WPF - World Photography Forum
Home Gallery Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Welcome to World Photography Forum!
Welcome!

Thank you for finding your way to World Photography Forum, a dedicated community for photographers and enthusiasts. There's a variety of forums, a wonderful gallery, and what's more, we are absolutely FREE. You are very welcome to join, take part in the discussion, and post your pictures!

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.


Go Back   World Photography Forum > Photography Technique > The Digital Darkroom


The Digital Darkroom The In-Computer editing forum.

A Raw Virgin Writes

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 09-01-07, 11:56
yelvertoft's Avatar
yelvertoft yelvertoft is offline  
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Essex, UK
Age: 59
Posts: 8,486
Default A Raw Virgin Writes

Regular readers will know that I have always previously been primarily an in-camera JPEG shooter, having long since adopted the attitude of “Life’s too short for raw”. I took the odd shot in raw mode when I knew I would have to faff about with it a lot in post processing, but really couldn’t be bothered with having to spend time processing every shot from raw to jpeg (or any other format). Many of my pictures are snapshots, memories of people, places and events taken purely for my own benefit and not intended for viewing by anyone outside my immediate friends an family. For this kind of picture, JPEG was just fine.

Now, I still think that life is too short for raw, but take everything in raw mode on my camera. How do I manage to sit comfortably with such self contradictory views? I was put off raw processing very early in my dSLR usage by the awful user interface in the bundled raw processing software that came with my camera. It was all too much bother to process each file individually. From then on, for a very long time, I shot almost exclusively in JPEG.

Then, I discovered an undocumented feature in the bundled raw processing software. I could import multiple files into the processing software at the same time, and either apply the in-camera default settings, or apply my own custom settings simultaneously to all the files imported. After hitting the save button, in a few minutes of background PC processing, I’d have a whole stack of JPEGs, either the same as if I’d used the in-camera settings, or with the custom adjustments applied to all the files. Gone was the need to apply adjustments to every file individually. Hurrah!

Now, I realised, I had the ability to play with the few shots that needed the flexibility of being shot in raw, with the convenience of batch processing the majority that didn’t. What’s more, I didn’t need to decide which mode to shoot in, from shot to shot. With this new found flexibility, I began to shoot exclusively in raw format.

For batch processing large numbers of files as though they were in-camera JPEGs, it was fine to use the bundled software. For more adventurous tweaking, I began exploring alternative raw processors. I had previously used Adobe Camera Raw for processing individual files and had found the user interface to be friendly and the features sufficiently advanced for my needs. I had also got a copy of Phase One’s Capture One raw processing software. You can currently get a free copy of the LE version of Capture One if you buy a Sandisk Extreme III memory card, the card comes with a voucher for the software.

Capture One has its faults, most notably in my opinion, the user interface is not the most intuitive, with the buttons having odd looking labels and the help file written for, and by, people who don’t need to read the help file. Having said that, once you’ve learned what the buttons do, a very steep learning curve but worth persevering, it is an exceptionally powerful piece of software. Once you’ve got the hang of it, it is a very quick process to manage the conversion of either an individual file, or a whole batch. I’ve now completely stopped using the raw processing software that came bundled with the camera. If anybody does start using Capture One, I would advise that you persevere with the interface, I would also advise that, if you intend the output to be posted on a web page, you do not chose the output option to “Embed Camera Profile” in the output options. This embeds a huge stack of camera data in the output file (JPEG or TIFF) that does not compress down, even if you subsequently “save for web” from your subsequent image editing package.

There are many articles out there on the web, and in the specialist press extolling the virtues of shooting raw, I could not be bothered with all the extra post-processing, and still can’t for many ‘snapshot’ pictures. If your software allows you to bypass the tedium of individual processing of files, then that’s a whole chunk of work taken care of.

In summary:
Learn what you can do using the bundled raw processing software that came with the camera, it may be more capable than you think. If there is an option to do “full auto” processing of batches of files, then some of the benefits of in-camera JPEGs are gone.
Learn the basics of raw processing using the bundled software. It may not be the most powerful tool in the box, but it will teach you the basics which will come in handy later.
Once you’ve got the hang of the basics, find a more advanced raw processing software application that suits you (and your camera) and spend some time learning its intricacies. Once you’ve got the hang of it, you’ll never look back.

Duncan.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-01-07, 12:08
gordon g gordon g is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Barnsley
Posts: 2,766
Default

I would second Duncan's comments about capture 1 LE - I find it gives an excellent image (I tend to convert to TIFF initially, and only save to jpeg once the image is finished)

Until 3 months ago, I was still a film user, but was used to digital manipulation post-capture from scanned slides and negs. I find now that most of what I used to do in photoshop can be done more effectively and quicker on the RAW file, and as Duncan said, can be batch processed where shots are needing similar corrections.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-01-07, 15:27
Snowyowl's Avatar
Snowyowl Snowyowl is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Prince Edward Island, Canada & Ocala National Forest, Florida, USA
Age: 84
Posts: 1,685
Default

I share your old reservations about RAw and while I tried it for a couple of months, now I don't use it very much. I now tend to shoot in jpeg but save asTIFF before doing any post priocessing. I keep the original jpeg as a sort of negative and only work on the TIFF file. With this approach I get faster uploads to my computer and fewer hang-ups using Picasa.
I just got a new printer, a Canon C5180, and it came with capture software and built in card reader. I've only experimented with the software but found immediately that it while it imports RAW to the computer, the software doesn't allow viewing of Raw FILES. That means opening another program (RAW Shooter) to view those files. All very complicated.
__________________
Dan
http://snowyowl.smugmug.com/Nature
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-01-07, 00:26
gordon g gordon g is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Barnsley
Posts: 2,766
Default

With capture 1 LE the process is very simple - insert card into reader; import dialogue box pops up with your default folder to import into as a target. Click import. While this is happening, the RAW converter opens, allowing you to view the files and start processing them. I find I get better results by adjusting exposure etc on the raw file than afterwards in photoshop - all I routinely do there is resize if required and sharpen (PS has better algorhythms for this), or perhaps radical transformations such as desaturate and channel mix for B&W images.
On the whole I find this gives better results than the jpeg-TIFF route.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-01-07, 08:06
greypoint's Avatar
greypoint greypoint is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northants, England
Posts: 2,545
Default

Having always used JPEG I did spend two months shooting RAW when using my Canon 30D [largely because the bundled software is so easy to use and I liked the way you could swap the mode settings].However I found i was'nt really doing much with regards to changing the exposure etc. and it got to be a bit pointless. Have never used RAW with Nikon but may give it a quick go now! Won't bother with my Olympus E-1 ads that really would be time consuming and the files are massive!
__________________
so many swans...so little time

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greypoint/sets/
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-01-07, 15:37
nirofo's Avatar
nirofo nirofo is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Scotland
Posts: 798
Default

The thing about RAW versus JPEG depends realistically on what you intend to do with your final image? If it's just for showing on the web or for producing enprint sized hard copies then JPEG is more than adequate. If on the other hand you intend doing more with your images, such as publishing in glossy mags, exhibition prints or for making your fellow club members jealous then it's RAW all the way. Natural history photography, insects, birds etc, demands the maximum detail that can be obtained, once again RAW holds the most detail and is capable of superior enlargement without blowing. It's horses for courses, decide what you want to do with your final images, for most general photographers I think JPEG fine will suit, if you're into Landscapes, Natural History or Macro subjects then it's got to be RAW, you can always make a JPEG from your RAW file, you can't make a RAW file from a JPEG!

nirofo.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-02-07, 11:16
Chris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

As a very fresh newcomer to RAW (CR2 on 350D), I mostly agree with Nirofo. However I have found that Digital Photo Professional bundled with the camera has such an amazingly well thought out intuitive interface, that it is quicker and infinitely pleasanter to use than PSE4 which I have used endlessly for Pana FZ7 (no RAW). It could be that the mac version of DPP is actually written for mac not a ghastly port, whereas PSE4 combines all the 30 years of accumulation without rewrite of PS with very bad port to mac wih hardly any keyboard shortcuts.

There is no doubt a vast amount of stuff I have not yet discovered in all of 48 hours and wonder if anyone else would be intersted in DPP thread equivalent to the Nikon Capture one?

Even if very little needs doing (as seems the case with 350D in most instances), it takes seconds for a fine tweak, command D, size to 1024x768 and done. The only things I haven't found (but not needed so far is a fine horiz/vertical correct tool - or easy way of adding signature, although its in exif)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nirofo View Post
The thing about RAW versus JPEG depends realistically on what you intend to do with your final image? If it's just for showing on the web or for producing enprint sized hard copies then JPEG is more than adequate. If on the other hand you intend doing more with your images, such as publishing in glossy mags, exhibition prints or for making your fellow club members jealous then it's RAW all the way. Natural history photography, insects, birds etc, demands the maximum detail that can be obtained, once again RAW holds the most detail and is capable of superior enlargement without blowing. It's horses for courses, decide what you want to do with your final images, for most general photographers I think JPEG fine will suit, if you're into Landscapes, Natural History or Macro subjects then it's got to be RAW, you can always make a JPEG from your RAW file, you can't make a RAW file from a JPEG!

nirofo.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-02-07, 14:58
Snowyowl's Avatar
Snowyowl Snowyowl is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Prince Edward Island, Canada & Ocala National Forest, Florida, USA
Age: 84
Posts: 1,685
Default

I've stopped using RAW and TIFF because they were taking up too much HD space and were slow to load. I did like using DPP and will probably go back to RAW once I've fixed my HD space problem. I'm currently in the process of moving all of my older shots on to DVDs and already things are speeding up.
I would definitely like to see a thread devoted to DPP.
__________________
Dan
http://snowyowl.smugmug.com/Nature
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-02-07, 15:14
Canis Vulpes's Avatar
Canis Vulpes Canis Vulpes is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 51
Posts: 4,398
Default

I used to shoot JPEG in my fuji days simply because the RAW files were 20MB and the camera took approx 20 seconds to write each file!

When I upgraded to the Nikon D2X compressed RAW files are 10MB even though the resolution is double that of the Fuji and they are written in a split second.

I edit these images in Nikon Capture NX and save the editted RAW file is NX uses non-destructive editting for NEF's (Nikon Electronic Format). I also save as TIFF for further editting in CS. Once I have finished an image the TIFF used as an intermediate file format is deleted (70Mb or so each) I therefore use no extra disk space apart from the RAW file and a few 100k for each finished JPEG.

The beauty of this is, should I get contacted by someone wishing to use on the the images its a very quick and accurate way to recreate the JPEG as seen by the customer as a larger file for printing and publishing.

I used to hate being contacted for photo use but now I can knock out a custom file in minutes thus respond quickly to peoples demands.

For information I was juggling three enquires yesterday and have quickly provided images for books, magazines and flyer's in the past year.

I shoot everything in RAW - its so versatile.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-02-07, 23:33
robski robski is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent UK
Posts: 3,739
Default

If there was the slightest chance that people wanted to use my mediocre images then I would probably invest in the time and equipment. I've dabbled with raw a few times but to be honest I can't be bothered with the fiddling around. I did like the way DXO optics software would process on default settings and would allow you to tweak if needed. I felt it was not worth the £100 if there was not any payback to be gained. I tend to use RAW only for tricky shots and 99% of them are too tricky for RAW and get trashed anyway.

If you have a market then sure use RAW, make backups and catologue them. In the last year I've only had one person ask to use a bird image which was printed in a leaflet 1.5" x 1" for which I received a £5 donation. So at that rate it is not worth the time and effort.
__________________
Rob

-----------------------------------------------------
Solar powered Box Brownie Mk2

Captain Sunshine, to be such a man as he, and walk so pure between the earth and the sea.

WPF Gallery
Birdforum Gallery
http://www.robertstocker.co.uk updated
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

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 Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:53.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.