RAW file format

[photo_chick]

Professional shops will want RAW because they intend to do a lot of image manipulation, like resizing or processing, and require the flexibility of working from a 100% quality "negative".

Actually all the shops I've worked with that do heavy image editing prefer jpeg because it is a standard format.

The image quality loss is there, but it's not as much as photographers like to think in the right hands. When it comes down to it, when done right, it's not any more visible than if you save a jpeg straight from a processed RAW file.

 

[mom2rtk]

I've also read stories of other photographers who used to shoot JPEG, JPEG, JPEG, who after a few years learned about RAW and how to work with RAW files, and then wished they had shot those early photos in RAW years ago. Actually, that story seems to hit pretty close to home for me.

That's absolutely me too!

My camera (LX3) allows you to shoot .jpg and RAW at the same time.
This is what I prefer.

I tried doing JPEG + RAW on my trip last fall. It did seem the best of both worlds, but I like to take TONS of shots, and it does fill the memory cards and hard drives pretty quickly (not to mention the buffer).

I used to think that RAW was only for the experienced photographer steeped in knowledge about post processing. Then someone pointed out that RAW is actually BETTER for the novice because it more forgiving, allowing more latitude to adjust mistakes after the fact.

I was absolutely sold when someone posted side by side photos. One was almost black. Since the shot was done in RAW he was able to adjust exposure to look normal. You could never do this with a JPEG.

I recently bought Lightroom 3 (which is available to students with a great discount). It really makes RAW processing pretty user friendly.

 

[Pineapple Whip]

You do not need to copy the RAW file. It is a digital negative and the file never changes no matter what program you use and what you change in that program. The program either saves the edits in a database file or in sidecar file with the RAW. It never changes the actual RAW file.

I do make a backup of every file on an external drive, but that is in case I have a drive crash. I don't think that is what you were talking about.

All programs do not work the same, nor do all file systems.

 

[Pineapple Whip]

Actually all the shops I've worked with that do heavy image editing prefer jpeg because it is a standard format.

The image quality loss is there, but it's not as much as photographers like to think in the right hands. When it comes down to it, when done right, it's not any more visible than if you save a jpeg straight from a processed RAW file.

Thanks for mentioning that. I have noted a few houses which don't really care either way and just want good images. However, some of the "snob" houses have specs who's merits are baseless, or convenient for whatever stale process, system, program, or art director is in house at the time. As with every technical business decision, these people need to evolve or die, because some of those stale processes are more expensive than they need to be.

Again, this goes to show that either format may be fine, and sometimes the decision becomes the personal preference of the resident "art director" or what have you, even if it is a technically baseless argument. I know one guy who defined a professional rig as having a flash bracket.

Sort of like MacPC vs WinPC, some graphics people are just stuck in their ways.

 

[klmall]

With my bridge cameras, Canon G5, G9, I sometimes shot in both raw + jpeg but rarely had to resort to processing the RAW. Totally different story with a DSLR as I am still learning the Canon Xsi. Raw is absolutely necessary even if it's just to confirm that my choices were okay. And as others have pointed out RAW has literally salvaged some great shots. Other than some investment in extra memory cards and some time processing I've never looked back. And I'm one of the few who truly enjoys processing my shots!

 

[ukcatfan]

On the initial shot, RAW and JPEG are about the same quality. After multiple edits and saves of a JPEG, the compression is compressing a compressed, compressed, compressed... image, which degrades slightly with each save, and adds more compression. Repeated edits and saves of a RAW file are not being compressed over and over while saving in a RAW (uncompressed) format. The same degradation effect happens to a RAW file you exported to JPEG and worked the above sequence on.

Coming back to this thread tonight, I feel like there is a little more to be said. No offense here, but I don't think you understand RAW very well. You do not do any saves on a RAW file at all. Whatever changes you make are just there. If you close the program, the edits do not go away or anything and there is not even a save button in the menu. Some programs have memory of the edits and let you step backwards, but you can always revert back to the original condition.

You also do not say anything about the extra data of a RAW file that is the real benefit, not the fact that re-saving JPGs causes degradation. For that matter, someone using JPGs can switch formats to something like TIFF and avoid any more compression degradation.

 

[ukcatfan]

All programs do not work the same, nor do all file systems.

No, not all work the same, but none change the RAW file. Also, what file system you are on does not have any effect on the RAW file.

 

[photo_chick]

Actually ukcfan in some instances with certain software you can actually change the RAW file. But usually as photographers we're working with non-destructive editing programs where we don't have to worry about that.

 

[ukcatfan]

Actually ukcfan in some instances with certain software you can actually change the RAW file. But usually as photographers we're working with non-destructive editing programs where we don't have to worry about that.

I tried out probably the top ten RAW programs around when I got into RAW and none modified the RAW file. The only popular program I didn't try is Aperture b/c I am on WIN. If there are ones that do, they must be small niche products. Can you give some examples? Regardless, it is not the norm.

 

[disneyboy2003]

I tried out probably the top ten RAW programs around when I got into RAW and none modified the RAW file. The only popular program I didn't try is Aperture b/c I am on WIN. If there are ones that do, they must be small niche products. Can you give some examples? Regardless, it is not the norm.

There's one instance in Lightroom where you CAN actually modify the RAW file.

There are a couple things you have to do to make this happen:

1. Convert your RAW file to DNG, and
2. Either
   • under Catalog Settings > Metadata, select "Automatically write changes into XMP", or
   • when you make a change in Lightroom, press Ctrl-S to "Save Metadata to File"

When you do *both* of the above steps, Lightroom will save metadata to both its internal catalog AND into the DNG file, thus altering the DNG file.

Within the DNG file, there is an XMP section, where metadata is stored. This is where metadata changes are made. The image itself is unchanged. When I look in Windows, I see that the "Date Modified" values in the DNG file are now changed to the *current* date & time. The "Date Taken" values for the image are unchanged.

If you don't do step 2, then metadata changes are only saved inside your Lightroom catalog. Your DNG file is left untouched.

If you don't convert your RAW file to DNG, then your metadata are stored in the Lightroom catalog, and possibly in an "XMP sidecar" file (a separate text file that stores all your photo's metadata). Your RAW file itself is left untouched.

Hope that helps! Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Anewman]

I shoot in RAW and convert to needed format depending on its use, I only archive RAW files.

IE... If I need prints I convert to jpeg, upload to the lab and then delete the jpeg. I can always create that same jpeg withing seconds, so why would I archive it.

There's one instance in Lightroom where you CAN actually modify the RAW file.

There are a couple things you have to do to make this happen:

1. Convert your RAW file to DNG, and
2. Either
   • under Catalog Settings > Metadata, select "Automatically write changes into XMP", or
   • when you make a change in Lightroom, press Ctrl-S to "Save Metadata to File"

When you do *both* of the above steps, Lightroom will save metadata to both its internal catalog AND into the DNG file, thus altering the DNG file.

Within the DNG file, there is an XMP section, where metadata is stored. This is where metadata changes are made. The image itself is unchanged. When I look in Windows, I see that the "Date Modified" values in the DNG file are now changed to the *current* date & time. The "Date Taken" values for the image are unchanged.

If you don't do step 2, then metadata changes are only saved inside your Lightroom catalog. Your DNG file is left untouched.

If you don't convert your RAW file to DNG, then your metadata are stored in the Lightroom catalog, and possibly in an "XMP sidecar" file (a separate text file that stores all your photo's metadata). Your RAW file itself is left untouched.

Hope that helps! Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Converting is creating a NEW file, not altering the original file. We still have the option of saving the ORIGINAL UNOMODIFIED raw file.

Metadata is like the preset stations on your car stereo, it does not modify the stereo... It just tells it what stations you want to listen to. All the settings we do to raw files just tell software how much contrast, brightness, etc... we like but it does not change the original image file.

 

[rotlex]

I've shot exclusively RAW since my first DSLR, a Canon 10D. I see no reason not too, as I post process just about everything I shoot anyway.

I also use Aperture, on the Mac, for organization and processing. No change is ever done to the RAW file of course, however, the "previews", always contain your changes. The only time the file is actually processed, is if I'm exporting for the Web, print etc.

I love RAW, and really can't understand any argument NOT too use it. You can't lose, and you are losing, if you are shooting only JPEG.

 

[Groucho]

Thanks for mentioning that. I have noted a few houses which don't really care either way and just want good images. However, some of the "snob" houses have specs who's merits are baseless, or convenient for whatever stale process, system, program, or art director is in house at the time. As with every technical business decision, these people need to evolve or die, because some of those stale processes are more expensive than they need to be.

I can agree with this - before I bought my film scanner, I called around locally and one of the top high-end image processing shots did drum scanning. I asked them what kind of dpi they'd scan my negatives at. I was told 300 dpi. They got fairly haughty when I said that there's no way that they were scanning negatives at 300dpi. (I scan at 4000dpi with my scanner!) I think they are out of business now.

As for RAWs, they generally do not change; even converting them to Adobe's DNG format (or shooting in that natively, as some DSLRs let you do - mine does, but I stick with the proprietary format for size reasons) should keep the image itself intact.

In terms of editing and such - it's all about workflow, workflow, workflow, as Kevin said. Once you get serious about going through your photos, a quality workflow application is pretty much mandatory, especially if you have any interest in tagging your photos with useful metadata (like where they were shot, etc.) There are a handful of apps but IMHO you have to come up with a pretty darn good reason not to choose Lightroom; version 3 fixes most all criticisms of past versions and it's already pretty close to a "standard" in the way Photoshop is.

Once you are using a workflow like that, it's pretty much no extra work whatsoever to use raw instead of jpg, and you get the extra quality and flexibility.

It's never to early to start shooting in raw - fortunately, I switched to raw not long before my first DSLR trip to WDW. My initial photos were decent but some had some really bad white balance - I'm thinking specifically of night photos with brown skies. I went through them all at least twice and was amazing as how well some of them cleaned up. The daytime photos didn't have as big of a difference, but I knew more by then about processing them properly, and I am to this day still very pleased with many of the shots from that first trip - more so than I would be if I had shot jpgs.

 

[DVC Mike]

I've always shot in JPEG and just used Adobe Photoshop Elements.

If I move to shooting RAW, what tool should I consider using?

I was thinking of going with Nikon Capture NX2, but was also considering Adobe Lightroom. Photoshop CS5 seems like overkill for me.

What can give me great NEF to JPEG conversion and still let me easily do corrections?

Suggestions?

 

[Uncle Greg]

Capture NX2 has my vote for the best way to convert NEF's. The U point technology totally rocks as well.

 

[ukcatfan]

CS5 will actually not do RAW processing as good as Lightroom. It is made for developing RAW where CS5 is made to do editing. Also check out Bibble Pro 5. It is what I use and I like it more than Lightroom. It has a technology built in called "Perfectly Clear" that does really well on most images making processing easy.

 

[photo_chick]

Actually.... Adobe Camera RAW (in CS5) and Lightroom now use the same algorithms to process RAW. Older Camera RAW versions and Lightroom were different, but not any more.

If you're doing Nikon I'd suggest you check out Bibble as well. The software was initially developed as an alternative to process Nikon RAW files.

 

[ukcatfan]

Actually.... Adobe Camera RAW (in CS5) and Lightroom now use the same algorithms to process RAW. Older Camera RAW versions and Lightroom were different, but not any more.

If you're doing Nikon I'd suggest you check out Bibble as well. The software was initially developed as an alternative to process Nikon RAW files.

What I meant is that there are more controls, options, and tools in Lightroom.

 

[Twoboysnmygirl]

I love Capture NX2, but keep trying to use Lightroom and Photoshop b/c everyone else says they are so wonderful. I think NX2 is just more user-friendly, but it's all a matter of opinion I suppose! I'm really only just beginning to shoot in RAW finally after a year and a half, and converting in NX2 is as easy as pie. Doesn't seem any different, in fact, I sometimes wonder why exactly I want to shoot in RAW. Other than exposure, which I usually try to get right in the camera, I'm unsure as to what is different...but that's a whole different thread. I digress!

 

[MHolleman]

I use Lightroom 3 for all of my processing. I have started a photography business and you can literally edit hundreds of photos with this program in no time. I always shoot in RAW also. Also with lightroom you can go in a change the camera calibration profile so easily, however this feature doesn't work if you shoot in jpg. With Nikon cameras I have learned that they tend to make things more red than what they should be so I always go in and switch my camera over to Neutral. I could go on and on......but I won't unless you ask.

PS: I can also open my RAW files in PS elements. I use version 8.0 on my laptop.