-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
How rare is RAW? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bmarnell
- Start date
tjsimonsen
Well-known member
Well, it would be nice if Photoshop was cheaper (or even free). But no, compared to what you actually get, I don't think it's overpriced. And it's certainly not overrated, not if you actually use some of the features in the program! Otherwise it's a little like calling the Canon 500/4 IS L overpriced and overrated because you only use it to shoot birds at your backyard feeder!
If yoy only use PS as a raw converter, you might just as well use a dedicated (and cheaper) program. I have only used Canon DPP (apert from PS RAW), and though I can see some minor differences (and like the functions of PS RAW better) I don't believe that they alone would be worth the price difference. But I have PS (admittebly for pro reasons, but I would probably have it anyways) and like it. And I consistently get considerably better results than I do from camera JPG (both according to the simple "looks good - doesn't look that good" test and more detailed tests), and I DO often get better results when I do large prints from RAW compared to JPG.
Slamming RAW format because you don't have a good program to process them is like slamming a top of the line camera body (like the Canon 1D series) because you only have an under achieving kit lens!
John, you get results from JPGs that you are satisfied with. That's good, you are probably on the whole a happier and more content person than I am. But don't confuse "good enough" with "the best" or "the only right thing". It's all comrpomises. I made a compromise when I got the Canon 100-400 instead of the 500/4. The compromise involved at lot of things: shorter range, slower AF, somewhat poorer IQ on one side vs. lower price (= less maritial trouble), flexibility, transportability on the other. That chocie has so far worked very well for me. BUT that does not mean that I try to convince everybody else that the zoom is the ONLY good chocie! Nor do I have the right to do that.
You are (whether you want to realize or not) comprimising IQ and flexibility in return for time and less expenses. That's a good compromise for you, as you don't feel that you are loosing anything. For me (and apparently a few others) it's the other way around.
Thomas
If yoy only use PS as a raw converter, you might just as well use a dedicated (and cheaper) program. I have only used Canon DPP (apert from PS RAW), and though I can see some minor differences (and like the functions of PS RAW better) I don't believe that they alone would be worth the price difference. But I have PS (admittebly for pro reasons, but I would probably have it anyways) and like it. And I consistently get considerably better results than I do from camera JPG (both according to the simple "looks good - doesn't look that good" test and more detailed tests), and I DO often get better results when I do large prints from RAW compared to JPG.
Slamming RAW format because you don't have a good program to process them is like slamming a top of the line camera body (like the Canon 1D series) because you only have an under achieving kit lens!
John, you get results from JPGs that you are satisfied with. That's good, you are probably on the whole a happier and more content person than I am. But don't confuse "good enough" with "the best" or "the only right thing". It's all comrpomises. I made a compromise when I got the Canon 100-400 instead of the 500/4. The compromise involved at lot of things: shorter range, slower AF, somewhat poorer IQ on one side vs. lower price (= less maritial trouble), flexibility, transportability on the other. That chocie has so far worked very well for me. BUT that does not mean that I try to convince everybody else that the zoom is the ONLY good chocie! Nor do I have the right to do that.
You are (whether you want to realize or not) comprimising IQ and flexibility in return for time and less expenses. That's a good compromise for you, as you don't feel that you are loosing anything. For me (and apparently a few others) it's the other way around.
Thomas
TJ, I use Rebel and have just got 100-400mm IS L for raptor flight shooting, starting next week in Crete. The Osprey in your Gallery shows splendid detail and I would be enlightened by every shred of info you might kindly let me have about that shot e.g. all settings, handheld, focal length, approx. distance from bird, any other comments or was it all luck? on Friday 13 July? ... I swear I'm not just picking on you ... several other members have generously shared flight shot details with me already.
Clarke Robinson
Well-known member
Hi Everyone
I'm sure like many others I've found this to be a very interesting thread from both sides of the RAW/Jpeg fence. Currently I'm working pretty much exclusively with jpegs. Last year I dabbled with RAW using photoshop to import the files from my 350D. I found that no matter how hard i tweaked during the import process, I couldn't really get things like colour balance etc right until I got into my comfortable photoshop environment. Then I was much happier. Also, RAW produces much bigger file sizes which quickly fill even the larger hard disks, and then the whole backup process has to be considered.
I really should be using RAW as I do enjoy printing out pics at least A4 in size and, like stressed above, I do believe RAW produces better scope for exposure correction and larger print sizes. However, I'm lazy (!) and happy with the Jpeg quality I currently achieve. I also like to have DVD backups of all original (non-processed) pictures, and of course can get many more jpegs on a DVD than raw files.
Also, crazy as this sounds, I'm quite a trigger-happy shooter, and on a good day I've seen me take well over 800 shots, all on one CF card. The same level of trigger-happiness with RAW would have required much bigger or many more CF cards, or a lot of in-camera deleting (something I hate doing). Again, my lazy card comes into play!
Perhaps after reading this thread I'll give RAW another go, thanks for all the interesting points everyone.
I'm sure like many others I've found this to be a very interesting thread from both sides of the RAW/Jpeg fence. Currently I'm working pretty much exclusively with jpegs. Last year I dabbled with RAW using photoshop to import the files from my 350D. I found that no matter how hard i tweaked during the import process, I couldn't really get things like colour balance etc right until I got into my comfortable photoshop environment. Then I was much happier. Also, RAW produces much bigger file sizes which quickly fill even the larger hard disks, and then the whole backup process has to be considered.
I really should be using RAW as I do enjoy printing out pics at least A4 in size and, like stressed above, I do believe RAW produces better scope for exposure correction and larger print sizes. However, I'm lazy (!) and happy with the Jpeg quality I currently achieve. I also like to have DVD backups of all original (non-processed) pictures, and of course can get many more jpegs on a DVD than raw files.
Also, crazy as this sounds, I'm quite a trigger-happy shooter, and on a good day I've seen me take well over 800 shots, all on one CF card. The same level of trigger-happiness with RAW would have required much bigger or many more CF cards, or a lot of in-camera deleting (something I hate doing). Again, my lazy card comes into play!
Perhaps after reading this thread I'll give RAW another go, thanks for all the interesting points everyone.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Clarke, If you have PS then by using ACR you can work seamlessly with RAW's and PS. I reckon on average my RAW's take around 60 secs or less to process - I just check the exposure and a few other settings and then press 'open' this takes you right into PS where you can do your unusual processing (but as a 16 bit file which is not so destructive) once you are happy just convert to 8 bits and save as a jpeg. Could not be easier.
tjsimonsen
Well-known member
Hi bmarnell,
Thanks for your kind comments. I must admit that I'm still on a very steep learning curve with respect to flight shots. It's still very much hit and miss (mostly miss), and the Osprey was probably more luck than anything else. I only brought the zoom on that particular walk because I was hoping to get shots of various semi-desert passerines like Trashers and such (the area is salie semi-desert with low shrubs), and the bird came in over my head. The picture was the only one (from a series of app 10) where the bird was sharp, fairly cetered and didn't have it's wings in some odd position ;-)
As for the technical data: it's somewhat cropped (though not much), was shoot hand held @ 400mm/f8 with the IS on mode 1, and using the central AF point only! I didn't remember to change the IS mode, and I guess it shows that you can use mode 1 for flight shots. Though I use mode 2 when I remember.
Roy: do you decrease color-dept to 8 bit before converting to JPG? Doesn't that restrict JPG a bit?
BTW: I hope you mean 8 bit per channal. I certainly wouldn't like to see my pictures reduced to 256 colors! B
Thomas
Thanks for your kind comments. I must admit that I'm still on a very steep learning curve with respect to flight shots. It's still very much hit and miss (mostly miss), and the Osprey was probably more luck than anything else. I only brought the zoom on that particular walk because I was hoping to get shots of various semi-desert passerines like Trashers and such (the area is salie semi-desert with low shrubs), and the bird came in over my head. The picture was the only one (from a series of app 10) where the bird was sharp, fairly cetered and didn't have it's wings in some odd position ;-)
As for the technical data: it's somewhat cropped (though not much), was shoot hand held @ 400mm/f8 with the IS on mode 1, and using the central AF point only! I didn't remember to change the IS mode, and I guess it shows that you can use mode 1 for flight shots. Though I use mode 2 when I remember.
Roy: do you decrease color-dept to 8 bit before converting to JPG? Doesn't that restrict JPG a bit?
BTW: I hope you mean 8 bit per channal. I certainly wouldn't like to see my pictures reduced to 256 colors! B
Thomas
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Thomas: 8 bits/channel of course. You have to decrease to 8bit/channel to be able to save as jpeg.Roy: do you decrease color-dept to 8 bit before converting to JPG? Doesn't that restrict JPG a bit?
BTW: I hope you mean 8 bit per channal. I certainly wouldn't like to see my pictures reduced to 256 colors! B
Thomas
mjmw
formally known as mw_aurora
I don't decrease the bit-depth myself, just let Photoshop do it when it converts to JPEG, but I do convert the colour space to sRGB before creating the JPEG copy.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
To save a Tiff via 'save as' to a jpeg you have to convert to 8bit/channel as jpeg is not an option.
Harold Stiver
Well-known member
One of the great things about digital is being able to shoot huge numbers of shots with little cost. A good habit to get into is to become very ruthless in deleting before you reach the process and storage stage.
I do a lot of in camera deleting, as at that point you don't have to download them and you've freed up space on your card.
After I download I do another thorough culling (as well as marking my first choices for editing) When you think about it, what use is it to keep 10 files of essentially the same shot. Pick the best one or two and get rid of the rest. I might keep all of the IBWO I get though
Finally, just before I archive files off of my hard drive, I do another culling, and keep only what I really might use.
I would expect that 800 shots turns into less than 50, a much more manageable situation.
mjmw
formally known as mw_aurora
Clarke Robinson
Well-known member
One of the great things about digital is being able to shoot huge numbers of shots with little cost. A good habit to get into is to become very ruthless in deleting before you reach the process and storage stage.
I do a lot of in camera deleting, as at that point you don't have to download them and you've freed up space on your card.
After I download I do another thorough culling (as well as marking my first choices for editing) When you think about it, what use is it to keep 10 files of essentially the same shot. Pick the best one or two and get rid of the rest. I might keep all of the IBWO I get though
Finally, just before I archive files off of my hard drive, I do another culling, and keep only what I really might use.
I would expect that 800 shots turns into less than 50, a much more manageable situation.
Great advice here Harold. I guess if like you say, I was more ruthless before archiving, I would have more space in the first place. I'll give it a try real soon as I've just got a nice shiny new 4GB CF just gagging to be filled up!
I think the most important cull takes place before pressing the shutter. Back in the days of film (only last year for me!) I would have been horrified at taking 800 shots of similar subjects. Even now, when I am much less selective with my shooting than I used to be, I rarely take more than 200 or so shots (about enough to fill a 4Gb card on my camera using RAW).
It means less time in front of the monitor, and a better keeper rate as well.
It means less time in front of the monitor, and a better keeper rate as well.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
That's a good point, Gordon - disciplining yourself into picking your shot rather than simply blasting away really helps to develop an eye for a better picture.
Last edited:
Clarke Robinson
Well-known member
I agree, and I don't want you all thinking I'm an 800-a-day kinda guy, I used an extreme example (only ever happening once on a very productive trip back home to Ireland). 8-P
Photoshop Elements 2 tells me to do this (copied below) to open my RAW files .... all I get is an army blanket ... where am I going wrong please?
I admit I don't know the values for width & height or whether the file was saved with interlaced or not ...
"The Raw format is designed to accommodate images saved in undocumented formats, such as those created by scientific applications. Compressed files, such as PICT and GIF, cannot be opened using this format.
To open a file using the Raw format:
Choose File > Open or File > Open As (Windows).
Choose Raw from the file format list, and click Open.
For Width and Height, enter values for the dimensions of the file.
To reverse the order of the width and height, click Swap.
Enter the number of channels.
Select Interleaved if the file was saved with an interlaced data option.
Select a color depth and, if necessary, a byte order.
For Header, enter a value.
If you are missing the dimensions or header value, you can have Photoshop Elements estimate the parameters. Either enter the correct height and width values to estimate the header size, or enter the correct header size to estimate the height and width, and then click Guess.
To have Photoshop Elements retain the header when you save the file, select Retain When Saving.
Click OK."
I admit I don't know the values for width & height or whether the file was saved with interlaced or not ...
"The Raw format is designed to accommodate images saved in undocumented formats, such as those created by scientific applications. Compressed files, such as PICT and GIF, cannot be opened using this format.
To open a file using the Raw format:
Choose File > Open or File > Open As (Windows).
Choose Raw from the file format list, and click Open.
For Width and Height, enter values for the dimensions of the file.
To reverse the order of the width and height, click Swap.
Enter the number of channels.
Select Interleaved if the file was saved with an interlaced data option.
Select a color depth and, if necessary, a byte order.
For Header, enter a value.
If you are missing the dimensions or header value, you can have Photoshop Elements estimate the parameters. Either enter the correct height and width values to estimate the header size, or enter the correct header size to estimate the height and width, and then click Guess.
To have Photoshop Elements retain the header when you save the file, select Retain When Saving.
Click OK."
mjmw
formally known as mw_aurora
I don't think that Elements 2 is capable of processing RAW files from a camera - I vaguely remember that Elements 3 was the first to include RAW support. Even if it did, its unlikely to support your camera.
Elements 5 or 6 is your best bet if you want RAW and general editing or there are plenty of other RAW conversion tools, RSE is a popular freebie (no longer supported but still available in places).
Thank you for your help Mark.
Meanwhile I have accidentally discovered that the software instructions booklet that came with my Digital Rebel (EOS Digital Solution Disk Ver.6) more than adequately answers my questions about RAW (& presumably many other things that I've yet to learn.)
Meanwhile I have accidentally discovered that the software instructions booklet that came with my Digital Rebel (EOS Digital Solution Disk Ver.6) more than adequately answers my questions about RAW (& presumably many other things that I've yet to learn.)
JohnZ
Well-known member
Just thought that I would add my two bobs worth. As I am absolutely useless at pp`ing then I only shoot jpeg. I have to confess to experimenting with RAW on one occasion but found it a bit of a nightmare when confronted with a RAW image and not a clue what to do with it !
To my eternal shame I am still struggling with PSE3 for Gods sake !
To my eternal shame I am still struggling with PSE3 for Gods sake !
