Raw and Flickr

mehfesto2 · 15-01-2009 2:00pm #1

Okay, so I've started shooting in raw for the first time, there. I have access to editing tools in college, but not at home. Anyway, I took a couple of shots of the moon t'other night and I wanted to stick them up on flickr unedited. Only thing is, hey come out tiny - and blurred!
Like this:
(actual size) 3199306292_cc1631c4ae.jp

I dont have a pro account, so Im not sure if they're too big to go up properly, but I'm not sure if that's it. Am I missing something obvious?

EDIT: it's appearing as image not available at this time, so click http://www.flickr.com/photos/mehfesto/3199306292/

Anouilh · 15-01-2009 2:03pm

I shoot in RAW and upload to Flickr in JPEG.

The quickest way is to use the DPPreview software that comes with Canon to make the conversion, but there are many other freeware programs available.
I also use Irfanview a lot and resize to a more manageable dimension for uploading.

I don't have a pro account.

AnCatDubh · 15-01-2009 2:05pm

hmnnnnnn.... thought flickr didn't handle RAW at all. The approach is usually to go from RAW to JPG to flickr. I may be wrong as i haven't kept too much of a watch to flickr of late.

If you need tools at home to process RAW which are part of the free economy the UFRAW or Picassa will generally do it for you.

mehfesto2 · 15-01-2009 2:07pm

So if I edit the pics in college and convert them to jpg i'll be okay?
Will that not effect the quality of the picture? i.e. is there any point in shooting in raw if your uploading to flicker anyway?

Anouilh · 15-01-2009 2:14pm

mehfesto2 wrote: »

So if I edit the pics in college and convert them to jpg i'll be okay?
Will that not effect the quality of the picture? i.e. is there any point in shooting in raw if your uploading to flicker anyway?

I think it depends on why you are using Flickr in the first place.

I shoot in RAW and keep all the originals and variations thereon on an external hard drive at home. I use Flickr as a hobby and upload less information-rich versions of my photos, purely to share with other members there.

The professional Flickr members seem to use that system as storage for their work and, since paying gives access to large-size downloads and the ability to show more than 200 photos at a time, they spend a lot more time there than I do.

The RAW question is pertinent, however.
I don't know if Flickr professional membership allows for photos to be stored fully in that format.
I'll look into it next week, if I have time.

Anouilh · 15-01-2009 2:39pm

The answer is simpler than I thought.

The problem lies in the fact that RAW files cannot be viewed directly in a web browser.

This should help:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/fixmypic/discuss/72157607081510570/

smelltheglove · 15-01-2009 3:01pm

I am now shooting in raw although I do not keep the raw file in the end (unless a paying job). I open the file do the edits I want and save as jpeg and then delete the raw. The only benefits I see from shooting raw is the fact that there is no in camera editing, and white balance is adjusted more easily, even exposure can be adjusted more easily but I dont see any reason for keeping the file as a RAW.

Hope this helps.

CabanSail · 15-01-2009 3:14pm

Think of your RAW files as Negatives in film.

I always keep the RAW files stored. Memory is cheap. You may convert to a Jpeg now & use it but sometime down the track you could want to use that image in a different way & so need to go back & process it in a different way. You can do that with RAW. I would urge you to keep the RAW files, stick them on an external HDD, burn them to a DVD even.

elven · 15-01-2009 3:35pm

Hmmmm I dunno how many times I've gone back and processed differently, with changing tastes, and advancing software/experience in pp, it's worth having that original with all the data in there to be able to take advantage of it all. The jpgs on flickr are a last ditch attempt at rescuing a shot that i don't have any other copies of...

AnCatDubh · 15-01-2009 3:38pm

It kinda opens up the whole "do you do RAW or do you do JPG" debate (4 do's in one sentance - wow!) There's pages upon pages in the search archive if you want your mind to hurt.

To me - combined with the more flexibility (pointed out above) that you may have for recovery from an under/over exposed shot/white balance, etc.., the lossless nature of the RAW format is a major benefit over JPG. JPG will reduce in quality with each save/open you make. This is due to JPG being a compressed format. Lots of editing of an image will mean a poorer quality. Whether this will be noticed at the end of the day or not I don't know but as Cabansail notes - think of RAW as a digital negative. It will always enable you to get back to the way it was day one. Because it is a lossless original, if processing capabilities of software improves in time, you may be able to revisit the processing of an image with all the benefit of having a sensor copy of what came through your lens on the day you pressed the shutter release.

Of course all of the above only matters if it matters to you - you may be a user that never touches on any of the above. If you get it right out of your camera/lens and will never revisit it again, then there may be little benefit. It all depends.

silverside · 15-01-2009 3:40pm

Picasa handles RAW files well and will upload them (at least to Facebook, I havent tried uploading to Flickr but I'm sure it will do that too).

I have a 450D and use both Photoshop CS and Picasa, but I have not yet found a satisfactory way of converting RAW files so I can edit them. Canon DPPReview software gives good visual control but is very slow to batch convert; Irfanview converts but loses EXIF data; and my version of Photoshop is too old to handle the latest Canon RAW format.

I would love to hear what software other people (anouilh ?) use, particularly if it is freeware - I spent a couple of hours googling / downloading various programs before giving up.

rymus · 15-01-2009 3:41pm

the mere thought of uploading RAW's to flickr at any stage in the future is enough to make me break out into a cold sweat. Maybe in 30 years when we all have sdsl or fibre to the home. Takes me long enough to upload 1200px jpegs

Hugh_C · 15-01-2009 3:44pm

smelltheglove wrote: »

I am now shooting in raw although I do not keep the raw file in the end (unless a paying job). .... but I dont see any reason for keeping the file as a RAW.

running the risk of turning this into a RAW vs JPEG thread, you're throwing away a vast amount of information by deleting the RAW files. Jpegs are definitely the poor relation, they're lossy, compressed and useless for subsequent post production. As CabanSail says, storage is cheap, cheap enough to store all RAW files in perpetuity.

For the OP:

Flickr officially supports JPEGs, non-animated GIFs, and PNGs. You can also upload TIFFs and some other file types, but they will automatically be converted to and stored in JPEG format.

The FAQ can be found here.

silverside · 15-01-2009 3:49pm

just for the craic i used Picasa to upload a RAW file to flickr; it got converted to JPEG first - the resulting JPEG is smaller than the one which the camera took, so I'm not sure what conversion settings it used.

here it is:

AnCatDubh · 15-01-2009 3:50pm

mehfesto2 wrote: »

I dont have a pro account, so Im not sure if they're too big to go up properly, but I'm not sure if that's it. Am I missing something obvious?

There's another thing about flickr I found out recently which all non pro account holders should be aware of. Flickr keeps the original images that you upload very safe - so safe in fact that they won't give it back to you (the owner of the image) unless you have a pro account.

It happened me recently where I was looking for an old image which i knew was in flickr. I hadn't yet bought a pro account - didn't really feel compelled to do so.

I went to flickr where i knew that the image was and tried to download it and it would only give me a low resolution copy 1024 x 768, which frankly wouldn't have printed on a matchbox packet - so off I had to dig into my archive of CD's (it was a couple of years old) and hope to God that the Cd wasn't banjaxd - it happened to be ok.

But lesson learned about non pro flickr account. Now this story is somewhat related to your question i.e. I haven't gone completely off topic (only a little!). To bring it back - If you are putting damn high resolution into flickr (RAW if it does take it) but don't have a flickr pro account, then you may as well be peein again the wind if you think that they will give it back out to you.

rymus · 15-01-2009 3:52pm

what is a pro account these days? Like $20 a year? I cant understand why anyone that actually uses flickr wouldnt buy a pro account...

Anouilh · 15-01-2009 3:54pm

silverside wrote: »

Picasa handles RAW files well and will upload them (at least to Facebook, I havent tried uploading to Flickr but I'm sure it will do that too).

I have a 450D and use both Photoshop CS and Picasa, but I have not yet found a satisfactory way of converting RAW files so I can edit them. Canon DPPReview software gives good visual control but is very slow to batch convert; Irfanview converts but loses EXIF data; and my version of Photoshop is too old to handle the latest Canon RAW format.

I would love to hear what software other people (anouilh ?) use, particularly if it is freeware - I spent a couple of hours googling / downloading various programs before giving up.

I have a personal system of sorts.

Starting with the RAW file in DPPreview I usually make any changes to brightness, etc.,... and look separately at the RBG levels.

Invariably, I save all "recipes" that are particularly good.
These are .vrd files.

I don't particularly like the re-sizing system in the Canon software so I just save the photo in JPEG form and reopen that in Irfanview.

Irfanview have an amazingly fast re-batch from RAW to JPEG system, BTW, but you need the additional plug-ins, notable the CRW one found on this page.

http://www.irfanview.com/plugins.htm

When you have downloaded, it is necessary to install the plugin in the correct folder within the Irfanview system.

There are some really nice Photoshop type filters on offer with Irfanview. I have to admit I've been foostering with this program for years now and it is time-consuming at first. However, it does not take up all the space on your computer that Photoshop does, it is freeware and sometimes I've even had compliments on work it produces.

B&W conversions are very nice with Irfanview, once you use Harry's Filters.

If you need help, there's plenty available:

http://en.irfanview-forum.de/vb/showthread.php?t=1012

Anouilh · 15-01-2009 3:55pm

rymus wrote: »

what is a pro account these days? Like $20 a year? I cant understand why anyone that actually uses flickr wouldnt buy a pro account...

I don't need it and never fill up even a quarter of my allocated monthly space in the freeware account.

AnCatDubh · 15-01-2009 4:12pm

rymus wrote: »

what is a pro account these days? Like $20 a year? I cant understand why anyone that actually uses flickr wouldnt buy a pro account...

Eh..., I don't speak for everyone but in my particular case only because I don't like it so much. And don't really upload too much there. I'd happily give them 20 bucks if it was something I liked and used regularly. But there are lots of people in this category of non pro account holders for whatever their reasons.

Personally I prefer pix.ie - the day Marcus decides there is a 20 buck fee to get a pro account, I'll be at the top of the queue. I assume he'll offer a few extra features over the free version. My main point though, of what was disgust at the time it happened to me, is that they (flickr) held my image almost to virtual ransom as it were if you found yourself without an alternate source for an image that you had uploaded to them. Perhaps its covered in a Terms & Conditions apply that maybe I clicked "I agree"

Sorry OP, back on topic - RAW, flickr, processing software and why....

Anouilh · 15-01-2009 5:50pm

There are tricks for getting the best out of Flickr.

Different templates deal with the html in different ways.

I discovered how to have large sized photos on one of my blogs. An example here:

http://moderntwist2.blogspot.com/2009/01/urban-blackboard-jungle.html#links

silverside · 15-01-2009 6:37pm

i love flickr and am happy to pay the $20 p.a.

I tried using the non-pro version but quickly ran up against the upload limit when i tried to upload a batch of old holiday snaps. I think you cant use sets properly without paying for pro, and i think a photostream not divided into sets is almost pointless.

pete4130 · 15-01-2009 7:11pm

smelltheglove wrote: »

I am now shooting in raw although I do not keep the raw file in the end (unless a paying job). I open the file do the edits I want and save as jpeg and then delete the raw. The only benefits I see from shooting raw is the fact that there is no in camera editing, and white balance is adjusted more easily, even exposure can be adjusted more easily but I dont see any reason for keeping the file as a RAW.

Hope this helps.

I always shoot RAW, never jpeg unless they are snaps of something not important. Deleting the RAW, to me, is the equivelant of destroying a film neg after you've made a print. Yes you can scan the print and reproduce it....but you've lost the original with so much information. If you decided to go back in 5 years to re-edit for some project or theme or exhibition you might regret it. I back all my RAW's up every month to external HDD and to DVD. It's a good habit to get into keeping the RAW's I think.

Anyway...back on topic. I imagine the small blurry image from the RAW on Flickr is the thumbnail that you are able to see in Windows Explorer? It's just a guess though!

Anouilh · 16-01-2009 12:10pm

Rather than start another Flickr thread, it's worth mentioning here that anybody who has a Flickr account can also upload photos here:

http://picturethis.channel4.com/profile/77969956@N00#photo_comments

The photos are moderated and not all are selected.
I am waiting to see if some of mine might appear.

Anouilh · 16-01-2009 12:12pm

rymus wrote: »

the mere thought of uploading RAW's to flickr at any stage in the future is enough to make me break out into a cold sweat. Maybe in 30 years when we all have sdsl or fibre to the home. Takes me long enough to upload 1200px jpegs

You have probably explained here why some people find their photos are being "borrowed" by unscrupulous editors from time to time.

Uploading in RAW would not be a good idea.
It's the equivalent of handing over all your basic resources to outside agencies and making them available freely online.

jaqian · 16-01-2009 1:13pm

There are lots of free programs that handle RAW...
Picasa, PhotoScape, XnView, IrfanView, Rawtherapee, UFRAW (& Gimp). Try them all and choose the one that suits you.

I think the only reason you would need to upload a RAW file was for storage; for showing off your photos on the web use jpg. I think Pix.ie offers the best choice for a free account and afaik will accept RAW files. Personnally I use Flickr (Pro) and although I'm getting a bit peed off with it recently (lots of crashes or hiccups as they call them) I still woulnd't move fully over to Pix.ie as I'm still waiting for groups to be implemented. Although I'll probably use Pix.ie a little bit here and there.

As a new dslr owner I'm only starting to use raw. I shoot in raw&jpg mode as its the best of both. At the moment I only work on the jpg (crop & convert to b&w) and only go near the raw to correct the jpg.

Don't delete the raw file as it gives you more options to change the jpg. I often go back to photos I took 2-3yrs ago and redo them completely differently. Each year you learn sometime new whether its a technique or a way of looking at something, it changes how you percieve your own photos.

Finally external harddrives are very cheap now: Reads on Nassau St are selling a 500Gb for €79, if you can buy two. Use the second to back up your photos once a month and leave it at work or friends/parents for safety's sake.

Best of luck,
Rob

Anouilh · 16-01-2009 3:54pm

It's worth remembering that "RAW" files come in different formats and that, in particular, Canon software will not read Nikon RAW files and vice versa:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/06/03/just-in-nikon-capture-nx2/

jaqian · 16-01-2009 4:03pm

Anouilh wrote: »

It's worth remembering that "RAW" files come in different formats and that, in particular, Canon software will not read Nikon RAW files and vice versa:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/06/03/just-in-nikon-capture-nx2/

Unfortunately. Maybe one day we'll have a common format but I won't hold my breath.

Anouilh · 16-01-2009 4:08pm

I doubt that those two will ever join forces.

I once tried The Gimp, which reads both NEF and CR2 RAW files. I thought I was going to go mad...

http://www.photoquotes.com/ShowQuotes.aspx?id=11&name=Adams,Robert

I'm taking the weekend off from all of this.

elven · 16-01-2009 4:15pm

That's why some people convert to dng...

challengemaster · 16-01-2009 4:19pm

Anouilh wrote: »

I don't need it and never fill up even a quarter of my allocated monthly space in the freeware account.

Lol. If i've had a good day shooting, I could be uploading from 150-300mb at a time, which may only be 20-25 pics.. or maybe slightly more.

flickr pro.

CabanSail · 16-01-2009 4:25pm

You can convert over to DNG format, which Adobe is promoting. As the RAW formats vary from company to company there is a risk that some may become obsolete. There is also the issue of sharing RAW files & having software that will not support some formats.

Adobe have come up with DNG which is a Digital Negative for archival purposes. You can convert a file to DNG without any data loss.

Adobe DNG

Anouilh · 19-01-2009 9:16am

What system would the experts recommend for amateurs, to keep things simple? I rejected an offer of a gift of Photoshop recently. I don't intend to spend the rest of my life cloning.

silverside · 19-01-2009 10:29am

picasa ?

or lightroom + photoshop elements (possibly).

(I'm not an expert by any means !)

Anouilh · 19-01-2009 10:41am

Thank you. A good combination, with plenty of scope for creativity.

Anouilh · 19-01-2009 10:42am

challengemaster wrote: »

Lol. If i've had a good day shooting, I could be uploading from 150-300mb at a time, which may only be 20-25 pics.. or maybe slightly more. flickr pro.

Definite proof that your camera is much, much bigger than mine.

Compared with professional equipment, my Digital Rebel looks like a toy.

Calina · 19-01-2009 11:19am

Anouilh wrote: »

What system would the experts recommend for amateurs, to keep things simple? I rejected an offer of a gift of Photoshop recently. I don't intend to spend the rest of my life cloning.

Ownership of Photoshop does not imply that you'll spend the rest of your life cloning. I'd have taken it and I was the Photoshop Elements "expert" here for a while. I actually upgraded to Photoshop not for the cloning stuff which you can do in most editors now, but for the curves tool and some of the batch processing stuff. It's worth it for me.

I think you'll find that a lot of people here might recommend LightRoom to you. I also use ACDSee Pro for some stuff but since I got Photoshop most of the processing is done there. A lot depends on whether you feel you need the flexibility of layers which, the last time I tested it, LR didn't offer but I assume that's changed since. Someone who uses it will clarify.

Anouilh wrote: »

Definite proof that your camera is much, much bigger than mine.

Compared with professional equipment, my Digital Rebel looks like a toy.

It's entirely possible if he shot RAW that he might end up with a 5MP jpg following conversion depending on any number of other factors. That being said I shot with a 350D for a long while and I'd never see it as a toy. The person I sold it to says it's still working it's way around South America which the semi-pro 40D didn't manage for me.

Anouilh · 19-01-2009 11:25am

Thanks for all the clarification.

Also, many of my posts are a bit "tongue in cheek".
My dry wit takes the form of understatement, so I did not mean to insult my own camera.

However, women are now taking to photography with more enthusiasm because, in the past, you would have needed the strength of Balaam's ass to move around. I once minded Matt Kavanagh's equipment. One bag alone would have left me bent double and gasping for breath.

Anouilh · 19-03-2009 9:38am

CabanSail wrote: »

You can convert over to DNG format, which Adobe is promoting. As the RAW formats vary from company to company there is a risk that some may become obsolete. There is also the issue of sharing RAW files & having software that will not support some formats.

Adobe have come up with DNG which is a Digital Negative for archival purposes. You can convert a file to DNG without any data loss.

Adobe DNG

Thank you for this link and information.

I have noticed that when I convert some photos from RAW to JPEG in Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPPreview) they become more noisy.

There seems to be a lot to learn.

Raw and Flickr

Comments