Topic: RAW file Editing

[Mike]

Well after reading all the posts about RAW, I'm going to have a go at it.  I have zoom browser on my computer so i'll give it a crack.  If i can adjust and enlarge and everything else in RAW and not lose pixel and quality when doing so - then i'm converted!!!!!!


This new thread can be about RAW file processing so we can keep the other thread about Image Manipulation. Mod

[Mike]

Okay, Enak_12 and Jimmy, now that i'm converted can you explain what TIFF is?  My little pocket manual with the camera tells me some things about RAW but it does not go into details.

So perhaps you can explain some more aspects about RAW to us that want and are converting taking pics using RAW? 

Is there anything special that i have to do before using the RAW setting?  ( i have an EOS350D)  With white balance - i have not even gone there yet, so what's the go there?

How much bigger are the files when you download to zoombrowser - i guess in pixel file size?

Considering all of the info of late here on this topic it probably explains why my photos have come out a little 'crappy' (that word Jimmy!) when i've got them developed - as i've saved it twice, downloaded the file onto a CD, sent the photo to all my friends and to other email addresses - no wonder you said the quality diminishes with JPG - now i know why!

So are you saying that i can do all of the above in RAW and never lose quality?!

[Jimmy Deguara]

Hi guys,

Let me explain further what RAW is all about. Unless you delete the file, you will never lose information from it. It is a pixel by pixel representation of the image. For instance, when I first began to use RAW and using Digital Professional specifically, I thought if you change and SAVE the changes of properties like colour, exposure and so forth, then that's it your done you have changed the image. In fact this is not the case. What Digital Professional does is remembers what you saved as settings for the way you wish the picture to look! It does not change the actual original RAW.

A further detailed explanation. Let's say you have a picture of a scene. You want to make 2 prints - one that is better exposed perhaps and another monochrome. You can output these in TIFF format or JPEG format - then make the prints. You still have not changed the RAW image but you were able to print two different versions of the same image and as close as you can ever come to a copy of that image.

Whatever preferences one has is up to them, I am just sharing the information.

Regards,

Jimmy Deguara

[enak_12]

TIFF is another lossless file format but is processed more than RAW. Basically the same as JPEG but a larger file that doesn't degrade. This means you can have RAW as a digital negative that always remains the same as how it was taken and then you can process from that (with all your adjustments) either a TIFF or JPEG. This is what I do; I save all my important photos as TIFF and for ones I want to post on the internet I save them as JPEG because its a smaller file.

[Brad Hannon]

Hi all, I have had some of my photos enlarged by a professional printer to 20x30inch prints with no loss of quality at all (350D and 400D).  The printer requires .TIFF files so I output them from the RAWS to TIFF using the Digital Professional software that came with my camera.  Whether I could output them to JPEG and get the same print result I dont know, but I doubt it.

Brad.

[Mike]

I just downloaded 32 photos of lightning from last night Tues 30Jan '07.  Now something is troubling me.  After they downloaded to the file i specified they did not turn up in the file!?  What gives?

I downloaded them three times and still couldn't locate them.  Eventually i went into Zoombrowser and there they were BUT even when downloading them from there to a personal file with all my other photos - they did not turn up and then the Zoombrowser froze up.  It made 2 sub-folders to store them in and the folders were empty when i opened them in Zoombrowser. - even though i downloaded the photos 3 times!

I then used Adobe Photoshop and downloaded all my photos from ALL files on the computer - well you guessed it - none of the RAW images from that night were in there.  Is there something i'm missing here?

I'm getting a migrane about this.  perhaps you who are adapt in this can help me out quickly or else i'm going back to JPG!

Mike

[Jimmy Deguara]

Mike,

You need to use Digital Photo Professional that came with the CDs and that is what you use to view and edit them. If Zoom Browser found them they are there - check the folder. The files are with a CR2 extenstion.

I hope that helps. Others are welcome to assist here whilst I am busy.

Regards,

Jimmy Deguara

[Mike]

Thanks Jimmy.  Went straight to it and went to EOS utility which found them this time - don't know why it did not do it last time.  But am fine tuning my photos - not too much to 'doctor' them of course, but am pleased that in RAW i have in one shot two people on the beach watching the storms and when blown up to 500% you can still see the tinting on his head!

Greatly appreciated, thank you!

Mike

[Jimmy Deguara]

Mike,

...shot two people on the beach...

Police will be on the look out for you!

Seriously, the 500% can be done in jpg and tif as well as in RAW. That is not the issue - it s the degrees of freedom when a picture is damaged that makes RAW useful and that despite the changes, no loss occurs given you are creating a JPG or TIFF from the RAW image that does not change.

Regards,

Jimmy Deguara

[Mike]

Yes and got them right in the back of the head - both of them with one shot!

 Have all the photos in Digital Prof - even the host of others I had - seems it has found them all now :\.   Don't know what was going on there.

Photos looked so much better in RAW i must confess - i'll still use JPS here and there but I think I'll use RAW for the good lightning shots -

Mike

[Brad Hannon]

Mike, I suggest you note Jimmy's last post to you regarding RAW.  The original image will be the same visually (on the screen) regardless of whether its RAW or JPG, however your ability to alter the appearance or fix mistakes is greater with RAW.  Have a read of this document from adobe which may help:

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_filmtodig.pdf

[Mike]

Thanks Brad, yeah that's what i meant sorry. 

I have noticed a bit more play with the RAW editing - particularly with lighting and the like but with the sharpness, like anything, it gets a bit 'noisy' if you do too much to it.  But have taken all this onboard and thank you for the link.

Mike

[Jimmy Deguara]

Mike,

I would be wary about sharpening photographs. I tend to deal mostly with exposure and white balance myself - the difference is amazing and except when a photograph is too over exposed, you will be able to bring it back to life in most cases.

I would not use JPG at all unless you are really tied up with time - the Digital Photo Professional can create the JPG for you - even if you do not have time to maipulate them.

Regards,

Jimmy Deguara

[Mike]

Hi Jimmy.

Absolutely - I neglected to add to that last reply that I did not go mad with sharpening - I did some experimenting last night with it just to see what would happen and it really did make the shots look grainy and quite to the contrary, I left them as is and adjusted the WB and brightness as you suggested anyway.  I have just read that was given by Brad, very, very good.  I'm now an expert!

 I did not have a clue what a 'bit' was or how many pixels were available in JPG or RAW - but jeez - there is a world of difference between them as far as colour availability is concerned!
I think I would rather have 24,000 or 48,000 to work with rather than less than 500!

This was such an interesting and helpful post - absolutely educated even at my age.

[Jeff Brislane]

I think we can't loose sight though of the most important issue when it comes to RAW v Jpeg capture. And that is this: "What are you going to actually do with your files?"

Remember Jpeg are not usless for newpapers or other similar print media who get enough resolution and quality from even moderately compressed Jpegs files. There are many uses for Jpeg files and for example i've seen dozens of beatifull 6x4 photos that were shot as jpegs that are perfect in every way, even after a bit of processing in photoshop. I have also shot a lot of files in jpeg and blown them up without seeing any noticable loss of quality in the enlargements. So far I have taken a jpeg file shot with my 350D and blown it up to 15x10 inches and it's flawless in appearance.

As for processing jpeg files, you can still have a lot of control over them in processing, albeit not as fine as with RAW but by using layers in photoshop you can easily fix up many flaws in a jpeg file without damaging the file in the process.

Again I will say: "What are you going to actually do with your files?"

I shoot mostly in RAW but I do sometimes revert to jpeg, not to save space but simply for pics which are only records of stormchases which have little artistic or potential stock sales appeal so as to save on processing time afterwards. But I shoot 99% in RAW because I like to control every aspect of how my images will look post processing and because I like to have a digital positive neutral file that I can always go back to and start from scratch with. You can always save copys of your jpeg files but they have always been camera processed first. With RAW there is no permanant camera processing before your file gets to your computer so you can make all the decissions regarding white balance and saturation and sharpness etc.

But spending time in front of a computer is not for everyone and so I will re-afirm that shooting in RAW v jpeg is more about what you want to do with your files as opposed to which one is better. If you don't care about post processing and you can use your camera controls to match the situation with accuracy and you want pics you can put in a small album than shoot in jpeg and save yourself some time! However if you want to have ultimate control over your images and you want to blow your photos up several times over and you just like spending time working on your computer or if your job, like mine, calls for their use or if you want to have a neutral unprocessed digital record than shoot in RAW.

In the end you have to answer this question " What are you actually going to use your files for?" and then from their make a decision and go with it.

I think a usefull way of describing the RAW v Jpeg debate is by saying that using Jpeg's is like the person who used to shoot their own film but got someone else to do all the processing and printing for them. Where as shooting in RAW is like the person who shoots his own pic's but sets up his own darkroom and does all the processing and printing himself except that the darkroom is now a pc.

Jeff.