Use Raw?

[ShutteredEye]

I don't think the advantage is only at a larger print size. I think the advantage of more control makes for a better image, period, any size, print or not. You have more possibilities with raw. If it's not your style to post process your images, then that is totally fine. Don't waste your time, money, and CF space. If you like to really imprint your own artistic vision using all the means you can, then I think you would shoot raw despite it's drawbacks. They are much the same "drawbacks" to developing your own.

If you are still developing your own style, and unsure, then I would shoot jpg and learn to use your camera and lenses, and get a feel for what you like to shoot, and how you want your shots to look. Then invest in raw software.

Listen to what this man says. There is a reason his name is Digital Matt.....

This comes up every few weeks or so, and honestly I'm amazed that there is ever even a debate. If its worth pulling the trigger (shutter) on, why wouldn't you want to make it the best possible image? RAW is hands down the best way to reach the best quality image. Period.

I started shooting RAW the second day I had my dSLR, and I've never looked back. Not once.

 

[Simon]

I have read other threads about shooting raw/jpg and wanted to move forward with shooting raw.

This thread came up, so I wanted to find out which software is best to process the raw file. Then more people posted in this thread which made me re think, so I listed others views posted in this thread to try and benefit form other experience, such as Matt.

I have the greatest respect for Matt, and again his advice is correct, I need to practice taking good shots, so I can then enhance them by shooting raw.

Thanks Matt, and I appologise if I caused offence.

 

[hot shot]

i have only just started shotting in raw (first attempt last weekend) but i strugled to work the interface in photoshop cs2, dont serpose and one knows of any tutorials for using raw in photoshop??? Cheers Dom

 

[JohnMF]

I've just started using RAW within the last week also. I regret that i never got around to it sooner. I keep thinking of all the shots i've taken in jpeg mode for the last couple of years and how i wish i had the RAW image to go back and work with. I think the main benefit is not so much the RAW file but the TIFF file you can export it as

 

[clarinetJWD]

I started shooting RAW the second day I had my dSLR, and I've never looked back. Not once.

Ditto...except it was halfway through the first

Oh, and if you're using photoshops RAW plugin, do yourself a favor and download Pixematic's RawShooter Essentials. It's free and one of the best RAW conversion progs out there

 

[964]

Just use the software that came with whatever camera you have to conver the files to TIF's - and then use Photoshop. Just as an aside, I have not found a printer that can print from 16-bit TIF's so just save them as 8-bit...as the 16-bit files are exactly twice as big (like 48MB on my camera)....unless you have clients that absolutelty need 16-bit of course...!

 

[964]

p.s. The reason why I say use the camera software, is because I find Photosop CS2 'clunky' when converting files. If I use Canon Pro software, I just 'select all' and batch process all of them to 8-bit TIF's into a directory that I specify. As the 300 images get converted automatically over the period of say half an hour I can just do something else in the meantime....

 

[Digital Matt]

Simon, no offence

964:

I think if you just batch convert to tiff, you might as well shoot jpg. The adjustments you make in the raw file do a lot less damage to the pixels than they do in photoshop. You should try and get the image looking as good as possible in your raw software, and then fine tune it in photoshop.

 

[markc]

I think if you just batch convert to tiff, you might as well shoot jpg. The adjustments you make in the raw file do a lot less damage to the pixels than they do in photoshop. You should try and get the image looking as good as possible in your raw software, and then fine tune it in photoshop.

Not to start a fight, Matt, but do you have any references for this? It seems like it could be one of those things that someone says and sounds good, so everyone repeats it. If you use layers in PS, you aren't "damaging" the pixels. You can easily go back to the layer and readjust. Basically, I haven't seen any specific reason why anything you do in the converter is any different than what you do in PS. Is there one? I can't image that exposure control is any different than a curves adjustment by a set amount. It's not like it has this magic database of what the scene was so that it can re-expose. It's adjusting what the real exposure was. You can't pull out detail that isn't there by messing with it and more than you can with curves.

If you are going to convert to 8-bit TIFFs, then yeah, using the RAW converter first will do the adjustments while you still have a fuller color gamut to work with, but other than that, I'm not aware of anything.

Plus, you still don't have the JPG artifacts, which can be a big deal if you print large.

And to throw another converter into the mix, I use BreezeBrowser, which has a couple of nice features, like automatic lens distortion correction based on EXIF data (which I haven't tried yet) and combined raw conversion which helps prevent loss in highlight areas by combining data from both the standard and linear RAW conversions.

 

[Digital Matt]

Mark, over expose a shot by 1 stop, shot in raw, and convert it to tiff. Open it in photoshop, and try and fix it. Then go back to the raw file, grab the exposure bar, and bring it down a stop, and see what you get.

 

[Arch]

yes, exposure is the main difference here...... sure you can use ps and adjustment layers to alter your image with little noticable difference from using your RAW converter..... but if a slightly blown area needs fixing, the alterations are best made in the RAW conversion.

 

[markc]

Mark, over expose a shot by 1 stop, shot in raw, and convert it to tiff. Open it in photoshop, and try and fix it. Then go back to the raw file, grab the exposure bar, and bring it down a stop, and see what you get.

I tried playing around with this, but it doesn't look like the exposure slider is much different than moving the middle slider in a levels adjustment. It mainly seems to change which area of the histogram is expanded or emphasized.

but if a slightly blown area needs fixing, the alterations are best made in the RAW conversion.

My question is "why". I'm looking for a technical reason.

I agree that it's better to start in RAW than JPG, but why is it better to do the adjustments while converting rather than after. I've looked, but haven't been able to find anyone that covers this. I'm not convinced yet. I'm pushing the point because I think it's important to know the details.

 

[Arch]

I'm pushing the point because I think it's important to know the details.

So do I....... Without doing a bit of research myself, i cannot say 100% the technical processes which occur when altering exposure using RAW software, so I would like to know if there is any science behind what i 'think' happens.

But what i'v been led to believe, is that because the RAW data has not been processed by the camera, there is a 'window' for exposure compensation where you can choose to reveal more pixel data by exposing one way or the other. As apposed to the idea that once you have a tiff file with a blown area, you cannot recover any possible existing pixel data simply be moving a curves or levels slider.

But i think i may look into this further....... i want to know if im wrong now

 

[Cuervo79]

youst my humble 2 cents here...
physical image size (as in the space it takes in a hard drive) sometimes has nothing to do with the overall quality of an image. Yes to have a definate answer it is better to do more research on it, but transforming any file to another does not guarantee you will take the information identically when you finish transporting it (as in the case of tiff files), just beacause its big doesn't mean you have the same advantage to the raw format adjustments (tiff files are also compressed), the question is out there and its a valid one, but to be able to specify that you lose no data converting from raw to tiff you would have to look at each software independendtly depending on the brand.

Wich ends in that depending on your taste use raw or comvert to tiff, wich ever you prefer. Because if some people find visible diferences and some don't, unles you want to make a paper about it, why bother.
Just keep shooting.

 

[markc]

But what i'v been led to believe, is that because the RAW data has not been processed by the camera, there is a 'window' for exposure compensation where you can choose to reveal more pixel data by exposing one way or the other. As apposed to the idea that once you have a tiff file with a blown area, you cannot recover any possible existing pixel data simply be moving a curves or levels slider.

Well, once it's blown, it's blown. It doesn't matter the format. But it's true that you can end up with more usable data depending upon the method of conversion. That's why I used the "combined" method in BreezeBrowser for the shots that need it.

Okay, playing around with it a bit more, I now see that it must be doing more than I thought. I haven't had to worry about blown out areas in most of my images so far, so I don't think I've missed out on much, but my most recent shots did have some areas blown out because I wanted a wide aperture at midday and my shutter speed didn't go fast enough. Using the exposure slider did result in a much better conversion on those. Okay, I'm convinced! Thanks guys! I'm going to have to go back through and revisit some others from the past and see if there are any it would help. I've been planning to do this anyway, since I've learned a lot since doing some of them.

It still might not have much affect on shots that don't have blown areas when converted, but I'll have to look at that closer too. It may be similar to getting your white and black points set correctly when scanning so that you take full advantage of the dynamic range available. At any rate, it looks like it's time to change my workflow again.