RAW Really Means RAW?

[snerd]

It is just a RAW file, like it says, no processing at all done to it? That means that "every" photo taken has to have some kind of post processing done to it, right? This bears out in my case, as "every" photo sootc is fairly dull and neutral. Reason I ask is just the laziness factor, I guess. For less to no post processing one would need to use the jpeg option and let the camera do the processing, right? It just seems at times that thinking of having to sit and process 50-100 photos makes me tired before I start. But that's the price we pay for shooting RAW, right?

 

[SCraig]

Shoot RAW + JPEG then you get both.

Yes, if you shoot in RAW only then you will at least have to perform a RAW conversion to get it to a format usable for other purposes. Giving a RAW file to someone or uploading it to a web site is normally a waste of time.

 

[Overread17 5]

You've a few options;

1) Use a RAW processing software option like Lightroom which can have pre-set values for a whole selection of photos or edit them in batches; letting you perform the same general steps quickly and easily, whilst retaining the option to go into the RAW file and work on it individually.

2) Use RAW+JPEG mode so that you can work with the JPEGs if you want or use the RAWS on those select photos that want more editing.

 

[snerd]

I use LR 5.2 and am slowly learning it. I shoot images in Neutral as has been explained elsewhere. What I was kind of thinking was shooting both RAW+JPG, but having the RAW Neutral and the JPG in the camera's Standard picture style. But I'm assuming that cannot be done.

 

[Overread17 5]

Picture styles like neutral or faithful won't affect the RAW photo at all. They only affect the JPEG mode and the in-camera JPEG made and embedded into every RAW photo which is what is displayed on the back of the camera LCD and in preview images of the RAW (keeping it to neutral/faithful is often a good move since it directly affects the view of the histogram in the camera).

 

[KmH]

It is just a RAW file, like it says, no processing at all done to it?

A lot of processing has to be done to a Raw file to make it approximate what our eyes see.

The image sensor in a digital camera cannot 'see' color, only luminosity. Most DSLR cameras have a Bayer Array filter (among others) in front of the image sensor that the Raw conversion software uses to interpolate color (demosaicing). Different Raw converters use different interpolation algorithms so a Raw file converted using ACR will look a bit different from a Raw file converted in DPP or View NX2.

The analog voltage each pixel develops has to be converted to a digital number. Some DSLRs convert the analog voltage to a 12-bit digital number, some convert the analog voltage to a 14-bit digital number.
A 12-bit digital number can only represent 4096 discrete values, while a 14 bit digital number can represent 16,384 discrete values.

The image sensor is a linear device, while our eyes are non-linear. So a gamma curve correction has to be applied to a Raw file so it looks like what we see.
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

Some Raw converters apply some sharpening, noise reduction, anti-aliasing, tone mapping.

The Digital Negative: Raw Image Processing in Lightroom, Camera Raw, and Photoshop

 

[Designer]

snerd; I switch around in file formats according to what I aim to do with the images. When I am experimenting with flash, etc., I usually just view the JPG only. For family pictures I usually capture both NEF and JPG fine large. For attempting to do some "art" I might only shoot NEF anticipating that the JPG won't be used for anything anyway.

Please note: not saving a JPG only saves a relatively little bit of space in your SD card, so I wouldn't worry about filling up your card too quickly. Just get more SD cards.

 

[Derrel]

Not sure on exactly how Lightroom 5.2 is configured, but if you manually set Preferences>Presets>Apply auto-tone corrections I believe that will automatically apply some corrections which will make the imported raw files look a bit "snappier".

The way I see it, there are two ways of looking at RAW images: they way they came out of the camera, as-shot, OR the other way, with adjustments made to them, such as exposure brightening, contrast adjustment, color and WB corrections, and so on.

The problem with viewing images that have been "adjusted" a good amount, when viewing them by the hundreds, is that under-exposed images, or over-exposed images, and otherwise technically deficient images, look a LOT like the best frames; 3-shot exposure brackets tend to look all "equalized"; "bad" exposures are masked...having Lightroom automatically adjust images tends to obscure the real, genuine exposure/white balance/quality differences that do exist between raw images. So, in that way, I am not always in favor of having my RAW converter apply "corrections".

 

[snerd]

Yes, I tried the auto-tone on import one time and did not like the way they looked. A lot of them were way too bright. So I turned it off and adjust each one manually now. Since I've gotten started, I have always shot in Manual and always in RAW. Mainly, I was just wondering what they would look like shot in the camera's Standard style and saved to jpg. I guess I should just try it, huh? Like Designer said, maybe I will change up the format for different situations and see how that works.

 

[Gavjenks]

fwiw, some processing is indeed done to images even as RAWs. For instance, it does the Bayer interpolation, and also every company adds a bunch of magenta adjustment to the image before you see it (Bayer sensors usually have two green pixels for every one red and blue pixel, so the truly raw image is really green), and maybe a couple of other things. Can't really tell for sure, because it's usually a "Secret"

 

[Helen B]

Bayer interpolation and colour correction is usually done by the raw converter, it is not done by the camera on the raw data before it is saved as a raw file.

 

[Gavjenks]

Bayer interpolation and colour correction is usually done by the raw converter, it is not done by the camera on the raw data before it is saved as a raw file.

1) How does it show me a non-green, interpolated image on my LCD screen, then, when I am only shooting in RAW? Are you suggesting it converts every time I hit preview, then throws that data away?
2) How does Windows show me a non-green, interpolated preview of my RAW files in my folders, prior to me converting them? Again, it would have to convert every time and then just throw it away if not stored in the RAW.
3) The camera has to have the ability to interpolate and color correct in-camera anyway, so that it can save as jpeg if desired. So if it already has the software, why not use it for RAW too, to most efficiently solve #1 and 2?

 

[Helen B]

Have you considered the possibility that there may be a preview JPEG embedded in the raw file?
Nowadays operating systems can include a basic raw converter, which enables preview of the raw data itself when viewing the folder.
Raw conversion can be done on the fly. Storing a single channel of image data is efficient. Just compare the size of a raw file with that of an interpolated file, and do the math. You should find that the raw file is too small to contain three channels of data. Saving an uninterpolated, uncorrected raw file allows different debayering methods and different raw converters to be used later. They are not all equal.

Where did you get the information that raw files are already debayered? Even without a reference, the evidence is there in the file size that they only contain one channel of data. Why do you answer questions on subjects you know so little about?

 

[Dao]

2) How does Windows show me a non-green, interpolated preview of my RAW files in my folders, prior to me converting them? Again, it would have to convert every time and then just throw it away if not stored in the RAW.

The preview of the RAW file is the result of the Microsoft Camera Codec Pack. And Microsoft update that once in awhile for newer models

Download Microsoft Camera Codec Pack (16.4.1970.0624) from Official Microsoft Download Center


In my Windows machine, before I install the codec pack, the Windows Explorer cannot show thumbnails nor preview of my Canon RAW files.

 

[Gavjenks]

Just compare the size of a raw file with that of an interpolated file,

What is an "interpolated file?" That's not just a thing by itself. To be sure it is interpolated, you have to save in some specific format like jpeg or png or tiff or whatever, all of which have different baggage they come with confounding variables (compression amounts, or overhead data) that makes it difficult to compare the file sizes with certainty. Which format are you choosing to do your comparison with, and how are you solving the ambiguities involved in inherently different formats?

For example, the closest I can come up with would be to convert a RAW to photoshop and then save it as a lossless-ly compressed PNG file. When I do that, the file gets SMALLER by about 1 megabyte. Granted, I am going from 12 bit to 8 bit, but... (three channels 8+8+8 = 24, which should be twice the size of one channel @12)

Which is totally ambiguous. I can't interpret that either way without knowing the details of what sort of compression algorithm my Canon RAW files are using, if any. Some compression methods would become MORE efficient with 12 bit images (like dictionary methods), and others would be less efficient (like PNG style compression). Or if they use none, then that leads to a different conclusion.

Where did you get the information that raw files are already debayered? Even without a reference, the evidence is there in the file size that they only contain one channel of data.

Where did you get the information that they are NOT already debayered? Your file size evidence is less than convincing (see above). If you have some other reliable reference to how proprietary formats work, then that changes things.

Did you sit down and decompile and reverse engineer them in your free time? Do you work for Adobe or something?

If so, I'm super curious to hear a rare inside scoop on how some of these work exactly. If not, then you're inferring, just like I am.