Raw files Image

Ditto!

 

RAW is WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get), it's the full information of the shot as recorded by the camera, and seen by the 'tog through the viewfinder.

ALL digital cameras without exception take the photo is RAW mode, but a majority of cameras then process (in camera) and store in jpeg and do not allow the 'tog access to that RAW file.

Jpeg is a version of the above, compressed heavily (reduced in size) using settings inside the camera that where set at the factory in another country, probably by someone who has never even visted ours.

Jpeg is also the accepted useable format for photographs in this digital age whether that is for viewing or printing. So RAW files must be converted to jpeg to be useable.

That said, these settings in camera, vary between manufacturers.

Stand two 'togs next to each other one with a Canon the other with a Nikon and have them take the same shot with the same lens and settings in jpeg mode, both shots will be completely different.

The Nikon shot will be (in my opinion) oversaturated, ie the colours will be too strong for the scene as it was. The Nikon user will say it's vibrant or punchy and that the Canon image is dull and lifeless. This is the difference between manufacturers and why RAW came about, to allow the 'tog to get the shot they want and to convert it to Jpeg using his own settings, not the settings chosen at the factory.

Steve...

After reading the above it can be perceived that there is not a digital photograph in existance that has not been edited in some way, shape or form. And this makes a mockery of the many photographic competitions one can take part in on the 1000's of photography sites across the net, most of them stipulate no editing at all or to limit to just a few things....I've never seen a comp that requests "Realism" or similar. Which in my opinion would be far better.

 

Thanks Armandii and Dave but I still think I could improve by understanding the modes and settings more.

 

When's our first lesson? Where's the classrom? Do I need to bring a packed lunch? Am I the only girl?

 

I'd like to see examples/lessons of editing RAW files as I have very little knowledge of this but apparently it's open to soooo much more options than jpeg files, but how and where you do that is something I need to learn.

 

Woah wo, I have got to learn to take the pix first
We can't join and art class and ask how to adjust the Mona Lisa :-)

Jack McH

 

Dont worry, course will be up and running tomorrow!

No need for a packed lunch!

Nobody needs to worry, I've had the same concerns over and over with this course people saying they are too thick or not bright enough. But I do have a 100% record with it and some of those have gone on to win competitions!

Back to RAW files and on topic now. I dont think I will be writing anything anytime soon about RAW editing, save for this. I use the same principles as I do when general editing in photoshop...as little as possible. If I have to use more than three tools I think that is one too many.

Some time ago I wrote an article about sharpening photo's, that was lengthy in itself and is just one small part of image editing. RAW image editing would require a book, indeed, many exist out there on the subject.

Steve...

 

Just learning the manual control of the camera will be fine by me

Then I can worry about RAW and what to do

I think my biggest worry will be composition, getting a togs eye

Jack McHammocklashing (very RAW)

 

Hi Woo, I've just had a look at the photos on your blog and they are excellent!!!

They seem to be much sharper than when you post them on GC. I've noticed a similar effect with many of the photos I've posted - they seldom seem quite as sharp as the originals.

 

It has to be the right situation and conditions to get the best/most from RAW files.

If I am taking photos down at the allotment of progress for my blog, I use jpeg only. Thats good enough for that purpose. But when I go out to the fells/lakes I want the photo's to be the best they can be so I will capture both RAW and jpeg. The jpeg for immediate viewing or use if that is necessary and the RAW file for ultimate editing..also if required. I then generally use the jpegs as a kind of a thumbnail to see if a shot has good potential before opening the RAW version for editing, this is a time saver.

For those who have been to the lake district or for that matter any of the wild areas of this country you will know of the huge variety of colours, tones and hues that nature produces, and that every day that changes. In fact it can change with the light in a few minutes and you'll never see that again. This is one of the reasons why I use RAW and I have captured some spectacular photos doing so that using jpeg format would not have done so well with.

I'm an intermediate to pro user when it comes to photoshop and I automate much of my workflow to time save, I can rough edit a RAW file then apply those settings to the other 20 photo's taken at that same spot or time, and use that as a starting point for them, thus saving a lot of time. These are skills that are written about in online tutorials across the web.

But if I have to spend a long time editing shots then I know I have done something fundamantally wrong when I took the photo's. I generally spend no more than 2 mins editing a shot, much less in most cases and if I can automate some of that process it will take even less.

Steve...