Using RAW

BintyMcFrazzles

BintyMcFrazzles

Suspended / Banned
Messages
402
Name
Jackie
Edit My Images
No
I've got a Canon 600D, and have always shot with jpeg. I know I technically should be using RAW, as I know you can get far more detail, but I end up using jpeg as I "know" it. But I feel I am wanting more from my photos and want to move up a level.

I'm just after some advice and tips, please.

ie:
I presume I use can RAW in Photoshop Elements 11?
I've heard you HAVE to use processing to "get" the final photo, you can't just use the photo straight out of camera.
I've heard RAW is great for B&W.
Is RAW easy to process? Do I have to go through a lot of processing, or can it just be a few tweeks, like on jpeg?
How do I start? I know I should probably just do it and see what happens!
If anyone has any examples, jpeg photo vs RAW photo, I would really appreciate comparing.

Sorry for all the questions and thanks in advance.
(Hope I put this in the right section).
 
I've always used jpeg, because I "know" it. However, I've been wanting to take my photos to another level, and I know I should really be using RAW.

Now, I did a practice shot in RAW, and was able to open it in PS Elements, albeit a different box came up to what I'm normally used to. However, what I would like to do is open my RAW files on my desktop before editing them on PSE. What I mean is, if I've shoot say, 20 photos, I'd like to see what shot is what before I decide which I want to edit.
My laptop says I have to convert the file to jpeg in order to view them. Obviously I don't want to do this. Is it a driver that I need to download or a special file? I did have a look on the topic on RAW, but was slightly confused as to what I have to download, and what to put into a search engines.
I have a Canon 600d and use Photoshop Elements 11.

Any recommendations for websites for downloads, tips or advice is appreciated. :)
 
Last edited:
Depends on the camera. Am on iphone so cant check. Microsoft do a raw codec for windows so you can use picture viewer etc.
 
Threads merged and tidied as you were :thumbs:
 
Thanks everyone for the links. That is exactly what I was after! I've only just joined this forum less than a week ago, and you're all so friendly.......and useful! Ta, muchly. :ty::kiss:
 
BintyMcFrazzles said:
Thanks everyone for the links. That is exactly what I was after! I've only just joined this forum less than a week ago, and you're all so friendly.......and useful! Ta, muchly. :ty::kiss:
Click to expand...

I'm glad you are sorted out :thumbs:
And yes friendly we are :)
No one bites, least of all me,
no matter what some would have you believe :D
 
You can't see RAW files. They are data files, not image files. That's why you "have to process them". When you look at a RAW file on the back of a camera or in software you are usually looking at a jpg. Albeit a jpg "preview".

When you shoot in jpg, your camera still shoots in RAW. However, the camera does the conversion automatically using default post-processing settings (sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc) predecided by whoever wrote the camera's software (although most decent cameras allow you to change the default conversion settings a little). Shooting RAW simply allows you to take full control of the processing.
In a very real sense you could say there isn't really such a thing as a "straight out of camera" shot (the way most people use the phrase, anyway). There's RAW, where you take full control of the processing. Or jpg, where Mr Nikon or Mr Canon does the processing to their default commercial tastes and you can only tweak the results.

I often compare it to film. Shooting jpg is like taking your film to Boots, who will process it to their preferred tastes. Their procedure is usually designed to give a decent one-size-fits-all result but which may not be ideal for individual subjects. Shooting RAW is like developing your own film, where you control the final look of your negative.
 
Last edited:
I speak as a user of Elements 10 but I don't suppose Elements 11 is too much different. When you go to edit and open up the RAW file, you can do as much or as little tweaking as you wish ... or you can do none at all. If you're happy enough with the basic shot then simply click straight to 'open image' without making any changes at all.
 
BintyMcFrazzles said:
I've heard RAW is great for B&W.
Click to expand...

A jpg file is 8 bits; that means only 255 different values for the tones (assuming that you convert by converting to greyscale and dropping the colour info. Otherwise it's 255 different values for the R, G and B components).

The human eye can distinguish (although this depends on varying the light levels) about 250 different shades of grey.

Every time you alter an image with levels or curves (or alter the contrast) you expand or compress some part of the tonal range and "lose" some values.

Therefore, starting with 8 bits means a loss of tonal quality in black and white.
 
Last edited:
I used to shoot in JPG because it was instant, then I started shooting both and found myself just deleting the RAWs, now I just shoot RAW. I tend to apply a similar Clarity & Vibrance setting to most of my files to bring them back to around where the JPG would have looked so I've just set it as a preset in Lightroom now so I can add it easily to a batch and then go from there.

As is always the case, RAW won't make you take better pictures, just give you a bit more freedom and leeway with them once you've taken them. If they're crap in the first place then some extra tones won't do anything to help.

StephenM said:
250 different shades of grey.
Click to expand...
That's one extremely long book!
 
Thanks for the information, everyone. I am beginning to understand RAW now, I think! There is only one way to find out about it, and that's to use it! So I'm off out this afternoon for a bit of practice. :)
 
A handy demonstration of the extra leeway you get with RAW is to deliberately take a picture in RAW+JPG mode 1,2,3 stops over and under. Have plenty of colour and detail and stuff in there if you can.

In your programme of choice try and bring all the images back to the correct exposure just using the exposure slider. You'll soon see just how much extra information your RAW files hold compared to your JPGs. Obviously these are for the most part only demonstration situations, but you can see what you're getting for your larger file sizes, lower burst rates and longer transfer times!
 
BintyMcFrazzles said:
I've always used jpeg, because I "know" it. However, I've been wanting to take my photos to another level, and I know I should really be using RAW.

Now, I did a practice shot in RAW, and was able to open it in PS Elements, albeit a different box came up to what I'm normally used to. However, what I would like to do is open my RAW files on my desktop before editing them on PSE. What I mean is, if I've shoot say, 20 photos, I'd like to see what shot is what before I decide which I want to edit.
My laptop says I have to convert the file to jpeg in order to view them. Obviously I don't want to do this. Is it a driver that I need to download or a special file? I did have a look on the topic on RAW, but was slightly confused as to what I have to download, and what to put into a search engines.
I have a Canon 600d and use Photoshop Elements 11.

Any recommendations for websites for downloads, tips or advice is appreciated. :)
Click to expand...

do u only have elements? i know the lightroom/photoshop pack is available at £8 p/m i shoot raw now and edit in photoshop camera raw and lightroom, i use bridge to view these files before i go edit
 
Best example I've heard when it comes to JPEG vs Raw is the following (and actually do this so you see the effect):

Take a blank piece of A4 paper and draw something on it… this is your JPEG image, now fold it in half, and then in half again, and then in half again, and finally one more time. Imagine each of those folds is an adjustment you've made to the JPEG image and saved. Now open up the A4 paper and look at it… see how it's now crappy looking compared to before?

Now take another sheet of A4… that's your Raw file, it never degrades no matter how many changes you make to it. You never fold it or compress it, it just stays all lovely and flat and white… it stays as it always was regardless of the changes you make to it… you can colour in the picture you drew, add some words etc etc and the quality never degrades.

That's the beauty of Raw over Jpeg
 
ajax_andy said:
Best example I've heard when it comes to JPEG vs Raw is the following (and actually do this so you see the effect):

Take a blank piece of A4 paper and draw something on it… this is your JPEG image, now fold it in half, and then in half again, and then in half again, and finally one more time. Imagine each of those folds is an adjustment you've made to the JPEG image and saved. Now open up the A4 paper and look at it… see how it's now crappy looking compared to before?

Now take another sheet of A4… that's your Raw file, it never degrades no matter how many changes you make to it. You never fold it or compress it, it just stays all lovely and flat and white… it stays as it always was regardless of the changes you make to it… you can colour in the picture you drew, add some words etc etc and the quality never degrades.

That's the beauty of Raw over Jpeg
Click to expand...

It is the same with a vector illustration logo design for example no matter how big you blow it up in size the quality will always be the same, if you was to compress it to a jpeg however the difference would be mega as the quality disappears
 
BintyMcFrazzles said:
I know I technically should be using RAW
Click to expand...

The above statement is so wrong in so many ways.. You use RAW if you want to. if you feel it benefits your photogrpahy.. you dont not use RAW because you think you should..


BintyMcFrazzles said:
Is RAW easy to process? Do I have to go through a lot of processing, or can it just be a few tweeks, like on jpeg?
Click to expand...

If your just doing a few tweaks then just use JPG you wont get anyhting more out of RAW for this..


otherwise if you want to be doing a lot more with your pictures then follow the other advice :)
 
Using raw is one thing; actually getting the camera to save the raw files (and saving them yourself) is another. Some people actually get better at things with practice, and this can also be the case with photo editing :). If you're one of these people, you may find that sometime in the future you'd like to revisit an old photograph and put your new skills into practice to produce a better image. If you've already edited the jpg and haven't kept the original, you've wasted a lot of technical quality, whereas if you've kept the raw file you have a better starting point.

This assumes you may want to go back and reprocess.
 
My thoughts as more of a n00b than some of the other replies

BintyMcFrazzles said:
I'm just after some advice and tips, please.

ie:
I presume I use can RAW in Photoshop Elements 11?
Click to expand...
Yes

I've heard you HAVE to use processing to "get" the final photo, you can't just use the photo straight out of camera.
Click to expand...
Technically yes, although you could just click a few "ok" buttons if you wanted.

I've heard RAW is great for B&W.
Click to expand...
No idea.

Is RAW easy to process? Do I have to go through a lot of processing, or can it just be a few tweeks, like on jpeg?
Click to expand...
It can be as little or as much as you want. Within the limits of your raw editor. (The thing that came up before your elements interface)

How do I start? I know I should probably just do it and see what happens!
Click to expand...
Use the first window/raw editor that Elements is opening up your RAW files in. In elements there arent many sliders for you to play with so its ideal. One of the best things about the RAW editor is the ease with which to set white balance. There's a dropper tool you click on, then select a neutral white/grey area on your pic and it does it for you.
Vibrance, saturation and clarity are often worth a play with too.

Try youtube-ing, googling for Elements RAW editor.

HTH
 
BintyMcFrazzles said:
I've got a Canon 600D, and have always shot with jpeg. I know I technically should be using RAW, as I know you can get far more detail, but I end up using jpeg as I "know" it. But I feel I am wanting more from my photos and want to move up a level.
Click to expand...
It depends what you mean by "move up a level"

Having looked at your photos on Flickr they look fine to me - well many of them do - technically some have room for improvement but not much that RAW could do.

If you are hoping that RAW will somehow magically improve your pictures then frankly it won't, only you can do that.

It's like those people who keep buying more and more cameras and lenses in the hope that one day they will find a magical combo which will suddenly turn them into excellent photographers - doesn't happen.

I used to shoot in RAW but then found that I could get the same quality with JPEGs so nowadays simply take JPEGs and then convert them into TIFF files for processing.

That is a better way of using JPEGs because TIFFs are a lossless file where each process will not degrade the quality and they can be used in almost any editing program whereas RAW files can't - although you can of course convert your RAW files into TIFFs and then edit them in your favourite program in exactly the same way - although they do produce large files which means you do need a fast computer.

There are disadvantages to both systems RAW or JPEGs but the one thing you should do if you use JPEGs in your camera is always save them and never use them for editing - just make copies or convert to TIFFs etc for editing.

RAW files cannot (usually) be changed as they are not really picture files, they are simply a record of the data from the sensor and as such need special programs to edit them or convert them.

Personally I would say simply stick with what you are happy doing while concentrating on improving your photographs and if you wish then slowly change over to RAW and see if it suits you better.
.
 
petersmart said:
It depends what you mean by "move up a level"

Having looked at your photos on Flickr they look fine to me - well many of them do - technically some have room for improvement but not much that RAW could do.

If you are hoping that RAW will somehow magically improve your pictures then frankly it won't, only you can do that.

It's like those people who keep buying more and more cameras and lenses in the hope that one day they will find a magical combo which will suddenly turn them into excellent photographers - doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

Oh crap, I'm still spending and hoping :-)
No, seriously, 100% agree with this.

petersmart said:
I used to shoot in RAW but then found that I could get the same quality with JPEGs so nowadays simply take JPEGs and then convert them into TIFF files for processing.

That is a better way of using JPEGs because TIFFs are a lossless file where each process will not degrade the quality and they can be used in almost any editing program whereas RAW files can't - although you can of course convert your RAW files into TIFFs and then edit them in your favourite program in exactly the same way - although they do produce large files which means you do need a fast computer.

There are disadvantages to both systems RAW or JPEGs but the one thing you should do if you use JPEGs in your camera is always save them and never use them for editing - just make copies or convert to TIFFs etc for editing.

RAW files cannot (usually) be changed as they are not really picture files, they are simply a record of the data from the sensor and as such need special programs to edit them or convert them.

Personally I would say simply stick with what you are happy doing while concentrating on improving your photographs and if you wish then slowly change over to RAW and see if it suits you better.
.
Click to expand...

Although I struggle to really see the benefit of this approach. Sure a lossless TIFF won't degrade on an edit by edit basis (although be aware, there are lossy TIFFs too), but if you are going to go to the hassle of converting every file for editing, why not start with a RAW anyway?

An alternative approach to the data loss from multiple edits is just not to 'edit' the file. Something like Lightroom does not really ever edit/change the underlying file (be it JPG or RAW), so you can make as many tweaks as you like and never risk any quality loss even if the file is a lossy format.
 
ajax_andy said:
Best example I've heard when it comes to JPEG vs Raw is the following (and actually do this so you see the effect):

Take a blank piece of A4 paper and draw something on it… this is your JPEG image, now fold it in half, and then in half again, and then in half again, and finally one more time. Imagine each of those folds is an adjustment you've made to the JPEG image and saved. Now open up the A4 paper and look at it… see how it's now crappy looking compared to before?

Now take another sheet of A4… that's your Raw file, it never degrades no matter how many changes you make to it. You never fold it or compress it, it just stays all lovely and flat and white… it stays as it always was regardless of the changes you make to it… you can colour in the picture you drew, add some words etc etc and the quality never degrades.

That's the beauty of Raw over Jpeg
Click to expand...
Well, sort of.

The reason RAW files "stay the same" is because when you "save changes" to them you're usually creating a completely new file - a jpg, TIFF, or whatever. Because RAW files are not viewable images. The RAW data sits unchanged in the original RAW file.

You could do the same, more or less, with a jpg if you wanted; by editing using layers, saving all adjustments to a new file and keeping the original.

The real utility of RAW is that you start with way more data.
 
petersmart said:
It depends what you mean by "move up a level"
Having looked at your photos on Flickr they look fine to me - well many of them do - technically some have room for improvement but not much that RAW could do.
If you are hoping that RAW will somehow magically improve your pictures then frankly it won't, only you can do that.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Peter. And thanks for the CC. I understand that some of my work is technically fine, and there is always room for improvement (some I just shoot for fun, really, like that Chinese Anniversary cat). I don't expect shooting RAW to dramatically improve my shots, but I'm curious if there are any changes, such as detail. It's just some photographers rave about RAW as if it's the second coming, and I want to know what the fuss is about! :)

petersmart said:
Personally I would say simply stick with what you are happy doing while concentrating on improving your photographs and if you wish then slowly change over to RAW and see if it suits you better.
.
Click to expand...

I going to have a few goes with RAW to see if I like it. Photography, for me, has been practice, practice, practice. Seeing what works, and what doesn't.
As you say, I'll see which suits.


KIPAX said:
The above statement is so wrong in so many ways.. You use RAW if you want to. if you feel it benefits your photogrpahy.. you dont not use RAW because you think you should.
Click to expand...
Good point! :)

robphotographer said:
do u only have elements? i know the lightroom/photoshop pack is available at £8 p/m i shoot raw now and edit in photoshop camera raw and lightroom, i use bridge to view these files before i go edit
Click to expand...
It took me long enough to get to grips with Elements. ;) I do have a copy of Lightroom which someone gave me, I might have a go.

DorsetDude said:
My thoughts as more of a n00b than some of the other replies
Use the first window/raw editor that Elements is opening up your RAW files in. In elements there arent many sliders for you to play with so its ideal. One of the best things about the RAW editor is the ease with which to set white balance. There's a dropper tool you click on, then select a neutral white/grey area on your pic and it does it for you.
Vibrance, saturation and clarity are often worth a play with too.

Try youtube-ing, googling for Elements RAW editor.

HTH
Click to expand...

Thanks, Dude.



Big Thanks to everyone, you've all been useful, and given me lots of different ideas and opinions, and have given me things to think about. One of the photography magazines this month has got some useful information on RAW, so I bought it today. I'm going to have a play and see what happens. :D

I love this forum!
 
Furtim said:
Sure a lossless TIFF won't degrade on an edit by edit basis (although be aware, there are lossy TIFFs too)
Click to expand...
This is misinformation - if you are going to edit a tif - push sliders about etc, then you are going to 'degrade' that file. It'll lose information that it originally had.
 
droj said:
This is misinformation - if you are going to edit a tif - push sliders about etc, then you are going to 'degrade' that file. It'll lose information that it originally had.
Click to expand...

Okay - point of clarification. The context of the quote was intended to be in regard to the act of saving, recompressing in a lossy format, that - due to the virtue of a lossy recompression would degrade the original image information. Saving in a lossless format, prevents this. TIFF is not always lossless.

Of course, whenever you deliberately manipulate the content of the file, you run the risk of reducing the quantity of useful information held within the file too.
 
BintyMcFrazzles said:
It took me long enough to get to grips with Elements. ;) I do have a copy of Lightroom which someone gave me, I might have a go.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who only used Elements. I showed him Lightroom and some of the things it could do and he offered his GF to me lol. It's really worthwhile if only for the women, lol.
 
Furtim said:
Okay - point of clarification. The context of the quote was intended to be in regard to the act of saving ...
Click to expand...
Granted, but that wasn't how you put it before - you said 'on an edit by edit basis'. What is editing but deliberate manipulation?

There are ways to minimise or avoid loss of original quality - one is 'save as' after editing and keep the original intact. Another is adjustment layers as mentioned above as long as the file is saved in the layered form (bigger file sizes result). Working in 16-bit may help ....
 
Last edited:
DBT85 said:
I have a friend who only used Elements. I showed him Lightroom and some of the things it could do and he offered his GF to me lol. It's really worthwhile if only for the women, lol.
Click to expand...
Might have to have a go. :-)
 
BintyMcFrazzles said:
Might have to have a go. :-)
Click to expand...

Hiya J

RAW vs JPEG. I always shoot RAW as with the dynamic range of the D800 and the detail you can recover, it serves as an insurance policy if I don't get it exactly right in camera.

A local sports photographer never shoots raw and gets fantastic results! Do whatever works for you.

I went from Lightroom 3 to elements 10 (never used it) then back to Lightroom. With the creative cloud I use Lightroom and photoshop in tandem. Lightroom is really intuitive to use and I do 95% of my editing in there.

You should be able to pick up an older version of Lightroom fairly cheaply.

S
 
Cheers, Shaheed.
Someone gave me a copy of Lightroom 4, but I couldn't get on with it. I tried PSE, and was determined! Maybe now that I understand PSE more now, I can "get on" with LR again. I learned PSE by watching videos on You Tube. I'll see how I get on....
 
Last edited:
Sorry if the following has been written here before. I just skipped right to the reply box :exit: (after reading a few comments).

Believe it or not, but straight out of camera, a JPEG will look sharper than a Raw file displayed without any adjustments.
It doesn't matter if you tell the camera to save a JPEG or a Raw file, it still starts with the Raw data. By letting the camera save only as JPEG, it simply applies some adjustments (which you can configure pre-capture in the menus), saves a JPEG and gets rid of the Raw file. If you only save the Raw file, the camera will still do its processing, but it will only affect the tiny preview that's baked in the file, and displayed by some Raw-viewers, as well as in-camera (the image that's displayed in playback). I suppose the download from Microsoft doesn't show that camera-generated preview.

Making the Raw file look like the JPEG that the camera created requires a few simple tweaks: contrast, saturation, sharpening and noise reduction. Those can be completely automated in Lightroom, but in Photoshop Elements you'll probably need to do them to each and every photo separately. But you're not saving big Raw files just to make them look like out-of-camera JPEGs...
 
Thanks, Ido. That IS interesting, because when I went out yesterday, I shot in both jpeg and Raw, and the jpeg photos were slightly better, but only slightly. I edited using the Raw, anyway, just for the practice.
 
BintyMcFrazzles said:
Cheers, Shaheed.
Someone gave me a copy of Lightroom 4, but I couldn't get on with it. I tried PSE, and was determined! Maybe now that I understand PSE more now, I can "get on" with LR again. I learned PSE by watching videos on You Tube. I'll see how I get on....
Click to expand...

LR is very good for organising your files too.
 
The JPEGs will look better because as Ido says they already had processing done. By the camera.
Another decision on whether to use RAW or JPG might be what you intend to do with the photos. If you just want to download them and bung em all on facebook straightaway, no point using raw really.
If you take a lot of say landscape shots, go through 50 later, delete 45 and like the last 5, you might then want them in RAW so you can spend some time processing them as you want rather than as the camera wants.
 
DorsetDude said:
Another decision on whether to use RAW or JPG might be what you intend to do with the photos. If you just want to download them and bung em all on facebook straightaway, no point using raw really.
If you take a lot of say landscape shots, go through 50 later, delete 45 and like the last 5, you might then want them in RAW so you can spend some time processing them as you want rather than as the camera wants.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point to consider.

It depends on the occasion. If I'm "out and about" in a park, I'll do 50 or 60 shots (or more) and choose 5 or 10 that I really like for flickr. If I am doing still life, I'll set up the shot for a lot longer, and do no more than 5 or 6 for each subject; again for flickr. For both I would edit them in PSE.
However, if I am doing something very informal, say a party, I'll just be "snapping" loads, and use a lot, but would still edit, but just a little. These would be just for facebook. Ones, I would never put on flickr.

Thanks, Keith. :) When you put it like that, it gives me what situations to consider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top