RAW - What is it?

[OBie]

Hi all,

Being new to the digital camera age, there is still much that is completely foreign to me. One of those things is RAW. I have a Nikon D50, which has the ability to shoot RAW, but have no idea why I would want to, mainly because I don't know what it is!

Is it all to do with the ability to edit? Layers and such? (Another thing that confounds me!)

Could someone explain RAW - or point me to a site that explains it - like the site someone pointed out recently that explained the histogram - very cool and easy to understand.

[another view]

Hmm... Where to start...

This has been discussed before in Digital Imaging, so check for older threads there. Basically, RAW gives you a ton of flexibility with post processing (adjusting the image later rather than in-camera) but at the expense of the time spent actually doing it.

Two big advantages with RAW are that you will set the white balance after you shoot the image and you'll shoot at a higher bit depth. Adjusting the white balance later is much better because you can see what you're actually getting on the screen, however the monitor you use really should be calibrated so that you know what you are seeing is accurate. JPEG's are captured at 8-bit color depth but RAW files are more like 12 or 16-bit. The numbers give you exponentially more colors so you're closer to continuous tone (like film). If you start making adjustments to areas with colors that are really close, you can start seeing lines between different colors. An example of this would be an open clear blue sky - adjust the levels around on a shot like this and you'll see what I mean. It can still happen at a higher bit depth, but it's not as likely.

On the other hand, people who need fast results and handle a lot of files usually shoot jpeg. As long as the file is shot correctly (use a custom white balance, correct exposure) then you should get great results right out of the camera or with minimal editing.

[Chunk]

When you are shooting other than a RAW image, the camera applies some changes to the data - white balance correction, contrast changes, sharpening, compression,whatever you have your camera set to do. A raw image on the other hand is the data straight from the sensor with no changes or compression and you take closer control of the image in your conversion/editing software.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...aw-files.shtml

[OBie]

Ahhh - Chunk - that is the link I was looking for! That seems to be the best site for explaining all of this digital 'stuff'. Maybe I'll bookmark it this time.

AV - I'm guessing that it takes Adobe PS or equivalent to work in RAW? My MS Picture It! software will have to go. I have APS at work, and use it for basic editing of real estate photos, but maybe I need to learn more than how to change the size and auto correct!

And thanks for pointing me to the original discussion on RAW - I hadn't looked there. I'll check it out.

[Chunk]

Doesn't that Nikon come with some conversion software?

Yes, LumiLand does do a good job of explaining things. Work through the stuff in the tutorials section there and you'll be doing a lot more than autocorrecting your stuff.

[OBie]

Doesn't that Nikon come with some conversion software?

I think it did. But, being one of those people who tears into the package and bypasses the extras (cables, plugs, straps - who needs 'em?!) that were thrown into the box, I figured it was just another photo editing software that I didn't need (since I already have that stupid MS Picture It! thing ;) )

Guess I'll go dig it out of the drawer I threw everything but the camera into and look into it!

Of course, if I start taking RAW, my laptop will most definitely hack up a hairball or two trying to open the files.

But after reading about it, I think it's the way to go. Might make my digital results closer to film?

[OBie]

To get back to AV's response - I've seen some forum folks refer to calibrating their monitor - what do you invest in to do that, how does it work, and how much $$ are we talking about?

No one can buy just the camera . . .

[another view]

I use Monaco Optix XR to calibrate my monitor, and it should be under $200. If it's not, they do run rebates from time to time - I think after all the discounts mine was about $150 a couple of years ago. This will calibrate the monitor only - but that's at least 80% of the battle. They also have systems that will calibrate your camera, scanner and printer for several hundred or more but you won't need this.

The D50 should have come with a Nikon program that will convert the RAW files - actually Nikon calls them NEF files. I'm not sure which one does it, but they also have a more advanced program called Nikon Capture that will do a lot of other things as well. You probably got a free 30-day trial with it but it costs about $150-200. You could also use Photoshop CS2 (not Elements) to convert the RAW files but it's an expensive program ($650 I think).

Look for the free one and try it first - see if it's something that you really want to spend the time with before making a big investment.

[Ronnoco]

Hi all,

Could someone explain RAW - or point me to a site that explains it - like the site someone pointed out recently that explained the histogram - very cool and easy to understand.

I would suggest a good book: Adobe Camera Raw For Digital Photographers Only, by Rob Sheppard. Pick it up at Chapter's, Indigo or whatever your box size bookstore is called.

Ronnoco

[OBie]

I would suggest a good book: Adobe Camera Raw For Digital Photographers Only, by Rob Sheppard. Pick it up at Chapter's, Indigo or whatever your box size bookstore is called.

Thanks Ronnoco. I'll look in to it - my favorite place to hang out is a bookstore.

[SmartWombat]

I already have that stupid MS Picture It! thing

Your description is accurate
I think it's worth even less than what you paid for it

[OBie]

Your description is accurate
I think it's worth even less than what you paid for it

You got that right! It was originally purchased to do simple editing on home photos (resize, adjust brightness). About all it's good for.

I'm installing Adobe later today.

[OBie]

I took some photos today in RAW to try it out - and yes, I found the disc that came with the camera that has a trial version of Nikon's PictureProject.

So I have these files on the card that I'm unable to view because they are NEF. I'm assuming that I will use the newly installed PP to open them and 'convert' them? I was hoping to save the originals to a CD immediately, and then work with them from there, but will that work?

[SmartWombat]

I was hoping to save the originals to a CD immediately, and then work with them from there, but will that work?

Yes, that should work.
CD is slower than your hard disk so I'd do editing from the hard drive not CD.

Check the latest Microsoft Raw picture viewer/thumbnailer that may work with NEF files in windows exploder http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en

[another view]

Good choice to save the original NEF files, especially when you're first getting used to the process. They won't be viewable by anything other than Nikon Picture Project, Capture, Photoshop CS2 or any other converter that can read NEF's from that particular camera. Even my Photoshop CS won't read them because NEF files are specific to the camera and my version of CS (before CS2) won't support that camera.

You'll select white balance and maybe adjust exposure or a few other things, then save them as TIFF files. From there, work them in Photoshop or any other editing program. TIFF is a very standard file format supported by just about anything so you can see them with Windows Viewer, etc. That's your "master" file, then I make a jpeg of that for printing because I use a lab for that. There's a lot of work here and three files per image, and truthfully I don't always do all of this, but it's the safest bet...

[OBie]

in windows exploder

Is that a freudian slip?! Cracked me up!

[OBie]

Well I did finally figure out how to save them as a jpg so I can print them (and post them - check them out in the Sports Photography "Horses are athletes too!" thread).

But my laptop is choking, so I have to go the slow route and move them around to either the external hard drive, or a disc as soon as I can.

[another view]

It's always best to back up as soon as possible. You'll wind up with a lot of disk space used if you do what I said - that's why I don't always follow my own advice...

[Chunk]

Well I did finally figure out how to save them as a jpg so I can print them (and post them - check them out in the Sports Photography "Horses are athletes too!" thread).

But my laptop is choking, so I have to go the slow route and move them around to either the external hard drive, or a disc as soon as I can.

I boosted the memory in my laptop and it makes a huge difference. Memory is cheap - sorta.

[freygr]

I took some photos today in RAW to try it out - and yes, I found the disc that came with the camera that has a trial version of Nikon's PictureProject.

So I have these files on the card that I'm unable to view because they are NEF. I'm assuming that I will use the newly installed PP to open them and 'convert' them? I was hoping to save the originals to a CD immediately, and then work with them from there, but will that work?

You can download the trial version of Thumbs Plus with the digi cam add in and veiw any RAW file, and save in almost any format you wish. It does have some editing in the program also so, and I only go to Photo Shop if I need to do more than just the basics.

[SmartWombat]

Memory is definitely #1
But external hard disks are cheap right now.
250G Seagate USB drive for £79
Just bought two for backing up the other external drives

[OBie]

I just got a 160G external hard drive for $99 with the intention holding photos somewhat temporarily (I say somewhat because we all know how many photos end up clogging the workflow . . .)

But then I realized that my computer still has to be able to run the darn hard drive, so now I do realize that a huge chunk of RAM will help.

It seems like I have to keep rethinking how to handle the flow. But that's because I'm still feeling my way around the digital age. I did like the results when shooting in RAW - does that mean that I don't care for how the D50 treats a jpg? Or maybe things just finally clicked and I got it right for a change!

[idofotos]

http://www.irfanview.com/ this is a free download and will handle your raw files, I havent used it since I am using CS2 and Capture one. I think its a fairly simple program so give it a try