| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/21/2005 07:48:01 PM · #26 |
Nope. The two things a RAW file will use (in Nikon World's) is the tone curve and exposure comp. How likely the camera is to 'mistake' a dark grey for Black, highlights vs whites. In fact, if you create a tone curve that looks like an S on it's side and upload it to a Nikon, all your pics will have WIKED screwed up colorations.
But to my knowledge, with a Nikon, that's the limit of the damage you can do using RAW and Yes, Robert's correct: Nikon RAW is muddy as heck unless the lighting is perfect and even then, you almost always need to up expose in some post processor to come close to the true lighting.
Message edited by author 2005-03-21 19:48:51. |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 07:59:14 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by bear_music:
RAW images look like mud, mostly, until you 'shop them up to specs.
On the negative side, they take up a lot of space and require a lot of work to make presentable.
Robt. |
They don't alway look like mud. I shoot standard parameters in Raw as a rule and many of the images that come from the camera don't need to be re-touched or ajusted at all. Tack sharp, clear and bright. Of course that may also depend a lot on the camera being used. |
Then you're shooting RAW with in-camera software adjustments. Without them, you get raw RAW, and it looks muddy until you post-process. Unless I'm wrong, wicih I've been known to be... But that's what happens with my Nikon.
Robt. |
No. On a Canon Standard parameters are without ajustments. On the 1D Mk II you have Standard and then Set 1 - 3 in which you can make in camera ajustments such as sharpness and contrast. In Standard, which is what I shoot in, there is no added ajustments.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 08:03:07 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by bear_music:
RAW images look like mud, mostly, until you 'shop them up to specs.
On the negative side, they take up a lot of space and require a lot of work to make presentable.
Robt. |
They don't alway look like mud. I shoot standard parameters in Raw as a rule and many of the images that come from the camera don't need to be re-touched or ajusted at all. Tack sharp, clear and bright. Of course that may also depend a lot on the camera being used. |
Then you're shooting RAW with in-camera software adjustments. Without them, you get raw RAW, and it looks muddy until you post-process. Unless I'm wrong, wicih I've been known to be... But that's what happens with my Nikon.
Robt. |
What I think you are describing is the fact that, in raw mode (or even more basic, at the sensor level) light is recorded in a linear fashion - it records the number of photons that strike each sensel. However the human eye interprets light exponentially. If twice as many photons fall on one spot as on the next, it will be seen as twice as bright. But it takes four times the photons to make it three times as bright to the eye, and eight times as many to make it four times as bright.
So a raw file starts out as a linear recording. To convert it into something usable, that linear data needs to be converted to exponential data, and (by my understanding) various tone curves are applied to produce the best result.
The older Canon software, the File Viewer Utility (catchy name, eh?), had the ability to create a "linear" TIFF conversion - this would produce a very dark, muddy image. Then you could choose the curves to apply, theoretically coming up with curves to apply in Photoshop custom taylored to your camera, or to specific situations. This would give you the ultimate in control - but would probably be extremely time consuming and cumbersome. (For a while I tried a set of actions from Photography On The Net designed to work with linear files from the D30.) I think that's where the differences in the different raw converters comes in - they each design their own curves to get what they consider the best results, even tayloring them down to the individual camera model.
Raw files converted in linear mode do have a very dark, muddy look. That's because all of the luminocity info is shoved to the left side of the histogram. Of course, with a 16-bit tiff file, there's lots of room down there for it. :) This wouldn't work at all with an 8-bit file - and if I recall correctly, the Canon FVU would only produce linear TIFFs in 16-bits.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 08:08:40 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by MrAkamai:
Originally posted by Arcanist:
The greatest advantage, and I'm not sure if it has really been expounded on here, is that Even in the Finest Mode JPG, there is compression and loss of the data (image reality) compared with RAW which is far closer to the TIFF (lossless, no compression) format image. |
Isn't a RAW file basically a direct dump from the image sensor to your flash memory without any processing by the camera whatsoever? |
Yup, but on some cameras you can overlay data on the RAW, especially white balance info.
Robt. |
Hopefully we're not getting into differences in implementation between Nikon and Canon, but...
RAW files have no processing done on them at all. They are stored, well, RAW - the readings straight from the sensor. However, also stored along side it (not "overlayed") is all the shooting information, stored in the EXIF data. So, if you decide that you got all the settings right in the camera (white balance, sharpness, contrast, etc.), you can choose be default to use the in-camera settings, or "as shot". However, no manipulation of the sensor readings is done in the camera. Its up to the converter program to make the adjustments, either using the settings from the camera, or settings you choose modify later.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 08:24:18 PM · #30 |
I think if the shot is really important you should shoot RAW, say a Bridal party or a challenge entry or a portfolio addition. Other than that I would shoot jpeg fine. Also you may want to shoot raw if you are not sure what exposure or wb to use.
Just my 2 cents.
Travis
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 08:50:07 PM · #31 |
After upgrading to Photoshop CS last Fall, I decided to shoot RAW "for a weekend" and see what developed (groan). I never went back to JPEG, had to quickly buy two bigger CF cards. The flexibility of RAW is a thing of beauty. The extended dynamic range alone is worth every bit of extra effort. With JPEG, if you blow the highlights a bit, they are blown, no recovering them. With RAW, push the histogram further right with confidence, if highlights are a bit "over the top", you can bring down exposure in conversion, to an extent.
One hidden benefit to RAW is that it's very difficult to overwrite data in an original RAW file, unlike with JPEGs which are easily saved over. With RAW, I KNOW whick file is my original. It's the one with the .CRW extension.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 09:05:33 PM · #32 |
Ok, from some of the posts on this subject it is clear that this is still a very basic misunderstand about linear recording of images, which is what raw does. I has been stated that a linear photo will look muddy because the eye is not linear, this is not the case at all, otherwise the world would look muddy which is after all linear. What makes a linear image look muddy is that the displays that we use are not linear, and a photo is normally encoded to compensate for this, this is in fact the gamma of the display. So a photo that is linear will not be linear when displayed, due to the display.
What we are after is a true representation of the light levels on the screen, that are proportional to the light levels that were present in the scene that was photographed.
The camera always captures that data raw, it then either converts this raw date to a jpeg file and discards the raw data or it can also save the raw data. When converting from raw to jpeg some of the information is lost, thrown out as it were. If you shoot your jpegs with great care this lost data may not mater that much but shooting raw gives you a lot more latitude for things like exposure when you shoot. My F828 saves a jpeg when it saves a raw so I can tell just what I am loosing in the jpeg file, sometime the two are as good as the same, other time the jpeg file is unusable and the raw file can make a great looking photo.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 09:08:39 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I almost never use it myself. Doesn't seem to be very important for most of what I do.
Robt. |
I thought you'd be a huge fan - you can get an extra effective couple of stops by using RAW and blending 'exposures'. Much in the way you can use the dual exposure technique, you can get away with doing this with two RAW conversions of the same original image. The additional bit depth in the RAW files lets you tweak the exposure further in each direction than with a JPEG and lets you do a dual exposure technique with just the one original RAW file. Its the ultimate application of the Zone System to digital files - total exposure control across the entire scene.
Message edited by author 2005-03-21 21:09:08. |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 10:35:50 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
No. On a Canon Standard parameters are without ajustments. On the 1D Mk II you have Standard and then Set 1 - 3 in which you can make in camera ajustments such as sharpness and contrast. In Standard, which is what I shoot in, there is no added ajustments. |
I'm not absolutely sure about this because it's just what I've read on the web. But my understanding of the Canon parameters is that the default setting, the middle of the scale, or Parameter 2 on the 20D, is mid-level in-camera software processing of the file in contrast, sharpness, saturation and color tone. In other words, the default is the mid-point between no modification and maximum modification, it's a 3 in a range of 1 to 5. If you want no modification, you need to move all the settings to their lowest point, that is to the left end of the scale in the menu. And I think this would render a very unfinished-looking RAW file. Presumeably the midpoint might render a good file if you had the exposure and WB set correctly (on the camera, not in a RAW converter).
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 10:43:37 PM · #35 |
At least for the Canon cameras, the level of processing for 'standard' varies as you go from cameras suited to 'beginners' to cameras aimed at 'professional' users.
Standard on a point and shoot camera, is much more processing than standard on a 20D or rebel, which is much more than standard on a professional body like any of the 1D range cameras.
See page 26 of this guide from Canon
For the Pro bodies, the emphasis is on maximum potential capture and best raw material - the output is designed to be additionally processed by default. For the consumer bodies, the emphasis is on good straight away. For the prosumer bodies like the 20D or rebel, the level is set somewhere between the two extremes.
So for a 1DII to approximate a compact digi-cam, the sharpness should be boosted to +5, contrast to +2 and you need to use the high saturation color matrix, for example. Standard is much softer, lower contrast and less saturation by default.
The advantage to shooting RAW is you can then go back and adjust any and all of these, without degredation to the final image. With JPEG, you can adjust them, but there is a cummulative reduction in image quality associated with additional modification.
Message edited by author 2005-03-21 22:47:13. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 12:14:32 AM · #36 |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 12:33:38 AM · #37 |
Or you can get it for $20 on eBay.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 12:39:05 AM · #38 |
I'll bow out of this one except as an observer. I'm not even close to an expert on RAW. The main thing that keeps me from using it is I am still on Windows Me, and PS 7.0, and in order to use RAW at all I have to open it in Irfanview and convert to TIFF in Irfanview. I'm sure there's better ways (some may even have been mentioned in this thread) but I haven't incorporated them yet. I have a fair basic understanding of what RAW is, and thought the "layman's view" would be helpful to the original poster, but this discussion is way past my level now.
I'll be watching...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 12:42:09 AM · #39 |
I used raw for a month, then got really tired of it really quickly. My experience with it was that it was inconvinient, i couldnt browse through thumbnails quickly, it killed my harddrive and my computer in general, and added at least 5 minutes of extra busy work to every shot. I wasnt making prints of any work during that time period so I cant really talk about the benefits of that, but otherwise for normal day to day shooting, and web purposes it is a tedious process (especially on slower computers with hardly any hard drive space left and running too many programs at once already) and a pain in the rear end to use raw.
Nick
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 12:52:48 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by nico_blue:
I used raw for a month, then got really tired of it really quickly. My experience with it was that it was inconvinient, i couldnt browse through thumbnails quickly, it killed my harddrive and my computer in general, and added at least 5 minutes of extra busy work to every shot. I wasnt making prints of any work during that time period so I cant really talk about the benefits of that, but otherwise for normal day to day shooting, and web purposes it is a tedious process (especially on slower computers with hardly any hard drive space left and running too many programs at once already) and a pain in the rear end to use raw.
Nick |
There are ways around some of that. With my 1Ds the raw files come up as thumbs. With the 1D Mk II they come up as those paper looking files. The Mk II uses CR2.s. I just shoot Raw + JPG small at the lowest setting and the JPGs work as thumbs.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 01:18:34 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Kekiinani:
Do you find this RAW program better/easier to use than the RAW feature in PS CS?? Just wondering.. |
I have been using Raw shooter for a while now. I find it much better than the PS CS converter.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 05:18:08 AM · #42 |
For those considering whether or not to shoot RAW, here are the pros and cons as I've found them:
Pros:
A much bigger safety net. If something is wrong with your image it's much more likely that you'll be able to fix it.
More processing options. More data in the RAW file means there are lots more options for post processing.
Better quality output at the end of the process (if you process your images right then this is very marginal, though)
Cons:
A much much much slower and more painful post-shooting workflow. Once you've pulled the RAW files from your CF card you'll need to convert them from RAW to your working format (TIFF/JPG) and that takes time - lots of it if you have lots of images. This isn't just for the computer processing time. You'll also be messing with the exposure and white balance settings in the RAW converter - often for each image.
Much bigger files on disk. If you shoot a lot of RAW then get used to backing up all your digital negatives to CD OFTEN. If you don't you'll eventually be running out of disk space all the time.
Conclusion:
Personally I shoot RAW when it really matters. If it's something that's just for fun or something repeatable I'll often drop back to JPG. This keeps my workflow much more rapid and FUN. RAW does give better results when you've worked out how to use it best but you'll need to be more self disciplined about post processing, and backing up your files.
John
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 07:26:46 AM · #43 |
I know I should read the 72 page instructions with the downloaded version of Raw Shooter Essentials; however, I thought I'd ask questions first (& then read?) -
1) How do I convert the photo to a jpg or tif after I've finished editing?
2) When it has been converted, can I then go to my regular image editing program to crop? |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 07:32:34 AM · #44 |
The conversion is the last stage of the process - you have a choice of formats, bit-depths, etc.
You can set RSE to automatically open your image in your chosen editor for cropping, rotation, perspective corrrection, whatever else you amy need to do to it, and of course final preparation for whichever mode of presentation you're aiming.
I can't imagine ever regarding RSE as a solution in itself, it just seems to me a very very good first step in the image making process.
E |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 07:34:32 AM · #45 |
Actually you probably won't do much editing on the RAW file. Most RAW converters simply let you change exposure/white balance and a number of other parameters that affect the whole image. So extracting out of RAW into TIFF or JPG is often the first step in processing your image.
John
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 07:37:13 AM · #46 |
| Okay, I'll have to look again where to save as (tiff or jpg). I went to PSP8 and tried to open it as a raw file, got all confused and couldn't do anything! I think I'm going to like raw, just have to figure out what I'm doing. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 07:40:40 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by totaldis:
ummm.. so... what are they?
i've always shot in the fine mode at largest resolution with my 5700. it seems as though everyone shoots in raw. what are the advantages to shooting in raw? dis-advantages... |
In all new advanced cameras are basically no quality different but can be in older version
Icerock |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 08:17:11 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by MrAkamai:
Originally posted by Arcanist:
The greatest advantage, and I'm not sure if it has really been expounded on here, is that Even in the Finest Mode JPG, there is compression and loss of the data (image reality) compared with RAW which is far closer to the TIFF (lossless, no compression) format image. |
Isn't a RAW file basically a direct dump from the image sensor to your flash memory without any processing by the camera whatsoever? |
Yup, but on some cameras you can overlay data on the RAW, especially white balance info.
Robt. |
Hopefully we're not getting into differences in implementation between Nikon and Canon, but...
RAW files have no processing done on them at all. They are stored, well, RAW - the readings straight from the sensor. However, also stored along side it (not "overlayed") is all the shooting information, stored in the EXIF data. So, if you decide that you got all the settings right in the camera (white balance, sharpness, contrast, etc.), you can choose be default to use the in-camera settings, or "as shot". However, no manipulation of the sensor readings is done in the camera. Its up to the converter program to make the adjustments, either using the settings from the camera, or settings you choose modify later. |
I wonder if this is a Nikon thing cause my olympus has never given me muddy RAW images, the only adjustments I tend to do is sharpness, wb and maybe crop. If I'm correct another advantage is that it is harder to accidently overwrite your raw file with changes you have made, don't most programs convert the raw to something else while you are playing with it? I have lost many JPGs because of not doing a save as or save copy first. |
|
