Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 28, 2010, 11:05 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hanalwala View Post
I took a trial shot this morning with RAW and then did the editing in Lightroom 3 ..... here is the result... Please comment....This picture was just taken in the house to see what I get in raw...
How different is it from the JPEG?

Remember that, if everything goes well, the difference between the results you get from RAW and the results you get from JPEG aren't very different. The advantage of RAW is when things don't go well.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Aug 28, 2010 at 11:09 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 29, 2010, 1:54 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
hanalwala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Dubai (U.A.E.)
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
How different is it from the JPEG?

Remember that, if everything goes well, the difference between the results you get from RAW and the results you get from JPEG aren't very different. The advantage of RAW is when things don't go well.
I did not find any difference at all.... It was pretty much easy.... It was as if I was editing a JPEG file... I will surely go for RAW...
__________________
Canon Digital EOS 60D D-SLR
Canon Lens 55-250mm
Canon Lens 18-55mm
Canon Lens EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM IS
Canon Lens EF500mm F4L IS USM
Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX Macro
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 Wide angle
Website:www.hussainnalwala-photography.com
hanalwala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 29, 2010, 7:19 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hanalwala View Post
Now I am going on a holiday to Darjeeling and will be taking a lot of pictures there. Should I take pictures in RAW alone or both JPG and RAW and then come back and learn how to edit them in RAW....
If you can live with the reduced burst speed and huge file sizes,
RAW+JPEG will give you the most information you can capture
for each shot.

Since I have a couple of 8GB cards in my camera bag and I
don't often need to take longs bursts, I usually use RAW+JPEG.

My Canon 500D/T2i produces RAW files which are approximately
4X the size of a JPEG for the same shot. This means you will need
about five times as much storage for a given number of shots if you
use RAW+JPEG.I get about 250 shots on an 8GB card.

Quote:
Can someone please teach us how to edit a RAW file..... Is sit very difficult ??.... Your advice will help a lot of people like me....
Editing RAW files is not much different from editing JPEG files. Most
cameras try to enhance JPEG images by making adjustments to
colour saturation, brightness, contrast, sharpness etc... RAW files
are not processed in this way. Post-processing is left in your hands.

If I want to get the most out of an image, I use UFRaw to read the
RAW file. This gives me a 15MP uncompressed image. By default,
UFRaw uses the camera's white balance settings. I find the Canon
auto WB is fairly accurate and I rarely need to make manual WB
adjustments. I often need to make a small exposure/brightness
adjustment using the +/- EV slider. At this point, I usually export
the picture to a non-lossy format like TIFF for final editing in
Gimp or ImageMagick.

Last edited by corkpix; Aug 29, 2010 at 7:21 AM.
corkpix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 29, 2010, 8:37 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
hanalwala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Dubai (U.A.E.)
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corkpix View Post
If you can live with the reduced burst speed and huge file sizes,
RAW+JPEG will give you the most information you can capture
for each shot.

Since I have a couple of 8GB cards in my camera bag and I
don't often need to take longs bursts, I usually use RAW+JPEG.

My Canon 500D/T2i produces RAW files which are approximately
4X the size of a JPEG for the same shot. This means you will need
about five times as much storage for a given number of shots if you
use RAW+JPEG.I get about 250 shots on an 8GB card.

Editing RAW files is not much different from editing JPEG files. Most
cameras try to enhance JPEG images by making adjustments to
colour saturation, brightness, contrast, sharpness etc... RAW files
are not processed in this way. Post-processing is left in your hands.

If I want to get the most out of an image, I use UFRaw to read the
RAW file. This gives me a 15MP uncompressed image. By default,
UFRaw uses the camera's white balance settings. I find the Canon
auto WB is fairly accurate and I rarely need to make manual WB
adjustments. I often need to make a small exposure/brightness
adjustment using the +/- EV slider. At this point, I usually export
the picture to a non-lossy format like TIFF for final editing in
Gimp or ImageMagick.
I just got a new 16GB card to carry with me + I already have a 8GB card in the Camera.....
__________________
Canon Digital EOS 60D D-SLR
Canon Lens 55-250mm
Canon Lens 18-55mm
Canon Lens EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM IS
Canon Lens EF500mm F4L IS USM
Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX Macro
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 Wide angle
Website:www.hussainnalwala-photography.com
hanalwala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 29, 2010, 9:04 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
JustinThyme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 361
Default

I always shoot raw+jpeg m2 with jpeg quality set to 5 and all other processes set to minimum like sharpness etc as this only affects the jpeg output. Saving smaller jpegs will result in less room needed and also less computation time for the camera.
All of my workflow for output is taken from the raw file, jpegs saved are for preview purposes only to cull out files . In camera jpeg process is limited and will not produce the same results as PC software rendered jpegs. When you open the saved jpeg and edit it then save you just lost IQ of that image and lose more with each subsequent edit and save, its very heavy compression. The beauty of raw is if you didnt get the WB right you can change that without image degradation, also correct for barrel distortion and slight exposure correction without any change to the IQ where as the same changes modified with software to jpeg WILL result in loss of IQ.

The only drawback is storage space needed to save and archive not only on the flash media in the camera but on your PC/MAC. As already stated the file size is quite a bit larger but thats because it is UNCOMPRESSED data that hasn't been changed for final output. A good alternative to buying up a bunch of flash cards is to have 2 flash cards and get one of THESE. This is a no frills storage device that you can put your card in, it detects it and you either push a single button for copy or hold it down for move where it empties the flash media. While I am shooting and get a break or if the card fills up I put a an empty one in the camera and put the other in this device and continue shooting while it does its job and shuts off automatically. At extensive sports venues I usually have this on my belt. It doesnt have any preview funtions its simply storage. It connects to PC via USB or my preference is eSATA where the transfer speeds blow away any other method including firewire 800. It also saves you from having to take a laptop with you for the sole purpose of emptying the flash media.

There are multiple ways to edit RAW images. Canon DPP, Adobe lightroom and my choice Adobe CS4 from the master collection (you just need to have the proper plugins loaded) My workflow for a lot of images is a batch process that I have created for pretty much every scenario from dismal lighting shot at high ISO to bright harsh sunlight. Simply choose an input and output folder start the batch process and walk away. Ill dump 500 raw files in the input folder routinely and start the batch process and come back later to review the output. There are always a few that need to be done individually that can be idntified upon review and you can simply go back and open/edit those one at a time. Batch process makes short work for images shot under the same conditons. Could you imagine going through 500 images one at a time? My eyes just crossed and my body shuttered at the mere thought of this!

Last edited by JustinThyme; Aug 29, 2010 at 9:12 AM.
JustinThyme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 1:54 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
RioRico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In mountainous California or Arizona or Guatemala or somewhere.
Posts: 224
Default

Only RAW now.

I had more than a few years of shooting JPG's, which was the best my P&S's would generate. When I got my K20D a couple years ago, I stayed with JPG's because they were familiar. Then I shot RAW+JPG for a few weeks... and saw that I could do MUCH more with the RAW files than with JPG's. Now I shoot RAW only. Alas, not all exposures are perfect, and not all JPG's can be fixed nicely. When you develop a RAW file, you can tweak the settings to where they SHOULD have been when you shot. Pictures that are exposed correctly can be batch-developed; the others can be rescued.

Storage is an issue. RAWs are bigger. I carry a Sony Vaio sub-notebook with a disc burner, and I burn my RAWs to disc regularly, as well as leaving copies on the Vaio's drive and on the 16GB SDHC stick. You can't be too paranoid about protecting your images!
__________________
Too many film+digi cams+lenses, oh my -- Pentax K20D, ZX-M, M42's, P&S's, more
The opposite of LIBERAL is not CONSERVATIVE, but ENSLAVED.
RioRico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 7:40 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
iowa_jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: North Central Iowa
Posts: 589
Default

Once the software caught up to my new T2i I shoot in RAW almost exclusively. Initially I couldn't process RAW files, but an upgrade to the newest version of photoshop allowed me to use their adapter to read RAW. With RAW photos I am able to take care of white balance problems like I was still at the photo shoot. The file size probably says more than I could express otherwise. A bigger file means more data to work with. For myself with a T2i, a RAW file is 25mb, while a jpeg is 6mb.

JPEG is an efficient algorythm for reducing file size, but for slr work it is too limiting, I think. But there are exceptions. I shot a hazmat drill for an organization I am a part of, and shot entirely in JPEG since the end product will be a video and since I didn't want to deal with 800 RAW shots.

I would recommend practicing with RAW for awhile to make sure you have the software to process it, and the cards and hard drive to deal with the large increase in space required for storage. I read a book that recommended buying a special device to backup SD or CF cards in the field, but for the price if one felt the need I'd recommend a netbook style computer unless we're already equipped.
iowa_jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 8:40 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

If you're satisfied with your JPEG images, why switch? Yes, there are things you can do with RAW files that you can't do with JPEG, but they're mostly only useful to correct some errant setting in the camera or some extraordinary condition in the environment. And shooting RAW takes up more storage space and slows down the camera, especially for shooting sports/action. (Remember Panning Images.... )

Plus, anything you do to alter your current settings, either in the camera or in post processing, may foul up the way you're accustomed to working, and so cause more problems that it solves.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 9:30 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mount Shasta, California
Posts: 1,525
Default

I use RAW almost exclusively for low light high ISO shots where the extra controls really shine. For regular shots in good light, RAW may be overkill.
pboerger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 12:39 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pboerger View Post
... For regular shots in good light, RAW may be overkill.
Yeah. What he said.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:03 PM.