Have a DSLR and very early learning stages (Nikon D70). Concentrating on trying to take a good pic rather than being interested in editing afterwards. I use Picasa to sort my pics.
I'm shooting on Jpeg format - can anyone explain RAW benefits and how to use in really simple terms (as I'm dim) and can I use RAW via Picasa or do you need special soptware?
Many thanks!
Raw allows you to mess about with it more - change exposures and so on. However it's a bugger to work with as not much stuff supports it, and for example you can't see thumbnails in windows explorer etc.
RAW files wherever possible for me - but I like doing post processing in Lightroom - if you aren't into processing you might as well shoot jpeg. The other thing to consider is you might not like post processing now but you could want to in future - especially if you get the 'killer shot'.
Raw files allow you to make fairly big changes in exposure, contrast and white balance etc without really degrading the image quality
You can use RAW in Picasa (at least with my camera) and on Mac the thumbnails show up just fine in Finder 
Lightroom is superb imo if you do get into processing.
I would stick to Jpegs until you get used to the camera. A RAW file isn't an image per se as it needs to be processed by an image processor such as Photoshop. the on board image processors on the camera do a pretty good job but they are seldom perfect so using RAW files allow for more flexibility.
Im not sure if Picasa supports Raw files as there is a few different formats of Raw ( i know Nikon use .NEF files) so might be worth a look as Photoshop and other image processors can be quite expensive (if you have to pay for them).
Have a play with it see what you can do. if you have your camrea to take a RAW and Jpeg for each picture you will be able to put your pictures up on the net quicker and replace them with the RAW processed ones later.
I rarely use RAW files for day to day picture taking though I will if i want to be able to add a few effects etc.
Bear in mind that RAW files are uncompressed and can be quite large in size!
HTH
RAW did help me rescue a few screwed up shots. You don't have the option of switching to RAW when you know you are about to mess up a shot....
Use RAW far better but whilst learning use RAW and JPEG if your camera allows both. Who cares about the size of them storage space is cheap as hell.
RAW (or more accurately NEF in Nikonland) is the way forward if you like to twiddle with your images at all after you've taken them.
Basically when you take a photo the camera must take the information from the sensor, interpret according to your camera settings (i.e. white balance, contrast, saturation, sharpness) and produce a compressed JPG image.
When you shoot RAW you instead get all the info from the sensor and you can set the white balance, contrast etc yourself on your PC. You also get a bit more detail and colour depth to play with.
A good metaphor is that shooting JPG is like a polaroid: the camera develops the image for you.
RAW is like shooting film and then developing it yourself.
for example you can't see thumbnails in
windows explorer etc.
Search for NEF Codec and you'll see the thumbnails in explorer.
Only shoot in RAW now
Oh yeah one other thing to consider is if you are shooting action stuff in burst mode - you will be able to take more jpegs than raw files before filling up the buffer.
RAW is like shooting film and then developing it yourself.
And being able (at a later date) to also choose a different film stock and development procedure.
I always shoot in RAW - it gives you a chance to rescue shots that would otherwise have been thrown away.
It takes a bit of extra effort* and double the storage space, but having the ability to go back to the original image as recorded in the camera is excellent.
Irfanview is a good ( free ) image viewer that at least supports Canon Raw files - it might be worth checking if it can do Nikon as well.
* I've written a script for myself which finds the memory card in the PC, copies the raw files to the hard drive, calls Breezebrowser ( my RAW conversion software ) and finally adds in IPCT info to my JPGs and starts Irfanview.
Just downloaded a free Olympus viewer, and it takes a loooong time (and hammers the cpu) to open a folder with a lot of RAW files in...
My concern with RAW files is something that I read online and am not sure how true/relevant it is or not.....
As I understand it, every camera needs a 'translator' for it's RAW files which is why when new cameras come out, Adobe (for example) has to bring out a plug-in specifically for that camera, so Photoshop can read the RAW file....
Assuming this is correct - who is to say that in years to come, the software will still support pictures shot in RAW on old cameras? Why would the manufacturers of image processing software still support RAW from a Nikon D80 twenty years down the line and does this mean that were I to shoot in RAW, all my images might one day be unreadable.....?
Or is that nonsense?? (I suspect it might be)....
For what it's worth - I shoot jpeg most of the time. I have tinkered with RAW every now & again and while it saves the odd shot here and there it seems more faff than it's worth.
Not nonsense, Stumpy. But if you have a software NOW that will decode your files, then you will still have it tomorrow if, for example, new verions of Photoshop don't support your camera.
Of course media become obsolete, so you need to keep an eye on the landscape and if something nasty happens be prepared to export all your RAW files as a different format (TIF for example). My thinking is that when I need to do that, I'll have a much faster computer to do it with.
Assuming this is correct - who is to say that in years to come, the software will still support pictures shot in RAW on old cameras?
The fact that the code contains the code for older cameras too. Well at least Canon ones seem to.
If you like, just shoot in raw, then any that need special attention can get it. When you're done, convert the lot to JPEG and delete the RAWs.
The fact that the code contains the code for older cameras too. Well at least Canon ones seem to.
I guess the fear is that whereas Photoshop 1 supports files from a Canon A, Photoshop 99 may be a total re-write, and drop support for Canon A, B and C. At that point you may want to use your version of Photoshop 98 (IYSWIM) to export your files in a new format, for safety.
If your talking about software then your problem will be the OS running with Photoshop not Photoshop accepting your files.
Yep - that's another thing to watch.
The raw plugin I just downloaded supports my old old 2001 compact camera's raw format.
stumpy01: a counter-argument is that if you shoot as JPG then your images are effectively stuck like that.
As wide-gamut displays become more commonplace you are stuck with a compressed 8-bit jpg, whereas those with a 12 or 14 bit RAW file can easily knock out a new version that uses the extra gamut.
What computer/OS are you using? As much I agree that it's important to focus on your camera and trying to take a "good" picture, there is a huge amount to be learned about doing so once you start processing. Once you see your pictures displayed full-screen, and have an easy way to make minor colour/contrast adjustments, you'll start to see differently what you see through the viewfinder.
Your camera uses older-format NEFs, so see if you can pick up Adobe's Lightroom 1. It's better for straight photo developing than Photoshop/CS and is very, very simple to follow and use.
Lightroom is a superb piece of software and is designed for post processing.
DrJ - Member
Not nonsense, Stumpy. But if you have a software NOW that will decode your files, then you will still have it tomorrow if, for example, new verions of Photoshop don't support your camera.Of course media become obsolete, so you need to keep an eye on the landscape and if something nasty happens be prepared to export all your RAW files as a different format (TIF for example). My thinking is that when I need to do that, I'll have a much faster computer to do it with.
If your talking about software then your problem will be the OS running with Photoshop not Photoshop accepting your files
Yeah - they be my concerns....that new versions eventually might not support my camera......and that if I have to rely on, for example, PS CS6 being the last version that supports the D80 what happens when Windows 2020 doesn't allow me to install PS CS6......?!
GrahamS - indeed that is a counter-arguement, but I'd rather my files were 'stuck' in a readable 8-bit, compressed, narrow-gamut format (that to all intents and purposes still allows me to print large images that look good), than a format that nothing can read in 20yrs......
I know that the chances are there'll be some way of converting them, but for me I'd rather just stick with jpeg.
If I was to take things to a more serious level with my photography, then I would perhaps research RAW more thoroughly as a tool to improve processing/quality.
Yeah - they be my concerns....that new versions eventually might not support my camera......and that if I have to rely on, for example, PS CS6 being the last version that supports the D80 what happens when Windows 2020 doesn't allow me to install PS CS6......?!
Your seriously unlikely to suffer this problem unless you just never update your computer or it's OS. To get to that stage your going to have to be at least 10 year behind with OS and computers.
Oh yeah - to me doing PP is one of the major aspects of digital photography - similar to what you used to do in a darkroom. Not doing it just means you are letting the camera make decisions for you.
There is a quality issue with shooting jpegs as well - it is a lossy compression format, which results in a reduction of image quality. You probably won't noticeimmediately , but if you keep editing and resave your jpegs, the effect is cumulative.
For the best quality images, shoot in RAW, import into Lightroom/PS/OtherEditorOfChoice for tweaking and export to jpeg at the image size/resolution you need. If you need to change size etc, make the changes in lightroom/PS/etc. and reexport. Don't re-edit the jpegs!
Have a DSLR and very early learning stages (Nikon D70). Concentrating on trying to take a good pic rather than being interested in editing afterwards
If you are concentrating on taking good pictures and aren't particularly interested in editing then I think that JPEG will meet your needs just fine.
I switched to RAW for the reason to learn to take a better picture, understanding the manual settings and how it effects things seemed better in RAW. Then adjusting and processing the image on the PC when it wasn't just quite right or I did something wrong is all part of it.
Snapping an image and letting the camera do all the work teaches you nothing much, unless you note the settings the camera selected and adjust slightly.
If you are concentrating on taking good pictures and aren't particularly interested in editing then I think that JPEG will meet your needs just fine.
In a few month's time, when he's more comfortable and confident with his technique and gear, he'll almost certainly want to come back to some of the images he's taking at the moment, be it for retouching or cropping to create new images he isn't seeing just now. Better that these images are in RAW format than JPEG, I would say.
What are you trying to learn - taking good photos or using image software? (Rhetorical question, I can see from your OP what you want but obviosuly all the people talking about RAW plugins can't...)
I'd start with just taking JPEGs and see how they turn out. Take as many pics as possible, work out which ones you like and which were "good" (in a technical sense) then you can move on to taking RAW shots and learning how to manipulate them afterwards. RAW is a great tool that gives you a massive amount of leeway to play with photos but at this "very early learning stage" (your own words) you're effectively trying to teach yourself 2 things at once.
There's so much rubbish spoken about cameras; the assertion that all kit lenses are crap and need to be binned immediately, the idea that everything needs to be post-processed to within an inch of it's life to get a half decent picture.
Modern cameras do an excellent job of image interpretation so while you're learning, let the camera do that part for you and it leaves you free to work out how the different settings affect the overall image.
I need to figure out how to fix heavily under-exposed pics.. :/
I started out using RAW just because as a philosophical issue I don't like throwing data away right at the beginning.
A beginner can still use RAW and apply the default conversion settings in his software, with the same practical results as using JPEG, but with the added benefit that he can go back later and rework them, and that he can avoid the lossy compression problems that jca mentioned.
I don't know if Ken Rockwell is right or not in this assumption, but he describes it better than me. It's got nothing to do with keeping your computer/OS up to date as I understand it. It is purely to do with the fact that a RAW file from a particular camera is unique to THAT camera. And who knows in 20yrs whether anyone will support that particular camera RAW format anymore. Perhaps this is nonsense and there really is nothing to worry about, but here's a snip from Ken Rockwell's site that perhaps explains it better than i have been (I've bolded certain bits):
"Horror of horrors, I've heard that the latest Nikon software can't even read the NEFs from older cameras and that you need to load older software to read them. Just like raw eggs, unless you process it into something like an egg-albumen print or a JPG, the raw files may go bad if left unprocessed.
It's not the file that goes bad, silly, it's the potential ability of future software to read it. Since raw data is entirely unique to each camera, and different even for different firmware revisions for the same camera, raw isn't even a format, even though the different files have the same suffix like .CRW or .NEF.
Raw files themselves don't go bad. What goes bad is that in 10 or 20 years, whatever software we're running on whatever sort of computer we'll be using may not be able to open a long-forgotten 20-year old proprietary file.
JPGs are universal. Raw is proprietary to camera make and model and even camera firmware version. Without solid manufacturer support you won't be able to use your raw files again.
Can you find a computer to open word processing files from 10 or 20 years ago today in Lotus Notes or PFS Write or Brother Style Writer? I can't; that's why I converted my files from these programs to the universal .TXT format back when I could. Do you trust Canon, Nikon and Adobe to support 10 or 20 year old cameras? How about 30 or 40 year old cameras? If you do, go ahead and leave your raw files as raw. I convert all my raw files to JPGs or TIFFs for archiving."
I think I'll do some more digging on this to see what I can find.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
