| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/13/2005 07:50:26 AM · #1 |
I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed recently but if it has, then I apologise.
I would be interested to know how any people shoot in RAW. I have a Minolta A1 and always shoot Superfine JPEGs. I've always been of the opinion that this would be suitable for my needs. However, having spoken with a few friends lately, there seems to be more of a move to shootiing RAW with PS CS. I have a copy of this which I've not yet loaded as I've been happy with PS7. Also, people have said that there is more that can be done with digital negs than I currently do but may like to try.
However, what do others of you think?
Message edited by author 2005-05-13 07:56:30.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 07:58:42 AM · #2 |
I don't see a benefit in shooting RAW. Personally, I think it clogs the workflow too much. I mean if I'm going to have 4 shots of my Jeep or something then yeah, I'll shoot RAW -- so I have control over exposure and blending the sky, etc. But if I'm out and shooting 150 shots, there's no way I'm shooting RAW -- too time consuming (in my opinion anyway).
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 07:58:42 AM · #3 |
first8000images_shot_jpg
last14000images_shot_raw
damn/space/_ar/isn't/working
aaagghhh/no/ |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 08:04:37 AM · #4 |
I shoot RAW 99% of the time (the other 1% is reserved for my son's baseball games). I have much more control over what is going on rather than allowing my camera to do it. Once you look at an image in raw and see how it is 'automatically' converted by the camera you might cuss a few times and give up jpeg. Just the exposure control alone is worth it. Images seem to be flatter and require more sharpening when shot with jpeg than with RAW.
Granted, it adds some steps to my work flow but I feel like it is the same thing as developing your own images in a dark room - do you really have confidence in the guys at K-mart processing your once in a lifetime shots?
my $.02
d
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 08:08:53 AM · #5 |
I shot RAW 100% of the time. The only time my camera sees jpeg mode
is when my wife uses it and switches it to full auto mode. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 08:13:16 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Images seem to be flatter and require more sharpening when shot with jpeg than with RAW. |
Images need more sharpening when shot with jpeg? There's something wrong with your camera then because your camera sharpens a jpg but doesn't sharpen a raw.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 08:42:45 AM · #7 |
My workflow is CF Card out of camera into card reader
copy RAW files onto hard disk
fire up rawshooter essentials
step through all the images in slideshow mode, rating 1,2,3,4,bin as I go
delete those marked dustbin
select all the rank 1 files and work through the ones I really want to 'work on' in PS
all the rank 2,3 and 4 files get a general set of conversion settings.
save all files off to archive.
Last weekend I did an airshow, took 600 shots, and had them all processed and archived within an hour of getting home.
Shooting RAW doesn't slow anything down as far as I'm concerned. The benefits far outway the disadvantages such as space.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 08:49:53 AM · #8 |
The time investment involved in working in RAW (even if you streamline the process) is the main downside to it in my opinion.
The upsides are many. For me the main ones are as follows:
Most of my photography is travel photography and it's on the move, brief opportunities. I don't always have time to adjust the camera settings as much as I'd like and I'm not confident about always getting exposure spot on. I do use exposure compensation a lot and also often point the camera at an area that is roughly 18% grey equivalent and then exposure lock but even then I'm not sure... and bracketing isn't always an option given how much space images take up.
Shooting in RAW does give me some extra latitude in recovering highlights and shadows if my exposure errors are fairly minimal.
I also appreciate being able to apply adjustments in 16 bit. Many of the adjustments one makes in post processing lead to a loss of data in some tonal ranges and the more data I have to play with whilst doing that the better. I can then convert down to 8 bit per channel once all done, if I need to deliver the image that way.
I was recommended Bruce Fraser's book on Camera Raw in Photoshop CS recently and it's an AMAZING book - one of the best purchases I've made for a long time. The strength is that it's NOT just about using Camera Raw as a tool to convert but that Fraser also takes the time to really explain what RAW is, how conversion works, what you're doing when you move all the sliders around and so on. Superb to get an understanding of RAW and why to shoot it or not.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 08:51:25 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Images seem to be flatter and require more sharpening when shot with jpeg than with RAW. |
Images need more sharpening when shot with jpeg? There's something wrong with your camera then because your camera sharpens a jpg but doesn't sharpen a raw. |
Maybe I mis-stated. When in RAW, I can play with exposure, shadow, and highlight to give depth to the image. This allows me to sharpen LESS in post processing than I seem to have to with jpeg shots. Since I have switched to RAW, I seem to have less problem with soft images. I shoot the same and sharpen less so I am assuming it is a virtue of RAW. I also use neat image rarely anymore - this is due to less sharpening needed.
Course, could be that I got better and it coincided with my switch to RAW. I'll never know... :)
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 08:54:06 AM · #10 |
| I have a Canon 350D. Can anyone tell me if Adobe CS has came out with the RAW update for this camera? They said the RAW 2.4 would work and it didn't and said they would have out the new RAW ?.? for the 350 in mid May. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 09:04:09 AM · #11 |
No SDW they didnt....adobe connected the raw filter for the 350D with cs2, not cs
Message edited by author 2005-05-13 09:05:59. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 09:11:52 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by di53:
No SDW they didnt....adobe connected the raw filter for the 350D with cs2, not cs |
That's bad, PS/CS and CS2 in not cheap. Even when upgrading. aggggggggg!!! I guess I will continue to shot in Fine Jpg. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 09:13:15 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
Originally posted by di53:
No SDW they didnt....adobe connected the raw filter for the 350D with cs2, not cs |
That's bad, PS/CS and CS2 in not cheap. Even when upgrading. aggggggggg!!! I guess I will continue to shot in Fine Jpg. |
... or use RAW Shooter Essentials (which is free). (I know, another piece of software)
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 09:17:49 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by SDW65:
Originally posted by di53:
No SDW they didnt....adobe connected the raw filter for the 350D with cs2, not cs |
That's bad, PS/CS and CS2 in not cheap. Even when upgrading. aggggggggg!!! I guess I will continue to shot in Fine Jpg. |
... or use RAW Shooter Essentials (which is free). (I know, another piece of software) |
I was going to Download that and lost the link [RAW Shooter Essentials]. I tried one time to download and it would not take me to a free version. Maybe I was doing something wrong, I don't know. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 09:19:11 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by SDW65:
Originally posted by di53:
No SDW they didnt....adobe connected the raw filter for the 350D with cs2, not cs |
That's bad, PS/CS and CS2 in not cheap. Even when upgrading. aggggggggg!!! I guess I will continue to shot in Fine Jpg. |
... or use RAW Shooter Essentials (which is free). (I know, another piece of software) |
I was going to Download that and lost the link [RAW Shooter Essentials]. I tried one time to download and it would not take me to a free version. Maybe I was doing something wrong, I don't know. |
It says that it's a trial but that's currently a lie and everything is functional. There's no end date so essentially it's free.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 09:21:27 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
Originally posted by di53:
No SDW they didnt....adobe connected the raw filter for the 350D with cs2, not cs |
That's bad, PS/CS and CS2 in not cheap. Even when upgrading. aggggggggg!!! I guess I will continue to shot in Fine Jpg. |
Having recently upgraded to CS (mid March) I was disappointed to find that latest version of Camera Raw already doesn't work with CS. It's for CS 2 only.
I don't have a requirement for CR 3.1 myself (2.4 is fine for the 20D) but clients I am training use a variety of camera models AND chances are I'll need to upgrade their CR versions for them.
I'm currently in discussion with Adobe Customer Service on the issue and they've promised me a response in a week's time.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 09:27:02 AM · #17 |
Anyone who doesn't shoot raw because the workflow is harder or more awkward needs to try Bibble. It makes it as easy as using JPEG. And remember, the main advantage of RAW is that you have a 48 bit color image, rather than a 24 bit color image to start with!
For example, I can shoot 100 shots of some flowers in my backyard. If I want a JPEG like ease of use situation, I can set a custom white balance on all the images at once by selecting them all and clicking on a white area in one of the images. I can set a sharpening parameter and noise reduction for all the images the same way (or leave the default). Then I can generate a whole set of JPEGs just by clicking a "batch" button which will batch convert them in a subfolder to my own parameters. I have batch buttons for "DPC" (reduces to 640x640 max), index (creates a small index set, fullsize jpeg (converts but doesn't reduce), etc.
So in about 5 clicks, I can have a workflow almost as easy as shooting JPEG, but better because I can set custom white balance, my own noise reduction choices, and curves on 48 bit data. But in fact, you never quite do it this way, because it's so easy to walk through the images in preview (browse) mode, and while you're evaluating them for merit, you can quickly tweak each one individually. You can crop, adjust noise levels, sharpening, recover highlights, etc. You can adjust curves, or RGB values. All of this is saved in a small sidecar file automatically while you browse through the images. You don't have to save anything manually. The RAW file is untouched still.
If I like the results I did to one image, I can copy the settings to the clipboard and apply them to as many images as I want. Easy as can be.
Now that you've looked at all the RAW files and tweaked them a bit (as stored in the sidecar settings files), you can drop subsets of the images on the batch targets (or use the quick buttons) and convert them to whatever format you want. If I wanted to switch at this point to TIF or JPEG, a batch button will do that in a subfolder and then I could optionally archive off all the RAWs.
Thats a huge advantage over JPG capture with a tiny amount of work.
Note that since you can create your own "batch" processes to drop the files on (or use the button), you can create multiple "targets" for output, like DPC, proofs, printing, etc. Note that batch processing is in the background while you continue to work in Bibble.
If I want to keep the RAW on my disk as my primary file (which I do), I can go back to any image, select "transfer to external viewer", and Bibble generates a TIF in a temp directory and loads it into my "preferred" editor, PS CS.
In short, Bibble's workflow for RAW is the best I've tried, including PS CS, CS2 (improved but still not as good), Elements, Capture-1 (which is similar but still not as good IMHO), Breezebrowser, and Thumbsplus. I use Bibble to make the RAW workflow as easy as JPEG workflow with the advantages of RAW. No other program I've tried has accomplished that for me! (I'm just a pretty happy customer.)
Bibble already supports the 350D, and has a 30 day trial. You can download Bibble at www.bibblelabs.com. Most of you only need the "bibble light" version (that's what I use).
The main thing Bibble lacks to me is a way to evaluate and assign priority/quality numbers to files like RAWShooter essentials can do. I can delete files, but I can't mark them as bad mediocre and best without creating subfolders and sorting them. (That's what I do now as a workaround in fact: I create three subfolders and sort them as I'm going through them.)
Edited: Updated to make it shorter and flow better.
Message edited by author 2005-05-13 09:55:28. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 11:00:56 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
And remember, the main advantage of RAW is that you have a 48 bit color image, rather than a 24 bit color image to start with! |
Did you mean 36-bits of data (at most) encapsulated in a 48-bit image format? |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 11:05:20 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
I have a Canon 350D. Can anyone tell me if Adobe CS has came out with the RAW update for this camera? They said the RAW 2.4 would work and it didn't and said they would have out the new RAW ?.? for the 350 in mid May. |
The answer is to download Adobe's DNG converter (actively maintained and kept up to date with raw formats) and spit out a .dng from your .cr2 input. The DNG can be used with ACR 2.4. This is a minor inconvenience compared to the sacrifice of having to use converters that don't produce the same quality output as ACR. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 11:09:37 AM · #20 |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 11:10:11 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
It says that it's a trial but that's currently a lie and everything is functional. There's no end date so essentially it's free. |
If I might put on my software developer hat briefly; just because it doesn't actively cut you off doesn't mean that the developer wants you to take his software for free and not give him any money.
We have to eat too know you - the general "well if it doesn't stop me from doing this then it must be alright" is exactly the reason that so many bits of 'trial' software are so crippled; to force you to actually stump up for the product if you choose to use it.
Ok, rant over :-)
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 11:12:40 AM · #22 |
I used to shoot JPEG, now I shoot only in RAW. The reason I switched to RAW was because Rawshooter Essentials (RSE) allows for a decent workflow. Once I tried RSE and saw how I can change the tone of the colors and lights I was hooked. There is a big difference for me when I shoot in RAW, make adjustments I want then convert to JPEG than just using JPEG.
The workflow is longer by far, I just got 1024 MB of RAM on my PC to handle it now, but I really like the image quality that I get over a JPEG version.
If you are wondering if you shoot in RAW, get a decent RAW program, I recommend RSE, and try it out for a few shots. See if the difference in the image quality (if any) is worth the extra time for you. There is no right or wrong way, just what is best suited for your needs.
Message edited by author 2005-05-13 11:17:09.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 11:13:15 AM · #23 |
For sports shooting I use JPEG exclusively. RAW is too slow writing to CF on my camera. They're also larger to store and harder to work with when editing.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2005 11:13:44 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
And remember, the main advantage of RAW is that you have a 48 bit color image, rather than a 24 bit color image to start with! |
Did you mean 36-bits of data (at most) encapsulated in a 48-bit image format? |
yes, that's more accurate. It was a side bar added during my edit and I wasn't being careful... |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 11:14:59 AM · #25 |
Dale, the more I'm learning and using Camera Raw the more I'm appreciating it. Especially as I learn more about how I can use File Browser and Photoshop batching (which I'd used before so not too hard a learning curve) I can really see how much time can be saved with a good workflow.
It does require a time investment in really learning the tools but it's worth it.
Can I ask you, do you choose to work in the PhotoPro RGB colour space because it offers the largest gamut/ least clipping or do you usually work directly into the colour space you will be using for printing/ your client requires?
|
|
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: 08/17/2025 05:54:26 PM EDT.
