Photoshop RAW files

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by Ulysses, Oct 11, 2011.

  1. Ulysses

    Ulysses Guest

    today we all use digital cameras. then use photoshop for editing
    one feature is to use raw files
    i personally don't care for it. here is why

    Pros and Cons
    A raw file is essentially the data that the camera's chip recorded along
    with some additional information tagged on. A JPG file is one that has had
    the camera apply linear conversion, matrix conversion, white balance,
    contrast, and saturation, and then has had some level of potentially
    destructive compression applied.

    Reasons to Shoot JPG

    - Files are smaller and therefore more of them fit on a card.

    - For many applications image quality is more than sufficient (family
    snapshots, news images).

    - Small files are more easily transmitted wirelessly and online. This is
    important to newspaper photographers.

    - Many photographers don't have the time or inclination to post-process
    their files.

    - Many cameras (especially digicams) can not shoot quickly when working in
    raw mode. Some lower-end models can't record raw files at all.

    Reasons to Shoot Raw

    - A raw file is comparable to the latent image contained in an exposed but
    undeveloped piece of film. It holds exactly what the imaging chip recorded.
    Nothing more. Nothing less. This means that the photographer is able to
    extract the maximum possible image quality, whether now or in the future. A
    good analogy with the traditional world of film is that you have the
    opportunity to use a different type of developer or development time at any
    point in the future if one comes along that you think might do a better job
    of processing the image.

    - Raw files have not had while balance set. They are tagged with whatever
    the camera's setting was, (either that which was manually set or via
    auto-white-balance), but the actual data has not been changed. This allows
    one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes after the
    fact with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file
    has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied
    (such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.

    - File linearization and colour filter array (Bayer) conversion is done on a
    computer with a fast and powerful microprocessor. This allows much more
    sophisticated algorithms to be used than those done in a camera with its
    slower and less powerful processor and with less space for complex
    conversion programs.

    - The raw file is tagged with contrast and saturation information as set in
    the camera by the user, but the actual image data has not been changed. The
    user is free to set these based on a per-image evaluation rather than use
    one or two generalized settings for all images taken.

    - Possibly the biggest advantage of shooting raw is that one has a 16 bit
    image (post raw conversion) to work with. This means that the file has
    65,536 levels to work with. This is opposed to a JPG file's 8 bit space with
    just 256 brightness levels available. This is important when editing an
    image, particularly if one is trying to open up shadows or alter brightness
    in any significant way.
     
    Ulysses, Oct 11, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ulysses

    Savageduck Guest

    You are free to shoot whatever suits your needs.
    Irrelevant in this age of inexpensive memory.
    So? Shoot RAW + JPEG and get the best of both Worlds. Memory is cheap.
    You left out ability, and knowledge of the technical aspects of dealing
    with RAW processing. Otherwise that is a fair assessment.
    That might have been true in the past, With decent DSLRs today there is
    little perceptible read/write lag. I certainly notice differences
    between my pld D70 and my D300s.
    ....and you do not care to have this benefit?
    Shooting and processing RAW also allows you to make a custom WB
    calibration by using a WB card in your shooting protocol.
    Over explained, but mostly true.
    All good reasons to shoot RAW and enjoy the flexibility of ACR or LR,
    or any of the other RAW processing programs.

    I see you have given plenty of reasons to shoot RAW, or RAW+JPEG and a
    statement that regardless of all the advantages of shooting and
    processing RAW image files your preference is to shoot JPEG only,
    mostly for the dubious economy of memory space.

    Get more memory, and shoot RAW+JPEG, then you can return to the RAW
    file if you need to, while dealing with the JPEG as you currently do.
    The advantages of shooting RAW outweigh shooting JPEG only.
     
    Savageduck, Oct 11, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ulysses

    Carrie Guest

    I've tried shootin RAW (and both) but usually end up not doing anything
    much with the RAW ones. jpegs can be openned in Camera Raw anyway and
    bascially the same things can be done to fix a picture in regular Photoshop.
    Probably depends on what you want to do with the pictuers after and how much
    time you have to do it (after)
    Like so much it depends on the person and what works best for them.
     
    Carrie, Oct 11, 2011
    #3
  4. Ulysses

    Voivod Guest

    Try a hammer to the forehead, idiot.
     
    Voivod, Oct 11, 2011
    #4
  5. Ulysses

    Voivod Guest

    All of us? Every single one?
    You're an idiot and don't have a fucking clue what you're doing? You
    didn't need to bring that up again.
    Big fucking deal. Splurge, spend $20 buy another card.
    What the **** would you know about what professionals do or need?
    Well then we won't shoot RAW with those, will we? Fucking idiot.
    You copied and pasted this from some wiki, didn't you?
    Your brightness level isn't significant in any way.
     
    Voivod, Oct 11, 2011
    #5
  6. Ulysses

    Savageduck Guest

    In most cases the JPEGS out of the camera will do just fine. While you
    can certainly open JPEGS in ACR you will find that what you can do with
    that file in ACR is limited and not as effective as adjusting the RAW
    file.

    Once you take the ACR processed RAW file or JPEG to Photoshop all bets
    are off and both file types are subject to the same adjustments. The
    exception being exposure adjustments which can only be made in 32 bit
    mode.

    If you are going to extract the best from your image file in terms of
    potential, RAW is always the best option. Hence giving yourself the
    option of shooting RAW+JPEG will always give you the option of
    returning to the RAW file if the JPEG has issues which cannot be solved.

    ....and that is the beauty of choice.
     
    Savageduck, Oct 11, 2011
    #6
  7. Ulysses

    tony cooper Guest

    My two grandsons (ages 7 and 8) are in a Pop Warner football league.
    I shoot about 100 shots every Saturday morning at the games. The
    reason for the high number of shots is that in "action" shots it is
    extremely difficult to find one of the boys in the shot and then focus
    in. All those little kids look alike if you can't spot the number.
    So, I just click away and hope one of the boys is in the shot. (They
    both play on the same team)

    I've been averaging about 8 "keepers" per weekend of "action" shots.
    That's the right number for me because I try to keep the game total to
    about 15 shots including side-line and close-up shots. With nine
    games in the season, that's enough shots to document the activity.

    I started out shooting RAW, then went to RAW+.jpg, but now shoot .jpg
    only. Saturday morning outdoor shots like this rarely need any
    post-processing steps other than cropping. The shots can be reviewed,
    thinned out, and processed quicker with just .jpgs.

    Of course, one great thing about digital is the ability to change from
    ..jpg to RAW, and from one ISO to another, and back again in any series
    of shots. There's no commitment like there was in film when you chose
    the type of film and got stuck with it for 24 or 36 shots.

    Playing around in post-processing, I came up with this:

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/i-ZZt4JK5/0/X2/2011-10-07-1-X2.jpg
     
    tony cooper, Oct 11, 2011
    #7
  8. Ulysses

    Carrie Guest

    I do sometimes set it on both, but for what I do with pictures (and a lot
    of times I use some with effects just to see what I can get) RAW ones are
    really big. But, now that you mention it, the last of the Autumn leaves
    (mainly gold around here) won't be there for long and I should get a few RAW
    ones to work with.
    These are jpegs
    First one is taken looking up into the trees (I love the gold leaves and
    blue sky- trying to find new ways of capturing it)
    http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/IMG_9515copy.jpg

    This is Virtual Painter "air brush" (I know, it's an effect, doesn't take
    much talent and creativity (LOL)
    http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/upTrees.jpg

    and just fooling around...
    http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/Untitled-1.jpg
     
    Carrie, Oct 11, 2011
    #8
  9. Ulysses

    Carrie Guest

    That's nice! Reminds me of "live trace" (which I would do- see what I'd
    get, in Illustrator)
    Ive been known to take 300 shots from one day to the next, especially in the
    Fall with the colors, lighting, leaves, etc.
    I don't do much more with them than upload some to facebook, and sometimes,
    some to the local TV channels (FB and websites) that ask for pictures of the
    seasons, etc.
    two from yesterday (jpegs. I usually use the shadows/highlights on pictures
    like this to lighten them up, when I resize them)
    http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/IMG_9705.jpg

    This one is a play on another picture going around online of a field all
    brown and gold, with a stone wall around it and a cat in the picture that
    was the same color as the field and couldn't be seen. Like a puzzle "can you
    find the cat?" (I think the cats eyes were lightened and it was a lightened
    imagine put in, on purpose) I noticed my dog was sort of the same color as
    the leaves. So I didn't try and do anything (when shot or after) to make her
    stand out from them.
    http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/IMG_9485.jpg
     
    Carrie, Oct 11, 2011
    #9
  10. Not quite true. Each manufacturer applies adjustments to the RAW data to
    compliment their brand.
     
    John J Stafford, Oct 14, 2011
    #10
  11. Ulysses

    dorayme Guest

    Not quite true. Each manufacturer applies adjustments to the RAW data to
    compliment their brand.[/QUOTE]

    Like "Buy Sony, the best hardware in the world!"
     
    dorayme, Oct 14, 2011
    #11
  12. Like "Buy Sony, the best hardware in the world!"[/QUOTE]

    Yes, something like that. I have gone through two versions of software
    for the Leica M9 (Kodak full-frame sensor) to correct both lens and
    sensor issues. Version three is on the desktop but I'm not installing
    until I know I can revert.
     
    John J Stafford, Oct 20, 2011
    #12
    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.