adrian1963
Well-Known Member
I shoot in JPEG at the moment but want to shoot in RAW only problem is I would like to know which software do you think is the best to use for all conditions
RAW SOFTWARE
- Thread starter adrian1963
- Start date
Adobe Lightroom 3. Since migrating, I have barely touched Photoshop for photograph processing/manipulation.
photo management software | Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3
photo management software | Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3
Why do you want to shoot in RAW? I work at a pro photo lab, am a part-time professional photographer, and in my opinion it is a waste of time. But it is not just my opinion. If you want an in-depth explanation of why it is a waste, check out this article from Ken Rockwell.
RAW vs JPG
RAW vs JPG
Depending on what operating system you have. Aperture from Apple is also a good programme for RAW manipulation. I think Lightroom three has moved things on little though.
I have to agree with Arizona though, apart from having larger image files, I have never seen any benefit from RAW photography.
I have to agree with Arizona though, apart from having larger image files, I have never seen any benefit from RAW photography.
Wow! Who said dinosaurs were extinct? This guy longs for the good old days when everyone did things in those good old ways, just like bashing bits of flint together. Look at all those lovely little flakes! Quantity over quality every time.
He's welcome to his views, but I don't accept one word of them. As I've said before a RAW file is a digital negative, good RAW processing is the modern equivalent of skilled darkroom work - it's true you don't need it, but it can improve any image. This is not my own idea, I recommend downloading this file for close study
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf
Incidentally I use Capture NX2 as it was written to handle Nikon raw files (NEF format). I'm sure Mr Rockwell would grunt if he read that - but not as much as I snorted when I was reading his rant
Alan
As is often the case, I agree with Alan.
There was a time when it was possible to argue in favour of JPEG over RAW, but then only from two perspectives; cost of storage (I remember paying a fortune for a 1GB MicroDrive) and the need for often clunky processing software. These days, neither is an issue.
Mr. Rockwell bemoans the fact that RAW formats are proprietary and may not be supported in the future. In that case, if you're worried convert everything to DNG on import, but in my experience the RAW files I shot on the Canon D30 in 2001 are still opened by every iteration of Adobe software (both Lightroom and Photoshop). That also raises an interesting point; if I want to go back to that precious photograph from 2001, I can apply 2010 processing to the RAW data, gaining from nine years' improvement in colour management and noise reduction. Impossible if I'd have shot JPEG.
An example is attached, and most will probably agree that it's the technical equal of many photographs shot on today's digital cameras, nine years on! (Prizes for IDing the elephants)
Rockwell even contradicts himself by saying that so-called "professional" and "prolific" shooters haven't got time to "piddle with anything in Photoshop", but goes on to explain "If you don't like the in-camera options, shoot unsharpened JPGs and sharpen elsewhere. Likewise, if you set the wrong white balance or underexposed you can always correct it later." He's therefore proposing the absolute worst work-flow; in-camera processing and in-camera compression, followed by compromised post-processing and yet another generation of lossy compression.
What does RAW get us? In short; loss-less compression (none of the data from that big sensor you just paid for is thrown away in-camera), at least two stops more dynamic range (most importantly the ability to recover blown highlights), much better noise reduction performance, the ability to correct colour balance precisely and without image degradation (as an exercise try correcting a JPEG shot outdoors with a "fluorescent" white balance setting for an eye-opening experience) and a much wider colour gamut.
In the real world, many of these things are particularly important to zoo photographers because of all the different environments and shooting compromises we face. For example, think of the challenges in setting an accurate white balance. If you're shooting JPEG, the options are either to continually select a manual setting from one enclosure or exhibit to the next, or rely on "Auto" which will get it wrong most of the time. In both cases you're going to end up having to spend ages fiddling with the control on the camera (and missing the shot) or the levels and curves controls in Photoshop as suggested by Mr. Rockwell, once again defeating his own argument. The same applies to exposure, and NR.
Regardless of the technical arguments, if you have a good quality digital SLR, then surely you'd want to get the best from the camera. Shooting JPEG on a high-end Canon or Nikon is like buying a Ferrari and only using it to tow a caravan.
There was a time when it was possible to argue in favour of JPEG over RAW, but then only from two perspectives; cost of storage (I remember paying a fortune for a 1GB MicroDrive) and the need for often clunky processing software. These days, neither is an issue.
Mr. Rockwell bemoans the fact that RAW formats are proprietary and may not be supported in the future. In that case, if you're worried convert everything to DNG on import, but in my experience the RAW files I shot on the Canon D30 in 2001 are still opened by every iteration of Adobe software (both Lightroom and Photoshop). That also raises an interesting point; if I want to go back to that precious photograph from 2001, I can apply 2010 processing to the RAW data, gaining from nine years' improvement in colour management and noise reduction. Impossible if I'd have shot JPEG.
An example is attached, and most will probably agree that it's the technical equal of many photographs shot on today's digital cameras, nine years on! (Prizes for IDing the elephants)
Rockwell even contradicts himself by saying that so-called "professional" and "prolific" shooters haven't got time to "piddle with anything in Photoshop", but goes on to explain "If you don't like the in-camera options, shoot unsharpened JPGs and sharpen elsewhere. Likewise, if you set the wrong white balance or underexposed you can always correct it later." He's therefore proposing the absolute worst work-flow; in-camera processing and in-camera compression, followed by compromised post-processing and yet another generation of lossy compression.
What does RAW get us? In short; loss-less compression (none of the data from that big sensor you just paid for is thrown away in-camera), at least two stops more dynamic range (most importantly the ability to recover blown highlights), much better noise reduction performance, the ability to correct colour balance precisely and without image degradation (as an exercise try correcting a JPEG shot outdoors with a "fluorescent" white balance setting for an eye-opening experience) and a much wider colour gamut.
In the real world, many of these things are particularly important to zoo photographers because of all the different environments and shooting compromises we face. For example, think of the challenges in setting an accurate white balance. If you're shooting JPEG, the options are either to continually select a manual setting from one enclosure or exhibit to the next, or rely on "Auto" which will get it wrong most of the time. In both cases you're going to end up having to spend ages fiddling with the control on the camera (and missing the shot) or the levels and curves controls in Photoshop as suggested by Mr. Rockwell, once again defeating his own argument. The same applies to exposure, and NR.
Regardless of the technical arguments, if you have a good quality digital SLR, then surely you'd want to get the best from the camera. Shooting JPEG on a high-end Canon or Nikon is like buying a Ferrari and only using it to tow a caravan.
adrian1963
Well-Known Member
I would like to thank you all for your replies I have now purchased a Nikon D300S and intend to move my photography on a bit from a happy snapper to a bit more serious stuff and will be trying to use RAW in the very near future.
FLYING HIGH
Active Member
I use Lightroom too but must admit have not really tried other programs as Lightroom suits what I do.
I shoot in RAW to preserve the image as each time a JPEG is open the file damaged. For my really good work, I save the RAW image plus 2 JPEG files with one JPEG file never to be opened unless in the case of an emergency. Not really sure why I do this? I guess it's a habit of mine that has developed over time.
I shoot in RAW to preserve the image as each time a JPEG is open the file damaged. For my really good work, I save the RAW image plus 2 JPEG files with one JPEG file never to be opened unless in the case of an emergency. Not really sure why I do this? I guess it's a habit of mine that has developed over time.
I got my first DSLR just over a year ago and until recently I only shot in JPEG. I decided to try shooting in RAW the last time I used my camera and processed my photographs in Elements with some assistance from photography magazine tips. I found that the colours were a lot better after processing the photos, but I felt that the images seemed to get a bit fuzzy after processing. Am I doing something wrong in Elements? Is there a way I could improve this?
The final step in your workflow, just before you save your final image, should be sharpening by the method that is confusingly called 'unsharp masking'. Try this out on some duplicate images - too much gives fringes, too little looks a little fuzzy, so aim for the Goldilocks effect = just right.
Alan