RAW?

Depends what you want to do, If you are interested in looking at images on the computer screen or print the odd image with a modest printer then stick with JPEGs straight off the camera, learn how to use and set up you camera accurately. You’ll have great images and be very happy with results.

You can still use Adobe Camera Raw ( capital R because it is an acronym ) on your JPEGS, just tell Elements or bridge to open the image in ACR. raw isn’t a file type like JPEGs, TIFF, PSD etc, so is written as raw and not RAW/Raw.

Why worry about a raw image in full 16bit resolution when most/some photogs computer screens are 8 bit, maybe 6 bit and unable to resolve a sRGB colour space. Let alone having a fully calibrated and managed workflow. So you won’t be able to see the 16bit Adobe RGB colour space let alone manipulate it.

ACR is able to do many things but can’t and never will be able to recover either a blown out or black pixel/s. It doesn’t matter how elaborate the software is. Think about it, blown out means too much light for the sensor to respond to and puts a value of 255 against that pixel. It is pure white. If you see some recovered information then this is the raw convertor looking at all the color channels and finding information in either the red, green, blue info.

raw doesn’t have a colour space so is unaware of what type of light the image has been captured in, so it doesn’t matter what the camera menu has been set to. Colour space information is attached to the metadata file, not an actual change to the raw information. In fact the raw information in the sensor is grey scale, the Bayer filter colour array information is added to the raw grey scale information and then saved onto the flash card. The white balance is set in the raw convertor and not in the camera. If the image looks blue/yellow whatever, it is because that is how the camera metadata file has been set-up, it just needs to be tweaked, so JPEGs can be partially saved as the white balance can be changed/altered.

The are many pluses to shooting in raw, you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing whatever your camera captured is all there on the flash card and then saved onto the computer. Shooting in JPEG, about 80% of the info captured on the sensor is thrown away, the image will be 8bit and this doesn’t have the headroom for later manipulation that a 16bit image has. Hence way JPEGs suffer with jaggies, and the hair comb histograms.

When personal situations change and photogs can move onto a more capable system, the raw image will be still waiting there for you to see the image in its full glory and as raw convertors improve so does the ability of releasing more stored image info. Many photogs I speak with now wish they hadn’t deleted an old raw file, because they didn’t think it was up to scratch but saved similar images are giving up more info.

If you would like to know more about raw especially, I would highly recommend any of the books written by Bruce Fraser, sadly gone now, Bruce knew more about raw and what to do with it than anyone else, in fact Bruce was a key engineer in the development of Lightroom and its raw convertor. Also a founding member of Pixel Genius.

Sorry if this has rambled on a bit, come back if you have any queries, pleased to help, Peter

If you are getting a Canon it should come with software that allows you to view and edit RAW files.
John

Yes it does John. I have been playing with it today. I’m sure once I have got the hang of it it will produce great results.

If you are getting a Canon it should come with software that allows you to view and edit RAW files.
John

Raw is different for every camera You need a RAW program on your computer that is after the camera IE A 2012 camera cannot have its RAW done with a 2008 Raw program

I use RAW and jpg side by side That camera does both but basically that is because my RAW thumbnails do not show the picture so it would take for ever and a day to find it.

I play around with the Raw image and then compare it with the jpg and pick which I like. One good thing about RAW is that not matter how may times you do something to it you do not lose any quality.

Big problem for the true amateur (like me) seems to be lack of support for RAW in Photoshop for many cameras unless you are prepared to stump up for the latest, and very expensive, version. Adobe are pretty ruthless in this respect
Particularly true for Olympus users like myself.
OK, you can use a converter to render it to a jpeg but that seems to be defeating the point !

I shoot RAW only, because it gives me maximum flexibility and quality in post-processing. My advice for initial processing is to use a RAW-converter issued by the maker of your camera (in my case Nikon) and use e.g. Photoshop for aspects which are not covered in the RAW-converter.
Not too expensive alternatives for RAW-processing are the already mentioned RAWtherapee and Capture One 6 Express, which also supports Olympus camera’s.

Big problem for the true amateur (like me) seems to be lack of support for RAW in Photoshop for many cameras unless you are prepared to stump up for the latest, and very expensive, version. Adobe are pretty ruthless in this respect
Particularly true for Olympus users like myself.
OK, you can use a converter to render it to a jpeg but that seems to be defeating the point !

I shoot exclusively RAW format.
It does cost a bit of time to post process every picture afterward but there are extreme benefits.

Raw lets you play with exposure and let you recover blown out bright spots from either metering error or simply user error causing you to take a shot with too much or too little light.

A JPEG is almost set in stone. Not much you can do to recover whats missing in the white blown out bright spots in pictures.

With RAW you can still get something. It won’t be perfect but at least you can have a decent looking picture. It has certainly saved my butt a few times when I forget to set ISO back to low or accidentally changed flash settings etc. Its the difference between getting a usable shot or getting none at all.

Tony

Quick and dirty explanation here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/Digital-Workflow.aspx

More technical stuff for Canon here http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/canon_raw.html

Best free raw editor IMHO – http://www.rawtherapee.com/

Best layman description for difference between Raw processing and JPEG I have heard is:

JPEG is like a cake mix – it works pretty much all of the time and gives you something tasty.

Raw is like building from scratch with the finest ingredients that can be had. Takes more work, knowledge, and finesse – but the end result can be simply divine!!

FWIW – cameras capture in raw and then if selected, convert to JPEG etc. So your raw file has every bit of information your camera was able to capture. Like most things, something gets lost in the translation from one format to another.

Using raw doesn’t allow you to forget about all that other camera stuff – like white balance and exposure. I once shot an entire airshow with the white balance selected to “Tungsten”. I had been doing some indoor photos under shop lighting and had forgot to select it back to sunshine. Made for a lovely blue white balance (that was pretty easy to correct on my raw files, but almost impossible to do so with my normal JPEG editor). Hint here for free — if that ever happens to you – change the image color temperature upwards to get rid of most of the blue cast!!!

Regards,

Truc

PS – I use rawtherapee for almost all my initial photo workflow process and then sometimes polish the image using a variety of different programs.

If you print, you need to get your computer monitor calibrated so that what you see on your monitor is what colors you want in the print. If you don’t then see if you can get a look while at the printers of what they have on their monitor. It makes a difference!!