RAW?

Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 10 Location: Texas

Ok so i recently got my D50 that ive been wanting for a while. Ive been shooting in just plain normal JPEG mode, but a friend told me to always shoot in raw. What is RAW, what do i need to use it, and is there any good tutorials to learn it? I have Photoshop 7.0 and picture project. thanks for all your help.

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:19 am

check this Understanding RAW

and this Raw vs. Jpeg

I think that link will explain more than I could
so Happy Reading =)

Joined: 30 Oct 2006 Posts: 39 Location: santa maria, CA

RAW always seems to take FOREVER to transfer onto the computer. And to load onto photoshop...

Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 268

Well duh, the file sizes for RAW are much larger because it is uncompressed sensor data.

Premium Member Joined: 02 Apr 2005 Posts: 2020

From the FAQ which is here:
http://www.phototakers.com/forum/ftopic39066.html

What is "RAW" and is it better than JPG
http://www.phototakers.com/forum/ftopic50326.html
http://www.phototakers.com/forum/ftopic41680.html
http://www.phototakers.com/forum/ftopic47616.html
http://www.phototakers.com/forum/ftopic44771.html
http://www.phototakers.com/forum/ftopic41376.html
http://www.phototakers.com/forum/ftopic40270.html
http://www.phototakers.com/forum/ftopic43997.html

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:02 am

oldschoolvdub wrote:

RAW always seems to take FOREVER to transfer onto the computer. And to load onto photoshop...

That depends a lot on the speed of your computer. Also it depends if you are transferring with a card reader or your camera directly because a card reader goes a lot faster.

-cEc-

Joined: 30 Oct 2006 Posts: 39 Location: santa maria, CA

i uploaded some RAW images with a card reader today instead of my camera. And it was loads faster. And the images turned out really impressive compared to jpeg. I'm not sold on RAW.

Premium Member Joined: 02 Apr 2005 Posts: 2020

oldschoolvdub wrote:

i uploaded some RAW images with a card reader today instead of my camera. And it was loads faster. And the images turned out really impressive compared to jpeg. I'm not sold on RAW.

The card reader is always the way to go as far as DL'ing images. Best $20 ($30?) or so I've spent in a long time.

As to RAW v JPEG, shoot them both. Learn their advantages and disadvantages and when to use those to YOUR advantage.

Joined: 10 Feb 2006 Posts: 774

I don't really want to get into an argument (LOL)...but RAW is the only way to go.....once you understand all you can get out of it, and all the control you REALLY have over a picture....then it becomes the only way to shoot........but that's just my opinion.....

:) :)

Joined: 15 Aug 2005 Posts: 35 Location: San Diego

littleMick2 wrote:

I don't really want to get into an argument (LOL)...but RAW is the only way to go.....once you understand all you can get out of it, and all the control you REALLY have over a picture....then it becomes the only way to shoot........but that's just my opinion.....

:) :)

I used to feel that way... And someone on another forum told me wait until I have a wedding to shoot, or another job that requires a lot of shots.. Fast Forward to march... I got a job whre I ended up shooting over 1100 shots. I decided Jpeg might be the way to go since the stills were being used for a filler on a documentary DVD, and detail and control over the pictures weren't all that important to me. So Jpeg was the logical choice. I just couldn't imagine shooting raw and having to convert 1100 in picture project, would've taken days...(lol) So for the most part, if I'm out on an ordinary day shooting. RAW is the way to go IMO, like they say once you go raw, you never go back.. ;)

Joined: 11 Jun 2007 Posts: 2

i use nikon capture nx and photoshop cs3 and transfer RAW from camera with usb cable, dont take long at all on my nikon d40x

Joined: 09 Oct 2006 Posts: 52

There are much interesting links above, just read it and you will relised the difference between RAW and Jpeg.

Joined: 15 Dec 2005 Posts: 48 Location: Edinburgh

Even if you shoot thousands of images in a session you can still use RAW.
Ever heard of Batch processing, not exactly hard, tyhen you get the quality. What i do is set my computer doing batch while i have a shower or cook, 100shots only takes 5mins on my computer anyways.
I also have noise reduction, reduce for web and a few other batch processes that i can do in a matter of mins.
I can roll off a good 200 shots in the studio and it really takes no time to convert them. The time consuming part is any PS work but then again you would have that with jpegs.

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:40 pm

Although this is a very old post, I get the question a great deal. As a result, I posted this on another site. I copied it here. It's a copy from another location so it may seem like it's out of context but it will make the differences clear.

Bottom line.... if you have a doubt about the differences, this will leiminate them. RAW is not for everybody, however, there is no doubt it's better.

=========================

I want to begin by saying that the point of this is not to criticize a process using JPG. It is simply here to illustrate differences in using JPG vs. RAW. Using RAW captures and the post process involved is by no means needed nor is it for everyone. However, there is a differnce in the final output when depending on the method used. Again.... this is intended to be illustrative.

We had a discussion re color spaces in the Color Images forum. There I discussed how images look different depending on the color space the image is set to when you save the JPG image for posting here. With that some questions came up with regards to RAW and what the differences are and if they are worth it.

In order to illustrate the matter I decided to do the same as what I did for the Color Space post. I have a shot that I captured with the dual save mode of the D2X. It is the SAME CAPTURE. What I mean is that this is a single depression on the shutter release and the camera writes two formats to the memory card, a JPG and the RAW file. Other than that, as much as possible, everything else is the same between the two images. By doing this I guarantee everything is the same. Same exposure, same ISO, same camera, same lens, etc. etc. etc. This is what was done.

Camera settings:
Sharpening – Lowest Setting
Color Space – Adobe RGB
WB – Flash

The post process:
Obviously, I cannot post a RAW image. Hence I had to do the following.

RAW: I used ACR to make the conversion. The WB was left as shot. Exposure was raised +.75 stops. Saturation was raised to +3. Resolution was left as shot. Opened in 16 bit with ProPhoto RGB as the color space.

JPG: I used Photoshop to open the image. Two layer based changes were made to not effect the base pixels until I save the final file you see here. One was a hue saturation to match, as close as possible, the color temp of the RAW shot and its overall saturation. A levels adjustment layer was added to match the overall exposure as closely as possible. The color space for the JPG is applied by the camera and it is Adobe RGB, as mentioned.

Sharpening was added to both with the same exact settings. They are both the same pixel dimensions and, obviously, the same subject, so the same settings can be applied.

I cropped both files to make them the same exact size and match the crop as best as possible. The second (closeup of the head) was done as an 800x800 crop of the originals.

Both converted to sRGB in the same way and both are saved with the same quality settings.

In all, to within a reasonable level, the shots are, essentially, the same. The RAW file ended up as a JPG, obviously, but the difference is that PS was used to get there vs. the in camera process. The differences are below.

The full shot as created from the RAW original

EDITED OUT THE ORIGINAL B/C OF TWO SHOT LIMIT

The full shot from the JPG original

EDITED OUT THE ORIGINAL B/C OF TWO SHOT LIMIT

At this level. There are differnces but not hugely objectionable. For example, the overall sharpness is slightly better in the RAW file but it's not hugely apparent. The tones on the RAW files seem deeper. The contrast seems deeper. The skin tones are more accurate in the RAW file (you'll have to take my word for it) but, at least, they are warmer. Could you make the JPG warmer? A bit. But it will be tough to match the RAW files basic conversion.

Now look at the crops. These are simply 800x800 pixel crops from each full res file. ie. They are not resized. They are simply an 800 pixel cutout. First is the RAW original.

Here is the JPG shot.

Here, there is no question that the RAW shot is superior. There is no post process done to this image. ie. No changes to the skin, no blemish removal, no noise reduction, etc. This is as much as possible, the way the camera took the shot.

Why the differences? Well for one, the RAW shot is processed in 16bit workflow all the way to the end. It is converted to 8 bit only when the final JPG is saved. Both shots had changes made to the exposure, saturation, sharpness. All this was quite deliberate. I did it b/c usually these changes are made in post process. The idea was to show that, when you start with the RAW shot and then work through the post process at 16 bit, you have better data to work with. You end up with a better final photo. In the JPG you are starting with an 8 bit file that was compressed (JPG is a compression routine and it does have loss). Hence, when you start from there, you are starting with worse data. Going to 16 bit from the JPG does not help, again, once the file is saved as 8 bit the information there in the capture is lost and you cannot get it back.

A few final notes: If you never saw the RAW file would the JPG have produced a great shot? Heck yes! I may have processed slighty differently, but it would be good. Again, my intent was to show the differences. My intent is not to knock JPG. Unless you compare two shots like this, you would not know there was more detail in the hair, better color, etc. Does everybody check shots to this level? No. This is why JPG is a great solution for many and is far easier to deal with overall. However, I would be lying to you if I said that working in RAW does not produce superior results. It most certainly will. Whether it is necesarry for everyone..... that's a whole other matter and I will not get into that.