RAW programs/help

[slayer7124]

For all you RAW shooters which program is the best for loading, editing, and converting RAW files? I have CS2, Lightroom, CS3(mac), and Aperture(mac). When I use Lightroom, the picture sometimes comes out different when i save it as a JPEG and view it in the folder where i saved it than it did in the editing screen. Not sure why that happens but it does, maybe my monitor is off.

I ask this because I just got back from vacation where I shot using all RAW. I converted them all to JPEG for quick viewing using CS2. When it come to editing the RAW photos, I can't really see a difference between RAW and JPEG files. Is it because I am just an amateur and not used to editing/working with RAW, or are some things better to photograph using RAW. I was mostly shooting landscape and mountains on this vacation. Any help with this would be great. Thanks!

[freygr]

Yes there is a difference. Most RAW formats, Nikon RAW uses 12 bit per color not 8 bit. RAW is lossless but JPG is lossly. You will see the difference in the sky as JPG will group the sky into blocks of the same color. I have adjusted the gama and you could see the banding in the sky, sun raises and sets, but RAW will not band.

[Canuck935]

I haven't had issues with the output from Lightroom looking different from the image in Lightroom. I'm not sure what is going on there. Maybe a color space issue?

As far as what program I use for RAW, well if you haven't figured it out it is Lightroom. If it weren't for Lightroom, I wouldn't be shooting RAW. I'll leave it at that.

For many pictures you probably won't see much or any difference between JPEG or RAW. However, what you get with RAW is flexibility in post process. You can do things you'd never be able to do with a JPEG. Blown highlight or blocky shadows? Forget it with JPEG. With RAW, the image can easily be rescued.

Happy Shooting!

[slayer7124]

Thanks guys. I guess it just takes some practice. Like I said I'm new with shooting RAW so I'll give it some time.

[fx101]

For many images, the difference between RAW and jpeg is not noticeable. For event photography, where you're going to be shooting tons of images and you don't need big prints and are facing good lighting conditions, jpeg is your choice. RAW requires a good, colour managed workflow. First off, calibrate your monitor. Adobe products compensate screen gamma inside the software to either the mac or windows standard. A calibrated monitor should allow for consistent display of images from software to software. Also, make sure you stay in one colour space until the end. When shooting RAW, shoot in Adobe RGB. Keep it like that until you end up with a jpeg file at the end of your workflow. Then, you might want to convert to sRGB.

RAW advantages: Shadow and Highlight detail is retained to a greater extent, a little sharper in lower light, fully customizable white balance, you can use your own sharpening tools rather than in-camera sharpening.

Jpeg Advantages: Smaller, A lot easier to work with, can fit more in the camera buffer (for bursts), in FINE mode, they are generally have a very high quality to size ratio, you don't need special software to view them.

[Franglais]

For all you RAW shooters which program is the best for loading, editing, and converting RAW files? I have CS2, Lightroom, CS3(mac), and Aperture(mac). When I use Lightroom, the picture sometimes comes out different when i save it as a JPEG and view it in the folder where i saved it than it did in the editing screen. Not sure why that happens but it does, maybe my monitor is off.

I ask this because I just got back from vacation where I shot using all RAW. I converted them all to JPEG for quick viewing using CS2. When it come to editing the RAW photos, I can't really see a difference between RAW and JPEG files. Is it because I am just an amateur and not used to editing/working with RAW, or are some things better to photograph using RAW. I was mostly shooting landscape and mountains on this vacation. Any help with this would be great. Thanks!

I have my cameras set up to shoot RAW+JPG. The JPG is useful when I'm out in the field and I want to leave a rush copy of the images or view them on my ARCHOS hard drive. The JPG out of the D200 and D300 looks identical to the RAW image but from the D70 I have the impression that it's darker.

Back at home I delete the JPG images produced by the camera and I only work with the RAW files. I review each image and I correct it if necessary (about 75% of my images need some correction). With Nikon NX software I can make corrections to the exposure, colour balance and contrast without the result looking false or "numeric" (as happens with JPG files).

The final step is to use NX to generate a new JPG file from the RAW file, with the corrections I have made. The image I keep and display is the new JPG. 3x8 bits gives you 16 million colours, which is far more than the human eye can distinguish or than a printer can reproduce. I archive the RAW file offine.

I have Nikon cameras. I only use Nikon software for treating my RAW files. Third parties like Adobe don't have access to inside information on the contents of the RAW file and I don't trust them.

The bottom line: use a RAW file to make corrections and use a JPG to produce the end result for display. When you make corrections to colour, contrast, etc. you are removing data and a JPG doesn't have any to spare. A RAW file has actually got too much information to display so you can afford to lose some of it when making corrections.

[slayer7124]

Again, that you guys for responding. I'll just have to practice more with RAW. Some photos I can noticed a difference between editing the RAW version and JPEG version. I guess it depends on the shooting conditions as well.