The perfect raw file?

R

Rishy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
68
Name
Girish
Edit My Images
Yes
I was just wondering, as I'm fairly new to experimenting with raw, do raw files ALWAYS require post processing?

I know JPEGs are processed and compressed within the camera, and raw files contain the image as the camera sees it. But if your requirement is to not mess with the original image and your exposure and composition is spot on, is there anything else that is lacking in RAW files?

I'm thinking back to when I used to shoot on film, if my exposure was correct, I'd simply have the shots printed.

Cheers.

Rishy.
 
You can't see a raw file without some sort of process on it. Different software will render them slightly differently. Even if you like it as is, what you're liking is your chosen softwares representation of said file.
 
Rishy said:
I was just wondering, as I'm fairly new to experimenting with raw, do raw files ALWAYS require post processing?

I know JPEGs are processed and compressed within the camera, and raw files contain the image as the camera sees it. But if your requirement is to not mess with the original image and your exposure and composition is spot on, is there anything else that is lacking in RAW files?

I'm thinking back to when I used to shoot on film, if my exposure was correct, I'd simply have the shots printed.

Cheers.

Rishy.
Click to expand...

Did you not get them developed first?
 
Rishy said:
Sorry, that's what I meant, send the roll off in the post and have it developed and printed.
Click to expand...

If you think of the raw file as the negative, then it's the same thing. If you shoot in Jpeg, the camera "develops" it. If you shoot raw, you do it yourself. A little like the difference in taking your roll of film to boots and having your own darkroom.
 
I see what you mean.

Personally, I'd like to do as little post-processing as possible, and the question in my head is: 'Up to A4 size prints, can the human eye really see the difference between a post-processed RAW file and a JPEG developed within the camera (I guess you'd have to initially tweak the JPEG settings for the different picture styles, such as contrast, saturation)?'

I mean, would you necessarily notice a richer colour, more detail etc?


fabs said:
If you think of the raw file as the negative, then it's the same thing. If you shoot in Jpeg, the camera "develops" it. If you shoot raw, you do it yourself. A little like the difference in taking your roll of film to boots and having your own darkroom.
Click to expand...
 
Rishy said:
I see what you mean.

Personally, I'd like to do as little post-processing as possible, and the question in my head is: 'Up to A4 size prints, can the human eye really see the difference between a post-processed RAW file and a JPEG developed within the camera (I guess you'd have to initially tweak the JPEG settings for the different picture styles, such as contrast, saturation)?'

I mean, would you necessarily notice a richer colour, more detail etc?
Click to expand...

It's just a matter of personal preference really If you are happy that your camera will create the jpeg to your satisfaction, the that's great. Personally I prefer the added control of doing it myself.
 
If you don't want to PP then don't shoot RAW.

The whole point of RAW is that it allows more PP'ing - e.g. blown highlights and lost shadows are more recoverable, white balance can be tweaked indefinately.

If you shoot JPEG the white balance can't be changed by too much, blown highlights and lost shadows don't recover as nicely, and settings made in-camera such as 'Black and White' can't be undone properly.

RAW is all about post processing flexibility.
 
Thanks for your comments, they helped. Even if I stick to JPEGs, I can see myself using RAW in situation when I don't have time to fiddle with settings and when it's a critical picture opportunity that I cannot afford to mess up.
 
Rishy said:
Thanks for your comments, they helped. Even if I stick to JPEGs, I can see myself using RAW in situation when I don't have time to fiddle with settings and when it's a critical picture opportunity that I cannot afford to mess up.
Click to expand...


Even with raw you still need to expose the photo correctly etc, etc....
RAW is just the data from the sensor, a load of 0s and 1s, so if the photo is over exposed it won't help you much. Raw is not a substitute for getting the parameters right!!:thinking:
 
Beagletorque said:
Even with raw you still need to expose the photo correctly etc, etc....
RAW is just the data from the sensor, a load of 0s and 1s, so if the photo is over exposed it won't help you much. Raw is not a substitute for getting the parameters right!!:thinking:
Click to expand...

Yeh but no but yeh but :)

For example. Last weekend I was photographing horses at an event. Challenging day with bright skies then cloudy skies changing all the time.

At one particular position I was shooting riders over a jump. I was getting horse and rider exposed pretty much correctly (IMO ;)) but the sky was blown, not by much, but blown highlights showing on the camera and histogram.

A quick tweak of the recovery slider in LR and I had recovered most of sky cloud detail. This would have been lost in JPEG. So you are right in saying RAW is not a substitute in getting right but it is a belt and braces approach to getting even more right. :)
 
cyclone said:
You can't see a raw file without some sort of process on it. Different software will render them slightly differently. Even if you like it as is, what you're liking is your chosen softwares representation of said file.
Click to expand...

I don't like this. for example - uploading some Raw's in LR3, then it for some reason does some PP automatically, which I don't like, the look dull. I like'd them in my camera and before it did the PP, then I need to PP them back to the original. + isn't the RAW vs JPG kinda old ? I think that the new cameras develop good jpegs + the still have good dynamic range .

I will have a look in the settings to not have the automatic PP or something in the LR3 + it takes ages to do that and to even load the file, for some reason LR2.2 was a lot faster although I used different camera back then, but the file size remains the same - around 10mb.
 
I was shooting jpeg and nothing else for about a year BUT... i was at the same time using GIMP the free photo editing software with an UFraw plugin that i didn't like when viewing RAW.
Now i started using Photoshop Elements 8, opeinng up a RAW in that opens up a whole new world and just shows that free programs are exactly that - you get what you pay for !
bottom line if you shoot RAW - get photoshop or similar :thumbs:
 
Since Rishy is shooting with a 500D he/she should have Canon's own DPP software, supplied with the camera. If you shoot raw then DPP will understand all the settings within the camera and "develop" the raw file very much as though it had been shot as a JPEG in the first place. The look won't be quite identical, but it will be close. The beauty of raw is that many parameters can be adjusted after taking the shot, with no penalty to IQ at all. e.g. you can freely change picture styles and see which you prefer. White balance has already been mentioned, but other things can also be tweaked too.

In other words, if you want to try shooting raw, but don't want to have to edit your images, then DPP will let you churn out JPEG copies from your raw files that will look close to JPEGs from the camera. Almost no user input is necessary. All you need to do is to select the images you want converted, press CTRL-B to start a Batch process and tell DPP where you want the JPEGs to be saved and if you want them resized. No tweaking to individual images is required.

When I got my first DSLR I switched from JPEG to raw in the first week or two, using DPP for my conversions for many months until Lightroom was launched and that became my raw editor of choice. I have not gone back to shooting JPEG in four years.

It's probably worth mentioning that the approach to shooting may be different when shooting to raw vs shooting to JPEG, but it does not have to be. When you shoot raw you are shooting to capture data, not necessarily a finished image. Therefore one technique is to maximise your exposure to capture as much data as possible. The technique is called "Exposing to the Right", because your objective is to nudge the histogram over to the right hand side. This technique will capture more tonal detail and minimise noise. The image may look overexposed, and may well be, but as long as you have not overexposed too far and lost details in the highlights you will be able to adjust the image for the best aesthetics in your raw software.

So, I guess the perfect raw file is one that is shot every bit as well as a perfect JPEG, but with the exposure adjusted, if appropriate, to make it as bright as possible without clipping important highlight details.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top