| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/04/2005 12:58:07 PM · #1 |
I keep reading a lot of stuff on the benefits of shooting in the RAW mode. I don't really understand what the difference would be. I know JPEG is condensed, and TIFF is bigger, but what is RAW anyway and what is the benefit of it? Also anyone have a link on "understanding and using the histogram?" Thanks
Jen |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 01:26:41 PM · #2 |
Understanding Histograms
Also, search the forums, you'll find many links in older threads.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2005 01:28:24 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 01:29:00 PM · #4 |
I have not actually shot in raw mode yet, but I am getting my Nikon Capture program ready to give it a try - so I'm interested in what other have to say as well.
What I do know it that in RAW mode, the file you end up with is the raw data from the sensor - no (or very little?) processing has been done to it. I believe that adjustments such as white balance are generally applied after data has been gathered - so by shooting in raw mode you can select a different white balance if the camera was not set right or automatically chooses incorrectly.
Other digital manipulations are performed by the camera to convert the raw data to a .jpg format. There are situations and subjects where you may want to do such things differently than the camera would. I think this is somewhat analogous to overriding your exposure meter - when you know the camera will mess it up, you have to help it out.
For historgrams, here is a place to start: Understanding Histograms |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 01:30:22 PM · #5 |
In essence it is better so shoot in RAW when doing 'the good stuff'
Jpeg compresses, and also gets worse every time you open edit and close. RAW doesn't.
Also you can adjust the white balance and the tone easier without degrading image quality.
Do a search on google 'benefits of RAW' should bring up much better info.
Then get a decent RAW program.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2005 01:42:50 PM · #6 |
I don't have PS CS so what other RAW converters are out there that don't cost an arm and a leg? :) Are there differences in the quality of the image they produce?
Thanks.
Originally posted by jonpink:
Then get a decent RAW program. |
|
|
|
|
01/04/2005 01:55:39 PM · #7 |
| What does it mean when the histogram shows that the photo is in a good range between the left and right sides of the display but it shots up through the top of the display? Is that still a good photo? |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 01:58:07 PM · #8 |
I use Photoshop elements 3, which does a very good just on raw photos, in fact it is the only one that works well on the raw files from the Sony F828.
Raw is a lot easier to shoot since you get everything, in jpeg the camera is making decision for you, not always good ones. My wife was shooting photos last night, she likes to shoot just jpegs, I told her to shoot at least one raw photos, After seeing the difference I think she will be shooting a lot more raw photos. In the jpeg photo the sky was blown out, in the raw photo it was not. I have seen this time and again on raw vs jpegs from the F828, the sky tends to get blown out in the jpg. You also want to do any shapening before converting to jpg, otherwise you will make the jpg artifacts should up more. There are a lot of other reasons to use raw as well. |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 02:07:02 PM · #9 |
Thanks for all of the information! That helped me A LOT! I will try RAW tonight. I have PS CS, but I got it as an upgrade from my Photoshop 7. However, you can buy the upgrade even if your version is older than that. It cost $169 from Adobe. Just FYI.
Jen |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 02:15:43 PM · #10 |
I looked up an old thread that I started about raw and the F828, you can go here to see the differance raw makes, at least for my camera.
Raw on F828
Message edited by author 2005-01-04 14:16:08. |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 02:24:31 PM · #11 |
WOW! Raw made a HUGE difference in those pics. Now I can't wait to try it!
Jen |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 02:28:44 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by photomayhem:
What does it mean when the histogram shows that the photo is in a good range between the left and right sides of the display but it shots up through the top of the display? Is that still a good photo? |
It means the image contains a large number of pixels of that value. If the spike is narrow and very high then you have a large area of a single color or tone.
Jerome |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 02:29:53 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Juniper366:
WOW! Raw made a HUGE difference in those pics. Now I can't wait to try it!
Jen |
It seems to make the biggest difference when there is a large dynamic range in the photo. The Sony is so slow at taking raw photos that I only take a few of them. My wife’s 20D can take them as fast as you click the shutter, great camera that. If it is a shot I really want, or it is a shot that I think the camera will have problems with I will shoot it in raw. If I could I would shoot everything in raw. |
|
|
|
01/29/2005 12:56:02 AM · #14 |
| From what I have read, a RAW image is like a negative. With a negative, you can make prints in many different ways. With a RAW image you can do the same. You can change color temp and other things about the image and you can always go back to the RAW image. Just like a negative. //www.photoworkshop.com/canon/markII/mainpage.html# View the tutorials here on RAW v jpg |
|
|
|
01/29/2005 01:22:49 AM · #15 |
I asked the same questio previously and got the same recommendation from doctornick. I bought the book and will personally say it is the best book on the topic I have read. Highly recommended, great book.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 01:52:44 AM · #16 |
I tried shooting Raw with my 5060 - but the images ar eso noisy it isnt worth it. :(
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 02:07:09 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by gibun:
I asked the same questio previously and got the same recommendation from doctornick. I bought the book and will personally say it is the best book on the topic I have read. Highly recommended, great book. |
I second the motion. Very good book if you are shooting RAW. Steps you through alot of things and assists in batches and actions to speed things up.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 02:59:12 AM · #18 |
For the Canon Rebel, it has a 6.3 megapixel (effective) CMOS image sensor.
It has 3072 x 2048 pixel 24-bit JPEG and 36-bit RAW file formats.
So if you only use the jpeg image, you effectively are using only two thirds of the information recorded by the camera.
For each pixel, there are 8 bits recorded for red, green, and blue respectively in JPEG format and 12 bits in Raw or sixteen times as much information for each pixel in Raw as you receive in JPEG format.
Say that you take a picture that is overexposed, so that all the data for the histogram is in the upper sixteenth part of the histogram. When you convert from 12 bit raw to 8 bit JPEG, you can actually obtain a histogram for the converted info that is spread fairly evenly across the full histogram. To do this you can apply curves or brightness and contrast controls to the raw in any software that allows those operations on raw 12 bit data. The canon Rebel comes with software allowing such choices to be made by adjusting the exposure setting during processing. It does not provide curves, however. Photoshop CS does and so does Phase One Capture One LE, which is much less expensive.
The latest version of JASC photoshop paint says that it also processes raw images, but how many of the processes are 12 bit and how many are 8 bits are not clear. While Photo Shop elements will accept a 16 bit Tiff file, it really only uses the top 8 bits of the image in its processing. You cannot really get the full use of the 12 bits.
I recommend you take all pictures in raw and learn to use curves to take full advantage of all the information your camera has captured. You will find that you can get more definition in both shadows and highlights without losing mid range values.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 03:12:40 AM · #19 |
When you transform a histogram that has data in only one sixteenth of its range to one that has data spread throughout its full range, you end up with sixteen times as many individual colors forming your picture. You will have sixteen times as many individual colors in a sky.
A good way to see what kind of difference this makes is to switch your monitor from 32 bit color quality to 16 bit and look at a number of pictures. You will see banding in the sky, one colored snow and all kinds of similar effects from the lower number of colors representing the scene.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 03:29:47 AM · #20 |
I just realized the situtation with raw is much better than I had previously thought or described. For each pixel there are 12 bits more of information: 4 bits more of each of red, green, and blue or 16 times 16 times 16 more individual possible colors for each pixel in raw as there are in jpeg format. That is 4096 different possible colors available in each pixel in raw aa are available in jpeg.
No wonder it is so easy to create much finer pictures using raw mode, even if the final result is a jpeg, Maybe someday soon, we will have video cards, monitors, and printers which will allow us to display our pictures in raw mode directly. That shall be fantastic.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 03:37:46 AM · #21 |
This is the best question... it defanetly goes with the white balance hand in hand..I say I am going to have to get me a copy of that book. Cause Its all so much to sink in and I was able to sit through a 2 hour discussion about all this.. Too much to digest at once:)
This is helping though the more I read about it all:)
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 04:08:34 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
I use Photoshop elements 3, which does a very good just on raw photos, in fact it is the only one that works well on the raw files from the Sony F828.
Raw is a lot easier to shoot since you get everything, in jpeg the camera is making decision for you, not always good ones. My wife was shooting photos last night, she likes to shoot just jpegs, I told her to shoot at least one raw photos, After seeing the difference I think she will be shooting a lot more raw photos. In the jpeg photo the sky was blown out, in the raw photo it was not. I have seen this time and again on raw vs jpegs from the F828, the sky tends to get blown out in the jpg. You also want to do any shapening before converting to jpg, otherwise you will make the jpg artifacts should up more. There are a lot of other reasons to use raw as well. |
Exactly why I am converting:) took me long enough to get it...
Digital cameras only read in black and white as does film..
When you get a image to print you think that cause the ink says red blue green thats what you get but you dont get a true rgb, its really cyan magenta and yellow, Using a white sheet , gray , and the darkest black will help.. RGB, CMYK, Lab & LCH Frederick Parks teachings I wish I about had recorded everything he said in 2 hours but I think if you study everything on this thread you might understand a little more:) I think its coming back to me ...
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 05:21:37 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by gibun:
I asked the same questio previously and got the same recommendation from doctornick. I bought the book and will personally say it is the best book on the topic I have read. Highly recommended, great book. |
I second the motion. Very good book if you are shooting RAW. Steps you through alot of things and assists in batches and actions to speed things up. |
Please tell me the name and/or ISBN for this book? The link opens Chapters.Indigo.Ca, where the text says the book can't be found.
It sounds like a really good book.
Message edited by author 2005-01-29 05:22:48. |
|
|
|
01/29/2005 05:29:44 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by puzzled:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by gibun:
I asked the same questio previously and got the same recommendation from doctornick. I bought the book and will personally say it is the best book on the topic I have read. Highly recommended, great book. |
AS REQUESTED:
ISBN 0-321-27878-x
Peachpit Press
1249 Eighth Street
Berkley, CA 94710
510/524-2178
Fax 510/524-2221
www.peachpit.com
I hope it helps, a real 'must have' book.
I second the motion. Very good book if you are shooting RAW. Steps you through alot of things and assists in batches and actions to speed things up. |
Please tell me the name and/or ISBN for this book? The link opens Chapters.Indigo.Ca, where the text says the book can't be found.
It sounds like a really good book. |
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 06:20:26 AM · #25 |
I've tried shooting in RAW a couple of times with my D100 - and while there is no denying the flexibility and better image quality, it is just so slow as to be unusable when you take a couple of pics.
Don't know if they've improved it in the D70, or whether my CF card is just a very slow model. (Jessops own).
Jamie |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 07:31:09 PM EDT.
