be as apparant outdoors when white balance is not really much of a concern.

[drewmk2]

Some will argue that you should use the camera to get the best image possible. RAW will allow you to get around some camera skill if you will, but that's not necessarily a good thing if you're learning.

[CyberDyneSystems]

In a year come back to the images you're converting now and see even how much better you can make them look then... :)

OH YEAH!

I reporocessed one of my first really good RAW keepers about 18 months after the first time around.. Wow waht a difference.

[tim]

What I'm wondering is, if the difference between RAW and Large/Fine JPEG will be as apparant outdoors when white balance is not really much of a concern.

If you can get the white ballance and framing right in the camera, I don't see any big advantages in using RAW. The pro who taught my basic class said he shoots exclusively in JPG, because he and his partner take too many photos to have time to process them all in RAW. And yes, it does take time, even with batch processing and copying settings over.

[pcasciola]

If you can get the white ballance and framing right in the camera, I don't see any big advantages in using RAW. The pro who taught my basic class said he shoots exclusively in JPG, because he and his partner take too many photos to have time to process them all in RAW. And yes, it does take time, even with batch processing and copying settings over.True, but the white balance can change from one shot to the next when shooting indoors. Plus, like CDS just mentioned, as Pekka did in another thread, we can go back to RAWs later when better software is available and as we learn more about post processing techniques and get better results than we did the first time around, with no loss.

I guess my only solution is to get a camera with a bigger buffer and a faster computer to batch process RAWs. That 1D Mk II and dual Opteron is looking more and more necessary every day. ;)

[drisley]

Raw helps with white balance AND dynamic range. If I had shot the last bodybuilding show, I would not have been able to keep 75% of my images because of the huge dynamic range, and very difficult metering situation. In addition, the white balance was very, very difficult to get right, short of throwing a gray card on stage. Even then it wouldnt have worked because lighting changed so much on different parts of the stage.
Thanks to the ability to chimp, and super fast buffer on the 20D, I had no problems with running into the buffer or running out of room with 2 x 1GB cards during the 4 hr show.
Also, PS CS Camera Raw is very, very fast for Raw conversion, much faster than C1 Pro or other software. Converting from Raw doesnt take much longer than opening a large tiff file on my A64 3500+ system.

[cmM]

RAW helps a lot of things. It offers infinitely more flexibility than JPGs (of course there are certaing instances where that flexibility is not really necessary).
I shoot RAW exclusively.

[drewmk2]

I'm curious... you sports photographers. Do you shoot RAW? Even when you want successive shots?

[drisley]

I shoot mainly sports, and I use Raw exclusively.
This helps me to improve my timing, rather than always using the spray'n pray method.
Although, I still get 5fps regardless, and 6 frames with Raw (and 1 fps after that).

[timmyquest]

My story is a little backwards i guess. I use to shoot a little of both, then i decided that RAW must be better so i just shot that for a while, without any real reason. But then i decided to go back to jpeg...then i knew RAW was the only way to go.

[pcasciola]

I shoot mainly sports, and I use Raw exclusively.
This helps me to improve my timing, rather than always using the spray'n pray method.
Although, I still get 5fps regardless, and 6 frames with Raw (and 1 fps after that).I do tend to do a bit of spray and pray while shooting football, but that's different from hockey, because a play can develop where I need 20-30 shots to get just a few really good keepers out of it.

I remember a sequence last year in a softball game, where I was the player and flyfishnj was shooting with his 10D. There were a bunch of good shots as this great, long play developed. As the play progressed, I eventually slid into the outfield to retrieve a throw that got away putting down the tag at 3rd, jumped up and threw the ball home............And that was the last shot, me winding up to throw. I nailed the guy at the plate, but we have no pictures of it because the buffer was clearing!!!!

[Pelao]

I am just starting with RAW. I have read the heck out of this subject, and overall, I think it is worthwhile.

It's certainly true that there is more processing. But I view it as being the modern version of negatives. I can keep them and process in different ways as my skills grow.

For average snapshots of family events etc, it's a simple matter to batch process and convert - a matter of minutes. yet i still retian the option to go back to my negative in the future without having lost any of the original image.

I found this book helpful:

Real World Camera RAW (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/032127878X/qid=1112150194/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-9592579-1887056?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

I have a long way to go, but so far I am happy with the effort and results.

[drisley]

Everybody has to try it and decide for themselves.
There is no way I will every go back to jpg after using Raw exclusively for almost 2 years now.
Also, I have almost as much fun with post processing as I do with the photography.

[Jesper]

I've (almost) never used anything else than RAW mode on my 10D. Sometimes I'm still amazed at the dynamic range that you can get out of a RAW image - especially the new RawShooter essentials 2005 (http://www.pixmantec.com) seems to be able to get lots of detail out of dark shadow areas and even out of almost white areas that look overexposed at first sight.

With RAW, if you've underexposed your shot one or two stops, it's almost always quite easy to get a good image out of it.

[fslshooter]

Also, I have almost as much fun with post processing as I do with the photography.

I'm new at RAW processing myself but the results I'm starting to get now sure adds to the pleasure that photography provides me. I know I'll start this baseball season shooting RAW and rather doubt that I'll ever go back to JPG.

[mr.photoguy]

yeah I love RAW also, but I shoot it when I am trying to walk away with more keepers, or with something I need the control overs. However, if I am just messing around, I just use jpg, in either medium or large, and watch the histogram.
Otherwise, I use it 98% of the time.

[TheBender]

Question: Doesn't all the RAW talk presuppose that one has a pretty good monitor and Spyder II or some other calibration hardware. I waited for several years after spending a grand on a Nikon 995 when they first came out. When the Rebel came out I was kicking myself for spending the grand on the Nikon point and shoot because I used and EOS A2 system and had quite a few lenses. I purchased a 20D at long last several months ago and I have Photoshop CS but I am not a pro, nor do I make much money on my photography (just a few portraits and an occasional wedding during any given year). It's hard to justify spending more right now. Do I have any options. I hope this is not a new thread. I'm not too good yet at this thread stuff.
Thanks!

[Jesper]

Question: Doesn't all the RAW talk presuppose that one has a pretty good monitor and Spyder II or some other calibration hardware.Calibrating and profiling your monitor is not a bad idea if you want to see what the colours are supposed to look like, but it doesn't have anything in particular to do with shooting RAW or not.

[TheBender]

I thought the whole idea of RAW was to give more processing options. How can you do that when you can't actually see an accurate rendition of what you will be printing? Other than setting exposure options using the histogram, everything else is done by sight isn't it. Everything I have read states that a properly calibrated monitor is essential.

[Dubsta]

I think if you have a half decent monitor, and after a few print outs, you can judge what is right or wrong...

Depends on what you do with your photos.

[ScottE]

Having a properly calibrated monitor is certainly better for making adjustments than not being calibrated. On the other hand, having the flexibility of being able to make adjustments is valuabe whether your monitor is calibrated or not.

If your monitor is not calibrated, you have to learn how an image should look on your screen if you want your print to look right. That works poorly.

Have your tried the basic monitor calibration tool, Adobe Gamma, that comes with many Adobe products? That gives a rough starting point.

In the long term, you will probably want to get a monitor calibrating system if you do much printing. At that time you could be kicking yourself if you can't go back and re-convert some of your best images.

I second the recommedation of RawShooter Essential. I have never been able to achieve the adjustments in Photoshop on a JPG image that can be made using that program. However, no program is a real substitute for making the original exposure correctly.

Scott

[brianclark4]

I have been shooting RAW now for around12 months and wouldnt go back to Jpeg.

I think the main advantage of RAW is the ability to capture far more information, as it's a 16bit file instead of 8bits and this gives better gradation within the image. I liken a RAW file to a film negative, which has had no in camera processing. This can be carried out in a more controlled environment using a RAW converter program, which must be far better than the limited camera pre-sets.

As for monitor calibration. It doesnt mater if you shoot in RAW or Jpeg, if your monitor isnt calibrated correctly the final print isnt going to be the same as you view it on the monitor, so this has no bearing whatsoever on the format that you shoot in.

[Bodog]

IMHO the monitor calibration thing is way overblown. If I were a commercial photographer, having to get the exact color of my client's merchandise it would certainly make sense. But using the profile that came with my monitor, and the free printer profiles available for the different papers I use, gives me images with colors so close, I'm very satisfied. I'm constantly amazed how good the prints are. I wonder how many people actually use their monitor manufactor's profile, or are even aware there is one available. I constantly see posts stating " my monitor is set to srgb (or adobe rgb). Just my two cents... :D

[tacos3]

I've been shooting RAW for 18 months now and I shoot JPG only when I have a deadline that doesn't allow time for RAW processing. All I know is that I need a faster PC for post processing and more storage since I save both CR2 and processed JPGs. I don't understand why most people I talk to are skeptical about shooting RAW as it's the only way to go in my book....

[napolar]

It must be the time of year! I have had my 300D for just about a year, and I just started shooting RAW - I do not understand why it took me so long, my only issue now is I need to get several more CF cards - I do not believe I will go back to JPG. I am amazed at the amount of control you have with a RAW file when opening it up in Photoshop CS!! All that time wasted trying to learn layers when I can get nearly the same results almost instanly. It works for oysters and now photography - go RAW.

[Steven M. Anthony]

I went on a long vacation "out west" just after getting my 10D. Had never used raw before. After taking 2 cards worth of jpegs, I decided to give raw a try--since i had plenty of portable storage (but no pc). I'm I ever glad I did. I had set the camera to under expose by 2/3 of a stop based on a review I read (obviously by someone who didn't understand digital... :) ). So all my shots were too dark (although they looked fine on the lcd...). Having shot them in raw, it's easy to adjust the exposure. Still would have been better to have exposed correctly from the start--but raw saved most of my images.

[PeaPicker]

I have used a Canon AE-1 35mm film camera for over 25 years and just got a dRebel a few months ago. I've learned more about photography on this forum in 2 months than ever before. Like having a digital dark room. Fantastic!

[karusel]

I have no idea how I'd manage to do photography if it weren't for RAW. I've been shooting RAW since I first got my 10D, and I can tell you, the time used for setting up options in a converter is very well used and it's worth it.


Everything I have read states that a properly calibrated monitor is essential.

Not only that; the printer/lab machine also needs to be calibrated and you need it's ICC profile. ;) Still, the fact of the matter is, your printer (provided it's one of the newer, better ones) will most certainly give you better color-matching results than any lab machine...

[TammieO]

I am learning to [heart] raw too. Few more steps, but well worth the effort.

[Black Ricco]

True, but the white balance can change from one shot to the next when shooting indoors. Plus, like CDS just mentioned, as Pekka did in another thread, we can go back to RAWs later when better software is available and as we learn more about post processing techniques and get better results than we did the first time around, with no loss.

The white balance shouldn't change from one shot to the next when shooting indoors. Incandescent lighting is usually around 2900K with your average light bulbs, and 5500K if your shooting flash.

There are some excellent RAW image software programs out right now. C1 Pro and PhotoShop CS are both outstanding. Here's a link to a PDF file that covers six popular RAW image programs with examples of each on the same file. I realize this is a Canon forum but I have to say that the Canon software is terrible next to the others.

http://www.phaseone.com/upload/raw_converters.pdf

I thought the whole idea of RAW was to give more processing options. How can you do that when you can't actually see an accurate rendition of what you will be printing? Other than setting exposure options using the histogram, everything else is done by sight isn't it. Everything I have read states that a properly calibrated monitor is essential.

That's what I like about the C1 Pro software. It allows you pick an area of a photograph that's neutral grey, click on it, and presto, instant accurate color. It doesn't matter if your monitor is off, the output will be dead on. I put a small Kodak grey scale in the first shot for reference then apply that grey balance to everything shot in that lighting environment. It's much more accurate than the generic daylight, cloudy, shade, tungsten, etc... Obviously the camera's color temp has to be set in the ballpark first, 5000K outdoors, 3200K indoors or tungsten etc...

[drisley]

The white balance shouldn't change from one shot to the next when shooting indoors. Incandescent lighting is usually around 2900K with your average light bulbs, and 5500K if your shooting flash.
Both the last bodybuilding show I shot, and the basketball event I shot, had varying wb with almost every shot. The stage at the bb show had different lighting from front to back, and even from side to centre. THe basketball game had great white lighting in the centre, but under the hoop the lighting colour was quite different.
And, don't get me started on hockey. The wb is all over the place! There is no way I would do any of these without shooting Raw.

[Black Ricco]

That's not considered "indoor" photography.

That's referred to as "event" photography. Two completely different things.

[drisley]

That's not considered "indoor" photography.

That's referred to as "event" photography. Two completely different things.
:rolleyes:
Oh lordy...
I've shot inside houses too that the wb changes from shot to shot.

[Bob_A]

Here's a link to a PDF file that covers six popular RAW image programs with examples of each on the same file. I realize this is a Canon forum but I have to say that the Canon software is terrible next to the others.


The 20D review on DPREVIEW.com tested several raw converters and the results from DPP did not look nearly as bad as in the pdf you linked to. The one fault with a lot of articles that test software such as this is they leave out some important details such as if they used the default settings, and if so, what are they?

Capture 1 may be a great product, and DPP is likely not the best, but I wouldn't buy C1 based upon the review you provided the link to.


Bob

[drisley]

With 20D, Capture 1 isn't that great. The colour, especially the skin tones, are off.
Back in the day with the 300D, Capture 1 had great output.

In that DPReview pdf, I wonder what version of Camera Raw they were using?
PS CS came with Camera Raw 2, but great improvements have been made in image quality with versions 2.2 and newer.

[Marshy]

Both the last bodybuilding show I shot, and the basketball event I shot, had varying wb with almost every shot. The stage at the bb show had different lighting from front to back, and even from side to centre. THe basketball game had great white lighting in the centre, but under the hoop the lighting colour was quite different.
And, don't get me started on hockey. The wb is all over the place! There is no way I would do any of these without shooting Raw.
I shoot in raw like u guys all the time but to be honest i just use the large embedded jpeg , i have done a few coparisons of the same image raw and jpeg and the only time i noticed a big difference was in one particular should of used the fash shot . I couldn,t process the yellowy tinge out with jpeg but could with the raw file . Am i right in thinking that raw is primarily for a: rescuing c..k ups and b: large printouts ?

[Steven M. Anthony]

I was surprised that Elements did a better job than PS CS. Aren't they using the same code for raw conversion?

[Black Ricco]

With 20D, Capture 1 isn't that great. The colour, especially the skin tones, are off.
Back in the day with the 300D, Capture 1 had great output.



LOL That's funny! Blaming the software for off color skin tones is like blaming the enlarger for an off color print. Phase One software has only gotten better. Photoshop CS is also very good but doesn't have the more versatile grey balance control.

[drisley]

Black Ricco,
I'm not the only one that has blamed the C1 Pro for poor skin tones (usually greenish). Check all the photo forums, and you will see this is a common problem. Even C1's own support forum is littered with "green skin tone" threads. This is a problem with the Phase One profiles. So, yes, I BLAME THE C1 SOFTWARE (as do many others). You can get decent colour, but that is usually only by purchasing the third party camera profiles for C1.
But, that is only one of the problems. I can extract more detail with less noise, using PS CS Camera 2.4, than I can on the same image using the latest version of C1.
The latest Phase One software has really taken a dive in image quality with the newest cameras, while Photoshop CS has improved HUGELY since even version 2 (it's now at 2.4).
I can see you are new to this forum, and by the tone of your posts, I think you might be better suited to one of the other less insightful, more beligerant forums. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

[johnson553]

:rolleyes: OK back to basics for a newbie. What is the processing difference? I'm about to shoot my first wedding (Sat) and wonder if it will help with the white dress and dark blue tux. The entire wedding is white and dark blue. Will I get better results in RAW? Do I need to do anything different with my speeds and f-stops? Please help. Runing out of time! Linda

[karusel]

RAW shooting is basically JPEG shooting with all the options open. If you shoot JPEG, you've got a specific white balance, sharpness, etc. pre-set. Shooting RAW you have the preset settings, but you can change them when processing. It is a good idea to shoot RAW when you need to salvage an image that has been under/overexposed or is unsharp or has lots of noise - the converter can get the optimum out of such image.

[PhotosGuy]

I've BTDT too! ;-)

Why I love RAW - '53 Ford Sunliner
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43761&highlight=sunliner

[Jon]

:rolleyes: OK back to basics for a newbie. What is the processing difference? I'm about to shoot my first wedding (Sat) and wonder if it will help with the white dress and dark blue tux. The entire wedding is white and dark blue. Will I get better results in RAW? Do I need to do anything different with my speeds and f-stops? Please help. Runing out of time! Linda

You need to get a proper exposure regardless of whether you shoot raw or JPEG. It's less difficult to salvage a poor exposure with raw than with JPEG, but getting it right at first is still preferable. So, no, you don't need to expose differently for raw than for JPEG.

[PhotosGuy]

I'm about to shoot my first wedding (Sat) and wonder if it will help with the white dress and dark blue tux. The entire wedding is white and dark blue. Will I get better results in RAW? Do I need to do anything different with my speeds and f-stops? Please help. Runing out of time! Linda

Linda, if I was in your situation, the first thing would do is take a pic of "white and dark blue." fabric on someone under the conditions that you anticipate shooting under, & see for myself. Not saying that we aren't trustworthy, but no one will blame us if you follow partly understood advice & blow your FIRST wedding. Right? "But I thought you said..." ;)

If you aren't using RawShooter to process RAW, I recommend that you get it & give it a try. Link at the bottom of:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_18/essay.html

[johnson553]

Thanks so much for the info guys. Tomorrow's the big day. I'll let you know (keep your fingers crossed).

[bobgaither]

I'm still waiting for photoshop cs to update the raw plug-in for 350d xt. There is update for the 20d which is the same raw.cr2 file and I don't know why it won't work. I've been using raw for years and wouldn't shoot without using it. You can go back years and fix those images where you where learning and make them a lot better. Raw is a negative just like those with film use to change their images through post processing and like you, the camera and its lens, does make mistakes and you can correct that using raw. I then go to 16 bit tiff the ones that I want to edit.

[kfong]

RAW is MORE than just JPEG with options open.
First it is 12 bits compared with JPEG's 8 bits. That's why you can salvage an image that has been underexposed. For overexposed image nothing much can be done about it.
Second because the pixel sensors are arranged in a rectangular array, with RGB filter element overlaying it, the amount of R, B and G pixels are not equal, and a pixel is sensitive to only one color component. The camera uses some interpolation to fill in the other color components, color correction are then applied and a lossy compression performed for JPEG output. None of these are performed in RAW. These are left to converter softwares to be done off-line, with more computer resources and time available to enable the conversion be more flexible.

Ken

RAW shooting is basically JPEG shooting with all the options open. If you shoot JPEG, you've got a specific white balance, sharpness, etc. pre-set. Shooting RAW you have the preset settings, but you can change them when processing. It is a good idea to shoot RAW when you need to salvage an image that has been under/overexposed or is unsharp or has lots of noise - the converter can get the optimum out of such image.

[lancea]

If you aren't using RawShooter to process RAW, I recommend that you get it & give it a try. Link at the bottom of:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_18/essay.html
Thanks for that link. After a brief play, I'm impressed! I recently bought BreezeBrowser Pro and quite like it, especially for the editing of IPTC metadata - but must say this free program appears to do a pretty good job of RAW.

I'm still not 100% sure about whether I will use RAW when I'm far away from my PC for more than a few days (I've only got 3GB of CF cards after all ...), but otherwise am coming around to the realisation that RAW lets me get the most out of my shots. At the same time I don't know whether to laugh or cry. When I bought my 20D I thought it would rekindle the serious hobby of my young days (okay so far), AND get me away from computers. Yeah right! :rolleyes: