canon digital RAW files- whats the point

Discussion in 'Canon' started by nt, Jul 7, 2003.

  1. nt

    nt Guest

    My canon s45 has the ability to shoot in Canon Raw Format; (not RAW) i cant
    open it in photoshop and can only open it with the canon viewer program.
    the raw file is much much larger than your standard hi-quality jpeg file.
    so whats the point of this raw file? is it only made to edit with the canon
    software then saved as a jpeg??

    n.t
     
    nt, Jul 7, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. nt

    Ken Chandler Guest

    The is a plugin available called Adobe Camera RAW which will allow you to do
    just that. (PS7 only)
    Breezebrowser is another very neat program designed to play with Canon RAW
    (CRW) files. There are several others out there too, from freeware to $$$.
    Let me know if you want some links.
    There are many benefits of the RAW file:

    * Lossless correction of White Balance (WB) in post processing
    * Access to increased Color Depth, eg 10-12bits per pixel instead of the
    regular 8 bits per pixel
    * With some limitation the ability to make lossless exposure corrections in
    post
    * Ability to have all the benefits of a TIFF without the large file overhead
    when on the road
    Some of the third party software available can help you get a lot more out
    of your RAWs, it depends on what your goal is for your shots. For absolute
    control and retention of as much of the captured information as possible RAW
    is ideal. RAW file post processing can be time consuming though. If your
    ultimate goal is to display only on the web at low res, JPG is probably more
    than adequate.

    KC
     
    Ken Chandler, Jul 7, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. nt

    furnace Guest


    what Ken replied..

    if you're after a realy neat image management prog then head over to
    www.irfanview.com , grab it and the plugins and life will be simpler '-)

    I still cannot believe how few people use irfanview to the fullest of it's
    potential!

    k
     
    furnace, Jul 7, 2003
    #3
  4. nt

    Lionel Guest

    The software CDROM that you get with the camera includes a program
    called 'Zoombrowser', which allows you to change white balance, exposure
    & other useful settings on your image after taking the shot *IF, & ONLY
    IF* you shot in RAW mode. You can also use it to convert RAW files into
    16 bit TIF files in either standard curve or linear (very useful for
    images where detail is lost in both shadows & highlights) modes, which
    you can edit in 16 bit mode in Photoshop.

    If you don't have any interest in doing any of these things, just shoot
    in JPEG & save yourself some disk space.
     
    Lionel, Jul 7, 2003
    #4
  5. nt

    Miro Guest

    It's not lossless.
     
    Miro, Jul 8, 2003
    #5
  6. nt

    Scott Howard Guest

    Perhaps you can clarify something for me here Miro... Are you too stupid
    to work out what he's refering to, or are you just trying to be a prick?

    My moneys on the latter, but only if I can't vote for both...

    Scott.
     
    Scott Howard, Jul 8, 2003
    #6
  7. nt

    Miro Guest

    Why dont you just do what the hell pleases you. You obviously know nothing
    of the topic.
     
    Miro, Jul 8, 2003
    #7
  8. nt

    Ken Chandler Guest

    With RAW you are NOT working with a 8 bit colorspace. The S45 (that the OP
    was talking about) has 36-bits per pixel, which is 12bit. But that's beside
    the point that was being made.
    That is, you jag the one-time shot of your life in daylight, Oh no!, you

    a) Left the camera set to Tungsten from the night before
    or
    b) the camera Auto WB gets it wrong and you get a nice blue, or other color,
    cast.

    The RAW image holds all the data for what the camera saw at the time the
    shutter was open. The correct white balance can be chosen in post
    processing of the RAW file. The color shift in the RAW is Lossless, no data
    is thrown out, the histogram isn't raked or "posterised" as you put it.

    KC
     
    Ken Chandler, Jul 8, 2003
    #8
  9. nt

    Miro Guest

    It has been clearly demonstrated that the blue channel suffers the most when
    tungsten lit scenes are converted to daylight.

    Compared with the balanced shot done with a filter that information in the
    blue channel is enhanced.

    How you propose to do this with software is 90% marketing and 10% bullshi_
     
    Miro, Jul 8, 2003
    #9
  10. nt

    Ken Chandler Guest

    See the big difference here is that Miro knows what he is talking about.
    Miro and I are talking about two different things however.

    "JT" on the other hand is a poor imitation of a troll.

    IMO of course.
     
    Ken Chandler, Jul 8, 2003
    #10
  11. nt

    Ken Chandler Guest

    That is all nice, but it's got little to do with what is being discussed.
    It was a S45 for crying out loud, a sub $1000 PnS camera, hardly marketed a
    the type that is going to be running around with filters n' gels for every
    lighting condition.

    Take two pics in daylight using the tungsten WB, one as RAW, one as JPG.
    Which can you get back to reality (daylight) without throwing out data? Too
    extreme an example?

    Set the camera up for cloudy to take photos of your nieces first birthday in
    the park on an overcast day. Part way through the cloud clears and it's
    beautiful and sunny daylight, you forget to change the WB back. Which
    photos stand a better chance of color correction in post without throwing
    out data, RAW or JPG?

    Leave it on Auto WB? If only it /never/ got it wrong.

    KC
     
    Ken Chandler, Jul 8, 2003
    #11
  12. nt

    Mark Guest

    If you think RAW is a 'problem' with your Minolta camera, you didn't
    extensivly explore the advantages it could give you.
     
    Mark, Jul 8, 2003
    #12
  13. nt

    Ken Chandler Guest

    Geez Brenton, It's not like it's the first time I've agreed with Uncle Miro
    :p
    And I reckon sometimes he takes joy in being obtuse and purposely missing
    the point for arguments sake, don't you Unca, c'mon own up.
     
    Ken Chandler, Jul 8, 2003
    #13
  14. nt

    Auspics Guest

    Correct me if I'm wrong here Ken...
    Arn't you the bloke who tried to sway me from buying a SD9 on the basis of
    some journalists reprinting of another journo's work that was out of date
    anyway and couldn't put up one scientific or photographic, (verifiable) fact
    to substantiate your rantings... Or do I have the wrong person here?
    JT
     
    Auspics, Jul 8, 2003
    #14
  15. nt

    Lionel Guest

    Not in Canon RAW format. It's 12 bits, not 8. You're also usually
    editing in 16 bit space, so there's plenty of room for lossless
    manipulation - thus, no posterisation. (Well, unless you do really
    extreme changes that push data out of band.)
     
    Lionel, Jul 8, 2003
    #15
  16. nt

    Ken Chandler Guest

    Can't say I recall it.

    There was some bloke "Justin Tyme" who started two threads:

    "Sigma Digital SLR" and "Biting the bullet (for a Sigma!)" on the 28May and
    3rd June respectively.

    Here is my only contribution to the threads:
    -----------------------------------------------------
    LMAO, quote of the day.

    Thanks for that Andrew.
    -----------------------------------------------------

    "Justin Tyme" bought the camera though, cos within 20 days he stated here on
    the forums that he had already shot over 6000 images with the SD9 without a
    problem.

    Can't recall any recent thread on the SD9 other than these two.

    KC
     
    Ken Chandler, Jul 8, 2003
    #16
  17. nt

    Lionel Guest

    Not to mention the fact that the S45 can't take a filter anyway.
     
    Lionel, Jul 8, 2003
    #17
  18. nt

    nt Guest

    I think by describing this incident as a problem, he was referring to the
    fact that he couldnt open this file on Photoshop, and had to convert it to
    tiff before editing........ I dont think a person who invests considerable
    amounts of money on a DSLR, doesnt know what to do with it.....

    n.t.
     
    nt, Jul 9, 2003
    #18
  19. nt

    Miro Guest

    Every camera can take a filter. Just not always a screw fitting.

    If it doesnt have Canon written on it, you may still use it in Photography.
     
    Miro, Jul 9, 2003
    #19
  20. nt

    Lionel Guest

    Sure, if you don't mind taping it over the front of your lens. Would
    *you* do that if you owned an S45?
     
    Lionel, Jul 9, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.