Shooting In Raw Format...

[Cordelia]

hey there,

Ok.. I decided to bite the bullet and do some shots in RAW.

Problem I now have is that my editing program, PaintShop Pro 8 craps itself every time I try to open the file with the pics in it (one file.... has 6 jpg pics in it and 15 taken raw)... the jpgs show up and then it waits a tic... then the entire program simply shuts down (doesn't freeze or anything.. literally just closes).

I have the Canon raw converter through zoombrowzer... (can't use the canon converter without opening zoombrowzer first) and can save individual pics as jpg or TIF... but... this is where I get really confused..... if i save it as a jpg (and with canon program, I can't edit it the way I want or need to as I can with paintshop pro 8) it loses quality and size..... if I save it as a TIF... the pic was 74Mb!!! (16bit)

Can anyone help explain what on earth I am doing??? And why my paintshop pro shits itself trying to open raw files... and if I save something as a TIF... ugh!??? I don't get it????

Webbsites that will help explain would be lovely if possible. I really want to be able to photograph using raw format

Finally.. should i seriously just get Photoshop CS(whichever number it is up to) and be done with it????

[Gayle.]

See if there's a RAW update for your version of PSP.

I have a Canon 40D and Photoshop CS2. PS won't open the RAW files from the 40D and there's no update for it as the curretn version is CS3 and I dont want to buy that yet.

After fiddling around and getting frustrated (I've been shooting in RAW for 4 years and def do not want to go back to JPEG) I came up with a solution.

I downloaded Adobe DNG Converter which converts the RAW files to DNG, which should then be able to be opened by most of the photo editing programs, and I can then edit them as if they are RAW....which they are, they're just not Canon RAW.

[helen]

I have photoshop elements 4 which has a handy raw converter/editor for a good price - version 6 is the latest

[Dee_al]

See if there's a RAW update for your version of PSP.

I have a Canon 40D and Photoshop CS2. PS won't open the RAW files from the 40D and there's no update for it as the curretn version is CS3 and I dont want to buy that yet.

After fiddling around and getting frustrated (I've been shooting in RAW for 4 years and def do not want to go back to JPEG) I came up with a solution.

I downloaded Adobe DNG Converter which converts the RAW files to DNG, which should then be able to be opened by most of the photo editing programs, and I can then edit them as if they are RAW....which they are, they're just not Canon RAW.

Gayle-im gonna need you to help in a few months. im picking out a really good camera for my bday and so i wanna know what you think would be the best brand to buy and what softwear and stuff im gonna need.

[Ripley]

Try and download an update for Paint shop Pro. I recently downloaded a RAW update for Elements 6 which is what I have and it's so much better. It was free too. I find I have to right click on my RAW image and select "Open with Elements" or it will default to the Canon software version which is nowhere near as good.

Maybe version 8 doesn't support RAW. If you know how to use your software, just upgrade it to a new version - you can get Paint Shop Pro XI for between $100-$200 (I just googled it) at this Australian site.

http://www.myshopping.com.au/PR--120454_Co...op_Pro_Photo_XI

Cheaper if you buy from the States and the USD is at 91 cents now so a very good exchange rate!

Edited February 20, 2008 by Ripley

[rubiton]

Dee Al - I've been using the digital SLR for 5 1/2 years for professional photos and I've NEVER taken one photo in RAW (just havent got around to it).

Dont worry about having to have certain software you only need something to edit jpegs to start with. You can save images in TIFF if you want a 'better' storage file. No one has to use the RAW format especially when you are starting out.

[Ripley]

I love RAW as I can do a straight conversion of RAW in Elements 5 and then not have to do anything in photoshop (I'm not into PS-ing my photos, it's just a personal opinion and I know bugger all about photoshopping anyway).

I just convert a RAW file straight to a jpeg file. I find if I've used the wrong white balance I can change the look of a photo by warming it up or cooling it down or removing ugly colour casts all in RAW. It's slightly forgiving on exposure, within reason when exposure is tricky.

[Cordelia]

I'm not into PS-ing my photos, it's just a personal opinion and I know bugger all about photoshopping anyway).

I just convert a RAW file straight to a jpeg file. I find if I've used the wrong white balance I can change the look of a photo by warming it up or cooling it down or removing ugly colour casts all in RAW. It's slightly forgiving on exposure, within reason when exposure is tricky.

Same here but I need to be able to do some basic editing without losing size or quality (that I currently lose by only shooting in JPEG.

Dee Al - I've been using the digital SLR for 5 1/2 years for professional photos and I've NEVER taken one photo in RAW (just havent got around to it).

Rubition... how do you get away with not losing quality or size not shooting in RAW??? You don't edit at all?? (I honestly don't need to edit most of my shots as I like them natural looking but sometimes you get a pic that needs tweaking or I'd love to use a plug-in to change the look (convert to black/white, age the photo etc) but you lose too much quality.

Now.. having said all that... saving to TIF... can I then edit a TIF file without losing size or quality??

[Ripley]

From my limited understanding of RAW files, when you shoot a jpeg file, your camera applies sharpening, contrast and colour itself. By shooting RAW you are taking that in camera editing away from the camera and into your own hands, hence why RAW files have to have a bit of tweaking before you can save them as jpegs.

Cordelia, if you want to take a b/w photo now, you can do that with your Canon in camera and then tweak the colours to create a filter effect - red, orange, green, blue.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Ripley

[Gayle.]

On my camera RAW files are around 11mb, best quality JPEGS are about 4-5MB. My question.......where did the rest of it go?

Ripley, one of the advantages of RAW is that you can then process the photo your way, not the cameras way. If you take a variety of pics in JPEG......for example a few portraits of people of different ages, some landscapes, a group shot, a couple of still lifes and some animals, they will all get the same colour/contrast/sharpening treatment from the camera's pre-set processing.

Now, if I'm doing a portrait of a middle aged lady, I certainly wouldn't want it to be too sharp....same with animal fur. I might want a landscape to be sharper, but I'd also want the colours boosted more than in a portrait.

If I take photos in shade, they often look quite cold in JPEG no matter what white balance is set.....for that matter I have to actually remember to SET the white balance. In RAW the white balance is set in post processing so you can choose just the right temperature.

Now, the answer to my question....where did it go? The camera removed it. The camera processor removes anything it deems to be irrelevant data before it compresses the file and saves it as JPEG. And irrelevant data is often the detail in hightlights and shadows. Never to be reclaimed.

[rubiton]

I take everything on manual settings (when it gets darker the light meter in the viewfinder is very accurate) and if I've done my job right all I need to do is crop as needed. I've never used curves either I only crop and if its under exposed use the Brightness Contrast and the Highlights and Shadows options in photoshop.

As with film the photo when taken should be as close as possible to what you want the final product to be. I don't edit any more than I really need to - you don't lose quality and size through opening the file (you apparently lose the quality through opening saving then opening and saving that version then opening doing something and saving again etc etc all to the same original file). If I work on an image such as to remove something I'll save it as a different name and version. But usually its open, crop save elsewhere for printing. The folders get burnt to CD, DVD and an external drive with images in their original state. If I'm printing the image I'll crop etc and save that version somewhere else for printing.

I usually print up to 12x18 inch but have gone to 20x30 inch and thats about the stage when the 10D files were starting to be at their limit HOWEVER the 40D image files are a lot bigger and are fine even when you crop quite sharply.

TIFF files - I'm told these do not act the same as the jpegs when you edit and save over a few times. All my scanned negs were saved as tiff files and that is a big file (when then saved as a jpeg it shrinks a lot such as when you want to get an image printed).

Edited February 22, 2008 by rubiton

[Ripley]

Ripley, one of the advantages of RAW is that you can then process the photo your way, not the cameras way. If you take a variety of pics in JPEG......for example a few portraits of people of different ages, some landscapes, a group shot, a couple of still lifes and some animals, they will all get the same colour/contrast/sharpening treatment from the camera's pre-set processing.

Thanks, that's is exactly what I was trying to say (I'm tired today, not much sleep ).

I take photos in both RAW and jpeg but always prefer my RAW files. However, when I go to process them I can spend too much time changing thing like the white balance thinking "auto?" no, "daylight?" or deciding on the settings. Once it's a jpeg image I leave it alone. I will get used to it once I've converted some of my photos. I don't bother sharpening my shots if I've used a tripod as I found my new sigma lens gives sharp enough shots.

You can also adjust the way the camera shoots jpeg shots too. For example, I find that the contrast setting is a little high in the default settings on the Canon 350D so I've put it down one notch for more realistic looking images, the green was just a little TOO green for my liking. I think it's because those cameras were designed with European light in mind, not the intensity of the the light in Australia.

I take most of my shots in M mode now I know how to do it. However, if I'm photographing an animal in the wild I'll use AV as I don't have time to do it in M. I'm still guilty of using P mode sometimes though. :p

Edited February 22, 2008 by Ripley

[kja]

I have and love Lightroom. I haven't even opened the new Bridge for Photoshop CS3 (nor Bridge for CS2 in months and months).

You can download a free trial at adobe.com

It is definitely in the top five things I've spent money on. Almost all of my editing etc is done in LR - I only open CS3 to add borders, watermarks etc or to do something funky.

Lightroom has cut my editing time down drastically. I only shoot RAW (not true, actually, I shoot jpegs with my canon compacts, but everything still goes through LR).

BTW - "editing" for me includes, keywording, filtering, rating, organizing etc...

Edited February 22, 2008 by kja

[helen]

Nice to hear your input into the photography tips GayleK - interesting about the lost data with JPEG, didn't know that.

I downloaded the Lightroom trial a while ago now and love it too. At the moment it is a bit much for me to buy as I want to spend some money on a 85mm lens but one day

Edited February 22, 2008 by helen

[Gayle.]

I haven't tried Lightroom, must download a trial copy. I love that Bridge is integrated with Photoshop....I don't like saving from one program then having to open in another to continue editing.

[kja]

I haven't tried Lightroom, must download a trial copy. I love that Bridge is integrated with Photoshop....I don't like saving from one program then having to open in another to continue editing.

Lightroom does this, too...it will take your LR adjustments into Photoshop, then return the image to LR so you can tweak more there if you need to. Works pretty slick. The new Bridge (CS3) seems to play nicer with LR, too - my bud just loaded CS3 and says that his keywords etc in Bridge transfer to LR and this wasn't happening very consistently with CS2's Bridge.

I take photos in both RAW and jpeg but always prefer my RAW files. However, when I go to process them I can spend too much time changing thing like the white balance thinking "auto?" no, "daylight?" or deciding on the settings.

Do you use the WB eye dropper tool? If you have the navigator window open in the upper left in Lightroom and use the eyedropper tool you can see the wb changes in the navigator window as you move the eye dropper over the original image in the main window. It's great, I find especially for subtle changes, because it's so easy to see the differences a little change makes without having to do and undo stuff, which I find time consuming.

[Ripley]

I don't have lightroom. I downloaded the new RAW converter for Elements 6 and it has things such as vibrancy, luminence, clarity - all new things. Fortunately I went and bought a UK camera mag that had a 3 pager on the new RAW upgrade for Elements 6 and just what those controls did and how to use them on a couple of differents shots. That was great as I wouldn't have had a clue what those controls did otherwise.

I'd love lightroom but can't afford it atm and would rather put the few hundred bucks towards a lens I want and can't afford yet.

[maxter]

I just wanted to thanks to everyone in this thread - I'm new around here, but love to do photography of all varieties and I've just got a new digital SLR that shoots RAW --- I had no idea what/where/why this was for and you've been really helpful! I think I need to do a course and learn all the features properly!