What to do with raw photos?

[Rich D]

I have been shooting for a year or two now with a Canon Rebel Xti but have never shot in raw until today and do not completely understand the benefits of raw photos. I have always used Adobe Camera Raw for my pictures although they werent shot in the raw format.

What are the benefits of shooting in raw? and are there any additional adjustments in shopping after saving with raw?

 

[VoidRaven]

This is how it was once explained to me: RAW basically gives you all of the data that the sensor records when taking the photo. This allows you more "forgiveness" when post processing to play with an image whereas JPG runs an algorithm to keep the "best data" and pitch the rest.

I pretty much only shoot in RAW because I'm not that good yet with my photos and forgiveness is good. I'm sure someone like Doug here could offer a much better explanation.

 

[IslandCrow]

That's pretty much it. You can think of RAW as the negative. Another big advantage of RAW is the color depth. RAW has around 32 bits of data (I think in actuality it's slightly less), while JPG is 16 bit. Therefore, one area where you'll definitely see the difference is in adjusting color information. If your color balance is off while shooting RAW, you can change it all you want in post without affecting image quality. Of course, there's technically no such thing as color balance with RAW, but that's actually part of the beauty. . .and another matter entirely.

Now, on the down side, since RAW is just the "negative", it doesn't become a picture until you process it, and if you're short on time, that may not be desirable. Of course, a third option is to shoot RAW+JPG. That way, you get instant results, but still have the option to perform more specialized post processing to certain images.

 

[BlueCorn]

Most of the responses here have been right on. Properly exposed and the right custom WB preset in the camera, JPG should rival any RAW image. The issue is that those things don't always happen. Our cameras don't expect the color of lighting that we use in our tanks and that can make exposures tricky. When shooting RAW, you're allowed to make those decisions after the fact. With JPG, those decisions get baked into the file allowing very little margin for error.

I highly recommend Adobe Lightroom as a photo processor. It takes all of the pain out of RAW processing and allows you to get to your best image in a stress-free fashion. That said, Adobe Camera RAW uses the same tools albeit in a slightly more tedious manner.

 

[israel.kendall]

Using batch processing in adobe bridge is really great when working with raw. You can apply custom settings, presets, and spit out multiple files fast with it.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[Rich D]

thanks for the responses! I actually have adobe lightroom and will try using it some more today.

 

[Rich D]

I took a few in raw today and experimented in lightroom and in camera raw. While I can see how lightroom would be great for a large amount of photos at one time, I actually prefer using Camera Raw when only editing a few. Heres some of the shots after editing them, I shot in a high ISO and did not think the noise would be so bad...

The super closeup was to experiment with noise reduction.

 

[ibanezgfx]

what lens are you using there for the frogspawn?

 

[IslandCrow]

Most of the responses here have been right on. Properly exposed and the right custom WB preset in the camera, JPG should rival any RAW image. The issue is that those things don't always happen. Our cameras don't expect the color of lighting that we use in our tanks and that can make exposures tricky. When shooting RAW, you're allowed to make those decisions after the fact. With JPG, those decisions get baked into the file allowing very little margin for error.

I highly recommend Adobe Lightroom as a photo processor. It takes all of the pain out of RAW processing and allows you to get to your best image in a stress-free fashion. That said, Adobe Camera RAW uses the same tools albeit in a slightly more tedious manner.

Keep in mind that although it gives you greater power to correct certain mistakes, the RAW vs. JPEG debate really shouldn't be about mistakes. It's really about control in processing your image. You really can't compare the quality of the two, because technically, RAW isn't even an image. . .it's just data (well, even more so than JPGs, TIFFs, etc.). With JPGs, the camera processes the data, and you have relatively limited control over what it does. With RAW, you have full control. Which one is better depends entirely upon your individual circumstances.

 

[Rich D]

what lens are you using there for the frogspawn?

All photos were taken with a Sigma DC 17-70mm lens. It has been a decent lens but I feel as if the clarity could be better when taking certain pictures. If I were to get another lens, it would have a fixed focal length.

 

[Rich D]

ok I just took a couple more if anybody is interested. I slacked off a little bit and did not use any sharpening in these images which makes me wonder how much sharpening is necessary when a photo isnt being cropped excessively. I never notice a difference until I get down to about 100% zoom...

 

[israel.kendall]

Raw, JPEG, tiff, they are all data, and they are all images. They are all just data until viewing software is used to interpret the data and display the image. Its about the amount of data retained and compression. Raw keeps pretty much all the data, uncompressed thus providing the highest picture quality. Basically the higher the compression, the lower the file size and the lower the picture quality. JPEG is widely popular because of its balance between quality and compression.

I always shoot in raw, because once that data is gone you can never get it back. You never know when you want a nice large print of something you shot, and JPEG simply doesn't cut it for that.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[BlueCorn]

Rich,

in regard to your sharpening question, it's not a simple answer. Your RAW convertor generally adds some sharpening (capture sharpening) by default. The sensor in your camera actually defocuses the image slightly to determine the color associated with any given pixel. Sharpening at RAW conversion is done to reverse that. It's a different process than sharpening for printing or screen output (output sharpening). Both are important to get your best image. Additionally, many folks (myself included) do "creative sharpening" as well; i.e. selective sharpening within the image.

Apply a sane amount of sharpening during conversion but don't over-do it.

 

[kilroy217]

what else do you do with raw images but cook them? I like to saute mine with some nice olive oil and maybe some garlic. haha... sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Rich D]

thanks for the sharpening explanation beerguy. That makes a lot more sense now.
and thanks everybody else for the RAW explanations, after shooting a little in raw I no longer think I will shoot any other way.

I have one more picture I just quickly edited if anybody is interested. The light made the top anemone look very white, in real life it looks extremely healthy though.

 

[Seajuice]

+1 for lightroom processing