RAW question

[Amson]

I have been taking photos for years and tried shooting in raw format a couple of times but never thought the post processing effort was worth it. Actually I did not like the results so went back to shooting jpg. But after reading the forums here I thought I should give it another try...

But it is so confusing.. My usual mode of shooting is set ISO, white balance and then I usually shoot aperture priority and select aperture. Would this need to be changed if I shoot raw?? I don't set any in camera sharpening or colour enhancement etc and prefer to do this later if required. So really what is the difference.

Any help is appreciated.

[dugarner]

Aperture and ISO aren't affected by RAW, but white balance is. (On a side note, though---my camera does not handle ISO > 400 at all. 400 is usually very noisy. So when I know I'm shooting 400 or above, I always shoot in RAW. Then I use my noise reduction slider in my RAW processor, and then sharpen in Photoshop.)

My main reason---almost exclusively---for shooting in RAW is to be able to control white balance and lighting. I don't have a fast lens, so it's helpful to shoot something I know will be underexposed in RAW, if I prefer the underexposure over using the flash. Then I can use the exposure slider in my RAW converter.

Temperature is also a big thing for me. It's hard for me to set that correctly on the fly; I don't have enough knowledge of lighting, light sources, etc., to make correct judgments. So I shoot, knowing I can do anything with the temperature when I'm in post processing. Tungsten lights look good on my LCD, but then they are about 2000 degrees off when I process. If I set my camera for tungsten white balance and shoot in JPEG, they still come out a little warm, and then I'm stuck.

I very rarely, actually, use any of the other features of my RAW processor, because they are all available in Photoshop. But the color curves and white balance are huge benefits.

It's all up to you. I've attached a classic example of why I shoot in RAW. (Left is after RAW processing, right is RAW SOOC.) This type of exposure problem happens to me frequently, but perhaps not to a more experienced photographer. In this situation, I was too far away for flash to be effective at an acceptable ISO. It was very dark, the sun was going down and it was overcast.

Time spent with post processing vs. your satisfaction with your jpegs is a personal decision. To some, it's worth it. To others, it's not. It's completely a how-it-works-for-you kind of thing. Often, when I'm in good light, I will switch to JPEG on my camera because I am confident that lighting/colors/etc. will be acceptable. Other times, I'm just not willing to risk it.

HTH!

Sarah

[Amson]

Thanks so much for the explanation and photos. It gives me some more ideas. So does this mean that there is no need to set white balance when shooting in raw??

I really will have to just play around with settings.

[esther_a]

Sarah!! I can't believe the difference you've achieved with that delightful squirrel (?) photo!
I really AM going to have to venture into the world of RAW for a look-see!!

[LauraBean]

I shoot in RAW all the time and just use auto white balance. I love that when shooting RAW I can recover much more detail from the shadows if my exposure is off. With a program like Lightroom or Apple's Aperture (which is what I use), it doesn't feel like any more work at all to use RAW.

[DesignerDigitals]

Originally Posted by LauraBean

I shoot in RAW all the time and just use auto white balance. I love that when shooting RAW I can recover much more detail from the shadows if my exposure is off. With a program like Lightroom or Apple's Aperture (which is what I use), it doesn't feel like any more work at all to use RAW.

I do the same and to shoot HDR photography it needs to be in RAW as well.

[dugarner]

Carolyn,

No, you wouldn't need to set white balance if you were shooting in RAW. (Laura and Randy beat me to it!) I don't know what camera you have, and most of the RAW processors are different. (I don't know how much you can do in PS CS; in PSE you can do some basic RAW post processing). My processors lets me use a white balance slider, or I can enter a temperature.

It doesn't hurt to try it out, just to see if maybe you would have an advantage at times with complete control over color curves and white balance. I've heard LR makes post-processing fast, but I personally enjoy looking at each photo and applying the changes individually. Plus, I don't have the $$ for it right now.

Esther, do you have prairie dogs in Australia? They are indigenous to the US and live in grassland areas. I love watching them at our zoo! I was so bummed when this picture came off my camera so dark.

I did need to mention that even after I processed it, I added 2 screen layers in PSE to lighten it up even more. But had I just added screen layers without the RAW processing, it would have wound up noisy and blown out. Screen/multiply blending modes don't do quite as much detailed work as EV in post-processing.

Have fun!

[Elena]

Wow! That's amazing Sarah! Thanks for the detailed explanation and example. I am just starting to use a DSLR, so I will definitely try RAW.

[dugarner]

Elena,

You're welcome---it would be fun to try it out! But also, many advanced P&S and ZLR cameras (a ZLR [zoom lens reflex] example would be the Fuji S5000+, not a removable lens, but full manual capability) have RAW settings. My Fuji S5200 had RAW, though I never used it.

So you don't have to have an SLR to benefit from RAW capability! All RAW does is record the image exactly the way your camera sees it, without compressing and throwing out data like JPEG compression does. JPEG throws out sensor data, then "guesses" to fill in so the file isn't as big; RAW is all the data from every one of the 10,000,000 sensors, all there for me to play with.

So it's not as intimidating as people think. It's really easy. And the benefit is, if you process a RAW file, then a year later you learn more about processing, you can go back and do it again, without affecting compression or quality.

I feel like I get on the RAW soapbox a lot! I just want to encourage people to try it out, it's not a live-or-die-by-it thing, it's just such a fun, powerful tool, it's worth having the knowledge under your belt. I was so excited when I started using it! And no one here should be intimidated by it---everyone here is more than capable, and computer-savvy enough to understand and use the process. It's no more difficult than making adjustments to photos or embellishments in PS.

[Blesus]

I am so happy for this thread as I have been thinking about trying RAW, but too intimidated. Sarah, what processing software do you recommend for a total newbie? And, are there a set of regular steps taken after importing the image?

[dugarner]

Originally Posted by Blesus

I am so happy for this thread as I have been thinking about trying RAW, but too intimidated. Sarah, what processing software do you recommend for a total newbie? And, are there a set of regular steps taken after importing the image?

I am not too familiar with it, I only know what I have to do. Someone who does more extensive work with it might be able to help you.

My camera came with a processor, I think most cameras come with the software. You can also download the Adobe RAW plug-in for Elements, for instance, it is a simple converter that would at least get you started.

My software comes with a built-in workflow. I start with color curves, then exposure, and then white balance (temperature) if I need to. I usually only do those two or three things, and sometimes noise reduction. I sharpen, do all my contrast and stuff in Elements.

To encourage you, I talked a friend of mine who is fairly computer illiterate (she struggles with Elements) through finding her RAW software on the internet, downloading it, installing it, opening an image, making simple corrections, and saving it as a JPEG, all on the phone. In about 10 minutes. And when she was done, she said "What?!? That's all there is to it? That's so easy!"

So give it a try!

HTH!

[ccblue]

This is timely, just a few minutes ago I ordered a book recommended by a professional photographer friend. He said it would help me get the most out of my raw images. I got it from Amazon - here's the link: Raw-101

[Amson]

Thanks so much Sarah and everyone for your comments. I'm going to start this week on some trials in raw. I suspect that I didn't like the results last time because of the converter I used which was a freebie I downloaded. I have just downloaded Nikon Capture NX2 60 day trial and I'll see the results. Lightroom is just a little too expensive for me and I let a trial lapse months ago so can't trial it again but anyway....

I use PSPX2 for post processing and I think I must be one of the only ones here who uses this software.

[Elena]

Carolyn, You can get Lightroom 2 for under $100 at academicsuperstore if you can provide proof of a student in your house (I used my son's latest report card when I ordered CS3 a couple years ago.) Maybe that will fit your budget

[katrinak]

Late to the thread and not a lot to add, you've covered it so well!

I'd recommend Lightroom as well! The workflow is fairly easy once you get the hang of it.

Mine:
Upload to EHD through LR
Tag photos in Library Mode
Choose photo or photos in Develop Mode
Set White Balance
Adjust:
Exposure
Blacks
Contrast
Saturation
Save as JPG

There is much much more you can do but those are my basics when I'm trying to be speedy