RAW file format

[ssanders79]

I just switch from Large JPEG to RAW+JPEG(Basic) a few months ago. This allows my wife to email them to her people without having to bug me to process a ton of images. It then allows me to be creative on my "Keepers".

I've found that I love shooting RAW. It provides so much control over the final image.

Here is a RAW conversion. The JPEG from my D40 looked muted and you could barely see the details in the petals and the stem. It almost looked like a blury photo.


Click image to view it on Flickr

 

[racreel]

What do most people use for PP? Photoshop or the software that came with the camera? I just got a Canon and still need to figure out the software. I have PSE7 but don't have the slightest clue how to use it.

I use the free Raw Therapee for processing the raw files and then Paint Shop Pro Photo X2.

 

[boBQuincy]

I use RAW + Large JPG most of the time unless I really think I will be short on memory card space, then I stick with just RAW (and buy more cards for next time). Look at it this way, the same photo is 16MB in RAW, 4MB in JPG. The camera is deciding which 75% of the data to throw away, forever! Did we spend that much on cameras and lenses (not to mention the trip itself) to bring home 25% of the image?

As for "nailing it right out of the camera with JPG", that is a noble idea but misleading since most scenes have a range larger than our cameras can capture anyway. We usually have to throw away some highlights or shadows, sometimes both. Me, I will go for as much range as I can get and that means RAW!

 

[MICKEY88]

I always strive for getting the pic right in camera as others have mentioned,
and used to argue on the side of only shooting jpeg, until I shot a sweet 16 party in a night club setting, black walls, black ceiling and colored spotlights, I arrived early as I always do, did some test shots to get my settings for the event, and was having a difficult time with exposure and white balance, I quickly decided to shoot raw+jpeg, after I got home and uploaded the files I opened a few jpegs, the more I tried to adjust them the more frustrated I became, I then opened the raw files and quickly discovered that getting exposure and white balance was much easier using the raw files, after that I started shooting everything in raw+jpeg just as a safety valve in case I had something that needed a lot of adjustment..

then one day I realized this was a waste of card space.. I now shoot raw only, when I get home from a shoot I have a workflow that I rarely deviate from/

1 turn on pc
2, upload files to pc
3, batch process files to jpeg using Sony software{ this gives me the same files I would get if I shot raw+jpeg
first 3 steps are done while changing, placing batteries on chargers and getting a drink or bite to eat..so they occur while I'm busy rather than taking up my time..


4. view jpegs, any I'm not happy with I open the corresponding raw file and make adjustments, then saving the file as jpeg, replacing the one I wasn't happy with..

5, start upload of pics to my website, then go to bed , pics upload while I sleep, again, not taking up any of my time..


6, there may be additional steps for me by shooting raw, but the time and work involved is minimal,

 

[MarkBarbieri]

A lot of people have mentioned how much easier it is to work with JPG files. If you work with a tool that combines photo management and RAW conversion, like Lightroom or Aperture, it is just as easy working with RAW and JPG files.

When I get home from a shoot, I load my pictures into Lightroom where I can view them without doing anything different for RAW or JPG files. When I want to use the pictures (print, upload, edit), I don't do anything differently for RAW or JPG files. They all work the same.

So for me, there is very little reason to shoot JPG. I would do so if I was in a serious space crunch. I might also do so if I needed to shoot a very large number of pictures in a very small amount of time because JPG files write to memory cards faster. Other than that, I never bother with JPG at all. RAW is just as easy for me and enough better to be worth the extra space.

I actually use SRAW more often than I shoot in JPG. When I shoot in JPG, the camera jacks with the sharpening, saturation, white balance etc of the picture and looses a lot of information that I might want to get back. When I shoot in SRAW, it preserves everything but gives me a picture that is only half the normal resolution (roughly 10 meg instead of 21 meg). If I know that I won't be heavily cropping or making very large prints, the SRAW files are fine for what I want. It's like being able to switch between a 21mp and a 10mp camera with the same 14bit color depth (instead of 8 bits for JPG).

My advice is that, unless you need to turn around pictures for nearly instant deadlines (like a sports photographer), skip the JPG. Get good RAW processing software like Lightroom and shooting RAW will be just as easy as JPG.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Oh, and don't be seduced by the "get it right before you shoot" notion. Everyone does their best (or should) before they shoot. In a studio, that's great. In the real world where you are shooting a kid roaming around in a room light by a tungsten lamp, a flourescent light, and some natural light from a window, you can't predict what white balance you'll want to use. In a scene with more dynamic range than your camera can capture, you can't get it all but RAW will give you more than JPG.

The real world is often murky and challenging. Shoot RAW and you can retain more ability to change your mind later.

 

[pjacobi]

Why not shoot RAW?

It really not that difficult to use the free Canon DPP software to covert Raw to JPG. Plus there are more chances to fix color balance and exposure.

Does Nikon include a free Raw converter?

If you're just lazy, just use a P/S camera for JPGs.


-Paul

 

[MarkBarbieri]

If you're just lazy, just use a P/S camera for JPGs.

Why? If you are lazy and want good pictures, a DSLR shooting JPGs will significantly outperform a P/S. That's true even when the P/S shots RAW. I've known many people that love their DSLRs but don't want to be bothered with post processing.

 

[handicap18]

Why not shoot RAW?

It really not that difficult to use the free Canon DPP software to covert Raw to JPG. Plus there are more chances to fix color balance and exposure.

Does Nikon include a free Raw converter?

If you're just lazy, just use a P/S camera for JPGs.


-Paul

Yes, Nikon does have a free basic RAW comverter. ViewNX. It will allow you to adjust White Balance, Active D-Lighting, Sharpness, Contrast, Highlights and a few other things. What it wont do that is big, is you can not crop with it. I used ViewNX for about 2 years with no issues. It was VERY easy to use IMO. After I got my D300 I did end up switching to CaptureNX2 (which is not free) to get more specific editing and to be able to crop. With a much larger file to work with from the D300 (12.3MP) vs the D50 (6.1MP), I do more cropping now without having to worry as much about getting a small final image.

 

[ColleenG]

What do you do with your RAW files after you have converted them to JPG? I have a Canon and their software puts into it's own file by date, so now I have all these little folders I don't know what to do with. Should I just back them up? The saver in me doesn't want to just delete them. (I still have negatives from probably 20 years ago )

 

[bostran1]

I keep all my RAW images in my Aperture library. I will sometimes make several different of the same images. Who knows what types of digital editing will be available for RAW files in the future. Storage is cheap and keeping the full-size images is important to me.

 

[Master Mason]

I store them on both an external HD and burn them to DVD

 

[YesDear]

I think you answered your own question if you think of it this way. Your RAW file is your digital negative. That is the file you made your changes to. If you get rid of it then the only thing you have is the finished image. If you think you would never want to ever make another change to that image and it is exactly the way you always want it the get rid of the negative.

If you think you may want to look at that original image sometime in the future and possibly maybe make slight changes to it then keep it.

If you keep negatives forever, why would you get rid of a digital one?

 

[ssanders79]

Keep then, back them up. I tell people this when they ask me about RAW.
RAW = Negative
JPEG = Printed Photo

Storage per GB is cheap. Even 1 and 2 TB drives are affortdable. Consider the money spent on HDDs and CDR/DVDRs as the money you used to spend on film and developing costs.

 

[wenrob]

I store them on both an external HD and burn them to DVD

This is what I do.

I learn more and more as time goes by and have actually gone back and reprocessed. Like mentioned I think of them as negatives, something to fall back on if something happens(or I just don't like them later) to the processed files.

 

[mabas9395]

In fact, I don't convert them all to JPG. I process them in Lightroom (which is a non-destructive editor) and leave them as RAW until I have a specific need for one (printing, emailing, etc). Then when I'm done with that purpose, I actually delete my JPG's instead of my RAW's .

 

[ukcatfan]

With a 1TB drive under $100 these days, why delete them? I do delete the bad ones though.

 

[maddmike]

I store them on both an external HD and burn them to DVD

I used to do the same then after a while the CDs and DVDs I used went bad and couldn't be read anymore. I now use two external hard drives that are mirrors of each other in case one goes bad. I think over time this may even be cheaper than backing up on disc and a lot safer to retain files.

 

[ColleenG]

Thanks for the input. I've been wondering if I should pick up an external hard drive. I use my lap top for all my photo stuff and I imagine it will start to fill up fast if I shoot exclusively in RAW. I'll have my tech guru (aka DH) look into that.

 

[TinksDH]

I import them into a file system structured as:

Originals/Year/Year-Month-Event Name

I go through all of these, deleting the ones that are bad.

After I have culled out the bad ones, I copy all of these into another folder structure:

Processed/Year/Year-Month-Event Name

I then do all of my work on these files, leaving the originals "as is" just in case I ever need to go back and get one.

I process my RAW images in Nikon Capture NX, a non-destructive RAW editor. After I am done editing, I make jpegs of the ones I want to do something with. These jpegs I import into iPhoto, and here is where I add keywords, location data, ratings, etc. I also use iPhoto to manage my Flickr account and Facebook images.

My Originals/Processed files are kept on an external HDD, where I used 225GB of a 500GB disk. The finished jpegs in my iPhoto library are currently on my internal HDD, only taking up 5GB of space. As that grows I'll move it to an external disk. I back up all of my images on all of my drives with Time Machine, and also clone my internal hard drive (with my finished images) with Carbon Copy Cloner daily.

Going forward, I think I may invest into a swappable drive cradle, and clone my external drive as well and keep the cloned drive in an offsite safe deposit box. My bank has a branch 2 block from my house right next to the local Starbucks, so it should be convenient!