RAW file format

Assuming that you are a beginner in RAW and haven't purchased Lightroom etc. another option is to shoot in both RAW and jpeg for awhile as MICKEY88 did. Yes, this eats up space but with memory being so inexpensive today this can be a great way to start out. Pictures that look good without any pp (post processing) can be left as is while others can be processed in your camera's RAW conversion program.
 
My experience from RAW has been fantastic. I went to Disney about 6 months back and took pictures solely in JPEG. I soon found out that I really enjoyed editing those pictures. However, there were some pictures that simply couldn't be fixed the way I wanted. Some of these pictures had highlight clipping, some of them were underexposed, and some of them just needed some color/temperature adjustments.

I then luckily got the ability to stop in to WDW for a single day after a business trip. Before the trip I installed the CHDK firmware on my camera and did all the necessary steps to save .DNG raw files.

I unfortunately ran out of space when I was there having filled the 2GB and 1GB card I brought for a 6MP camera. I did grab another SD card but was not able to convince the WDW personnel to let me transfer over the files for the firmware. So I shot in JPG the rest of the time.

The pictures I took as RAW were VERY fun to play with. End results vs. JPG varying from WOW! to...eh...it's a bit better.

It's those WOW pictures that justify the use of RAW though. I highly recommend it.
 
Thanks for all the replies. Mark, your analogy to baking a cake is really great! I don't have a DSLR at the moment but am trying to figure out what everything is. I'm not sure if and when I will make the plunge. I just took a photography class with my "bridge" camera. So for now I am playing around with the manual mode on that, although it is pretty limited when it comes to changing the aperature. I think if I can get a handle on how it all works with the "kiddie" camera I'll move up to the SLR. Once I do get an SLR I think I will look into an more indepth class, maybe audit something at the local community college. The class I just took was a good intro, but the guy who taught it didn't teach in a very organized way. He had some amazing shots to share, but we never actually got to use our own cameras and see eachother's work.

The photography board has been great! I think I have learned as much here as I did in the class.
 
Have you ever taken a picture and you could see what it looks like in your mind. You took the negative or digital image to get printed and it came out looking like another picture? I always pick on Walmart or your local drug store, but the reason is the processing machine is making assumptions for you in what the picture should look like. It is going to try to balance the exposure and the light and the color. That is what jpeg does in the camera when you take the image. The camera uses a formula preset as to how the image should look. Yes you can change somethings but most of the decisions are made for you by the camera and are hard coded on the image.

I was never more dissapointed when I went to Hawaii about 12 yrs ago before digital. I took so amazing shots of the black sand beach. I took them to Walmart and the beach came back dark brown.

In RAW the camera takes all the info available and stores it unprocessed. That is subject to the limitations of the sensor and the megapixels of the image. That is why RAW images are so much larger. Then when you "process" them in a software program you can adjust the image in many many more ways. A great thing about RAW is that if you alter it, it always keeps the original image for you.

I used to shoot in RAW and JPG. It just took more space. I have also gotten far more aggressive in deleting those images that are not really good! I used to treat them all as if they were my children.

One word of caution!

You will see some on this and other boards say do not be as concerned about getting a proper exposure in RAW because you can fix it in post production. That is really a bad approach to take. As you get better as a photographer, you should always try to take the picture you want within a 1/3 of a stop of what you want. Then you have much more correct info to make the image what you want it to be. If you are adjusting your images 1-3 stops then you really need to practice with only one caveat.

One of the first rules of photography is to get the shot. If your child is walking across the stage graduating from whatever and the lighting sucks and you know you have about 2 seconds to get that once in a lifetime, take the best picture you can. Fix it later to the best of your ability. If you want the ghosts in HM then you can ride the ride over and over again to get it. Then you can play.

When you get your DSLR turn it to RAW immediately, buy bigger cards, and as Mark so greatly describes, bake a lot of cakes!
 

I tried to read it two days in a row but it's dry as hell.:lmao: Care to give a summery?
I have read debates about this on DPS and they seem pretty heated with no definitive outcome.
 
I tried to read it two days in a row but it's dry as hell.:lmao: Care to give a summery?
I have read debates about this on DPS and they seem pretty heated with no definitive outcome.

So it is not just me! It amazes me how some people are able to get jobs as professional writers. Anyone willing to read the whole thing and give us the high points?
 
Thanks everyone! :flower3: You have all been so helpful! I'm getting really excited about getting a DSLR. I was thinking of getting one at the end of the year, but I don't know if I can wait that long. I'll have to see what I can do about scraping up some extra $$$. :scratchin
 
/
nutshell: our camera's histograms and highlighting clipping indicators are set up for jpg rather than raw and will give you false readings if you shoot in raw. you may actually have a more info in the highlights than you camera would lead you to believe (if you shoot in raw.) in a studio setting if you shoot to the right you will cut down on noise in the shadows and even though your histogram says you don't, will probably have fine highlights. in a field setting yo may want to stick with underexposing slightly since you can fix the shadows easier than the highlights.( ie changing light would make it more likely to loss the highlight info)

the most interesting parts to me were 1) i'm not nuts when i felt it was a new way of thinking when i went to digital( he explains film thinking vs digital thinking) for exposure( i always like some validation of my sanity just in case it's questioned;)) 2) our cameras are set up to show us exposures for jpg rather than raw so while the histogram, clipping indicators etc( thinking even the newer highlight whatever you call them that help you from clipping highlights)are of course useful they are pretty off so you can't use them as gospel. this probably hit me as my highlight clipper is someitmes blasting away in my camera then when i to convert it in the computer,it's fine or even leaning toward underexposed which always puzzled me.
the last few paragraphs explain how to handle it.
well at least my explanation has less to read than 6 pages

he goes into all kind of other junk and his experiments to figure out if there was value in exposing to the right but really i just want to know what to do, not what gamma/linear whatever that is causing it
 
That seems like a long boring way to say "raw gives you more headroom". Yeesh! It's not so much that it's pulling it from jpg; it's pulling it from a specific exposure level. Bring a photo into Lightroom and have it show you the blown-out areas, and surprise surprise, you can bring some of that info back by bringing down the exposure.
 
"ETTR presents a few problems, one being that the LCD camera preview, including the histogram and clipping indicators, isn't based on the linear RAW data. Instead, this preview is based on the rendered gamma-corrected JPEG your camera is set to produce, even if you don't save that JPEG and only shoot a RAW file! If your goal is to produce the best possible exposure for RAW, using the ETTR technique, the feedback on the LCD could steer you in the wrong direction. The camera uses its on-board processors to render color and tone from RAW to create a JPEG, which may be vastly different from what you hope to render from the RAW using a stand-alone converter. This is primarily why photographers shoot RAW. You want to control the color and tone rendering instead of accepting how the camera processes the RAW into a rendered JPEG. Yet you have no direct feedback about this RAW data when shooting."
this was what i was referring to.
 
So I've owned my Cannon Rebel XSI for allmsot a month now, and am starting to get good at the indoor pictures. Next will be practicing outdoor Sunny day at the park pictures (today).
I've started shooting some in raw so I could learn how to play with the editing program that came with my camera.
Thinking ahead to our Disney Trip, is it safe to say that by shooting in raw, I don't need to worry incessantly about lighting? (as I can fix photos up later).
Also, I currently only have a 4GB Memory card. Shooting in Raw, approximately how many photos will fit on this card? (to give me an idea of how many and big, other cards I need to get).
Thanks for any info.:thumbsup2
 
It's always a good idea to try and get it right in camera. RAW gives you more leeway but it's not going to make a really bad pic great. It has the capability to make some saves but it's not magic. However if you have a really good pic it can make it awesome.

I think I get roughly 250 RAW files on a 4gb with my D90. That's the estimate my camera gives me anyway, I've never pushed it to find out.
 
You still need to take proper pictures with RAW, but if you're a little bit off, you can adjust the picture with PP. The only thing I don't worry about in-camera is white balance.

An 8GB card takes just under 500 pictures in RAW.
 
As others have said, RAW doesn't cover all sins. You can correct quite a few white balance situations with RAW, but my wife's foray into RAW last week at a bouncy place birthday party with an old zoom lens demonstrated that not everything will look great. She tried and learned though.
 
With RAW you won't need to worry about white balance, sharpness, saturation, or any of the other settings that apply to JPG. What you will need to get right is exposure, although RAW does give a little more leeway in the highlights.

Canon lists a RAW file as taking about 15 MB (let's say 16) which has been about right in my experience. Adding a large JPG brings it up to about 20 MB so we can fit about 250 RAW on a 4 GB card, or about 200 RAW + JPG. RAW by itself has an embedded JPG but it is small, perhaps 2360 x 1798. With RAW + JPG we have the best of both worlds, except fot using more SD card space.

I just buy more cards! ;)
 
Great tips I also have a Canon XSI and as for right now just have it in automatic settings. I hope I can use the manual settings soon.
 
Great tips I also have a Canon XSI and as for right now just have it in automatic settings. I hope I can use the manual settings soon.

Actually RAW works in "P" mode and that is what I use at least 95% of the time. It's almost like Auto, just with some extra features.
 
Thanks for setting me straight. I know I am in the right place to learn about photography thanks :hug:

So
 
Yes, thank you all very much for the tips. I played around with the Manual setting today while at the park. Practice makes perfect. The first ones were way OVER Exposed, then the next just a little too dark, then I seemed to get it right. Ended up with some pretty good shots as far as color, clarity ect. goes. Next I want to practice with Apertature settings (ie: blurred background but sharp clear subject). Anyone know how to get the foreground and the background blurry but the subject inbetween perfectly clear?
 
I have been reading a few places that it is not beneficial to shoot in 10 mega pixels... The forums i was reading said that it is a waste and takes up space on your memory card and computer ... My D60 gives me the option of shooting in 6 megapixel mode instead, but I have always figured why not shoot in the highest possible setting... Will it hurt the quality of my image, or will I even notice it? What are the thoughts around here?

Another question...

I will be in WDW for 2 weeks in a few months and will be shooting a lot of images... I recently started experimenting with RAW processing through CS3, and I thought about shooting in Raw + JPEG mode... That way I can tweak the photos if I want/need to, but have a JPEG image if I don't want to mess with it... Any opinions on this idea? The biggest worry I have heard of is space for the photos on the card, but I will have a 16GB card as well as a 8 GB card as a backup to shoot on, plus I will have a laptop and a 320 GB hard drive with me to save my photos every night, so room is not an issue for me... Should I shoot in JPEG, RAW, or both?
 





New Posts









Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top