Do You Like Your Images RAW?

[Jason Dunn]

I wanted to start a discussion on RAW images. For those that don't know, RAW images are digital photos that are stored in an uncompressed format rather than the traditional JPEG. The file sizes of RAW images are very large - typically 10x bigger than a JPEG image (this varies of course based on resolution and what setting you'd normally be using for JPEG). Because RAW images aren't compressed, there aren't any compression artifacts (digital junk) and thus you can edit the image save it as a final JPEG without fear of double-compression.

I'm a complete and utter newbie when it comes to shooting in RAW mode with my Canon EOS 300D, but it's something I'd like to learn more about. For those of you that shoot in RAW, why do you do so? What advantages are there that I didn't mention? What sort of post-processing solution do you use?

[arebelspy]

I always use the best compression settings right below RAW so images are like 3MB instead of 10. Can fit a lot more that way. :D

-arebelspy

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Post-processing is easier and more flexible, especially for colour correction and exposure compensation. Also good for control freaks, hehe.

[Jason Dunn]

Post-processing is easier and more flexible, especially for colour correction and exposure compensation. Also good for control freaks, hehe.

Ok, that's the thing I want to know more about - why is color correction and exposure compensation easier with a RAW image?

[michael]

I only shoot in the best quality JPEG mode on my 10D, RAW just takes up too much space to be worthwhile - I tend to take a lot of shots, often the same shot several times with different settings; if I did that with RAW I'd quicly run out of space (although with the new 4GB microdrive that shouldn't be much of an issue). Once I download pictures from my camera I never edit the originals - all changes get saved to another file with the highest quality settings in Photoshop. I haven't noticed any compression artifacts.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Ok, that's the thing I want to know more about - why is color correction and exposure compensation easier with a RAW image?

Basically, you have 12 bits of data per pixel to play around with, instead of 8 bits per pixel. You can salvage the luminosity or the colour balance without losing all the data, hence you will still have enough information in the photo to make a decent pic.

[Jason Dunn]

Basically, you have 12 bits of data per pixel to play around with, instead of 8 bits per pixel. You can salvage the luminosity or the colour balance without losing all the data, hence you will still have enough information in the photo to make a decent pic.

Ok, that's the kind of answer I was looking for. :D Now all we need is a good tutorial on how to do that... ;-)

[James Fee]

I had never used RAW format until I got my D100. I love the quality and the size (compared to TIFF). While I can use Photoshop to read RAW files, I ended up getting Nikon Capture which is a great program. At this point, I'd never buy another camera that didn't have RAW.

[canux]

I have limited knowledge on this, but from what I found out when I first bought my G1 is that you retain all information in a RAW image. I too use compression, which brings the image size down alot. I can fit alot more photos on my memory card this way than if I shot them in JPG (highest quality). I actually archive my photos in RAW format for the file size reason alone as well. I only convert if I wish to so something with it (i.e. print, edit, etc.).

A very good program that I use for managing my photos (and converting them) is a program called BreezeBrowser (www.breezebrowser.com). Highly recommended.

[bbarker]

How does RAW compare with TIFF for size and quality?

[Neil Enns]

I shoot in RAW 100% of the time and process the images in Phase One's C1LE software to convert to JPEG for manipulation in Photoshop. If I had Photoshop CS I'd do it all there, since CS supports RAW conversion inline.

The huge advantage to shooting in RAW is that you have, as others have mentioned, more bits per pixel to work with. You can easily underexpose an image by two full stops when shooting raw and still bring the details out of the shadows in C1LE just by moving the exposure slider. It's really quite incredible. You don't get nearly as much flexibility with blown-out highlights, but you can still eek out a bit more than with JPEG. I've saved several pictures this way that would have been unusable had I shot in JPEG.

To get more room on your cards when shooting RAW you can tell the 10D (and maybe the 300D) to use the smallest possible JPEG size for the associated thumbnail. My RAW files average about 6MB.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Compressed RAW is smaller, quality wise, it depends if you're going to post process. RAW can't be beat in post processing flexibility.

[James Fee]

RAW can't be beat in post processing flexibility.
You can say that again. No longer do I have to save "versions" of my photos. :lol:

[Tim Williamson]

So am I correct that with RAW you can change contrast, brightness, etc. and save the photo with these changes, then undo them later without losing quality? :?

[bcre8v2]

file size: this is also dependant on how many MP your camera is rated. Typically (but not always) RAW will be larger than any jpg. You still get an unaldulterated shot (the image is basically going from the lense to the storage card - bypassing the compression algorithm).

format: RAW is not a standard. Kodak cameras save RAW (tiff) in a format that my software can't understand (i have even tried renaming the extension to tif/tif/mod/kdc/ to see if I could still view the picture elsewhere. I have had greatest luck with Canon RAW (tiff).

please reference: http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/35_rawor.htm

Above all... have fun!

[James Fee]

So am I correct that with RAW you can change contrast, brightness, etc. and save the photo with these changes, then undo them later without losing quality? :?
I won't even begin to say I understand the ins and outs of the format, but..

It seems to save the changes you make in the contrast, brightness, etc into the metadata so you can keep versions of the file. You can change the exposure, color mode, hue, noise, shadows/detail, and more.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Nice - I'm tempted to srart looking at the RAW mode of my Canon again. I never got round to using it. Guess I'd better start learning how. :D

[Tim Williamson]

It seems to save the changes you make in the contrast, brightness, etc into the metadata so you can keep versions of the file. You can change the exposure, color mode, hue, noise, shadows/detail, and more.

Yeah that's what I meant to say, it saves that info into the metdata so it can be undone later. Sounds nifty...

[James Fee]

Yeah that's what I meant to say, it saves that info into the metdata so it can be undone later. Sounds nifty...
YMMV though. I've only used it with the Nikon RAW format. I'm sure as others have pointed out, differences with the RAW format could mean you might not be able to do what others can.

[Neil Enns]

Another aspect of raw that is quite handy is that you don't have to futz with white balance when you take the shot. Since you're getting the raw pixels the camera saw you can mess with the white balance all you like on your PC. With JPEG the colours have already been mangled by your camera and it's much more difficult to colour correct.

This is VERY easy with C1LE which does a wonderful job of getting the white balance right if you can find something that's supposed to be white in the picture. I've never been able to get even close to that in Photoshop with JPEGs, for some reason.

[marlof]

What I like most with using RAW is that you can change most in camera settings out of camera (white balance, exposure, sharpening, lightening, etc.) while still keeping a digital "negative" that remains intact.

What RAW can be used for is to "develop" your "negative" in different ways for the highlighted and shadow parts of your picture. Just create two .TIFF files, each paying attention to different parts of the picture, and then merge them in Photoshop (or any other program). This might be especially beneficial for landscapes, where there's light playing its game.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Well, for those who don't like shooting in RAW, that can be done via bracketing your shots.

[marlof]

Yslee: sure, that can be done by bracketing shots. But the combined control you have over exact image manipulation, and the lack of need of bracketing when doing the shoot, in my experience makes this easier to do when shooting RAW. So I see this as an advantage. But if you like the bracketing thing better: go for it, it's your shoot.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I'm old school, so I get things right in-camera as much as I can. Saves work on post processing later.

[marlof]

Although that "old school" thing sounds cool, I don't understand it. I thought old school was also about using techniques for getting the right prints? For developing negatives in a special way, for handling the paper when printed to get more dynamics... I must be mistaken in my opinion that post is of all ages, new and old school.

Although like you, I try to get things as good as can be in camera, in some situations (like a wide dynamic range) I know beforehand that I'll need post. And I don't care. For me, digital photography is almost as much about having fun in post than in the actual recording of the photograph with my camera. Like in the old days, when going in the dark room was all part of the fun.

But as I said, do as you please, since if you're happy, I'm happy.

[SassKwatch]

Although like you, I try to get things as good as can be in camera, in so me situations (like a wide dynamic range) I know beforehand that I'll need post. And I don't care. For me, digital photography is almost as much about having fun in post than in the actual recording of the photograph with my camera.

Bingo!

Creation of a photograph only *begins* with the snap of the shutter...it's not the beginning, middle, and end. While it's always important to do as much in camera as possible, there are definitely situations where post processing is a good thing.

Now, do I spend painstaking time post processing every family event 'snapshot' I shoot? No, of course not. But for the stuff I enjoy shooting for own personal enjoyment, post processing is as almost as pleasing a part of the process as actually shooting the original pic.

[SassKwatch]

For those of you that shoot in RAW, why do you do so? What advantages are there that I didn't mention? What sort of post-processing solution do you use?
I shoot *everything* in RAW. There are certainly +'s & -'s.

On the plus, side....
* RAW just affords so much more post processing capabilities. Change the White Balance, Contrast, Exposure, etc in post processing if/when needed. As someone else said, it's for the control freaks in the crowd.:)

I use PS 7.01 and the Camera RAW plugin to post process. And I always save a copy of the original RAW shot and anything post processed gets saved in .psd format as well. And then if I choose to make it available on the web, then and only then does it go into JPEG.

On the downside....
* RAW format will eat up storage space quickly. With a 1mb Microdrive, I can get 107 shots before I have to start moving them off to another device. That's generally fine for any single shooting session, but is rather a hassle when going on vacay. And it's exactly for that reason that you may have noticed my continued interest in devices like the OQO over at PPCT. I would ** L-O-V-E ** to have an economical means of employing the iPAQ to transfer my shots to when the MD fills up, but it's simply not economically feasible. I wound up buying this laptop exactly for that reason. With 30gb of available storage, I'm good to go on vacay. Of course, I don't carry the laptop 'in the field' with me, and that's why the interest in OQO and such.

[Jorgen]

Ok, that's the thing I want to know more about - why is color correction and exposure compensation easier with a RAW image?

Basically, you have 12 bits of data per pixel to play around with, instead of 8 bits per pixel. You can salvage the luminosity or the colour balance without losing all the data, hence you will still have enough information in the photo to make a decent pic.

Also, every time you save a JPG you lose information due to the lossy compression technique.

Jorgen

[ppcsurfr]

I use Nikon RAW... NEF on my Coolpix 5000.

This way I can easily tweak white balance and EV compensation when needed...

I think this is the good thing about RAW files...

Mabuhay!!!

Carlo

[SassKwatch]

The Rob Galbraith (http://www.robgalbraith.com) site is an excellent site for all things digital photo related. It's been a while since I've been by there, but just noticed they even have a discussion forum devoted exclusively to the RAW format.

They also do a lot of performance testing of CF cards for DSLR's. Their findings for the Canon 300D can be found here (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6425).....though I can't imagine why I thought anyone in particular might have an interest in that. :)

[Jason Kravitz]

Are there any utilities for viewing or working with RAW file on PocketPC? As a fellow 300D owner and a PocketPC developer, I was thinking of writing some kind of utility that would be helpful in those cases where it is more convenient to have my PocketPC and not my laptop.

Although loading and working with a 7mb file on the PocketPC would be a bit of a challenge from a developer standpoint!

As far as to shoot RAW or not it is as religious a debate as Palm or PocketPC, Windows/Linux, Mac/Windows etc etc - it is really a matter of personal choice.

You could probably achieve 98% of the effects of processing a RAW image using photoshop builtin filters on a JPG but you don't get the interface at your fingertips (you have to know what to use without drop down boxes)

The goal of most photos is to get the shot you want at the correct exposure - RAW is a means of capturing that after the fact at the expense of having to post process every shot before printing or posting to the web.

As I've learned more about photography and getting a good exposure from each shot my post processing has become much less intensive - whether you shoot RAW or JPG, knowing how to do stuff "old school" will definitly give you a leg up on a quality image no matter how good your tools are.

For those of you thinking about bracketing and how shooting RAW replaces the need to bracket, consider that you don't only bracket exposure. You might bracket composition as well in which case you can not fix that in post processing (you can crop but you can't add stuff that was not photographed) so it is still a good idea to take multiple pictures with different settings if you are serious about a subject...

[SassKwatch]

Are there any utilities for viewing or working with RAW file on PocketPC?
PocketLoupe (http://www.glasslantern.com/products/index.htm) is the only one of which I'm aware.

Though it appeared to be a niftly little program when I test drove it, the real problem with RAW files on the PPC platform is where do you store more than a few of them? I can get 107 on a 1gb MD, but if I wanna continue using that same MD to continue shooting, what do I do with the 107 I've already shot? If one chooses to spend the denero on multiple CF (or SD) cards, then no problem. But otherwise.......

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Won't a pocketpc screen be too limiting for this kind of precise work?

[Jason Kravitz]

You could work by zooming out to see the whole image and then zoom in tight to see detail in specific ares but as I said, the 7mb file would take a long time to load!

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I was thinking about the colour limitation as well. I don't think 65336 colours will cut it.. And are there calibration tools for Pocket PC?

[SassKwatch]

Won't a pocketpc screen be too limiting for this kind of precise work?
My thought would be to simply use the ppc screen as an improvement over what's available on digicams....at least those I've seen. Wouldn't really attempt any serious Photochop type stuff, but rather just to get a better idea of composition and such. For that purpose, I think a ppc could be a great tool.

[Jason Kravitz]

There is an ad for a hasselblad medium format camera with an iPAQ hooked up to it as some kind of digital back. I didn't take the time to look up what kind of camera or what the PPC software was

I was thinking about that though - if I could use the PPC as an image viewer in real time hooked up to the camera - maybe an image viewer and some kind of histogram and over-exposure warning

[duncanhbrown]

As far as to shoot RAW or not it is as religious a debate as Palm or PocketPC, Windows/Linux, Mac/Windows etc etc - it is really a matter of personal choice.

You could probably achieve 98% of the effects of processing a RAW image using photoshop builtin filters on a JPG but you don't get the interface at your fingertips (you have to know what to use without drop down boxes)...
I don't think the debate is religious-- I think it's simply if you want to go to the extra trouble and thought of converting from your camera's RAW mode in exchange for extra power to get the output image exactly as you want it. Plus, you have to have a good RAW tweaking program for your camera, like the Photoshop plug-in, or another product.
I shot some pictures in RAW mode with my Canon G2, converted them (without tweaking) to JPGs and off one went to a newspaper for printing.
Then I shot another group of pictures in JPG mode (highest quality), and later found that the white balance was badly off-- no amount of tweaking in Photoshop by a master at the art was able to fix the white balance without hurting other qualities of the picture.
You can either let your camera make all the decisions on taking the raw data and squeezing it down into a JPG, or you can reserve that power (and that trouble) to yourself, plus take the larger filesize hit.
I think finally there are some pics you'll choose to use RAW mode for, and many others where you won't.

[Littleshmee]

I took a few pictures in RAW, TIFF and JPEG when I first got my camera, and didn't really see a difference in quality, so I've just used SHQ JPEG. I didn't realize RAW offered so much of an advantage, looks like I've got something else to play with :D .

Do any of you use the in-camera raw processing? I'll fool around with it, and I'm sure it doesn't compare to computer software on a big screen, but it might offer a solution to the storage space issue - shoot in raw, adjust contrast/exposure/white balance in camera, then save to JPEG.

[Jason Kravitz]

Which cameras have onboard RAW processing? That seems to defeat the purpose to me since the appeal of RAW is being able to change lots of stuff on the computer after the fact - does it let you pick options on the camera and then process?

Do you go to university at Guelph? I have some friends that went there...

[Littleshmee]

My olympus 5050 has onboard RAW, and it does seem to defeat the purpose... that's probably why I've never used it. My guess is Olympus put it on A) as a selling point and B) so that you can take a picture "in the moment" and then do all your adjustments.

And yes, I do go to the University of Guelph... seems like everyone I talk to knows someone that went there :wink:

[SassKwatch]

I don't think the debate is religious-- I think it's simply if you want to go to the extra trouble and thought of converting from your camera's RAW mode in exchange for extra power to get the output image exactly as you want it. Plus, you have to have a good RAW tweaking program for your camera, like the Photoshop plug-in, or another product.
It definitely is not one of those techno geek religious debates. Shooting RAW and shooting JPEG are not close to being the same. Both have advants/disadvants, and one has to choose which is best for them (and/or the reason for shooting).

No matter how you slice it, JPEG is a lossy format, and if one chooses to shoot in that format, there is considerable data lost. Though many of the newer digicams offer some pretty high rez JPEG options, there is still data lost. Though I have read *some* mfrs do some minor in camera processing of RAW captures, there is just oodles more data available for post processing. Hence there are decidedly more options available when shooting in RAW. Those options definitely come at a price though. Each RAW capture averages 9.7mb with my camera. Unless one has unlimited storage capabilities, a shooting session will come to a halt much quicker shooting in RAW than in JPEG.

So, it is still a personal decision which format one chooses to utilize, but it's definitely not the same religious PPC vs Palm or Mac vs Windows kinda debate.

[Jason Kravitz]

heh I've seen some heated debates over at DPreview but I guess it's not as heated as Canon vs Nikon - those guys can get religious!

You could also get a high end Canon dSLR that takes JPG and RAW at the same time - talk about options :P

I think you could make a relgious debate about anything - crunchy vs. smooth peanut butter ... ford vs. chevy - people get passionate about the darndest things

[SassKwatch]

heh I've seen some heated debates over at DPreview but I guess it's not as heated as Canon vs Nikon - those guys can get religious!
DPR is a *strange* place. There is some *very* worthwhile info to be found there. But jeez louise, one definitely needs to tread lightly thru the mine fields of opinion. I sometimes wonder how half the regular posters have any time to take pictures with all the time they spend 'discussing' things.

I think you could make a relgious debate about anything - crunchy vs. smooth peanut butter ... ford vs. chevy - people get passionate about the darndest things

:lol: You're certainly right there!

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I sometimes wonder how half the regular posters have any time to take pictures with all the time they spend 'discussing' things.

That's because they.. DON'T! :lol:

[duncanhbrown]

With all the discussion on this topic, I guess it touched a RAW nerve.
:)
All seriousness aside, for the digital photographer wanting to get to the next level of results, understanding and using (when deemed appropriate) the RAW photo mode is another important step.
If I'm too lazy or busy to adjust white balance when I shoot, for instance, saving to RAW mode is the ticket.
Hard disk space is getting cheaper, as are CF and SD cards and all the other storage formats we use in our digital cameras. (Though 10MB and more per RAW photo seems a little steep at first hearing--suddenly my new 1GB CF card doesn't seem so big!)

[rzanology]

help me out here guys....is it me, or does my dsc-t1 NOT have a raw mode?

[Jason Dunn]

help me out here guys....is it me, or does my dsc-t1 NOT have a raw mode?

It's quite possible - the only cameras that usually have RAW mode are high-end prosumer cameras.