shooting raw

[garyrosen]

good evening all. hope everyone is ready for the spring if it ever shows up ( in Toronto). I am wondering if anyone can point me to where I can get some info on shooting raw. Tips, settings etc. tried it before but not sure of the actual process. Thanks, really like this site. Happy shooting.

[Digital]

good evening all. hope everyone is ready for the spring if it ever shows up ( in Toronto). I am wondering if anyone can point me to where I can get some info on shooting raw. Tips, settings etc. tried it before but not sure of the actual process. Thanks, really like this site. Happy shooting.

There is a tutorial on this website on what is a RAW file. Hope this helps. In short, you shoot a RAW file the same way you shoot a JPEG (i.e. proper exposure - aperture, shutter, and ISO). You do not need to set the White Balance unless you want to since you can change the White Balance in post processing. RAW files are proceesed by you in post processing as opposed to JPEG files you let the camera decide the processing. RAW allows you more flexibility in how the print is going to look. Bruce

[Manfred M]

I thought Toronto was almost in the tropics. Your temperatures always seem a few degrees warmer than up this way,

THe most important thing to know about RAW is that this is just a data dump right out of your camera; you don't have an image file. All of the nicities that you get in a jpeg; like sharpening, locking in a white balance setting, contrast adjustment, etc have to be done by you in post-processing. You have to run the data through a RAW converter (it is likely that your camera came with one). Most people tend to head to one of the Adobe products; Photoshop Elements, Lightroom or full blown Photosho; although there are numerous other options out there.

The upside is that the file contains all of the data your camera has captured and you have a lot more options to manipulate this data into an image. This can be a signifcant advantage if you do a lot of post-processing, for instance you can set change the white balance (something that you can't really do in a jpg). Many of the CiC members are RAW shooters; I tend to be a jpeg + RAW, as I find that this works better for my shooting style and needs. I usually get things darn close in the camera and I only have to dive in to work the RAW image if I blew it.

[Glenn NK]

The one thing I would add to the very good comments by Bruce and Manfred is that there is nothing to be concerned about when shooting RAW. With JPEG or RAW, the same variables should be controlled (exposure, f/stop, shutter speed and ISO); they are important with both.

RAW takes no more consideration during image capture than does JPEG. Yes, it will take more work during processing, but by the same token, it has more potential.

What RAW offers are some considerable advantages during processing. One of the advantages is blowing highlights (we all make mistakes) - in some cases (perhaps many), quite a bit more detail can be recovered in the highlights area with RAW than can be with a JPEG image.

And by shooting RAW, I'm never concerned about WB either as I can adjust it in PP.

In short, I shoot RAW for the times that I will inevitably screw up, or can't determine what the WB should be. Incidentally, the camera's ability to accurately determine WB should always be called into question - it's too complex for a non-thinking machine to get right all the time. I invariably adjust WB during processing.

Glenn

[Manfred M]

And by shooting RAW, I'm never concerned about WB either as I can adjust it in PP.
Glenn

I would go a step further and suggest that there are times that we don't want the WB to be "correct" for artistic reasons.

Try taking a sunset shot with auto WB; chances are it won't look wonderful; use a daylight or cloudy setting and you will get those lovely warm tones that we are looking for.

Same issue goes for portraits; I prefer mine to be a touch warmer than I get with the presets.

[Geoff F]

Rather than attempting to explain anything myself, Gary, there are three articles on Raw shooting, and a lot more besides, at this site

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm

But it does tend to get a bit detailed.

[Glenn NK]

I would go a step further and suggest that there are times that we don't want the WB to be "correct" for artistic reasons.

Try taking a sunset shot with auto WB; chances are it won't look wonderful; use a daylight or cloudy setting and you will get those lovely warm tones that we are looking for.

Same issue goes for portraits; I prefer mine to be a touch warmer than I get with the presets.

We're on the same page here it seems.

I think my WB setting is on AUTO, but it's been so long since I checked that I'm not sure.

I tend to spend more time with things that matter like composition, focus, and DOF.

Glenn

[Colin Southern]

I tend to spend more time with things that matter like composition, focus, and DOF.

What a load of tripe Glenn -- we all know that things like camera & lens brand, PC used for processing (Macs are far superior, especially Photoshop on a Mac), and whether or not a UV filter has "degraded" the image are far more important!

[Colin Southern]

good evening all. hope everyone is ready for the spring if it ever shows up ( in Toronto). I am wondering if anyone can point me to where I can get some info on shooting raw. Tips, settings etc. tried it before but not sure of the actual process. Thanks, really like this site. Happy shooting.

Hi Gary,

I think the first question needs to be "what software do you have available to process your images"?

[rpcrowe]

RAW capture is a great way to go. IMO, it is far superior to JPEG capture. In fact, I have not used an incorrect color balance for an image since I started shooting in RAW years ago (LOL)

The specific workflow regarding imagery depends on what camera you are shooting with (different brands have different styles of RAW files) and what post processing program you use to open the RAW files you have captured. Most cameras (maybe all of them) that are capable of RAW capture come with their own programs to open and process images. Photoshop CS*, Photoshop Elements and Lightroom all come with versions of Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) which is a fine way to work with RAW images. There are also, some low cost or even free programs available which will allow you to open and work with RAW images.

The only problem could be if you are using an older Adobe post processing program with a new digital camera. Often the older processing program cannot open the RAW files of a new camera but, usually Adobe includes free updates which will enable you to use the new RAW files.

BTW, although the Adobe Camera RAW-6 (Photoshop CS5, Elements-10, Lightroom-3) is great; I really like the capabilities of ACR-7 which I have as part of Photoshop CS6 (also in Lightroom-4 and PSE-11), even better that I like ACR-6...

Some really nice cameras do not have RAW capture as standard issue. The Canon SX40 Bridge Camera is one that I am thinking of. However, apparently there is an fix available to the software of the SX40 which allows RAW capture. I have an older Nikon Coolpix 5400 which cannot capture RAW. That disappointed me but, I got the camera free so I cannot complain. Instead of RAW, the Coolpix gives a choice of capturing in JPEG or TIFF. I have not done any shooting with that camera.

IMO, it is as easy, or even easier, to capture and work in RAW than it is to work with JPEG's.

Another neat thing about RAW capture that I like is that sometimes a new Adobe Camera RAW will provide better results than the preceeding issues of that program. I can always reprocess images that I previously processed in ACR-6 or previous ACR editions in my new ACR-7 and sometimes do a tiny bit better with problem images.

Of course, none of my CiC friends have every shot "problem" images!

However, if I plan to download images and provide them to people before I get home to my computer; I will shoot in RAW + JPEG Large and give then JPEG versions. That way, anyone can make use of the images even if they have no dedicated post processing capability...

[Colin Southern]

The only problem could be if you are using an older Adobe post processing program with a new digital camera. Often the older processing program cannot open the RAW files of a new camera but, usually Adobe includes free updates which will enable you to use the new RAW files.

Um, not really - once camera models jump a major ACR step one is typically "SOL" via that path. They do always offer compatibility via DNG conversion though.

[pnodrog]

What a load of tripe Glenn -- we all know that things like camera & lens brand, PC used for processing (Macs are far superior, especially Photoshop on a Mac), and whether or not a UV filter has "degraded" the image are far more important!

I agree with Colin's list - in fact I would go further and say they are even more important than pressing the shutter.
Glenn this approach saves a lot of PP time and valuable disk space but if you do press the shutter then composition, focus and DOF and perhaps even exposure are as you suggest well worth spending some time getting right.

[Colin Southern]

I agree with Colin's list - in fact I would go further and say they are even more important than pressing the shutter.

You're allowed to press the shutter, but only if the resultant image will be of a test target, and with it's intended purpose being a (yawn, yet another worthless) "Review".

[Mark von Kanel]

At last, some of my king of photographers.... this site is far too loaded towards making images.... just need to go and dust my test target and look at the DxO site now, to croon over how good my camera sensor is.....I mentioned "making images" in this thread and now its made me feel tired

[drjuice]

Hi, Gary -

From my perspective (I try to use only open source/freeware/shareware), everything I've ever wanted to do I've done with software that comes from one of those three sources. I do have Corel Draw!'s included image handling software just because I've been with Corel since they turned beta version 0.81 loose back in the late 1980s. But, because my personal preference is for me to get viewer-ready images straight out of the camera, I mostly wind up either cropping images or working on the contrast or color or both to get the RAW closer to the colors I recall for any particular image.

I really like the dcraw package which is freely available from a number of different online resources, though I'd suggest downloading directly from Dave's website just as a matter of courtesy so that he's encouraged to update the software as vendors do strange stuff to their file formats. Best to start at: http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ though you might be interested in his images or his genealogy or ... which you can find at: http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/

Enjoy!

v

[Brev00]

First you must buy a camera. You have not yet shared any information that can help narrow down my tips. If you own Canon or Nikon, they have their own proprietary software systems. Adobe and many others offer powerful raw processing systems as well. So, choosing which software system is the second step. I chose Elements 9 but only after trying out a few different systems (Capture NX--Nikon's and Aperture--for a Mac). Give a few systems a free trial and see which one works for you. I know Lightroom has a lot to offer. I did a free trial recently. But, it is so precise, it took up too much of my time so I returned to Elements.
Besides the different systems, there are books. I like Rob Sheppard's guide to Adobe Raw. Many people like online tutorials. But, the books should be selected after the system since they are written specifically for particular systems. Rob Sheppard likes to talk about the workflow, the steps one takes in the order one should take them. For example, he is a big fan of blacks. He says many images do not have enough blacks and adjusting the blacks slider using the preview window makes a fundamental difference in the quality of many a picture. I have taken this to heart and always check my blacks in ACR. This is just one example of a benefit I have received in shooting raw. It takes time to process all the information and apply it to one's images. Lots of practice. But, the results do come quickly. Another excellent piece of advice from Sheppard was to do quite a bit of my noise reduction and sharpening in ACR. This was a change for me but Adobe Camera Raw makes it very easy to work on these elements by putting them on the same page. Raising and lowering sharpening affects noise so it is good to see these changes as one moves the different sliders. There is so much more. It is good to get the process started. Good luck and post what you decide to do.

[drjuice]

Shonuff on the how I do it instructions. I'll write it up offline over the weekend and upload it to this thread next week (if you're in a different time zone than Los Angeles, that would be the week of 24 March, because it's still Saturday here. 18:11 according to the US Naval Observatory! ;~)

Later, f-f-f-f-folks.

virginia

[Scott Stephen]

Hi!

I know I "mess up" more than some folks that rely on just JPG. And unlike Manfred/Grumpy Driver, I also have a real aversion to having double the number of files, considering that every time I come in I have 400 to 800 images.

I started out using JPG, then realized how often I failed to set the white balance before shooting. Or else I would dutifully set it for cloudy, and then the sun pops out, and then my white balance is screwed up royally. I then tried shooting ROW + JPG, but the doubled number of images was (in my case) ridiculous.

As for hassle, there is none. If you use a program like Adobe Lightroom 4, which is now 1/2 the price Adobe used to charge for it, then you never even notice you are "converting" a RAW image. It simply appears in the editing software just like if you had shot JPG only.
The obvious difference is that you can only manipulate a JPG image a little bit before you tear it apart. With RAW you could just shoot everything on AUTO WHITE BALANCE and then fix everything in post.

[Colin Southern]

And unlike Manfred/Grumpy Driver

Ahem, Diver -- sure he drives too though

[Hero]

I still shoot mainly jpeg. But since the D7000 I bought last month which I found I can easily switch to raw (qual-button and one thumbwheel click to the left to switch from fine large jpeg to raw) I find myself shooting raw quite a bit more often. Mostly in difficult light or when I know I want to 'play' with the image I want to capture.