jdc
|
RAWYou guys have been really helpful and wonder if you could help with another novice question.
My camera has an option to take pictures in a mode called RAW. I do not really understand what this is and what the benefits or otherwise would be. Can someone explain it to me in a non tech way.? Thanks Martin
|
uncle aj
|
Re: RAW | jdc wrote: | You guys have been really helpful and wonder if you could help with another novice question.
My camera has an option to take pictures in a mode called RAW. I do not really understand what this is and what the benefits or otherwise would be. Can someone explain it to me in a non tech way.? Thanks Martin |
A RAW image is exactly what it says, it's raw with no enhancements like colour saturation or sharpening added. Every digital camera produces a RAW image which is usually enhanced by the camera software to produce a jpeg. The beauty of RAW images is that you can manipulate the image a thousand times and there's great latitude. Every time you alter a jpeg, the image deteriorates. Of course you will need the software to play with your RAW image such as Photoshop Elements 8, Photoshop CS4, Adobe Lightroom etc. RAW images tend to be a lot bigger than jpegs so you may need a bigger memory card. 
|
jdc
|
Re: RAW | uncle aj wrote: | | jdc wrote: | You guys have been really helpful and wonder if you could help with another novice question.
My camera has an option to take pictures in a mode called RAW. I do not really understand what this is and what the benefits or otherwise would be. Can someone explain it to me in a non tech way.? Thanks Martin |
A RAW image is exactly what it says, it's raw with no enhancements like colour saturation or sharpening added. Every digital camera produces a RAW image which is usually enhanced by the camera software to produce a jpeg. The beauty of RAW images is that you can manipulate the image a thousand times and there's great latitude. Every time you alter a jpeg, the image deteriorates. Of course you will need the software to play with your RAW image such as Photoshop Elements 8, Photoshop CS4, Adobe Lightroom etc. RAW images tend to be a lot bigger than jpegs so you may need a bigger memory card. |
Thanks Adrian looks like I'm going to have to buy Elements 8, is that the one you would recommend for my MAC?
|
uncle aj
|
Re: RAW | jdc wrote: | | uncle aj wrote: | | jdc wrote: | You guys have been really helpful and wonder if you could help with another novice question.
My camera has an option to take pictures in a mode called RAW. I do not really understand what this is and what the benefits or otherwise would be. Can someone explain it to me in a non tech way.? Thanks Martin |
A RAW image is exactly what it says, it's raw with no enhancements like colour saturation or sharpening added. Every digital camera produces a RAW image which is usually enhanced by the camera software to produce a jpeg. The beauty of RAW images is that you can manipulate the image a thousand times and there's great latitude. Every time you alter a jpeg, the image deteriorates. Of course you will need the software to play with your RAW image such as Photoshop Elements 8, Photoshop CS4, Adobe Lightroom etc. RAW images tend to be a lot bigger than jpegs so you may need a bigger memory card. |
Thanks Adrian looks like I'm going to have to buy Elements 8, is that the one you would recommend for my MAC? |
That's what I use on mine but others may prefer different software. Chip uses Adobe Lightroom because you do batch editing but I prefer to do each image individually and I prefer the interface on PS Elements. I think it's also cheaper by half.
|
jdc
|
Re: RAW | uncle aj wrote: | | jdc wrote: | | uncle aj wrote: | | jdc wrote: | You guys have been really helpful and wonder if you could help with another novice question.
My camera has an option to take pictures in a mode called RAW. I do not really understand what this is and what the benefits or otherwise would be. Can someone explain it to me in a non tech way.? Thanks Martin |
A RAW image is exactly what it says, it's raw with no enhancements like colour saturation or sharpening added. Every digital camera produces a RAW image which is usually enhanced by the camera software to produce a jpeg. The beauty of RAW images is that you can manipulate the image a thousand times and there's great latitude. Every time you alter a jpeg, the image deteriorates. Of course you will need the software to play with your RAW image such as Photoshop Elements 8, Photoshop CS4, Adobe Lightroom etc. RAW images tend to be a lot bigger than jpegs so you may need a bigger memory card. |
Thanks Adrian looks like I'm going to have to buy Elements 8, is that the one you would recommend for my MAC? |
That's what I use on mine but others may prefer different software. Chip uses Adobe Lightroom because you do batch editing but I prefer to do each image individually and I prefer the interface on PS Elements. I think it's also cheaper by half. |
 I always favour the cheap date 
|
Tools
|
I go even cheaper..
Canon Cameras come with a RAW processor, Canon "Digital Photo Professional". All you need to do is load it up and you're ready to go. Once you process your RAW images, you can save as a TIFF for best resolution (or jpeg if you want) in your regular photo files and use elements of Photoshop to fine detail, adjust, or post on forums..
|
uncle aj
|
| Tools wrote: | I go even cheaper..
Canon Cameras come with a RAW processor, Canon "Digital Photo Professional". All you need to do is load it up and you're ready to go. Once you process your RAW images, you can save as a TIFF for best resolution (or jpeg if you want) in your regular photo files and use elements of Photoshop to fine detail, adjust, or post on forums.. |
Martin's camera is a Leica and I don't think Canon software will be able to read the RAW files. 
|
slrdude
|
I actually prefer Lightroom not because of the batch editing, but because it is designed as a photography tool and it has what you need to work with exposure, white balance, lens correction etc.
Photoshop is mainly a photo editing tool, designed to modify an image or add to it. Photoshop can do all that LR can do, but it take at least 10 times as long because it simply lacks the built in tools to work on an image from a "darkroom" perspective.
Batch processing is what I use least on LR actually.
Unlike PS, everything in LR works in photography terms like "stops" or "EV".
White balance has all the presets your camera would have plus Kelvin, and it has tools to warm, cool and tint. PS has no real dedicated solution for those issues and it requires a lot more steps which lack a accuracy and there is a lot of hit and miss with it.
Try correcting exposure in PS. It's a mess. Dodge and Burn tools are only effective if the corrections are minimal, and they are difficult to use. You can use adjustment layers to work on the image, but if you just needs parts of it to correct, you have to do masks on the top of the adjustment layers. Talk about hours of work. I have images that I corrected in 3 minutes in LR and it took me over an hour to achieve the same result in PS.
In LR everything is an adjustment layer, and the masks are already in place for you. That alone saves tons of time. And you have this little brush which can do whatever you want. You want more exposure? You want more saturation? Warm the image? Cool it? Soften the skin? All in there and it applies it only where you want it. No masks, no layers no nothing.
Want gradient filters for a blue sky with proper earth and face tones? Built in. Want proper cropping, complete with guides for rule of thirds and output print sizes? Built in.
etc. etc. etc.
In a perfect world you need both, but I found myself hardly ever using PS anymore unless I need to remove an ugly sign or a distraction from an image. Anything else just takes less in LR and it is easier to do.
|
uncle aj
|
Thanks Chip, I definitely need to look at LR again.
|
Jimbits76
|
I've got to be honest...as most of our stuff is point and click pics of the boy etc, we don't really bother with RAW. If I picked up an SLR and statrted taking mono landscapes and seascapes again, I'd opt for RAW.
J
|
jdc
|
Thanks Chip
Jim I cannot discuss anything about RAW with you and keep a straight face
|
jdc
|
I have downloaded a trial version of Lightroom. My First attempts
|
uncle aj
|
They look pretty good, I must try LR again. 
|
jdc
|
| uncle aj wrote: | | They look pretty good, I must try LR again. |
They actually look a lot sharper but lose definition when transfered to Photobucket
|
uncle aj
|
| jdc wrote: | | uncle aj wrote: | | They look pretty good, I must try LR again. |
They actually look a lot sharper but lose definition when transfered to Photobucket |
I noticed that a lot with some of my pictures. Try reducing the dpi to 72 as that's all about right for a computer screen. Leave it at 300 dpi for prints.
|
