Talk Snatcher into shooting RAW . . . ?

[Sutton Warrior]

Quote: 'Snatcher':

Hi SW,been thinking about the RAW option for a while but not tested the water yet! Scared in case I open a can of worms or is it a case of old horse/new tricks?? Go on tell me the benefits and talk me into it

 

Dont know about talking you into it Snatcher? But RAW does look like an interesting option, its very early day for me, with a lot of frustration, which is contiuing to cause grief!

 

The big factor that swung me was, Steve Randles drawing my attention to the fact that RAW as a comercial option can make or break a photo sale. You know, post a print on the net, someone sees it, "that will go nice in the XXXXX artical or on the cover of XXXX". Whats on the screen and what is in the 'original file' if its JAPG can let you down. Its a bit of a lottery, may never hapen, I had one bought a few years back, a picture of a boat at full power. In those days I had a Nikon D100, the picture was a 6mp JPEG file I got £250.

 

The first thing was a lack of RAM in the computer, the computer is 5-6 years old. New computer or upgrade the RAM, £50 or £500?? Went for £50, still not 100% happy, with the performance, it was a gamble that I may have lost? At 6 years the computer realy is living on borrowed time anyway.

 

Then there is the issue of a program to run RAW. I use PhotoShop Elements v4, realy need versions 5-6 or 7 with apropiate plugins. But Elements 5 crashed the venerable computer, however with the 2BG upgrade of mermory, I am able to run v7 and down load the free plugins from Adobe. Elements versionn 7 is less than £30 inc pp from Amazon.

 

Thats the hardware sorted, nearly, I'm still debating on, chasing the old a little more or 'New broom' and take advantage of some deals that will obviously be out ther after Christmas???

 

The software, thats something again. First, do we want to worry about the extra work required to 'develop' a RAW file and then convet it to JPEG? Is the RAW picture genuinly better than a JPEG picture, if you only view on a computer, its debatable? For me if I could not shoot RAW-JPEG as one shot, the camera storing two pictures, I think I would get very tiered of remembering to switch each time I wanted the two files.

 

I have JPEG processing down to a 'T', learning a new system is a headach. For me it will be a slow process, however if some one does 'spot my work', I will have Virgin RAW files they can buy, because of the facility on my camera to shoot RAW-JPEG at the same time.

 

As my computer is old, I am driven by the fact that it realy does need some sort of reberth or laying to rest and renewing So I'm making the best of what is avaliable, hedging my bets. It wil be satisfying eventualy to have RAW pictures on show, but it is not number one on my priority list, £400-£500 will buy a nice 10-20 lens?

 

Good and bad points there Snatcher, long term, it looks like fun, I wish I had that Sunrise-Sunset session as RAW files, I would have enjoyed playing with them. Which says it all, get out there and take some good pictures, never mind if they are RAW or JPEG.

 

If I only had one option, I would choose JPEG, cos I'm not comercialy minded, processing is quick and the programs are simple, the way I use Elements is any way, and 95% of my work will always be viewed on a computer. RAW files are said to have better colour coverage and saturation, highlights dont burn out, and of course RAW files are loss less, a JPEG file does lose infomation every time it is 'saved', although, I cant say I have noticed it

 

Others will have much more to add on the technical side, but thats my feelings so far, 'onward and upward'

 

SW

Edited December 24, 2008 by Sutton Warrior

[Sharkbyte]

Hi Snatcher (I presume I'm trying to talk Snatcher into using RAW)

 

No brainer really mate.

 

Absolutely no need to over complicate matters. You have all the necessary software, as part of your Canon package, to make use of all that valuable data being discarded prior to fiddling with jpegs.

 

It won't cost you a bean, and you'll have the workflow down to a fine art within weeks.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Sharkbyte

[Clifftop]

I tried shooting in jpeg and raw, personaly couldn't see any difference in the pic but then was not looking to sell.

 

I think one thing you have to be aware of is the amount of space you're using on your card.

 

I've had a looked at two photos which i had taken the jpeg one was 1.23mbs while the raw was 8.98 mbs, now thats over 11mbs for what is essentially the same photograph.

 

just my twopenny worth.

 

Cheers Fred

[Steve Randles]

I'll give you "some" info to think about over christmas as a full reply at this time of the night would be too much.

 

ALL digital cameras take photo's in RAW mode, without exception. Some cameras then compress these files to jpeg, so a jpeg is a compressed RAW file when discussing digital camera files.

 

First of all, my RAW processing goes like this. I shoot exclusively in RAW...no jpegs

 

Photoshop is open, I drag the RAW file into Photoshop..."Camera RAW" window opens. Now I have a multitude of options to change this and that...so what do I do? I simply click the "open image" button and it opens in Photoshop/ Now I have a converted RAW file in Photoshop ready to resize, sharpen or whatever is required exactly the same as editing a jpeg. The only difference between this file and a jpeg is this file is in 16 bit mode whereas a jpeg is in 8bit (dont worry about 16 or 8 bit for now)

 

There is a veil or mysticism over using RAW files and/or converting them for use, but why complicate things? Why make more work for yourself when that time could be spent out and about taking more Photographs. Yes there are many things one can do to a RAW file at the conversion stage and knowing what they are and how they work will greatly enhance and even save a photo from the recycle bin, but stick with the basics for now, convert the file and use..simple is as simple does!

 

So...where's the complications/confusion now?

 

Steve...

 

Merry Christmas!

[Newt]

SW - jpeg is great for PC/internet display but since it was designed to be lossy (you lose some detail forever whenever you edit), it is really not a good format to have while you are editing. It is good for display since the format gives a small file size (unless you are Snatcher who manages huge .jpg files ).

 

Raw is lossless but if that is too complex to work with for now, Tiff is also lossless but behaves pretty much like your jpeg photos do for editing and most any photo editor can handle them. Save from camera as .tif files (or have the camera do it) and only convert a copy of the finished product to .jpg.

 

There does seem to be lossless jpeg now but I am not familiar with it so will leave any comments to experts.

[Sutton Warrior]

I'll give you "some" info to think about over christmas as a full reply at this time of the night would be too much.

 

ALL digital cameras take photo's in RAW mode, without exception. Some cameras then compress these files to jpeg, so a jpeg is a compressed RAW file when discussing digital camera files.

 

First of all, my RAW processing goes like this. I shoot exclusively in RAW...no jpegs

 

Photoshop is open, I drag the RAW file into Photoshop..."Camera RAW" window opens. Now I have a multitude of options to change this and that...so what do I do? I simply click the "open image" button and it opens in Photoshop/ Now I have a converted RAW file in Photoshop ready to resize, sharpen or whatever is required exactly the same as editing a jpeg. The only difference between this file and a jpeg is this file is in 16 bit mode whereas a jpeg is in 8bit (dont worry about 16 or 8 bit for now)

 

There is a veil or mysticism over using RAW files and/or converting them for use, but why complicate things? Why make more work for yourself when that time could be spent out and about taking more Photographs. Yes there are many things one can do to a RAW file at the conversion stage and knowing what they are and how they work will greatly enhance and even save a photo from the recycle bin, but stick with the basics for now, convert the file and use..simple is as simple does!

 

So...where's the complications/confusion now?

 

Steve...

 

Merry Christmas!

 

Steve,

The above puts a very simple slant in my mind to 'RAW'. Elements v. 7 opens RAW files in a very similar way to your description of how PhotoShop does it. I presume, the converted JPEG file then becomes a 'lossie file', but you still have a virgin RAW file in the original folder? Makes the need for shooting RAW/JPEG a bit pointless, although I think its 'belt and braces' untill one is confident of the 'method', finaly ditching JPEG at the camera stage.

 

Thanks for a very easy on the brain explination Steve, I would think Snatcher could be convinced by that

 

SW

[Sutton Warrior]

SW - jpeg is great for PC/internet display but since it was designed to be lossy (you lose some detail forever whenever you edit), it is really not a good format to have while you are editing. It is good for display since the format gives a small file size (unless you are Snatcher who manages huge .jpg files ).

 

Raw is lossless but if that is too complex to work with for now, Tiff is also lossless but behaves pretty much like your jpeg photos do for editing and most any photo editor can handle them. Save from camera as .tif files (or have the camera do it) and only convert a copy of the finished product to .jpg.

 

There does seem to be lossless jpeg now but I am not familiar with it so will leave any comments to experts.

 

Hi Newt, I'm slowly getting to grips with RAW, as Steve says, there is an unjustified mystery. One wonders, if this has been deliberatly perpitrated?? Although, the camera manufacturers could have done us all a favour with a universal standard . . . is 'Tiff' that standard??

 

I see the reason for JPEG, for me JPEG has served a perpose, however I can see the need to move on. Its not essentiasl, but as one has the facility, and now, slowly, a better understanding, its 'onwards and upwards'.

 

SW

[Steve Randles]

Makes the need for shooting RAW/JPEG a bit pointless

 

Maybe so, but I advised and do advise those who are unfamilar with RAW files to shoot in RAW+JPEG, so that until they are conversant with RAW and/or have the necessary programs to view/edit RAW files they can use the jpegs...but in the future they will have the RAW files should they be needed.

 

I presume, the converted JPEG file then becomes a 'lossie file', but you still have a virgin RAW file in the original folder?

 

Yes JPEG is lossy, but in the scenario I explained its only been saved once, as the final output direct from the RAW file. Shoot jpeg in camera, its compressed to jpeg, then saved again as your final output...so twice.

 

AND you have had no control over the "in camera" compression (in camera compression settings will have been setup by your camera manufacturer and will not be optimum for every picture, if any...you'll be looking at very basic stuff). You could for example change the whitebalance or correct a colour cast whilst your converting a RAW file with incredibly good results, try doing that with a jpeg..results will be poor.

 

A 10megapixel camera's RAW file will be 10mb approx and the same photo shot as a jpeg will be around 4mb <-- At this stage you've already handicapped yourself and thrown away 6mb of photo information!

 

Steve...

[Sutton Warrior]

A 10megapixel camera's RAW file will be 10mb approx and the same photo shot as a jpeg will be around 4mb <-- At this stage you've already handicapped yourself and thrown away 6mb of photo information!

Steve...

 

I tell you what Steve, if Snatcher is not sold by now . . . dumping 6mb of infomation befor you start gets to the point of a 'no brainer'

 

I'm taking the advise of shooting RAW/JPEG for the present, untill I get into the swing of things.

 

SW

[Colin Brett]

I tell you what Steve, if Snatcher is not sold by now . . . dumping 6mb of infomation befor you start gets to the point of a 'no brainer'

 

I'm taking the advise of shooting RAW/JPEG for the present, untill I get into the swing of things.

 

SW

 

SW, did a little package arrive yet??

 

Colin