Programme to open raw files.

[mike from ebbw]

does anybody know what sort of programme i need to open raw files?all the photo programmes i have cannot manage it.any ideas?
thanks mike.

[bob_r]

does anybody know what sort of programme i need to open raw files?all the photo programmes i have cannot manage it.any ideas?
thanks mike.

Mike,

I received 2 programs with my Canon 30D that will open raw files. They are:

1. Digital Photo Professional
2. Zoombrowser EX

Bob R

[Keith Reeder]

Irfanview can also do it, as can Picasa.

Win XP can open them with the help of a plug-in from Microsoft.

Then there's The Gimp + UFRaw plug-in, and of course the likes of Bibble, Capture One, Breezebrowser, Photoshop + Adobe Camera Raw, and so on.

Do you mean "open" or "open and edit", Mike?

[mike from ebbw]

Irfanview can also do it, as can Picasa.

Win XP can open them with the help of a plug-in from Microsoft.

Then there's The Gimp + UFRaw plug-in, and of course the likes of Bibble, Capture One, Breezebrowser, Photoshop + Adobe Camera Raw, and so on.

Do you mean "open" or "open and edit", Mike?
open and edit.thanks keith.

[Adey Baker]

The Canon DPP programme should be on a CD that came with your camera. You may find it easier to open the files from within that programme rather than trying 'open with.'

There's not a vast amount of stuff in it like some of the better RAW converters but it's the easiest way to convert your files to un-compressed TIFFs to start with before you go on and choose another programme.

It shows thumbnails for all the photos in the folder that you choose (from the left-hand window) so put your files into a seperate folder to start with and then double click on each image as you need it and it'll open in a seperate window. If the tools don't show, go to View>Tool Palette, go through each RAW and RGB part altering (or not) each function and then File>Save and Convert and save it as a 16bit tif into its final folder, but don't 'save' when requested as you close the file in DPP. (if your editing programme has problems with 16bit then you may be able to convert to 8bit within that programme)

[mike from ebbw]

thanks adey.do you mean the solutions disc?that is the only disc i had with the camera as i bought it s/hand.

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Mike,

Yeah, DPP is on the Solutions disk. As long as you're running Win XP you should be OK.

There's a recent update to it as well, so you might want to install it from the disk and then download and install the update, which brings some worthwhile enhancements, apparently.

[DOC]

Take a look at RSE - Raw Shooter essentials - from Pixmantec
An excellent raw conversion software. ( and it's free ! )
( You can buy the RSP - Raw shooter premium ) .
Adobe Lightroom has also released a Beta version for free - what will probably be the best Raw conversion software in the future .

[Keith Reeder]

Don't think you can still get RSE, Doc - since Adobe took Pixmantec over, I thought they'd withdrawn it.

If I'm wrong, let me know because I want to try it myself.


Added: My mistake! I'm downloading it as we speak from http://www.photo-freeware.net/download_win-eng.php?id=414

[mike from ebbw]

just downloaded the programmes from the disc.took a few shots of some plants in the back garden in raw format.wow!i could not believe the detail.opened them in the programme on the disc no problem.also converted them so i could open them in my other programmes.today is really the first time i have been able to use the camera and see the benefits over film.i must say i am completely blown away by it.thanks for all the help.
mike.

[DOC]

Keith - try downloading from here :
http://www.photo-freeware.net/download_win-eng.php?id=414

[Keith Reeder]

Heh!

Have another look at my posting, DOC - I found that link a few seconds after making my post!

;) ;) ;)

[mike from ebbw]

Keith - try downloading from here :
http://www.photo-freeware.net/download_win-eng.php?id=414
thanks a million doc!much appreciated.
mike.

[nigelblake]

I've just found after a long download that rawshooter does not work with windows 98.!
JohnRobinson
Breezebrowser pro will work on win98

[mike from ebbw]

excuse me for sounding like a simpleton!what i want to know as well is if i take a photo in the raw format,then convert it to jpeg,would the resulting picture be exactly the same resolution as if i had shot it in the large jpeg fine format.if so there is really no point in shooting in the raw format,or is there?my apologies again,but i am a complete novice in this digital malarkey!
thanks,mike.

[Adey Baker]

The two images will have the same number of pixels. The amount of fine detail visible in the image will depend on how much jpeg-compression you use. The highest quality jpeg file-size in, say, Photoshop (Quality 12) will be bigger than the highest jpeg from the camera so it should be a bit better. In practice, if you only print at regular sizes, 6"x4," 7"x5" etc., you probably won't see any real differences.

Try it out and see - if you shoot a RAW and JPEG simultaneously you can check the differences after you've given them whatever processing you would do normally

[hollis_f]

excuse me for sounding like a simpleton!what i want to know as well is if i take a photo in the raw format,then convert it to jpeg,would the resulting picture be exactly the same resolution as if i had shot it in the large jpeg fine format.if so there is really no point in shooting in the raw format,or is there?my apologies again,but i am a complete novice in this digital malarkey!
thanks,mike.

The good thing about shooting in RAW is that it's much easier to recover from any errors you may make in the exposure or white balance. That's because the camera captures a lot more information than can be stored in a jpeg file or displayed on your monitor. So some of that information has to be thrown away.

When you shoot jpeg the little computer in the camera decides what to throw away and what to keep - based on the settings you've told it to use. If those settings are correct then the picture will come out fine.

If, however, you're like me and are prone to making the odd error (forgetting to change White Balance, dialling in some Exposure Compensation by accident or leaving it in Manual mode and thinking it's in Av mode) then the result of processing the camera data using those settings won't be perfect.

With jpeg you're stuck with that result. Yes, there are things you can do on the computer to a jpeg - but you've got to do it with the restricted amount of data left over after the camera has done its bit of processing.

With a RAW image you can process the whole data set and make your own decisions as to what to throw away. If you have made an error with the original exposure you stand a better chance of making a decent recovery job if you've got all the original data to work with.

[RAH]

Folks, Mike is obviously somewhat of a beginner. Don't you think it would be better for him to stop worrying about RAW format till he gets used to his camera and how to work with images? Mike, I say forget the RAW for now, and use the largest size/highest quality jpg, period.

[mike from ebbw]

thanks a lot frank.things are getting clearer,slowly.i always used to shoot on AV in my film cameras but my 300d seems to underexpose in certain circumstances(birds in flight etc).went out today and had to put the iso up to 800 just to get a managable shutter speed because of the weather.wasnt very impressed with the results when i got home.still,it was my first time using the camera and i will get there in the end.
mike.

[mike from ebbw]

Folks, Mike is obviously somewhat of a beginner. Don't you think it would be better for him to stop worrying about RAW format till he gets used to his camera and how to work with images? Mike, I say forget the RAW for now, and use the largest size/highest quality jpg, period.
thanks RAH.it is probably a case of me trying to run before i can walk.one of my many faults i am afraid.i have attached one of the pics i took this morning.a wren taken at 1/400th @800iso.300d and sigma 400mm 5.6.this is about the best one.this was taken on jpeg large/fine.
mike.

[postcardcv]

glad you asked the question Mike, as it's prompted me to finally give RAW a try... so I downloaded raw shooter yesterday and when out shooting today. From what I've seen shooting and processing raw today I think I'm gonna like it.

Here's my first RAW converted shot - http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/110610/sort/1/cat/500/page/1

[mike from ebbw]

thanks a bunch!just as i was about to settle with jpeg/large/fine you go and post a shot like this(lol).
mike.

[Mickymouse]

Just out of curiosity what does RAW stand for and how does it differ from a bitmap?

Mick

[Adey Baker]

Just out of curiosity what does RAW stand for and how does it differ from a bitmap?

Mick

RAW doesn't really stand for anything other than the basic raw data as recorded by the camera before processing. As such each camera will have its own raw file 'type.' Bitmaps, jpegs, tiffs, etc. are formats that other programmes recognise. Bitmaps are more frequently used for putting images into text documents, etc.

[Mickymouse]

Ta for that, I thought raw was a convenient acronym.

Mick

[hollis_f]

i always used to shoot on AV in my film cameras but my 300d seems to underexpose in certain circumstances(birds in flight etc).

That's probably because your 300D hasn't got spot metering. So it's judging the brightness of the scene by looking at the bird and the sky. Normally the sky will be much brighter than the bird. So, if the camera tries to expose correctly for the sky, the bird will be underexposed.

The best way to fix this is to use 'Exposure Compensation'. On my 20D this is very easy (one of the main reasons I prefer it). I'm not sure how it's done on the 300D, but it must be in the manual. This forces the camera to overexpose.

How much EC to use is a matter of experience. When I first got the camera I spent ages at the local lake trying to shoot gulls. They're nice easy targets and allow a lot of practice.

Of course, I don't always get it right. That's where shooting RAW helps - you get better results boosting the exposure of a RAW image than you will trying it on a jpeg.

[postcardcv]

thanks a bunch!just as i was about to settle with jpeg/large/fine you go and post a shot like this(lol).
mike.

Don't be put off using jpeg Mike, I've been using it for over a year and have been very happy with the results. The advantage to raw is that you can correct errors and make adjustments without loosing quality, so a raw file is more versatile than a jpeg. But jpegs need less post processing and are easier to handle so are perhaps a better option while you're getting used to your new camera.

[Roy C]

Mike from Ebbow vale !!
I,ve just done half a 4 hour hide session on a Kingfisher at 4 feet with much of the stuff on RAW. I reckon by the ttime you have finished Bu*****ng about its not worth it.! My JPEG fine stuff is just as good . Posts coming up soon. -It takes a good man to tell the difference but there are plenty of those around if you ask them.
Cheers
JoyhnRobinson
The thing is John that you are good enough to get the exposure right in the first place, for duffers like me shooting in RAW is mainly done to correct the exposure and I would be lost without it.
Roy C.

[DOC]

It's all a matter of getting used to Raw.
Most of us prefer quick, easy photo processing - that's fine with Jpeg .
But - if you want perfect results and full control on the post processing + you intend to print photos , blow up some of them to big sizes - then Raw is the answer.

The ability to correct WB and exposure in Raw is a huge advantage.
Having said that - i see many many great photos shot in Jpeg by excellent photographers .

[Keith Reeder]

Hi John,

it's a horses for courses thing, really.

In shooting situations where the photographer is able to maximise and control as many of the shooting variables as possible (up to and including the use of flash set-ups) and can effectively predict the exposure, light levels and so on - and even where the bird is likely to be when it's time to press the shutter - then I'm sure that jpeg would be fine.

But for the kind of opportunistic "take what you can get" shooting that Frank might be doing (and which I certainly do), where I'm wandering around in constantly varying light situations, and the bird could be anywhere in relation to the available light, then RAW is an absolute life saver, for the reasons pointed out above.

And - really - there's no more "faffing" involved with RAW than any other format:

Open
apply adjustments
Save (which is also the conversion stage)

Nothing dificult there!

;)

[mike from ebbw]

Mike from Ebbow vale !!
I,ve just done half a 4 hour hide session on a Kingfisher at 4 feet with much of the stuff on RAW. I reckon by the ttime you have finished Bu*****ng about its not worth it.! My JPEG fine stuff is just as good . Posts coming up soon. -It takes a good man to tell the difference but there are plenty of those around if you ask them.
Cheers
JoyhnRobinson
thanks john.like you i think i will stick with jpeg.i have attached a photo that i took yesterday in the jpeg/large/fine format.i am very pleased with it.

[gordon g]

Don't be put off using jpeg Mike, I've been using it for over a year and have been very happy with the results. The advantage to raw is that you can correct errors and make adjustments without loosing quality, so a raw file is more versatile than a jpeg. But jpegs need less post processing and are easier to handle so are perhaps a better option while you're getting used to your new camera.

It all depends on what you are going to do with the file after capture. If saving jpegs several times eg over several steps of manipulation, the image quality will quickly decline due to data loss. TIFF files on the other hand offer 'lossless' compression, and so any degradation in image quality is only down to the changes you are making! Unfortunately very few (if any?) cameras will save as TIFFs, whereas RAW files can be converted to these.
I think I am right in saying that if you save you jpeg as a TIFF, you dont then lose any further data, but as someone has already said, you have already thrown some out in camera.

[saluki]

thanks john.like you i think i will stick with jpeg.i have attached a photo that i took yesterday in the jpeg/large/fine format.i am very pleased with it.Hi Mike,

I'd shoot in RAW from the beginning - otherwise you may one day sit back, look at a bunch of never-to-be-repeated shots that are incorrectly exposed and saved as jpegs - and think 'I wish I'd shot these in RAW'! I know through bitter experience . . .

Jonathan

[nigelblake]

The main reason for shooting RAW is that the file can be converted to any number of colour spaces, and bit depths, when shooting jpeg you are stuck with the colour space that is set on the camera, either aRGB or sRGB, conversion of a jpeg to a tiff will result in less loss when post processing, but you have already been stripped of a lot of data by the in-camera processing, this data is not regained by conversion to tiff.
Where this all becomes very relavent is in high quality printing, I know that many magazines are happy to take jpegs, but for large size posters, display, glossy packaging, advertising and calendars etc the demand is usually for 16bit tiff or higher, and now, not unusually, 48 bit tiff. this is why most agencies, picture libraries insist on tiffs and some even take RAW files.
More and more I get requests for the RAW files from clients as this enables them to accurately grade and colour balance to their requirements prior to converting the image to CMYK for four colour printing.
IPTC/XMP metatagging for embedded captions is also a useful tool for fast seaching and owner/copyright data too

[Keith Reeder]

you may one day sit back, look at a bunch of never-to-be-repeated shots that are incorrectly exposed and saved as jpegs - and think 'I wish I'd shot these in RAW'! I know through bitter experience...That's very true, Jonathan - I've got some goldcrest pictures from this time last year which are pretty good as is, but which I know I could make a lot more of if the originals had been in RAW.

[baillieswells]

does anybody know what sort of programme i need to open raw files?all the photo programmes i have cannot manage it.any ideas?
thanks mike.
For those of you who have Apple Macs, Aperture is one of the finest programs available.

[John Gibson2]

I decided to take the step forward from JPEG and begin using RAW. Problem!!
I have the RAW picture in the camera (20D) which I can see in preview, but I cannot seem to get it out of the camera. I have the DPP software installed. I'm probably doing something really stupid - help, please. I have no problems with JPEG.
Thanks,
John

[baillieswells]

I decided to take the step forward from JPEG and begin using RAW. Problem!!
I have the RAW picture in the camera (20D) which I can see in preview, but I cannot seem to get it out of the camera. I have the DPP software installed. I'm probably doing something really stupid - help, please. I have no problems with JPEG.
Thanks,
John

I have a Canon 350D and I download the RAW and JPEG images from the compact flash card to my computer using my card reader.Both images download perfectly normally and I open my RAW images either using Digital Photo Professional which comes on the Canon CD, or Bibble.(I am delaying purchasing Aperture until I can afford a new Apple Mac with an Intel processor)

[John Gibson2]

I have a Canon 350D and I download the RAW and JPEG images from the compact flash card to my computer using my card reader.Both images download perfectly normally and I open my RAW images either using Digital Photo Professional which comes on the Canon CD, or Bibble.(I am delaying purchasing Aperture until I can afford a new Apple Mac with an Intel processor)
Thanks for the help. I hadn't appreciated that the only way to get the RAW pictures out of the 20D was to download directly from the memory card. I assumed it would be the same as downloading JPEG directly from the camera.
John