RAW- am I doing it right?>

hey ppl..

I have a G2. I had tried RAW before but because i mostly do sports/auto action photography, i dint get much time to really click more RAW.

I just clicked some raw pics ystrdy..nd I did my best developing it in lightroom/photoshop. The thing is that the results are just like the Converted non-processed JPEG that i put out of Canon RAW converter...also, i cant figure out how to get the WB el-perfecto.

The JPEGs are so sharp/without noise, while the RAWs come to almost as sharp but with much more noise/grain, ruining the photograph..I was expecting atleast somewhat better images from RAW.

so i was wondering if i was doing it right. Considering you put in much more effort into RAW...
Here's a test run:

Here's the raw file. ISO 50. Sunlight WB.
http://upload2.net …nacrJT0d/g21+03​8.CRW.html
password: xyXs0g1HRfSDmMD
(sorry for the free sharing site, dint know where to upload)


Here's the untouched file directly converted from RAW converter..JPEG. Full Quality.
http://img.photobucket​.com/albums/v637/m1g/0​0070_RJ.jpg


And here's the file that ive done in LightRoom. (Photoshop results are similar) which has been worked upon...

http://img.photobucket​.com/albums/v637/m1g/g​21038.jpg

so i was wondering what was wrong? If anyone can quickly develop the RAW with their own method, so that i could learn what went wrong..


thanks a lot!

You should get a web host, it's $5 a month and people don't have to wait 45 seconds to download a file. www.hostgator.com

Your JPGs aren't full size so a comparison won't help. Looking at it the RAW looks fine to me, with practically no noise - CS3.

I was wondering why the file was so small - it's a powershot G2 (in case anyone else was wondering).

Tim - Slow connections in N.Z.? Took me 12 seconds.

an33sh - I also don't see any noise. You could sharpen more:
http://photos.imageeve​nt.com …linkto/huge/g21​and038.jpg

hey guys..
sorry about the file hosting!

i just wanted to know if i need to spend more time processing in RAW, when the results in JPEG are almost similar..And if i was getting my RAW conversion technique wrong?

RAWs are supposed to be far sharper than JPEGs right after processing?

Ill post up a 100% crop to give you a good idea..

an33sh wrote in post #4714068
hey guys..
RAWs are supposed to be far sharper than JPEGs right after processing?

RAWs start out less sharp than jpgs because they haven't received the sharpening that the camera does. It is up to you to sharpen them up, either in the converter or in a second editing program.

tzalman wrote in post #4713981
Tim - Slow connections in N.Z.? Took me 12 seconds.

an33sh - I also don't see any noise. You could sharpen more:
http://photos.imageeve​nt.com …linkto/huge/g21​and038.jpg

There was a countdown on the download web page, it wouldn't let me download until the counter had gone from 45sec to 0.

an33sh wrote in post #4714068
RAWs are supposed to be far sharper than JPEGs right after processing?

Actually, RAW is less sharp and more noise most of the time simply because the camera does not pre-sharpen and perform noise reduction (some cameras with custom function do).
I shoot RAW because i can do a better pp job than the camera. If the camera can do a better than me, I'd rather save time and let it handle the images in jpeg. In other words, you need to know what you are doing before deciding to shoot raw.

RAW is most useful because it allows you to perform a wider range of edits, including true white balance correction and much better exposure correction.

I shoot in RAW because it makes it "no big deal" if the colors or exposure are off a bit. Fixing a bad white balance is trivial when dealing with a RAW file.

I also noticed that it's super easy to correct cyan/magenta fringing. Photoshop has a nice little slider for it in the RAW importer

hey thanks for replies guys..

yeah, i do know you are better off correcting a RAW than a JPEG, as regards to shadow detail, exposures, & white balance.

what surprised/frustrated me was the RAW coming out of the Canon RAW converter 2 did perfectly what i wanted, in seconds! but i couldnt replicate those actions in photoshop/lightroom no matter how hard i tried!!! I wanted to know how to get those results in photoshop while adding your own WB correction, corrections, shadow corrections, coz you cant do that with a JPEG after it is done...

It seems like the PC software replicates the actions programmed into the G2 to get the JPEG. The results are pretty darned good.

Your "crappy" raw file, "but with much more noise/grain, ruining the photograph" has much more info in the image than the compressed jpg from the G2, & that's why you're seeing noise. It was there in the jpg before the image was compressed. There are some examples on page 2, post #58, that illustrate easily seen information loss in a web jpeg derived from a RAW file & one shot in the camera.
You will see even more detail if you compare large 300ppi prints.

So, if you're only going to use the images on the web, you'll get almost as good results shooting jpgs in the cam. BUT, if you ever get that "Shot-of-a-Lifetime", you're not going to make as good a print of it as when you have the RAW "negative" to fall back on.

Lots of PP info in the "Sticky"s! I suggest, while you're learning, you also learn how to get the most out of your camera with RAW. When you learn more about post processing, you'll be able to go back & save more of the shots you lose now.

RE: "MiSTeaKs" When I screw up...
Why I love RAW - '53 Ford Sunliner

I'm never throwing away a picture again

k..thanks..
and i never said crappy RAWs.. you might wanna re-read..i just said i couldnt develop em in the correct manner in Photoshop..

i just wanted to know what could be the reasons why i couldnt develop the RAW in photoshop comparable to the RAW converter jpeg

What version of photoshop? ACR in CS2 is fully capable of doing at least as good as DPP that came with your camera. You should get a book. And it seemed slow to me too, when I first started shooting RAW only, but when you have a couple hundred, or more, RAW files to edit, the workflow is way faster than trying to edit the same number of jpg's. If your only doing one jpg, now and then, it may be slower, but not when doing a lot of them.

yeah..im reading up on raw a lot..And i have CS2 with a slightly ancient comp, which runs decently..

thanks for the help!

I'm no longer familiar with DPP, but in CS2, you only do part of the processing as a RAW. Adjust the WB, brightness, exposure, contrast, shadows and highlights, and maybe the curves, while in RAW, then export the jpg. Then you have to open the jpg in CS2 and crop, resize, use any noise reduction software or actions, and then finish up with sharpening, and saving. Sounds like a lot, but it's not, as in ACR, you can edit all images that are similarly lighted, at once.