Why RAW processing

[stevecurtis]

I am fairly new to this part of the game,please can anyone tell me the advantages of raw processing .

all the best steve

[pressld2]

Hi Steve,

A raw file contains more data than a jpeg and this is particularly noticeable in the highlights and shadows. A jpeg uses 8 bits of data to describe the colour and brightness of each pixel whereas a raw file by default uses 12 and on some cameras you can set it to use 14. This means that the raw file contains much finer gradations of colour, tone and brightness and this is why it retains more detail in shadow and highlight areas.

One important thing to remember is that whatever you have your camera set to, the sensor will ALWAYS record a raw image. All that "shooting jpeg" means is that you have asked your camera to use its internal processor and software to convert the raw image to a jpeg before saving it to your memory card so that you don't have to do it on the computer later.

The problem is that the conversion software in the camera converts all images the same way regardless of whether they are high or low contrast, overexposed, underexposed or bang on. You have a small amount of control over the conversion - that's what things like the sharpness and "vivid" settings do - but nothing like as much control as you have using a dedicated raw converter on a PC or Mac. By shooting raw, you get to decide which information to keep and which to throw away when converting from 12/14 bit raw to 8 bit jpeg.

Plus, if you keep the raw file (recommended) then you can make as many different conversions of it as you like, trying different settings as the mood takes you. If you let the camera do the conversion then the data it threw away before saving the image is gone for good.

The downsides to shooting raw are

• The time spent on the PC, although this gets less with experience. I'm now at the point where I can process most images in Lightroom in under 30 seconds each. But it does take longer for "difficult images" - ones with high contrast where I want to do some local corrections to just part of the image
• The raw files are much larger than jpegs so you need more disc space for storage and backup
• Good raw processors are not cheap

My personal view is that raw is worth the effort but I know lots of photographers are perfectly happy shooting jpeg. Another case of "each to their own" I guess.

Dave P.

[Tormentil]

Originally Posted by pressld2

My personal view is that raw is worth the effort ......

Dave P.

Indubitably.

[stevecurtis]

Thank you Dave its now very clear to me,i think ill have a play around and see how i get on ,can you recomend a converter please.

all the best steve

[pressld2]

No problem Steve, glad it's useful.

I use Adobe Lightroom and am very happy with it. As well as being a very powerful raw converter it's also an excellent tool for cataloguing and keywording photos so you can find them again. It is one of the more expensive options though.

I have also used Nikon's Capture NX software which I got free with my D300 a couple of years back. Capture NX does a better job of High ISO noise reduction but overall I think Lightroom is a much better package. Version 3 of Lightroom is in beta test now and Adobe are claiming that the noise reduction is significantly improved. Time will tell.

Dave P.

[welshcameraman]

Well done Dave, you have given an excellent description of the differences.

If you can get to grips with one of the RAW file converters on the market then you are well on your way. Personally I have a mac, so employ aperture 2 and Like Dave can do the conversion very quickly indeed, I have a set workflow and generally stick to it. I do think it's worth the effort.

That said, Ollie seems to use Jpegs and I have yet to see better photos on here. So you pays your money and you takes your pics...Oooh, Sorry

Martin

[Jim Ford]

I shot 100% raw for years, but now except for potentially problematic images, mainly shoot JPEGs, for their convenience.

It can be down to the camera. Some camera makes JPEG engines are better than others. My camera make has particularly good reviews in this respect.

With regards to raw converters, my experience of the free ones is that RawTherapee
is glacially slow on my machine. UFRaw is much faster and produces good results. Scarab Darkroom is a new converter that looks promising, and I may use it in the future.

Jim

[Geoff F]

We really need a bit more information here, Steve.

Which camera brand and what editing software do you currently have?

Most of the higher priced dslr cameras come with a basic but acceptable RAW converter and many editing programmes are also able to convert RAW.

After experimenting with several versions, I currently use Raw Therapee which is a free download and I find it is producing better results than either the Canon DPP converter or my editing software converter (Serif Photo Plus X3)

But, a word of warning about Raw Therapee. I find that conversion speed isn't too much of a problem if you have a decent computer but it is a very tempermental unstable programme which often crashes and needs to be reloaded from time to time.

But I have managed to partially find work arounds for RT version 3 which I think is a nice to use programme which produces good results; when it is in a compliant mood!

Whether RAW is for you is difficult to answer. For most 'happy snappers' that take their cards to a processor who produces third rate 6 x 4 ins prints, it is a waste of time. But if you want true colours and often shoot close to overexposure you may find it invaluable.

Give it a try and see. But I guarantee you will return here to ask for more information before you fully master the technique. If you stick with it, I suspect you will eventually be pleased with the result and wonder why some people still use Jpeg!

[stevecurtis]

Thank you all for your help ,i think i can see certain times this will be usefull .

all the best steve

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by welshcameraman

.

That said, Ollie seems to use Jpegs and I have yet to see better photos on here. So you pays your money and you takes your pics...Oooh, Sorry

Martin

Thanks for the complement Martin, and yes I do always shoot jpeg. but I aren't going to knock those who shoot raw. It has it's uses and I have no doubt lost a few images that I could have rescued had I been shooting in raw

I don't want to drag up the raw versus jpeg debate because as we all know there are +'s and -'s to both formats. My advice would be to try shooting both formats and then go with what you are happy and feel comfortable with.