| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/04/2004 10:45:43 AM · #1 |
| i'm wondering, can some woderful, kind person write a tutorial on RAW pics? i think it will really help some people like me who is so far behind that it feels i'm in front... ;-) |
|
|
|
12/04/2004 11:02:54 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by gibun:
i'm wondering, can some woderful, kind person write a tutorial on RAW pics? i think it will really help some people like me who is so far behind that it feels i'm in front... ;-) |
What kind of an article are you looking for? There are many great articles already available on the web addressing the many (somewhat fanatical) viewpoints both for and against its use. Try doing some searches on Luminous Landsape, Thom Hogan's site, and Vivid Light. Outback Photo's site also has many articles on it.
In a nutshell, RAW gives you total control of your imges by moving the post processing out of the camera firmware and into your editing workstation. The downfall is that your workflow will require more disk space, and an extra step to convert from RAW to the TIFF/JPG. Then there's organizing all the extra images... the biggest and most upfront benefit is the ability to tweak exposure WAY more effectively than you can with a JPG since no data is thrown away.
I think the summary is that if you're willing to put in time on the learning curve, and time on your workflow, RAW is an undisputed winner in image quality. But, if you have a strong mastery of your gear and take (very) well exposed images, JPEGs can be a more efficient workflow with similar quality. Note I say similar... For someone doing fine art work, or enlargements beyond 8x10, RAW tends to produce better images.
Go forth and google, and ye shall draw your own conclusions. You'll find people on both sides of the debate with compelling arguments, so in the end you'll have to decide for yourself.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2004 11:14:17 AM · #3 |
EDIT: too slow ;}
tutorial on what about RAW?
its just a lossless image format ( basically RAW data )
the image isn't really created until you open the RAW file in a RAW image editor ( file viewer for instance that came with the drebel )
using RAW - because it is just data - leaves you some exposure, and white balance flexibility when editing with out actually altering the quality of the image ( with out losing data ). so you have +/- 2 stops of exposure control, the option to the change the white balance, contrast, saturation, and also the option to manually set the color temperature.
RAW files are also 12bits of data -vs only 8bits for JPEG. so there is more data ( possibly detail ) in the final result.
be prepared to eat up CF card space about twice as fast, and even faster if you shoot RAW/JPEG at the same timer.
editing RAW is very CPU intensive, and a bit more time consuming.
Message edited by author 2004-12-04 11:14:45.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2004 11:20:08 AM · #4 |
The fluidity of working with a RAW file is infinitely preferrable and more flexible than with a shot defined at the moment of shooting. I've just started getting into editing from the 20D and I'm not going to shoot JPEG again unless I have to.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2004 11:20:30 AM · #5 |
A lot depends on which camera you are using as well as the seen you are shooting. For my camera, the F828, there is a fair bit of processing done in the camera. Not all of this processing is good and for some sences a lot of detail is lost, the camera things it is noise and removes it. So for me the raw images allow me to see all the data and control what get filtered out.
In many cases the jpg that the camera produces is almost as good as I can get from the raw, in other cases the camera really messes up on the image formation and I can only get a really good looking photo from the raw file.
The best thing to do is just play with it. Take the same photo both as a jpg and as raw and see what you can do with the raw file.
One last thing, not all raw converters as the same. The one that ships with the F828 is useless, I use Photoshop Elements 3. There are a number of converters on the market for differnt cameras you might want to see which have evaluation software to try. |
|
|
|
12/04/2004 12:18:08 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
12/04/2004 12:27:57 PM · #7 |
Adobe has some very good tutorials on RAW.
Here is just one video they have from the search list.
Do Adobe Search - Working with RAW |
|
|
|
12/04/2004 12:29:35 PM · #8 |
I have a question about Nikon's RAW format...
is it actually usable outside of the dumb Nikon program, or does it only work with that? Can you make the camera shoot in .RAW or something? |
|
|
|
12/04/2004 01:02:04 PM · #9 |
With the 300D I shoot in RAW most of the time. It gives me a greater exposure lattitde in dodgy light, and, most importantly, the ability to change white balance after the shot is taken. These are the best thing about RAW.
But, if I have a specific need to use JPEG (faster write times, or to get more images on a card, etc...) AND the lighting is not dodgy, then I don't have a problem using JPEG. I shoot a very "dumbed down" JPEG, though. I have a custom setting where all the adjustment parameters are set to the lowest setting so that the camera is doing as little post processing as possible. I think of it as shooting raw JPEGs.
There is no doubt that working with JPEG is LOTS faster than working with RAW... both during the capture and after. |
|
|
|
12/04/2004 01:50:22 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by xtabintun:
I have a question about Nikon's RAW format...
is it actually usable outside of the dumb Nikon program, or does it only work with that? Can you make the camera shoot in .RAW or something? |
Every manufacturer uses its own proprietary RAW format, usually giving it a unique extension so it's easy to tell what it is (e.g., .NEF for Nikon, .CRW for Canon, .RAF for Fujifilm, etc.). Adobe recently announced a "standard" format for RAW files (.PNG); only time will tell if it catches on. So if you have a Nikon that can save a RAW format image, it will probably be in the .NEF format. There are a number of third party programs that can convert that format to JPEG or TIFF, including Adobe Photoshop CS, Adobe Photoshop Elements 3, Capture One, and BreezeBrowser. |
|
|
|
12/04/2004 01:56:51 PM · #11 |
And Bibble 4
Only the Nikon PictureProject software is dumb, Nikon Capture has about everything you will ever need. Not the fastest, but very very good and easy to use.
Message edited by author 2004-12-04 13:58:33.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2004 02:04:07 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
....
Only the Nikon PictureProject software is dumb, Nikon Capture has about everything you will ever need. Not the fastest, but very very good and easy to use. |
I agree. I use Nikon Editor to process RAW. I believe it gives better results and is easier to handle than the Photoshop RAW plugin. I don't think Photoshop RAW plugin gives even accurate colours for Nikon RAW files to play with. |
|
|
|
12/04/2004 04:33:14 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
And Bibble 4
Only the Nikon PictureProject software is dumb, Nikon Capture has about everything you will ever need. Not the fastest, but very very good and easy to use. |
Yeah another agreement. The Nikon capture 4.1 is great. I have to admit it looks very simple, like a free kids photo editing piece of software but it has everything I need plus and does a great job with it.
I now only shoot NEF/RAW and bought a 1 gb card so I'm not concerned with storage in most circumstances.
Bob
|
|
|
|
12/05/2004 01:35:55 AM · #14 |
| Thanks to everybody for the info. I am the proverbial cat who heard the bell but.. I have ordered the Camera Raw book by Bruce Frazer and will invest time on it. Thanks drnick. Imagineer is using it, mmmmmmmm.... good reason to consider it. Wonder what my mentor says, must ask him;-). |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/15/2025 05:08:24 PM EST.
