Raw vs Jpeg?

[Stagecoach]

Hi Carol,

If as you say your version of Elements will accept the ACR version compatible with your camera model loading the updated ACR version is very easy. I did exactly that a while ago to update my versions.

I'll try and get time today to write down the simple procedure in detail for you to follow, should you wish to do this.

Grahame

Hi Carol,

I undertook some investigation and there are a number of articles regarding updating PSE11 to ACR ver 8.2 (from 7.4 as you have now) which is compatible with you Panasonic Lumix FZ70. The method is different than that used on the older versions of PSE and from what I found the below link has the best instructions on how to do it.

http://atr935.blogspot.com/2014/03/p...n-version.html
#

The only comment I would make regarding the instructions is that in Step 3 it states ''Remove the Camera Raw.8bi file (representing Camera Raw 7.4) from the following File Formats Folder and replace it with the Camera Raw.8bi file (representing Camera Raw 8.1).""

If it were me I would rename the file the instruction states to remove to 'Old Raw.8bi' so it is left there should things not work.

It may very well be that you do not feel confident to undertake the upgrade but here's the info anyway.

Grahame

[MrB]

The relatively easy option is to follow Shadowman's suggestion in Post #11 - download the latest version of Adobe DNG Converter, and use it to change the Panasonic .RW2 raw files into .DNG raw files. When one of the latter is dragged and dropped onto PhotoShop Elements, it automatically opens in Adobe Camera Raw. And this method really does work with the raw files from the FZ70.

Cheers.
Philip

[csa mt]

Grahame, thank you for going to the trouble of looking into this!

"It may very well be that you do not feel confident to undertake the upgrade but here's the info anyway."

This is very true, however, I will certainly take a look at it, and see if it's something I can do. If not I've save your link for the future in case I can get someone here to do it for me.

I really appreciate you going the extra mile to help me out! I'll let everyone know here, if I was able to do this!

[csa mt]

Phillip, I'll also look into that option!

Can't thank everyone here enough for replying with all this assistance; definitely makes me feel better about trying new things, with the support given here!

[Brev00]

Don't put down your camera as incapable of producing quality raw images. I recently bought an Olympus xz-2 which has a sensor much smaller than those found in a dslr. While the jpegs and initial raws look pretty average, I have found that there is quite a bit of room for improvement in the raw processing and further down the line in editing. In fact, if I had to put a percentage on it, I would say I get a 25% improvement with my aps-c images but more like a 70% improvement with my compact sensor images. An Elements upgrade is not too expensive. I upgraded from 9 recently and found it worthwhile. But, do the free trial as has been recommended. You will enjoy.

[SteveF]

Dan, I did not feel I was limited in what I've been able to accomplish with Jpeg. However, when posting photos here, I've been prompted that I could do much better by shooting in Raw.

Carol,

This site is a great place for information and sharing of that information and getting good feedback from those who have a great deal of experience so what I'm writing isn't an attempt at inflaming those who have helped you but I'll say this: shoot with whatever you are comfortable with. If you can pull nice jpegs from your camera that you are happy with then that's great. It's light and composition that matters the most.

I imagine that it's not uncommon for folk on this site to shoot a dozen images and spend the next week processing them to the 'nth' degree ... that's their enjoyment. Cool, go for it if you like but, jpegs are not sinful. They are a good honest file that will stand minor editing and if you want to go further then convert your jpeg to .tiff for editing then back to jpeg for print or leave them as .tiff files.

No raw users were harmed in this posting, they're tougher than we think

[lukaswerth]

Carol,

This site is a great place for information and sharing of that information and getting good feedback from those who have a great deal of experience so what I'm writing isn't an attempt at inflaming those who have helped you but I'll say this: shoot with whatever you are comfortable with. If you can pull nice jpegs from your camera that you are happy with then that's great. It's light and composition that matters the most.

I imagine that it's not uncommon for folk on this site to shoot a dozen images and spend the next week processing them to the 'nth' degree ... that's their enjoyment. Cool, go for it if you like but, jpegs are not sinful. They are a good honest file that will stand minor editing and if you want to go further then convert your jpeg to .tiff for editing then back to jpeg for print or leave them as .tiff files.

No raw users were harmed in this posting, they're tougher than we think

Steve,

I am a raw user, I certainly can spend a week on a dozen of shots, and I am not harmed by you. Still, as I also posted earlier in this thread, I cannot resist making a further comment here which will hopefully not harm jpeg users:

Light and composition matter most? Certainly, but to what does that amount to? They go together, I would say, and can be made to shine in post processing. A jpeg also is a post-processed file, only that the processing has been done by the camera. The thing is: post-processing is, of course, much older than digital photography. It was Ansel Adams who compared the negative to a score in music which needs to played, that is, interpreted in order to be brought to life. What you are promoting is instead Kodak's old slogan: "You press the button and we do the rest." The consumer attitude. Give your pictures into the hands of the industry. Save time - why spending a week on a couple of pictures? Time is money, after all - even Dan Margulis talks on these lines all the time.
Or is it? What does it matter how many pictures we make if they are just so-so, holiday snaps (thinking of the other thread regarding those)? Pictures are everywhere in our world today, so, one might say, in order to express anything with them, pictures need to be carefully crafted - just as, if you want to make an impact in writing or in saying something, you need to carefully craft your language, and not just use ready-made molds and buzz-phrases.

[SteveF]

Steve,

I am a raw user, I certainly can spend a week on a dozen of shots, and I am not harmed by you. Still, as I also posted earlier in this thread, I cannot resist making a further comment here which will hopefully not harm jpeg users:

Light and composition matter most? Certainly, but to what does that amount to? They go together, I would say, and can be made to shine in post processing. A jpeg also is a post-processed file, only that the processing has been done by the camera. The thing is: post-processing is, of course, much older than digital photography. It was Ansel Adams who compared the negative to a score in music which needs to played, that is, interpreted in order to be brought to life. What you are promoting is instead Kodak's old slogan: "You press the button and we do the rest." The consumer attitude. Give your pictures into the hands of the industry. Save time - why spending a week on a couple of pictures? Time is money, after all - even Dan Margulis talks on these lines all the time.
Or is it? What does it matter how many pictures we make if they are just so-so, holiday snaps (thinking of the other thread regarding those)? Pictures are everywhere in our world today, so, one might say, in order to express anything with them, pictures need to be carefully crafted - just as, if you want to make an impact in writing or in saying something, you need to carefully craft your language, and not just use ready-made molds and buzz-phrases.

Hi Lukas,

Thanks for your input. This forum is probably the only one I know of where the members don't start an all-out war when this is discussed.

I take your points entirely and agree. Kodak tho probably was a (if not the) major force in bringing photography to the masses and making it affordable so there's a place for that approach too in my opinion.

You might appreciate that learning processing skills can sometimes limit the enjoyment of our craft and I have always enjoyed the creating in-camera more at the scene and probably re-visiting to see if it's better with different light and from a different angle. That's my 'pure joy'. This is why I shoot like I do.

As far as time is money, well yes as I'm in business I agree with that and from my signature you see the results of my hobby. The fact I'm shooting so much and enjoy being outside really drives me to how I shoot. A good number of my friends have left forums because their simple way has been ridiculed i.e. the typical statement (not from this forum I might add) that you're not a real photographer unless you shoot raw. Both you and I know this isn't true but regrettably has become a bit of an elitist view in our world. As one of my friends said the fact that he shoots jpeg and uses program mode seems to make him sub-standard!

It's a funny old world

[lukaswerth]

Hi Lukas,

...Kodak tho probably was a (if not the) major force in bringing photography to the masses and making it affordable so there's a place for that approach too in my opinion...

... I have always enjoyed the creating in-camera more at the scene and probably re-visiting to see if it's better with different light and from a different angle. That's my 'pure joy'. This is why I shoot like I do.

As far as time is money, well yes as I'm in business I agree with that and from my signature you see the results of my hobby.
...

It's a funny old world

Steve,

With regard to Kodak and their approach: true, I must agree, there is a place. If I may once more dive into photography's history: Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother" is probably known to everyone, and Lange did not care at all about the technical representation of her prints. It was straight development and print, that's it, nothing fancy, hardly burning of dodging - for her the subject matter as such mattered, and the standard quality produced by her roll film camera was good enough for her. Another photographer I very much appreciate, and who is known for his pretty straight prints, is August Sander.

And I certainly agree about the pleasure of being there and taking the picture. Magical moments. Well, it's probably everyone to her/his own.

Lukas

[JR1]

Would someone be able to process both of these, so that I can see the difference Raw makes? Right now, I can't get Raw to work with Elements, and wish to see the difference, before I invest in more software.

Thanks in advance! (I'm hoping you can open the Raw file!)



Sorry, the Raw file would not load.

If a Moderator could delete this thread, I'd appreciate it; I don't see any way I can.

Thanks

This old one raw v jpeg.

One comment

depends on what you are shooting, try shooting and processing 1000 images in RAW from a days shooting SPORTS

[JR1]

This entire post has been edited now that I've seen earlier posts.

Carol,

Comparing the post-processing of a RAW file and a JPEG done by others is not valid for many reasons not worth going into, especially considering that you haven't experienced using both file formats first-hand. Your best bet is to download a free trial of Elements and to use ACR yourself to help determine whatever might be helpful to you.

+1

[Manfred M]

Steve,

With regard to Kodak and their approach: true, I must agree, there is a place. If I may once more dive into photography's history: Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother" is probably known to everyone, and Lange did not care at all about the technical representation of her prints. It was straight development and print, that's it, nothing fancy, hardly burning of dodging - for her the subject matter as such mattered, and the standard quality produced by her roll film camera was good enough for her. Another photographer I very much appreciate, and who is known for his pretty straight prints, is August Sander.

And I certainly agree about the pleasure of being there and taking the picture. Magical moments. Well, it's probably everyone to her/his own.

Lukas

Even in the days that Kodak was a major player in photography, nothing could have been further from the truth. The family snaps went to Kodak (and the various companies that used their chemicals and paper); serious work went to custom printers.

Jpeg verus RAW; depends on your use. I post plenty of SOOC jpegs to other websites but very little of my "serious" photography comes directly from RAW. Sports shooters and wedding shooters with thousands of images during a session; jpeg is usually the way to go. For fine art photography; perhaps not.

The right answer is that "it depends"; on what is up to you the photographer. All of those people that argue for one versus the other should be out there shooting, rather than arguing...

[xpatUSA]

The relatively easy option is to follow Shadowman's suggestion in Post #11 - download the latest version of Adobe DNG Converter, and use it to change the Panasonic .RW2 raw files into .DNG raw files. When one of the latter is dragged and dropped onto PhotoShop Elements, it automatically opens in Adobe Camera Raw. And this method really does work with the raw files from the FZ70.Philip

Pardon my puzzlement, Philip, but my Elements 6 with ACR 5.4 opens .RW2 files from my Lumix DMC-GH1 just fine.

So, summat's up here or summat. Not saying anybody's wrong in this thread and not wishing to tread on any toes either.

Now Sigma changes the format of their .X3F files with the direction of the wind but I would hope that Panasonic is a little more professional than that?

[Manfred M]

Pardon my puzzlement, Philip, but my Elements 6 with ACR 5.4 opens .RW2 files from my Lumix DMC-GH1 just fine.

So, summat's up here or summat. Not saying anybody's wrong in this thread and not wishing to tread on any toes either.

Now Sigma changes the format of their .X3F files with the direction of the wind but I would hope that Panasonic is a little more professional than that?

Good theory Ted, but camera specific profile data is also embedded in the ACR profiles, so this is one way that Adobe keeps you on the upgrade path; get a more modern camera, you need to update your appropriate software as well. Yes it is a bit of a scam, but they are out to make money, after all.

[SteveF]

This old one raw v jpeg.

One comment

depends on what you are shooting, try shooting and processing 1000 images in RAW from a days shooting SPORTS

Jeremy,

Serious raw users with pre-sets and very fast processors can do it. And they do. It's not for me granted as I said but strangely I have found a few with 64gb cards and major fast Macs wizz them thru. It's really staggering to hear sometimes!

From this Sunday I start the cyclo-x season again as Commissaire and British Cycling frowns upon Commissaires using cameras - don't agree 100% with that but that's their view. Before these duties I was shooting 1200-1800 images from a local event and putting 5-600 in galleries. I met a Nikon shooter locally who took 5000, yes you've read it right raws amounting to about ninety gigabytes in one day at a regional event. I never saw one image appear anywhere mind. I think he might still be processing them - that was about three years ago Either that or he's in an asylum somewhere.

[Manfred M]

Serious raw users with pre-sets and very fast processors can do it. And they do. It's not for me granted as I said but strangely I have found a few with 64gb cards and major fast Macs wizz them thru. It's really staggering to hear sometimes!

I've tried it and continue to be a jpeg + RAW shooter because even a seriously fast multi-core. multi-threaded machine with lots of RAM and storage capacity) and a fast main drive still takes some time load and process that much data (with a D800, transfering 36MB from 800x CF cards over USB 3.0). The jpegs are always there on hand almost instantly.

Simply said; there is no universally "right" answer. It's whatever works best for you.

[xpatUSA]

Good theory Ted, but camera specific profile data is also embedded in the ACR profiles, so this is one way that Adobe keeps you on the upgrade path; get a more modern camera, you need to update your appropriate software as well. Yes it is a bit of a scam, but they are out to make money, after all.

Yes, in my version, there are lots of camera profiles stored as type .dcp in several folders, both camera-specific and 'Adobe standard'. So, if I understand correctly, there is also camera-specific profile data embedded in the ACR code itself! That certainly explains why X3F (pre-Merrill) files will only open as 'embedded' in the camera drop-down - in spite of my efforts to populate their folders with 'Sigma' .dcp files.

Another Adobe mystery solved, thanks!

[edit] The more I think about that (discrimination by camera model) the more I dislike Adobe's methods, successful for the bottom line even though they are!

I'll bet that RawTherapee (RT) or even DCraw would at least open the lady's FZ50 .RW2 file with no problem at all. In RT there is a plethora of easily accessible profiles; there might even be one for the FZ50 right out of the box . . . . well, I just peeked and there's a .dcp for the later FZ150 which would no doubt do and also a .icc for it. Why am I not surprised :-) [/edit]