| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/21/2007 02:09:08 AM · #1 |
| OK, so my camera takes raw images. I was not 100 percent sure as to why or why not to use it. I looked through a few threads and noticed most people recommended that any shot worth taking they take in raw. Is there a guide on taking advantage of raw shots? Proper editing? |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 02:13:38 AM · #2 |
This article explains the differences nicely.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 02:18:37 AM · #3 |
RAW is like a digital negative. Its the image data from the sensor stored in a compressed file. You can alter the white balance in a much higher "quality" due to it hasn't been applied to the image like a JPEG.
Also the image is losslessly compressed. JPEG destroys color in favor of file size. It gets away with this for many consumers because the luminescence is very much the same but if ur a quality freak u know loss is loss.
RAW also doesn't have any in camera sharpening or noise reduction applied. SO you can use a much more powerful computer to get rid of the noise using better algorithms the camera cant use. And u can adjust the sharpening.
When a jpeg pops out its compressed with color loss, the white balance is set although not permanent it ain't great. Its been pre sharpened. Its just plain over the counter crapola thats really flippin convenient
Message edited by author 2007-02-21 02:20:34. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 02:32:12 AM · #4 |
I own, and highly recommend the book, Photoshop CS2 Raw by Mikkel Aaland.
Not only does he explain the ins-and-outs of RAW conversion and editing, he explains when and why to use RAW.
(Here's a photo of me with the book!) :-D
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 03:25:34 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
This article explains the differences nicely. |
From what I read in the article, it says there's no real difference. Or am I reading it wrong? |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 03:42:03 AM · #6 |
There is a difference ... but not huge ... if you have the storage space for RAW files ... why not go for the tiny bit of extra sharpness?
Besides that ... you have some nice options open to you such as boosting the exposure without so much noise as you get when doing it with a .jpg and minor other advantages ...
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 03:46:17 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Greetmir:
There is a difference ... but not huge ... if you have the storage space for RAW files ... why not go for the tiny bit of extra sharpness?
Besides that ... you have some nice options open to you such as boosting the exposure without so much noise as you get when doing it with a .jpg and minor other advantages ... |
Well il say this take a picture of a solid blue colored object with the white baalnce to auto and make sure u get all of its yellowness savored in.
Ive tried this with a Blue CD
JPEG - Auto Levels - The CD turns out bright bright unbearable blue.
RAW - Image saved!
See To subtract yellow from an image (or just give better color temperature) is to add Blue..... some images (maybe rare for you) that is a bad thing and can ruin the image entirley.
Ha di shot that in RAW i wouldnt have had that problem. Im lazy but ill find and post the example sometime. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 03:51:41 AM · #8 |
Oh please don't take my opinion as expert ... I was just trying to clear up what they were saying in the article.
I really have NO experience with RAW ... just wanna make that clear.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 03:53:56 AM · #9 |
Well i mean i just happend to have stumbled upon a particular situation that goes negativley in auto levels on a jpeg.
A foveon sensor shoots in exceletn white balance. In fact its WHite Balance indoors is nearly perfect. Somethign CCD/CMOS cameras between 100 and 25,000 dollars seem to have an issue with..... Sigma with Foveon = 1600 bucks. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 01:24:00 PM · #10 |
Though what you are mostly describing is that auto white balance is never the best option. RAW gives you away to fix it later, picking the right white balance in the first place lets you do it right in camera. That isn't really an argument against using JPEG, just a reason not to use AWB.
Auto anything is usually the worst choice on a camera if you care about controlling the results. White balance is no exception.
Foveon might well do a better job at white balance, but it does a worse job at a whole lot of other aspects. Depends what you want to do I suppose.
Message edited by author 2007-02-21 13:24:31. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 02:17:58 PM · #11 |
| With .jpg Files you can bracket shots on the camera. Some of that and much more can be done in software afterwards. As always the closer you get your shots off the camera, the less you need to do later. Some photos that are way off can be altered and made useful by editing the raw image file. Sizewise, .jpg is plenty for web use, for printing large prints, raw files generlly do better. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 02:27:15 PM · #12 |
In my experience, RAW is simply easier to work with in post-processing. You can more easily adjust the exposure if you shot it too dark, or fix the white balance if you forgot to set it beforehand. The conversions to black and white or sepia are much nicer. I've run into a situation several times in which a b/w conversion in PS makes a person look leperous, while a b/w conversion in Nikon Editor while still in RAW format is nearly flawless. There are little tweaks like this which you can do before converting it to TIFF or JPG for PhotoShop that make RAW a much more malleable format than JPG.
Message edited by author 2007-02-21 14:29:24.
|
|
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: 09/06/2025 06:50:39 PM EDT.
