Editing RAW images advice needed. (1 Viewer)

I have been badgered by my fellow birders to take my shots in Raw rather than in jpeg so I have bought elements 7.

When I open up the full edit page in elements there are lot of adjustments you can make to the image so I would like to know what your procedure is when you edit a shot that might help me.I'm not sure what all these sliders do.

Also if there are any websites that offer advice please could you let me know please.

Max.

I think you're talking about the editing tools in Camera Raw Max (exposure, recovery, fill light etc). Easiest way is just have a go with an image and see what each does, every image is different and requires different PP. You don't actually have to use those tools though and can edit your picture normally but if you do make any changes in camera raw those changes will be kept on when you click 'open image' and process it in elements.

This is assuming I've got the gist of what you were saying.

One useful tip though, right click over a RAW image and move the cursor over 'open with' then click 'choose program' and from the list select elements and tick the box 'always use the selected programme'. From now on you just have to double click a RAW file and it'll open up elements and load the image straight into Camera Raw for you.

But if you want to then search through youtube. Tons of vids on there regarding processing of all kinds.

Plenty of good books too on image editing with Elements.

Steve.

Thanks all.

Max

Hi Max,
would be gatefull if you let me Know how you get on and ether you can see a difference beween the Raw file usage or just high j pegs i am still to be convinced that there is a geat advantage to using Raw,
regards,
Nigel

nigeldphoto said:

i am still to be convinced that there is a geat advantage to using Raw

Click to expand...

There is, Nigel - unequivocally.

The real beauty of RAW is the "wiggle room" it gives you to (for example) manage highlights.

This is a subject close to my heart, because I deliberately shoot in such a way that - if the image was captured as a jpeg - the highlights would be shot to hell: but by shooting RAW and using RAW converters that I know are good at recovering highlights, I get maximum benefit from ETTR and still get detail in the highlights.

The file that came off the camera for the image below had essentially no visible detail whatsoever in the highlights (this was intentional, incidentally): but by using the highlight recovery tools in Raw Therapee, I was able to put back all the detail in the whites.

It would have been much, much harder to do this with an out-of-camera jpeg.

If a photographer is good enough always to get it right in camera then RAW probably isn't needed: but I know I'm not that good, so RAW is a Godsend when things aren't perfect SOOC - and it allows you to push a bit harder at the edges of the exposure envelope too.

My gallery here is full of examples of well-lit, white birds that only have details in the highlights because of the additional headroom that shooting in RAW provides.

Yep. With Keith here all the way. You can do a whole lot of rescuing with RAW.

Here's a before and after job. As far as I know only RAW editing tools can do it this well, the normal tools in Elements have no chance. And this was using Adobe Camera Raw BTW Max.

I agree 100% with Keith here. Like he says "If a photographer is good enough always to get it right in camera then RAW probably isn't needed" - What amazes me the most is that a lot of novices do not think they need RAW and yet almost all the top bird photographers in the world shoot in RAW :h?:

There's also not a lot to lose by shooting RAW, unless you want to rapidly fire off a lot of images and you have a small buffer. Memory cards are cheap now and RAW isn't difficult. I would be surprised if any of the 'top' photographers don't shoot RAW. A useful general book is http://www.amazon.co.uk/RSPB-Guide-...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1287513279&sr=8-4 and this covers shooting in RAW. Exactly how you deal with RAW pictures does depend on what software you use.

Another example of RAW highlight recovery:

Totally agree with the comments above re overexposure, I regularly allow highlights to blow in order to preserve shadow detail knowing I can get the highlights back in Lightroom. And I'd add the control RAW gives over tweaking white balance as another huge plus

Now wait for someone to come along and point out that Andy Rouse shoots jpg :-O:-O:-O

paul goode said:

Totally agree with the comments above re overexposure, I regularly allow highlights to blow in order to preserve shadow detail knowing I can get the highlights back in Lightroom. And I'd add the control RAW gives over tweaking white balance as another huge plus

Now wait for someone to come along and point out that Andy Rouse shoots jpg :-O:-O:-O

Click to expand...

No, AR shoots RAW. Steve Young shoots jpeg....as you might be aware Steve Young just collected top prize in the British Wildlife photography Awards

http://www.bwpawards.org/


If you feel comfortable moving to RAW, do it:t:, there are clear advantages:t:. When you get bored you can then read all that anal stuff on the internet about RAW processing converters and how crap some of them are blah , blah , blah:eek!: and of course you won't have some **** telling you that you can't be serious about photography unless you shoot RAW:-O

Good luck with your choice.

There's nothing "anal" about wanting to get the best out of your images, Adrian - the fact that some people are happy enough with shooting jpeg instead of RAW doesn't devalue RAW one little bit, nor does it disprove the point made above that most "serious" and pro 'togs probably do shoot RAW.

Every pro I know (and I know a few) is a RAW shooter.

Keith, there are plenty of pro 'togs who shoot jpg, sports and news media guys particularly.
In my pro circles I know 1 wedding tog who shoots jpg. He's flipping good as well but its always a source of amusement at the monthly BIPP meetings when every guest speaker tells us to shoot RAW and all eyes turn to this one guy. He's ploughing a very lonely furrow

paul goode said:

Keith, there are plenty of pro 'togs who shoot jpg, sports and news media guys particularly.

Click to expand...

Yep, because speed, low file sizes and lots of images are often more important than absolute IQ in that field (and to be honest I've seen some bloody awful pictures that still pass for good sport/news photography).

No denying that jpeg is a perfect fit for those requirements. Here's a quote from a local sport/press 'tog:

I use the latest digital equipment and have the ability to wire images back to you within minutes of capturing the picture.

Click to expand...

I'd shoot jpeg too, if I needed to do that..!

In my pro circles I know 1 wedding tog who shoots jpg. He's flipping good as well but its always a source of amusement at the monthly BIPP meetings when every guest speaker tells us to shoot RAW and all eyes turn to this one guy. He's ploughing a very lonely furrow

Click to expand...

So in other words, most pros you know shoot RAW, which is pretty much QED of the point Roy made up the page.

The fact remains that - all other things being equal - you can do more with a RAW file than with a jpeg, and that gives the photographer more options for getting the best out of the image. More dynamic range, better white balance adjustment, higher bit-depth, more sharpening flexibility - they all mean more for the photographer to work with.

There's no sensible debate to be made about this, I'm talking about demonstrable (and frequently demonstrated) facts: but nobody has to use RAW, and it's surely not worth anyone getting all bent out of shape about it, if they're happy with jpegs.

Keith....I think you have misread what I wrote and developed a blind spot for the smileys

If you shoot RAW that's fine and if you shoot jpeg that's fine also. If I had a pound from everyone who told me I should shoot RAW I'd be able to afford a Canon 1D Mk1V ! I have not said or hinted that shooting RAW is in any way lesser to photographing in jpeg, in fact just the opposite is the case. There is a tide of shooters out there who have stated that you cannot be a 'serious photographer' if you shoot in jpeg. Their attitude is quite frankly elitest. There are advantages and disadvatages to both methods of shooting. Photography from start to finish is a series of compromises and it is for the individual to decide how they wish to achieve their final goal with the resources that they have at their disposal.

There is nothing wrong in trying to achieve the best and I have not suggested otherwise However you have inferred, correct me if I am wrong, that the best can only be achieved by shooting RAW. If I am wrong , I apologise. Your argument goes down the toilet somewhat when there are jpeg shooters winnning top awards, yes there are some out there: Steve Young is one of them. I had the pleasure of photographing with another, his name escapes me for the moment, he won an international award when he had photographed seals being culled in Canada...just think, photographing snow in jpeg, it's impossible isn't it:-O.

Publishers prefer RAW images or so I am told. I can see why. But it has not stopped me getting published and last week I had a request from a publisher for several images and as I write I got a request from an international book publisher for one of my jpeg images. My jpeg images have helped raise a shed load of money for bird/wildlife charities and for me that is what it is all about. I am sorry if you are offended by my thinking a lot of stuff on the internet is anal (of course it is fun/serious for many and I would not want to change that) but quite frankly it is anal to me and equally there are a lot of pros who would agree with me, yes I know quite few myself .

Perhaps the OP should just examine closely why he should change as though the pressure from RAW shooters is not enough:-O

PS .... I did a wedding once and was asked to do more. The client was very happy. I should have changed my career3

Whoops 'small file sizes' Keith, some of the sports pictures in our shop windows are huge and are of high quality.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say Keith and respect your approach and the learning you have acquired. However so much in photography is subjective. You can spend hours trying to achieve that extra 1% but that has to be balanced against other things that different individuals have going on in their lives. Most people are not as forensically minded as you and if the OP were he probably would not have asked the question. My apologies to the OP if I am wrong.

I don't get the implication that editing RAW files is slow. With software like LR3 it takes seconds to import from the camera, pp the file and export a web size jpg. All with the benefits that RAW does give for us mere mortals who do screw things up from time to time. And its nice to know that in a brain dead moment you won't accidently overwrite the original jpg with the web image. I know plenty of people who've made that mistake.
LR3 has seriously reduced my editing time. Fact.

Paul I'm sure you are right.

It is not so much the processing that I am alluding to, it's the time that some folk spend aching over different software, spending loads of dosh on it then finding when they get a new camera the quality has dropped or the colours are not right and so on and so forth. On the net you will see that some of the individuals involved, who are without doubt very clever, very technical and employed in the business of camera/image software design etc end up arguing about various matters of quality colour balance , sharpnessand and methodlogy. If they are not satisfied what chance the bog standard occasional bird photographer like me? Some say LR is rubbish and of course others do not. Of course to find that out for yourself means you can spend a lot money and time going through it all. If you are not a pro photographer or a dedicated compulsive enthusiast then the whole thing can be daunting.

When folk are being advised on forums there tends to be a lot of focus on answering the question which is fair enough but sometimes, the person asking the question or seeking advice is not treated in a more individual way. The OP in this case has gone out and bought Adobe 7 because some birders said he should shoot RAW. That is something I would have to question. Why? No one in this thread has asked the OP about his photographic aspirations and to what extent his photography is going to improve and if so if it will be worth the money or indeed the time spent acquiring different skills etc etc. It's the same when advising on gear and equipment. There is no doubt that some people have spent loads on better equipment but not really raised their game. So it is with software. If you have no sense of composition or lack basic processing skills then surely moving from jpeg to RAW isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference ...in some cases it can make you worse. In the present case I don't know what software the OP was using before he got Adobe 7. I am sure Keith will agree that he could have got some very good RAW software for nothing and saved himself a few quid.

When all said and done the point I am trying to make is that you can still go one heck of a long way in photography without shooting RAW and so before making the change think about it...is it really going to make a huge difference. In some cases the answer is no.

Thanks again everyone.Interesting stuff.

Yesterday in a hide the subject of RAW/JPEG came up and one photographer said "If you are putting your pictures on the net you are wasting your time using RAW as you have to convert to JPEG to post them"

So does this mean after editing your shot in RAW and then converting to JPEG to put on your website all your efforts are wasted and you might well have used JPEG from the start?

Max.