So I shot in RAW...

[RVsForFun]

Editing every photo is a function of professional photography. And you can certainly achieve the same sharpness when shooting RAW that you see in your JPEGs. Remember that a RAW file has none of the conversion properties (sharpness, color balance, compression) applied to it. YOU have to make these decisions in your computer since it wasn't done in the camera for you. RAW's not bad, it gives you more to work with (16 bits of data), but it does require more processing by hand.

I am very new to RAW and have a couple questions also.

I have my Canon 30D set to 3 sharpness now for jpegs.
I noticed that when i dump down the RAW and jpegs, that the jpegs looks MUCH better than the RAW files.
I assumed this was due to the jpegs being sharpended by the camera.

I must be missing something though.
When I dump the RAW images to my computer, I think they were only about 8 to 9MB.
I simply drag and drop them into PS for editing.
I never saw a separate screen for conversion, it just opens the photo like it would a jpeg.
I know I have CS, pretty sure its CS2.
Is this still ok? Can I just open it like that, edit it, then save it as a Tiff?
Or, should I somehow be making it a Tiff first, then edit it?

I am not that good at PS, so I have not wanted to shoot RAW much at all.
I find that the cameras jpegs look better than what I can do with the RAW files.
I also think its a bit silly to have to edit every photo, and it seems you HAVE to edit a RAW file for it to look good.

~John

 

[jtice]

I think I will be finding a fine balance, between shooting things in RAW and jpeg.
For the most part, the jpegs look fine for me, for most shots.
Not all my shots are for actual "production" shots, alot of just archives of events, projects, etc.
I think the fact that I am not very good in PS doesnt help.
I cant get a RAW to look any better than a jpeg, so it frustrates me into not using RAW much.

Is it just me, or is PS one of the most unorganized, un-user friendly programs there is?

~John

 

[Big Mike]

Is it just me, or is PS one of the most unorganized, un-user friendly programs there is?

It's a program designed for professionals, it practically needs to be complicated. Check out Photoshop Elements, it's a simpler, more user friendly version of Photoshop.

Shooting in RAW and editing the files can be compared to shooting Black & White film and developing/printing it in the darkroom. You need to have skill & knowledge in post processing, in order to get the most out of your photo.

I didn't like shooting in RAW all that much when I used Photoshop (Adobe Camera RAW) to convert the RAW files. Now I use a much better program called Raw Shooter Essentials. Actually, R.S.E. was purchased by Adobe and now there is a program called Adobe Lightroom.

These programs are designed with 'work flow' in mind. They make it faster and easier to edit a large number of files.

 

[RVsForFun]

Yes, I shoot JPEG mostly due to the extra conversion and lack of improvement when using RAW. RAW does provide superior shadow detail than many in-camera JPEGs but the price you pay is the extra processing and the increased file size.

Yes, PS tries to be all things to all people and in so doing, it's got too many options, too many features. And that confusion is the entire reason you see an abbreviated product like PS Elements. Personally, even though I'm adequate in PS, I use Ulead's PhotoImpact as it's faster and has 90% of the features of PS (layers, objects, color corrections, etc.).

I think I will be finding a fine balance, between shooting things in RAW and jpeg.
For the most part, the jpegs look fine for me, for most shots.
Not all my shots are for actual "production" shots, alot of just archives of events, projects, etc.
I think the fact that I am not very good in PS doesnt help.
I cant get a RAW to look any better than a jpeg, so it frustrates me into not using RAW much.

Is it just me, or is PS one of the most unorganized, un-user friendly programs there is?

~John

 

[Big Mike]

I should also mention that RAW is more forgiving that JPEG. For example, if your exposure is off...and you loose too much detail in the highlights or shadows...you have a much greater ability to rescue the shot when it's in RAW format. That alone is enough for many people to shoot RAW. It may not be important if you are causally shooting for pleasure...but if you are shooting a wedding, for example, every shot might be a once in a lifetime moment.

 

[RVsForFun]

...in that 95% of my professional work is weddings and I shoot JPEGs only. The overhead (filesize) that limits the number of images I can put on a CF card is the limiting factor for me. I can't be changing CF cards every 40 shots or so, I get 120 per card using fine resolution JPEG. Gary Fong, who charges $120,000 per wedding uses a Fuji point-and-shoot camera on medium quality JPEG. David Ziser, a $25,000 per event shooter only shoots JPEG.

RAW retains all the information the imaging chip records so you have multiple tries to fix an image as well as superior shadow detail. RAW does not, however, extend the lattitude of the imaging chip, a common misconception. You get no more lattitude from a RAW image than you do from a JPEG one. What you get is more datum to work with before you max the saturation of the chip. You also get probably 2x the workflow impact working with RAW so the choice is up to you. I use RAW for low-volume commercial and portrait work but use JPEG for weddings.

I should also mention that RAW is more forgiving that JPEG. For example, if your exposure is off...and you loose too much detail in the highlights or shadows...you have a much greater ability to rescue the shot when it's in RAW format. That alone is enough for many people to shoot RAW. It may not be important if you are causally shooting for pleasure...but if you are shooting a wedding, for example, every shot might be a once in a lifetime moment.

 

[Big Mike]

For me, it comes down to this...If image quality is a high priority to you, then it makes sense to use a work flow that uses the highest possible quality. Memory is cheap, I think I can get around 120 RAW shots on a 2GB card...and 2GB Ultra II cards are going for $56 CDN at Costco.

When shooting JPEG, the camera compresses the data and throws out what it thinks it doesn' need. So when you open the image and want to adjust it...some of the detail in the highlights or shadows is missing from the JPEG where it would be still intact with a RAW file.

I read a good article in last month's 'Digital Photo Pro' that exaplained the benifits of working with a higher bit file...very informative.

There are a lot of factors and a lot of arguments both ways. If you can get good results shooting JPEG then more power to you.

 

[L. Wood]

Hey Big Mike,
thanks so much for posting. I have been reading thread after thread. Out of everyone, you have made the most sense to me, personally. Thanks for stepping in and giving your take on things. I also appreciate that you post with respect....always a good thing. THANKS.

 

[Garbz]

It is interesting to see so many people complain about the additional work flow overhead with RAW. I just don't see it. My work flow in Lightroom is the same using RAW or JPEG, with the exception that RAW gives much high quality images if I do touchups like correcting white balance or pull out shadow details.

Even if I do just want some JPEGs as the camera would take them I just select the settings once and then batch convert the thing, just like I would select the settings on the camera and have the camera convert to JPEG.

RAW does give extra editing latitude but the only cost is memory space. If you are comfortable not to need the extra latitude (like your shots are perfect every time as some people's are) then don't use it. I still find Lightroom gives a much better and more natural colour representation than Nikon's software does, and I can't use that advantage if I let the camera encode the JPEGs.

 

[Shannon]

This is an interesting thread. I am learning how to improve my workflow and I shoot RAW, but do portaits sessions not weddings.

I am wondering why anyone uses TIFF. Yeah, memory isn't that expensive, but I think TIffs are too big and not practical. I save my converted RAW files out as JPEG's. If I ever need to do major work on an image or order some huge print, I go back to the RAW and prepare my image, and save out as JPEG.

I have found that photo labs don't like Tiffs either. Tiff's have their place in the world of digital files, but I don't think it's for mass numbers of images that photographers work with. (Personally, I only use Tiff's for graphic design pieces - like a brochure or poster - when it calls for it).

You just don't want to keep opening, changing, and re-saving your Jpeg files over and over.

If someone knows better, feel free to correct me. I don't want to come across as arrogant.

 

[bytch_mynickname]

Are there different qualities of RAWs? The reason I ask is that I get about 119 RAWs onto a 1GB card, many more than the rest of you do. Is it because I am using a Rebel XT and it produces smaller files than say a 30D or "higher" camera?

 

[Garbz]

Yep. RAW is RAW sensor data. It is entirely dependant on the number of individual elements on the sensor, and the depth at which this data is encoded. All of the RAW files from every camera should be exactly the same size. My Nikon D200 produces ~16MB NEF files and I get ~92 on a 2gb memory card including overheads.

TIFF is lossless. There are some of the belief that they should always save in some lossless form, but I have done comparisons between RAW files and files saved as Q11 JPEGs (5MB instead of 16) and they were identical quality wise. Yes it strips the extra bit depth away (8bits instead of 12) but once I am done editing I don't need them anyway.