RAW file format

[YEKCIM]

I was a dedicated JPEG shooter up until a few months back, at which time I made the switch to RAW. For me the advantages are:

1. Ability to adjust exposure, "after the fact"
2. Ability to correct white balance
3. Ability to "recover" highlight detail (in some instances)

Now that I've learned a little about how to process RAW files, I don't see myself going back to JPEG unless it is for fast action (sports, etc) where my camera's buffer won't keep up with the much larger RAW files.

Hope that helps.

~Ed

 

[boBQuincy]

Yes, I always shoot in RAW. Here are some of the reasons:

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

If i am sending a file to be printed I save it in PSD and then save it in JPEG *after everything is done*. I send the JPG file to the printer since it is much smaller than other formats.

 

[bob100]

I don't normally shoot in RAW because (1) the files are much larger and I cannot use the USB cable to transfer to the computer and more importantly, (2) I'm not that skilled enough in photoshop to improve my pics (but that may change)

Also, keep in mind there are some professionals who think RAW doesn't make much difference and is a waste of time , e.g.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

 

[Furgus]

I shoot in RAW and JPEG. The JPEGS get uploaded to my flickr account for my freinds and family to see, and when I get a good image, I process the RAW to make it the best it can be.

 

[handicap18]

I switched from just JPEG's to only RAW a little more than a year ago. Biggest thing is white balance. Looking back at my images that were just in JPEG I see that they could use some adjusting but adjusting a JPEG image is more difficult in that regard. I also now like to change the picture control (aka: normal, vivid, standard and that type). If I take the picture and the camera is set to Vivid I can change it very easily to Normal or Neutral with a RAW image. With a JPEG image, I'm stuck with that and then have to go in and instead play with saturation and contrast and brightness and all that stuff and many times it still doesn't come out right.

The files may be large, but they it still doesn't take that much extra time to download them (depending on your computer). I just stick the card in the memory card reader and let it do its thing. Overall it really hasn't added much extra time to my downloading. Its just an extra step, maybe 2 to get it from the camera then converted to a JPEG.

 

[jann1033]

I switched about 2 yrs ago since i had some vaca. photos that didn't turn out how i wanted them to and didn't have enough leeway to change the..now i always shoot in raw...mainly same as yekim, it gives more post processing leeway. after i'm all done with everything i save to jpg. (since i always thought that was the only thing the site I put them on accepted but i think i saw they accept tiff as well ...so maybe if i get a much larger hard drive i would consider that). truthfully i don't see it takes that much time normally to process a file unless i have something really different i want to do ( ie convert to b & w or something similar) or totally messed up the exposure and i think the overall results are better since i can adjust things more as the mood hits me.
i don't think all that much skill is involved in converting really, it's more a matter of sliding a pointer till it looks good to you since most times it's minor adjustments you are making.

 

[ChrisinNJ]

I shoot in RAW and JPEG. The JPEGS get uploaded to my flickr account for my freinds and family to see, and when I get a good image, I process the RAW to make it the best it can be.

My dad is getting into photography as well, and he told me about shooting in RAW, but I haven't started doing it yet because I don't always want to process each picture. I guess in that case the RAW + jpeg is a good option, but I imagine it uses up a lot of CF space. I am going to have to buy larger CFs, because I think the largest I have right now is either 1 gb. If I can store approximately 300 pictures at high resolution in jpeg format, how many will I be able to store if I use RAW & jpeg?

 

[jann1033]

My dad is getting into photography as well, and he told me about shooting in RAW, but I haven't started doing it yet because I don't always want to process each picture. I guess in that case the RAW + jpeg is a good option, but I imagine it uses up a lot of CF space. I am going to have to buy larger CFs, because I think the largest I have right now is either 1 gb. If I can store approximately 300 pictures at high resolution in jpeg format, how many will I be able to store if I use RAW & jpeg?

when you download the photos you can see them so i just process the ones i really like ie if i have a few similar shots i only do the one i think is best. the rest i just store on my harddrive and if i ever need them i can process them then..i have a rebel xt (8 mp) and get about 130 ish photos for 1 gb but that is raw only, the manual says 80 ish for raw and large jpg ( they say 115 or so for just raw which is a little lower than what i usually get) the smallest cards i use are 2g and they usually last most of a day if i am just shooting photos. if i were at wdw i would use less since i would be doing other stuff too.

 

[YEKCIM]

My dad is getting into photography as well, and he told me about shooting in RAW, but I haven't started doing it yet because I don't always want to process each picture. I guess in that case the RAW + jpeg is a good option, but I imagine it uses up a lot of CF space. I am going to have to buy larger CFs, because I think the largest I have right now is either 1 gb. If I can store approximately 300 pictures at high resolution in jpeg format, how many will I be able to store if I use RAW & jpeg?

Your specific camera manual probably has a chart in the appendix somewhere that will give you an idea of how many shots you should expect for varying combinations of files (like RAW + "normal" JPEG).

Another thought: Memory cards have come way down in price in recent months. Check NewEgg, buydig, buy.com for what you are looking for, but be sure that your camera will support larger cards before ordering one or more.

~Y

 

[ChrisinNJ]

I switched about 2 yrs ago since i had some vaca. photos that didn't turn out how i wanted them to and didn't have enough leeway to change the..now i always shoot in raw...mainly same as yekim, it gives more post processing leeway. after i'm all done with everything i save to jpg. (since i always thought that was the only thing the site I put them on accepted but i think i saw they accept tiff as well ...so maybe if i get a much larger hard drive i would consider that). truthfully i don't see it takes that much time normally to process a file unless i have something really different i want to do ( ie convert to b & w or something similar) or totally messed up the exposure and i think the overall results are better since i can adjust things more as the mood hits me.
i don't think all that much skill is involved in converting really, it's more a matter of sliding a pointer till it looks good to you since most times it's minor adjustments you are making.

Then what program do you use to process them?

I have 2 computers, both older. My PC has the program that lets me download the pictures from the camera (I dont have a CF reader). My Mac has photoshop CS3, but a really small internal hard drive, so I save everything to an external HD on that system.

The Mac was a hand me down, so it is older, but new to me, so I have just started using it, and just started using Photoshop. So far I have just taken copies of the images from my PC & brought them over to the Mac to PS them. But, I guess I should get a CF card reader for the Mac & start downloading all my pictures to it for processing, especially if I start using RAW. Or I can put the Canon software on the Mac.

Does the Canon software let you process the RAW files as well??

Do I sound like a complete dummy yet????

 

[jann1033]

Then what program do you use to process them?

I have 2 computers, both older. My PC has the program that lets me download the pictures from the camera (I dont have a CF reader). My Mac has photoshop CS3, but a really small internal hard drive, so I save everything to an external HD on that system.

The Mac was a hand me down, so it is older, but new to me, so I have just started using it, and just started using Photoshop. So far I have just taken copies of the images from my PC & brought them over to the Mac to PS them. But, I guess I should get a CF card reader for the Mac & start downloading all my pictures to it for processing, especially if I start using RAW. Or I can put the Canon software on the Mac.

Does the Canon software let you process the RAW files as well??

Do I sound like a complete dummy yet????

the canon digital pro is the raw software that comes with the rebel but i downloaded adobe camera raw ( was free think it still is on the adobe website) and am now using the lightroom beta ...i like the lightroom best as i can do pretty much everything ( ie clone, convert etc) in one program. i also can import to my photoshop elements where i have plug ins to do "special" stuff if i want to...but the actual camera raw and lightroom converters are very similar( used to be the same but not sure now that the lightroom 2 is available.)

 

[handicap18]

TMy PC has the program that lets me download the pictures from the camera (I dont have a CF reader).

You can get card readers just about anywhere and many are under $20. Its much better to use a card reader. For 1 they wont wear down the battery in your camera during the download process. Downloading directly from the camera sucks up a lot of battery life. If you can plug the camera into the computer, then you can plug a card reader in as well.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I've been shooting in RAW since I went digital back in '02. I only shoot JPG when I have to, typically because of buffer size limitations.

To understand why one should shoot RAW, it helps to understand the differences. First, a RAW file usually captures 12 bits per pixel instead of 8. That means that any given pixel can be one of 4,096 brightness levels instead of just 256.

Second, a JPG file is compressed (made to take up less space on a memory card) by throwing away information it doesn't feel is necessary. That isn't too big of an issue by itself, but if you ever go back and edit the file and save it as a JPG again, you'll lose even more information. You'll lose a little detail and add a few artifacts each time.

Next, a JPG is processed in the camera with changes made to noise, white balance, sharpness, saturation, and probably other things. These changes are made globally with no knowledge of the subject. You can correct camera mistakes later, but you'll be working on a degraded image. It's better to start with a higher quality copy like a RAW file.

Even if you don't know much about photo processing now, shooting in RAW will give you the ability to go back and fix things later. I can better process the RAW files that I took 6 years ago than I could then. Because I shot in RAW, I still have that option. If I'd waited until I understood processing better, I'd have nothing but JPGs.

There are a lot of software packages that will easily convert RAW files to JPGs using basic default conversion settings, so it's easy to do. The only times that it makes sense to me to shoot JPG are:

1) You just don't care about the image quality that much.
2) You are under tight time constraints and need to get your pictures from the camera to and editor without time for any processing (consider RAW + JPG).
3) You are working around constraints in memory card size (memory cards are dirt cheap now), camera buffer size, or camera write speed.

Everyone shoots RAW. People that shoot JPG are shooting RAW and letting the camera do the conversion. To me, it would be like sending your film to the lab and only asking them to give you the prints back because you don't want the negatives. It's so cheap and easy to do it right that I don't understand why anyone that cared about their pictures wouldn't shoot RAW.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Then what program do you use to process them?

I use Adobe Lightroom. It's very efficient for managing and processing pictures. It's not cheap ($300, or $100 for an academic license).

Do I sound like a complete dummy yet????

People don't sound like dummies when they ask questions. They usually sound like smart people that are on their way to becoming knowledgeable. People that don't ask questions when they want to learn something are the dummies.

 

[wenrob]

Okay, I'm thisclose to being convinced. How do you go about finding a program to process RAW? From what I've read so far, the software for your camera is not so hot. I've also read there are color issues going from what you use to convert and your regular editing program. Is any of this true?

edit: Mark and I posted at the same time. Is Light Room a freestanding program or do I need Photshop to run it? Also worth pointing out I just recently found out you can get the academic copy for any student. For forever I thought you had to have a collage student.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I've been trying to get my brain processing RAW also since I got my DSLR. I do like the jpg's that I get out of my camera but then there have been those pictures that I wished I could adjust the WB better etc. so I've pretty much decided on RAW. The hardest part was deciding whether the processing required was going to be worth my time. I was just using the software that came with the camera and not really caring for it - just clunky. I think it would be fine if I were more decided on how I want my pics to appear but I'm still figuring that out so I'm changing settings when I process. Then, my laptop isn't super fast (but super portable so I love it) and it was having a hard time with that software so I was struggling even more.

Well, last night I finally decided to see if I could test Lightroom as I've read so many good things about it. As it turns out the new 2.0 version was just released yesterday so I downloaded it and so far am very pleased and impressed! I'll see as the 30 day trial goes on whether I can justify the $300 but the way my comfort level increased after playing with it for just an hour or so last night I'm thinking I'll be a new customer.

Oddly enough, just seeing the much more user friendly Lightroom product and viewing a couple of the tutorials made a number of lights turn on for me about raw. If nothing else I think that would make the free software that came with the camera much easier to use if I decide the cost is to great.

Oh - and wenrob - Lightroom is a stand alone product. I do not have Photoshop. I do wish I had a student though!

 

[Mick00]

Is there any program that I can convert multiple files at once? I have the one that came with the 40d but I think it can only convert one at a time. Thanks and sorry for butting in :-S

 

[wenrob]

Oh - and wenrob - Lightroom is a stand alone product. I do not have Photoshop. I do wish I had a student though!

Thanks for the info, I may download the trial and give it a whirl. Do you know anyone who has a student?

To the previous poster, I'm pretty sure you can batch process in Lightroom.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Do you know anyone who has a student?

Hmmm....I have a couple of Godchildren that are students. Do those qualify?

 

[ChrisinNJ]

I am taking classes at my local township art center, is that enough? My twins are in elementary school...does that work??

If I already have photoshop cs3, can I process the RAW images that way? I have only begun to explore PS features...