RAW

[AUZambo]

so am i correct thinking that if i shoot raw the image has to have post process, other than just converting the file? meaning will the image look wrong with no PP. I have just taken a couple of trial RAW files and they look like the jpg on the camera screen

It doesn't HAVE to be post processed. If you're awesome at choosing all the right settings originally then for the most part you can simply convert to JPGs without much else work. The benefit of RAW is that if you do want to change white balance, exposure compensation, etc. it's MUCH easier and much more effective.

When you shoot JPGs, the camera does some processing for you to optimize the photo. The way I understand it, it's kinda like when you choose the "autofix" option on photo editing software...except the camera does it for you before the image is saved to the card so it cannot be undone. With RAW files the camera does absolutely nothing to it...just like you're shooting with film.

If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me.

 

[Samanax]

so am i correct thinking that if i shoot raw the image has to have post process, other than just converting the file? meaning will the image look wrong with no PP.

No, you can just convert the file from RAW to JPEG if you want to. But the image will probably look better if you edit it.

 

[manaheim]

Rob,

THe way I understand it when you download a RAW image to your computer the computer or software has to "guess" at what it should look like so there is something to show on the screen. The beauty of RAW is that no image data is lost during this "guess" and you have a better opportunity to make adjustments to the image as you see fit, because you have more data to work with...as opposed to jpg where much of the data has already been deleted.

A RAW image is simply ALL of the data that is captured by the sensor at the time of exposure, with no interpretation and no loss of data, whatsoever.

This is only significant if you understand that JPEGs are a lossy compression format, which means that whatever data is not "necessary" when viewing the image is thrown away as a part of the compression algorythm. This is theoretically fine, except that occasionally when your camera decides what is necessary it may make an error in what it feels the exposure, white balance, etc. should be, and then winds up throwing away data that you actually need.

For example, if you take a picture of someone in the shade with a bright background scene, the camera might wind up inadvertantly exposing for the bright background and not for the person. If you took this shot as a JPEG, you are hosed. Done. If you took this shot in RAW, you have a chance to brighten it up a bit because at least some of the data in the dark shadows on the person is still there.

Many will tell you "Just expose your picture properly and be sure to get your white balance correctly and you'll be a-ok!" There is merit to this statement. Certainly, if you manage to meter for the person and not the background, check your white balance before taking the shot, etc. you run a good chance of not having problems to begin with... however... my take is to do both. Set up the shot right AND give yourself the RAW image because it gives you more capabilities and options in post processing.

That being said, as I always say... DON'T shoot RAW until JPEG fails you. RAW introduces a whole MESS of intricacies and complexities that frustrate the hell out of newer photographers, and more often than not you wind up more severely hosing your images than if you just let the camera make the guess. Wait until you see that your camera has made a bad decision, and then consider using raw next time you are in that situation.