RAW vs Jpeg.

DeVore

Ok, prepare for a barrage of n00b questions. I'm reading a lot of stuff but only about half of it makes any sense.

I understand that RAW files are better to use then high-res JPEGs. I'm just wondering:

a. How do I switch a Canon 350d over to them (I've looked in all the menu options and cant find a manual on Canon's rather AWFUL website).

b. Is this just another image extension type that PS will recognise? (like .gif .PNG?). Anyone got a link to RAW files 101?

DeV.

Morlar

Raw format doesnt appear under Auto mode on canon - you have to set it to one of the other modes, then new options will appear on the menu.

Like Raw or Raw + Jpeg etc. Photoshop (from what I can remember) doesnt recognise .cr2 (canon raw) files by default, you can get a ps raw convertor for it which is free. You can also get a powertoy which lets microsoft image viewer recognise them too.

The best tool for them that I have found for working canon raw isnt the photoshop importer its the latest version of Canon Digital Photo Professional I would recommend using that to convert to highres jpeg.

rymus

photoshop cs2 will recognise canon raw (except 30D raw). Also consider getting raw shooter essentials (its free!). RSE will give you tiff files that you can then bring into photoshop. Picassa in all its glory will recognise canon raw.

Roen

RAW is not just another file type, if anything it's not a file type at all, it contains no headers etc. It's just the raw data straight from the chip (hence the name). It's different from one camera to another and most software can't open it. RawShooter is a great way to convert your RAWs into Tiff or Jpeg. You also should have got conversion software with your camera. Irfanview does support it and you can also download a plugin from microsoft for windows XP SP2 that will allow you to preview and view your RAWs. Grab it here
Here's an article that strongly implies that RAW is a waste of time. This guy makes some interesting points.
I'll still only ever shoot RAW though

**EDIT** Page 51 onwards of this manual will see you right on how to select RAW as an option
http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com/pdf/EOSDRXT350DIM-EN.pdf#search=%22canon%20eos%20350d%20manual.pdf%22

po0k

http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/
www.gimp.org

I know the GIMP isn't a replacement for PS. But it gets the job done. And it's free.

evilhomer

What is good for batch conversion of RAW images?

Valentia

As Roen says RAW is not really a file type. It is the equivelant of a film negative. That article that Roen refers to is complete horse sh1te. If you make an error with exposure or white balance (and who doesn't now and again) the latitude you have to correct it in jpeg format is very very small compared to working on the RAW file. Rawshooter essentials will batch convert and is free. It is an excellent programme but may not be available as Rawshooter has been bought by Adobe and is being incorporated into Adobe Lightroom.

You can download a beta of Lightroom from the Adobe site and it works well. You also have another free option. Go to the Canon site and download DPP (Digital Photo Professional) and provided you have installed the software that came with your camera you can install it on your PC. It is a down and dirty RAW converter but does a respectible job.

I don't shoot in RAW all the time but boy there have been many times when I wish I had done. I use Rawshooter Premium and it is my favourite for converting to B & W. Something I'm sure you will want to do at some stage.

440Hz

rymus wrote:

photoshop cs2 will recognise canon raw

Errrrmmm my CS2 (mac) does not recognise canon raw! You sure you didnt install the reader and just forgot? Or perhaps it is a mac thing but I doubt it.

When I try to open a .cr2 file in CS2 I get a file format not supported error. CS2 Raw editor will open .NEF files though. I keep forgetting to download the reader, but I will now

440Hz

Just went the adobe downloads and got the plugin, downloaded and attempted to install, but CS2 wont recognise the plugin. Ah well. Ill just have to keep using my old software then... photoshop would have been handy though

Roen

Valentia wrote:

As Roen says RAW is not really a file type. It is the equivelant of a film negative. That article that Roen refers to is complete horse sh1te.

I wouldn't say it's comlpete horse shite, if I can take that analogy a bit further, it's very much a matter of horses for courses.
The sports photographers I know shoot medium jpeg and upload their pics at half time to their servers, the pics are then available for download at a price immediately. If they were to shoot RAW they'd have get back to the office and work on them and then upload them, their competitors would slaughter them and no newspaper would even consider using them. A friend of mine (not a photographer) working in one of the Irish broadsheet newspapers brought in a DVD I gave him containing Tiffs and the original RAWs of his wedding to the photodesk editor to view on a fancy ass big screen. The editor had never heard of a RAW file and didn't know what to do with them. He only ever gets jpegs from his photographers. Again it's a matter of speed and convenience.

I'm not bound by time constraints so I shoot RAW, some people are and they shoot Jpeg.

I disagree with about 95% of the article, but he does make interesting points. As I said I'll only ever shoot RAW.

evilhomer

Did anyone else get an elitist vibe from that article?

Basically saying "If you were good enough you wouldn't need to fix up your photos!"

He's probably right, but doesn't need to rub it in our faces

Roen

Heheh, I didn't really I just got the impression that he shoots high volumes of work and hasn't time for PP work. Also the fact that with the histogram and actual picture being displayed on the lcd screen that you shouldn't be making boo boos. That is horse ****e though, everyone makes a mistake from time to time and the screen is so small it's not until you get home that you can see if you've gone wrong or not.

Valentia

OK point taken. It's 95% horsesh1te

Rockwell just says things for effect. He tries to be controversial. Fair play though, he gets the audience but so does the Sun.

Valentia

440Hz wrote:

Just went the adobe downloads and got the plugin, downloaded and attempted to install, but CS2 wont recognise the plugin. Ah well. Ill just have to keep using my old software then... photoshop would have been handy though

You did put it in Plug-ins/File Formats?

Roen

Valentia wrote:

OK point taken. It's 95% horsesh1te

Rockwell just says things for effect. He tries to be controversial. Fair play though, he gets the audience but so does the Sun.

I'd never actually heard of him until this evening, sounds like he's a well known 'rubber up the wrong wayer'

Valentia

An interesting thing that I discovered lately. When shooting digital, and this is where RAW is really useful, you should "shoot to the right". In other words the histogram should be biased to the right.

Here is a really interesting piece on why: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

Roen

I was always wary of blowing the highlights so I usually exposed either to the centre or the left, looks like it's yet another thing I'm wrong on
And relying on the image on the lcd screen is not going to help, what you're seeing is a low res jpg generated by the camera, not what you're RAW is going to look like. That's why sometimes I think I have the shot in the bag after checking the screen only to find my RAW is murky and flat when I get home.
Well you live and learn!

Valentia

Roen wrote:

I was always wary of blowing the highlights so I usually exposed either to the centre or the left,

Exactly the same mistake I was making. :rolleyes:

Oriel

My two cents.
The main "advantage" of shooting RAW is being able to adjust the white balance after the shot. But, hell, you can do that in photoshop anyway.
RAW is much slower to process, and more copies have to be made of the one image.
From experience, you're much better off just shooting in jpeg. Nothing lost, faster times.

evilhomer

Valentia wrote:

Rockwell just says things for effect. He tries to be controversial. Fair play though, he gets the audience but so does the Sun.

He's the Eamonn Dunphy of the photography world then, eh?

mathias

Rymus is correct , CS2 should support raw straight out of the box , the raw plugin is already integrated , if you tried to install it again over the CS2 installation it may well have screwed up the installation ,

Heres the Blurb on Adobes website , any camera I have that can do raw is in there ,

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html

DeVore

Er... ok. I didnt realise it was such a controversial industry topic lol!!

The main thing that puts me off RAW at the moment is that I can't use RAW with the presets on the my Canon 350D.

At the moment, every time I go near the manual settings I end up with something that looks like a bad trip or Ickabod's worst enemy.

So, I use Auto, No-Flash or Sports as needed and my camera (which is way smarter then me) does the rest. (Yes, I'm lazy!).
I do a lot of shooting on the move and I like the convenience of Jpegs.

From the sounds of it, right now I'm probably not pushing the bounds of needing to switch to RAW and should just concentrate on getting my subjects head in the picture but later that may change.

DeV.

mathias

Try it on the P setting , that should be one click away from the green square or auto setting , this still takes care of pretty much everything for you but wont auto pop the flash or anything.
This setting will let you take raw !

bp_me

RAW vs JPG.

Oh the fun of it all.....

I recently started experimenting with RAW. And while it is great for making sure the cameras auto white balance doesnt suck the life from a nice sunset, or similar scenes (I know you could set a custom wb....), for me at least it has disadvantages also. I don't mind the extra PP step when it comes out of the camera, as it will require less messing with curves, etc afterwards. The only thing that bugs me is the long save times.

So, I have come to the conclusion (for my camera at least)......

if I have plenty of time (landscapes, cityscapes, buildings, etc) I'll shoot in raw.

if I'm somewhere I expect there to be action requiring bursts, I'll shoot in JPG.

For those of you that don't know, I'm using a Fuji S9500. For most of you D-SLR users my criteria probably dont apply.

Valentia

Same as you bp. I do feel a sense of security about RAW. I am also conscious that am amazing pic can jump out from anywhere. Now if it does and I make a horlix of it at least with RAW I have some chance of saving it.

The main "advantage" of shooting RAW is being able to adjust the white balance after the shot. But, hell, you can do that in photoshop anyway.

Nope not true unfortunately. There is no guarentee that PS will fix white balance on a jpeg.

Have a look here: http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/raw/merit/technology_01_2.html

and here: http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/raw/merit/technology_01_4.html if you don't believe me.