I just discovered RAW mode!

I just found out that the disk that came with my camera has a RAW editor and converter with it. So I was playing around and I love it! I am still a little sketchy about shooting RAW though because I dont know a whole lot about it. I did google it though, but it all seems so confusing. Can anyone kinda explain RAW to me in simpler terms?

Raw is like a negative

shutter bug wrote: Raw is like a negative

RAW ignores all those mode settings and lets you decide what adjustments to make.

If you want to work on your photos in a software package such as photoshop, then working on a jpeg is pretty limiting as to what you can do, but with a raw file you can just about do anything you want, from changing the white balance to turning your photo into something competely different, it is a digital negative with lots of details in there for you to play around with, only if you want to of course.

Raw is the data from your exposure in it's least processed form. Your photos start as raw. If your camera is set to jpeg the raw photo is processed by in-camera processing software to the picture style or parameters you've set (sharpness, contrast, saturation, BW, white balance, etc...). It then discards the original raw data unless you have it set to jpeg+raw. The jpeg can be processed further, but the discarded raw info cannot be recovered. Whether that's important or not just depends on the photo.

If your camera is set to raw it saves the raw file without processing it.

The raw file is like exposed, but undeveloped film. It still needs to be processed. With the software that came with your camera you can probably process the raw file just like the camera would if you want. The software may ofter many more additional processing options and control than what's available in the camera.

The big advantage to the raw file is that you can process all you want, and if you don't like what you end up with you can just start over. All changes you make are recorded in a recipe side file. The raw file is not altered. This means that instead of deciding before the exposure whether the photo needs +1 or +2 contrast, you can just look at the photo as you adjust contrast, and set it to whatever looks best to your eye.

There are a lot of things you can do in processing. Start with the fundamentals like color, contrast, and sharpening. Look for a tutorial on the basics of using the processing software you have. You can also just fiddle. As long as you don't lose the original raw file you can always set it back the way it came out of the camera.

After you have it looking the way you want you'll save a copy of it as a jpeg or tiff for printing or the web.

The above message is excellent in explaining RAW. I would only add two additional points. Each camera manufacturer has their own version of RAW. And, some manufacturers have more than one RAW version. Adobe has re-engineered all of the various RAW formats and has established a "universal" RAW format--DNG, which stands for digital negative. Adobe claims that it will support this format into the future even if some manufacturers switch to a different RAW format.

Second, Adobe's Photoshop and, to my knowledge, all image editing programs work based on color. Hence, you need to make sure your monitor/printer present colors correctly. To do this, you need to color calibrate your monitor. There are several software packages available for this. I use one called the "Spyder" by ColorPlus. It has a small device that hangs over the LCD (or CRT) screen and, once the software is opened, it takes about 10 minutes to calibrate the colors. I usually calibrate my monitors about every two or three months.

One last note about RAW. It's the ultimate in control. If you shoot JPEG, you are depending upon the camera manfacturers' engineers in-camera software to determine contrast, saturation, etc. With RAW, you make all of these decisions. The downside of RAW is that you'll spend more time on your computer (your digital darkroom). I have several friends with studios and who also shoot in nightclubs. They are making lots of money. They all shoot JPEG and would never consider using RAW (especially since they print and sell the nightclub photos pretty much on the spot). You can't do this with RAW since it requires quite a bit of computer processing. Me, on the other hand, I shoot RAW 98% of the time and I wouldn't do it any other way. I like the total control. I'm also not making much money with my landscape photos. I'm happy but broke!.

1 - A RAW image is a positive image, definitely not negative!!!

2 - My Canon certainly does apply in-camera settings to RAW images, I use these all the time. Of course I could choose to just leave the RAW images at the defaults, but I don't. Maybe Nikons are different about this?

Kelly Cook

KCook wrote: My Canon certainly does apply in-camera settings to RAW images, I use these all the time. Of course I could choose to just leave the RAW images at the defaults, but I don't. Maybe Nikons are different about this?

You are correct. In camera processing settings are recorded in the side file and used to create the jpeg that is displayed on the LCD, but they are not permanent processing changes, no raw data is discarded, and they can be reversed. Depending on the raw processing software being used, and how it's set, it may or may not apply the in-camera processing settings to the viewed image when the raw file is opened.

I often set my in-camera processing to BW so I can see the photos in BW on the LCD. When I open the files in Adobe Camera Raw I can switch them back to color to use the grayscale processing in ACR which offers me more options and control than the in-camera BW.

It's important to consider in-camera processing settings when shooting raw, because how the photo looks on the LCD and the in-camera histogram (and thus the blinky warnings) will be influenced by them. For instance if I raise the saturation and contrast in the camera, and I'm shooting flowers I will get highlight warnings on the LCD, yet when I open the raw file it's fine with no over-exposed highlights. So except for the occasional use of BW, I usually leave my cameras set to neutral or faithful picture style. These show me a histogram that is more accurate to the histogram I'm going to see in ACR.

ilh2009ky wrote: ...you need to color calibrate your monitor.

If you shoot JPEG, you are depending upon the camera manfacturers' engineers in-camera software to determine contrast, saturation, etc. With RAW, you make all of these decisions. The downside of RAW is that you'll spend more time on your computer (your digital darkroom).

A good calibration kit doesn't seem as exciting as a new lens or flash, but it's almost my favorite piece of equipment. It is wonderful to process my photos knowing what I see on the monitor is very much like my prints are going to turn out.

I think in the future we will have the option to install our own choice of processing software in our cameras. I may shoot jpeg occasionally if I could upload my favorite ACR/LR presets.

Great question and really great explanations...

Matt if I ever get the chance to buy you lunch you must allow it. An hour of chatting with you would be worth the price of both meals.

I assume you have a Micky D's nearby?

I haven't tried the BW-to-color restoration. But I know my editors lack any control for reverting the in-camera contrast and saturation effects on RAW images back to the default. So when the RAW effects appear permanent, I treat them as permanent.

Most of my shooting is outdoors in daylight. I've learned not to trust the LCD review under this lighting. When I do have big concerns about exposure I just bracket.

Kelly

Baydream wrote:

shutter bug wrote: Raw is like a negative

RAW ignores all those mode settings and lets you decide what adjustments to make.

You know, I know this, but I love shooting on jpeg. Don't know why. Maybe someday I'll venture out into raw.

So long as you're happy with JPG, no reason not to stay with that. JPG beginning to end certainly cuts out some conversion steps. I used to shoot JPG only for the more compact file size. But my latest camera (which is 15Mp) has a 7Mp RAW setting that results in files under 12Mb each. So I can now shoot RAW without storage bloat.

Kelly

RAW = good
jpeg = bad

It's pretty simple.

RAW = unprocessed picture
jpeg = processed picture

That assumes it's the processing that is always bad. Which has not been my experience. I still shoot RAW over JPG, but as a hedge. Not because JPG is always bad. 90% of the time I can't actually see any difference, especially after downsizing the image for web publication.

Kelly