RAW file format

[MICKEY88]

I did not say YOU lacked skill, I do not understand how you would take offense. You seem pretty sensitive for a guy that has made similar comments about how RAW is for those that lack the skill to get a proper exposure in the camera.



2:

I have NEVER said that,,

I have stated quite clearly that I prefer to get the best shot possible in camera, which does require that I control all settings on my camera..

 

[MICKEY88]

I
Seems pretty similar to my workflow with raw... IMO Raw it takes me no extra time vs working with jpeg, I actually feel it is faster.


And no all 700 would not have to be converted, you just said you tossed some

if no files need edited, how could raw be faster, since you have the added step of conversion..??

 

[Anewman]

I have NEVER said that,,

I have stated quite clearly that I prefer to get the best shot possible in camera, which does require that I control all settings on my camera..

Nor I did not say you lacked skill, did I???

And you have made very similar comments about raw for a long time...

if no files need edited, how could raw be faster, since you have the added step of conversion..??

You said a few might get tweaked/edited...

I give photos the once over, images selected get converted in the background while I continue to proof and edit if needed. Usually the background conversion is faster than my pace.

For me RAW is faster because during the conversion I do all my resizing/renaming/saving to the appropriate folder depending on use, which I would have to do with jpegs anyways.

 

[MICKEY88]

Nor I did not say you lacked skill, did I???considering at that point in the conversation we were discussing my work flow, who else would you be referring to ???

And you have made very similar comments about raw for a long time...

show me one time that I said what you are accusing me off..
You said a few might get tweaked/edited...

I give photos the once over, images selected get converted in the background while I continue to proof and edit if needed. Usually the background conversion is faster than my pace.

For me RAW is faster because during the conversion I do all my resizing/renaming/saving to the appropriate folder depending on use, which I would have to do with jpegs anyways.

I'm always up for good sound debate, but since it seems to have turned to a personal attack I'm done, no more from me...

have a great day..

 

[Anewman]

I'm always up for good sound debate, but since it seems to have turned to a personal attack I'm done, no more from me...

have a great day..


show me one time that I said what you are accusing me off..

I respectfully disagree with these 2 points,

I suggest practicing more b/c that really is the best way. Also note that the printing frustration could be due to the monitor not being calibrated correctly. Also, the settings for the image to print are a little different than for viewing on a monitor. For example, the exposure needs to be a little higher and the image should be sharper for print. Another reason RAW is the best way to go IMO.

Kevin

2. I think perfecting shooting skills rather than relying on post processing is the best way

ok

Seems similar to what I said...

But it comes down to workflow and software, so yes those without the proper skill or software might take longer if working with Raw files vs Jpegs.

Maybe we do not use the same software, but you felt I was knocking your skill...
obviously it's your choice to drop out of the conversation,

 

[Groucho]

1. but that isn't neccessarily the best choice for everyone, some people, simply don't want to do the post processing, nor have the software to do it, I think sometimes it's easy for people to get caught up in things and forget that not everyone on here is a pro or advanced amateur, some people would simply like to understand white balance so they can set it and hopefully get the best shot possible without having to post process.

Anyone who has a camera that can shoot raw has the software to convert raw.

Anyone who's concerned about white balance and can shoot raw would be well served to shoot raw, rather than worrying themselves when shooting about white balance and possibly picking the wrong one, leaving them with a substandard jpg.

Raw doesn't have to be for the advanced shooter, part of what we're trying to do here is remove some of the fear that some people might have of shooting raw. If you're advanced enough to use a DSLR, you're advanced enough to handle raw. Neither is really all that incomprehensible.

I wasn't saying anyone was wrong for wanting to shoot raw, I was making the point for those people who don't want to shoot raw and have to do the conversion/processing, I think it is wrong to make them feel that they are wrong for not wanting to spend as much time working on pics as some people do..

Actually, you're on the wrong side of this one - I don't want to spend time, that's one of the reasons I shoot raw - so I can take the photo much faster than someone who's mucking about changing their WB settings. (No matter how easy your camera makes it, it's still a bother.) I only have limited time to take any photo, but I have unlimited time to adjust WB later - if I've shot in Raw mode.

If you're advanced enough to be shooting hundreds of photos at a shot, you probably should be using something like Lightroom that can quickly and easy handle those hundreds of Raw photos without having to convert them all, and which can also easily apply custom WB settings to hundreds of photos in seconds. Even if you don't use Lightroom, I would think that any bundled software will give you the ability to look at the raw photos without converting them. If THAT doesn't, use a halfway-decent photo viewing like Irfanview which can display Raw photos along with the usual formats, no conversion needed.

I was thinking of posting an off-color portrait and asking people to "correct" it to see if someone could come up with the right skin tones but that would start another debate.

Obviously you'd need to post a Raw file, which is a pretty big file for such a challenge, too.

 

[Snurk71]

I've been working on cleaning up the hard drives in our main desktop, making sure I'm getting appropriate backups in place, have enough space for video capture projects, etc. And of course I come across the biggest space hog - the thousands of pictures we have. Now, image sizes aren't getting any smaller - especially since we went to an XT last year. So it got me to thinking if I should alter my picture method to help keep space manageable.

I'm an amateur that just switched over to an XT a little over a year ago. Like a lot of converts I started shooting in P mode, JPG only. After some time learning I moved into Tv, Av, and full Manual. And after seeing too many shots where the auto white balance didn't quite get the light correct, I moved to shooting RAW+JPG (this is where I am today).

Now I'm considering going Raw only. I figure if I need a JPG, it's an easy enough conversion without all of that double space of the RAW + the JPG for the times I never do anything with a JPG. Maybe the only other pertinent information is that I process/work with PSE 4.0.

So anyone want to help talk me into it or talk me out of it?

 

[Master Mason]

If your already processing all of your RAW files, then there is no need for the camera to produce jpgs.... IMO

 

[AndrewWG]

Ok, I have a question about shooting only RAW photos. I hope it doesn't hijack this thread any. I think it pertains to the OP's point. Is there a way for Windows to give a preview of a RAW file? I would shoot RAW only if when I put the photos on the computer, I could see what they were. I can only seem to get that by shooting JPG+RAW. I still don't get the preview of the RAW, but it shows the JPG right nest to it. Any way to fix this?

 

[Master Mason]

You will need a program to do that.... Lightroom does it, or photoshop bridge. or if you looking for free, then infranview...

 

[handicap18]

Yes Andy. You can go to the microsoft web side and download the MS Raw Viewer. Its basically the same as the standard picture viewer that comes with XP (and possibly Vista), but it will allow you to view a full shot of the RAW image instead of just the tiny little thumbnail.

To the OP, I agree with Gregg. No sense in giving yourself 2 copies of the JPEG. Also External hard drives are getting way inexpensive. I currently have 3. Got a 500GB External at Best Buy last month for $109. I also have a 200GB on another computer and a 160GB 2.5" portable external HD that easy to take along when traveling and using with the laptop. Picked up that one a few weeks ago on sale at Microcenter for $90.

 

[gokenin]

this is probably off topic but I have been reading these Raw threads and the common thread to me is that its better to shot in raw because you have greater ability to correct things (ie white balance,exposure amongst other things) and that jpeg is used by people that dont want to invest time in post processing. I was wondering then isnt it more challenging to shot jpeg knowing that you have fewer chances to correct things that you may actually stop and think more about the the exposure,white balance and other things? again I could be way off target and I am not looking to start a debate either just my two cents

 

[Master Mason]

this is probably off topic but I have been reading these Raw threads and the common thread to me is that its better to shot in raw because you have greater ability to correct things (ie white balance,exposure amongst other things) and that jpeg is used by people that dont want to invest time in post processing. I was wondering then isnt it more challenging to shot jpeg knowing that you have fewer chances to correct things that you may actually stop and think more about the the exposure,white balance and other things? again I could be way off target and I am not looking to start a debate either just my two cents

Your probably right, The question is, is your goal to get the best pictures possible, or to chalange yourself to get the best picture possible at the time of shooting?

Personally, I want to take the perfect picture everytime, but I would rather have the ability to fix a mistake after the fact, and still have the picture I wanted.

Yes you can edit a jpeg, but it is working with only partial information after the fact.

 

[mabas9395]

Yes Andy. You can go to the microsoft web side and download the MS Raw Viewer. Its basically the same as the standard picture viewer that comes with XP (and possibly Vista), but it will allow you to view a full shot of the RAW image instead of just the tiny little thumbnail.

I've tried to install that a few times and I keep getting errors. Doesn't work for me.

 

[SharonLowe]

this is probably off topic but I have been reading these Raw threads and the common thread to me is that its better to shot in raw because you have greater ability to correct things (ie white balance,exposure amongst other things) and that jpeg is used by people that dont want to invest time in post processing. I was wondering then isnt it more challenging to shot jpeg knowing that you have fewer chances to correct things that you may actually stop and think more about the the exposure,white balance and other things? again I could be way off target and I am not looking to start a debate either just my two cents

Yes, people should spend time thinking about exposure, white balance, and other things, but they should still shoot RAW. Why? Because the camera makes certain assumptions about how to process that jpeg, such as sharpening, and you might not agree with its choices and it might make choices you can't correct. If you shoot RAW, you have all the information necessary to do the final tweeking that you didn't do in camera. Also, sharpening should only be applied as a last step and should be based on size/usage of the image not some arbitrary formula your camera uses.

I always shoot RAW. The only time I do RAW+jpeg is when I am shooting an event and want to get quick proofs/images to clients.

 

[AndrewWG]

Yes Andy. You can go to the microsoft web side and download the MS Raw Viewer. Its basically the same as the standard picture viewer that comes with XP (and possibly Vista), but it will allow you to view a full shot of the RAW image instead of just the tiny little thumbnail.

To the OP, I agree with Gregg. No sense in giving yourself 2 copies of the JPEG. Also External hard drives are getting way inexpensive. I currently have 3. Got a 500GB External at Best Buy last month for $109. I also have a 200GB on another computer and a 160GB 2.5" portable external HD that easy to take along when traveling and using with the laptop. Picked up that one a few weeks ago on sale at Microcenter for $90.

Kyle,

I downloaded and installed that and will give it a try. At first glance, it doesn't seem to solve my dilemma. What I am looking for is something that will allow me to view the thumbnails of the RAW files in explorer. Instead of just getting a screen filled with these:

Is it even possible for the computer to do a quick view type of thing on these thumbnails?

 

[SharonLowe]

Kyle,

I downloaded and installed that and will give it a try. At first glance, it doesn't seem to solve my dilemma. What I am looking for is something that will allow me to view the thumbnails of the RAW files in explorer.

Is it even possible for the computer to do a quick view type of thing on these thumbnails?

Another reason to switch to a mac - Finder (the apple version of explorer) shows the raw images

I'm sure Vista does it but I'm not one to recommend upgrading.

 

[alan]

Andy, I thought that the RAW image viewer did exactly that. I'm surprised you're not seeing the thumbnails.

But there is perhaps another reason to keep a JPG around - even if just a small one.

One of my favourite ways of seeing my photographs is with the XP "My Pictures" screen saver. It's lovely just to sit and watch as randomly-chosen photographs from over the years pass across the screen. However, the RAW image viewer doesn't do that for you.

So I always tend to keep a JPG version around, even when the shot was originally RAW. A 1600 pixel JPG isn't terribly large in the scheme of things, and it's nice to have

regards,
/alan

 

[DVC Jen]

Ok, I have a question about shooting only RAW photos. I hope it doesn't hijack this thread any. I think it pertains to the OP's point. Is there a way for Windows to give a preview of a RAW file? I would shoot RAW only if when I put the photos on the computer, I could see what they were. I can only seem to get that by shooting JPG+RAW. I still don't get the preview of the RAW, but it shows the JPG right nest to it. Any way to fix this?

Andy - you should be able to view them with the software that come with your camera. I am still using Zoom Browser that came with my XTi - I think I also got it with the 30D. It isn't fancy or anything - but it does the job and you can see your images as soon as they are loaded onto your PC - right after you bring up that software. AND if you did get it with your camera - you have already paid for it.

 

[JR6ooo4]

I think there is a different file/patch that allows the viewing of raw files in thumbnails or the standard picture viewer. But I do not remember the name. It was right next to the raw viewer at the microsoft site.

Mikeeee