Beginners, using RAW is easier!

JimH,
You write very clearly. Thank you. I will try Raw.

very well reasoned points.
-Khalid

I have lately begun to shoot RAW all the time. With RAW you can always change things afterwards in software. Set all parameters to neutral, shoot RAW, and adjust brightness etc in your computer using for instance EOS Viewer Utility.
--
Sten Edeback

I can't even believe I have to say this again...I don't care what people do as beginners, I don't care what format they use. I don't care what their priorities are. I don't care if people use their camera as a paper weight. I have never implied that one is less of a photographer if they have not tackled RAW. Please quote me if I have said something to the effect that it causes you to be on the road to being a good photographer. What I think is unfair is that RAW has a reputation as being something that is difficult to use. AS STATED IN MY FIRST POST and my several follow-ups to comments like yours, I'm responding to those that say, "I'm working my way up to RAW," as if it is the holy grail of accomplishments. It's not difficult, it's not any harder than pulling up a jpeg and adjusting the levels in photoshop.

Andrew Eric

RichO said:

I admire your willingness to learn the RAW workflow and to share
what you have learn. My hat is off to you for that.

However, you make it sound as if one is less of a photographer if
they have not tackled RAW or that it is required on the road to
being a good photographer.

You have slightly misplaced the priorities a bit.

Beginners should not start focusing on how to "correct the JPEG" or
the RAW, but on how to capture the light correctly with their
cameras.

RAW is for those folks who want more control over the process and
need access to untouched bytes (actually RAW has been touched some).

Beginners need to focus first on the basic rules of photography
then how to get the most from their particular camera.

After they have a handle on getting a well exposure focused image
they should move into the world of post processing.

At that point they need to determine what is best for their
destined output. I know of several pros who shoot mainly in JPEG,
because it is actually a quicker workflow and they have no need for
the RAW image.

Read these articles and you will see what I mean....

"If you know you have the correct exposure and white balance as
well as the optimum camera set parameters, then a high quality JPEG
will give you a print just as good as one from a converted RAW
file, so you may as well shoot JPEG." -
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/raw.html

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/rawvsjpg/

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/digitalphotography/a/raworjpeg.htm
[contains advertising pop-ups]

http://pcphotomag.com/content/2005/janfeb/jpeg.html

This one supports RAW, but points out the advantages of JPEG.
http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/rawtruth1.shtml

There are lots more you can find during a search on google:
RAW+which+JPEG

My point is that beginners should concentrate first on developing
basic photography skills...

RAW will not overcome poor photographic skills.

--
RichO
http://www.pbase.com/richo
http://community.wildflowerhaven.com

Click to expand...

I just ordered it on Amazon for 26.00, free shipping. I just keep spending, spending, spending.....

--
'critiques are welcome..and needed.'

If he wants to spray and pray in fully automatic mode, RAW might under some circumstances give more latitude for correction when the AE and AWB might otherwise be fooled.

But if the goal is simple snapshots with no intention of post-processing, and livng with occasional blown highlights or slightly off white balance, etc. then JPG is they way to go.

The format of image is less important than how much work is acceptable in the workflow. If by RAW you mean conversion and post-processing, then that is a lot of extra work comparied to using a DSLR as P&S JPG machine. You can post-process JPGs too, albeit with slightly less data

RAW requires more work to get same results as JPGs that have not been post-processed. In fact, JPGs are nothing but RAWs that have been converted and post-processed to some degree already, in-camera.

But if a beginner just wants P&S simplicity, why buy an DSLR in the first place?

Andrew Eric said:

This just came up in another post, but I think it deserves attention.

There seems to be a misconception that RAW is more difficult to
manage than jpeg. Everyone has their arguments about why they
shoot or don't shoot RAW. That's fine. But, I always here the
statement, "I haven't worked up to using RAW yet," as if it's for
the advanced dslr user. This shouldn't be any reasoning for not
shooting RAW. I happen to feel that RAW is easier to use than just
shooting jpegs. Storage issues aside, would you agree that
shooting RAW is safer and easier to use than managing a jpeg? The
conversion software is so much friendlier than programs like
photoshop, especially for beginners. LET'S RALLY UP HERE TO LET
THE BEGINNERS KNOW THAT RAW IS EASIER! DON'T BE AFRAID OF RAW!!!
I'm more afraid to shoot just jpeg!

Andrew Eric

Click to expand...

--
[email protected]

When you've really mucked up and image, it's easier to CORRECT a raw capture than a JPG. Of course, if you didn't, then isn't it easier just to look at the JPG?

After using raw captures for years, going back to the original Nikon D1 NEF files (with Bibble 1.0), I only recently heard what I believe to be the best and most concise definition of raw captures: raw represents a "second chance" to get things right before processing into a bitmap form. Indeed, most raw captures with the 20D require little further attention. But sometimes they do, and that second chance, when needed, is invaluable!

--
Michael Thomas Mitchell
http://michaelphoto.net

Sprexumn said:

I resisted RAW because I was using photoshop 5.0, and it wasn't
until I upgraded to PS CS that I went RAW.

I would say that Raw makes sense for beginners at the point where
they have a photo editing program (e.g. PS CS) that supports it,

Click to expand...

Anything particularly wrong with the supplied software? It seems to cover my RAW necessities.

Sprexumn said:

they have enough CF storage that they don't run out easily, and
they have some means of backing up massive data, like a DVD writer.

Click to expand...

If you are into digital photography a DVD writer is simpy a must regardless of the RAW versus JPG arguments.

Sprexumn said:

But if you add together the cost of buying PS CS, extra CF memory,
and storage, that can easily go over $1000 so I don't think we can
assume beginners have made those investments (I sure hadn't).

Click to expand...

I have spend exactly $0.00 and use RAW ever time the shutter goes click.

Sprexumn said:

True beginners are still using free or cheap software that doesn't
support RAWs.

Click to expand...

Once again a total misconception. RAW is completely useable with the supplied software that comes with the camera.

Sprexumn said:

And if they have limited CF memory, they will
benefit more from taking lots of jpeg pictures than from taking a
few RAW photos.

Click to expand...

I happen to have four 1/2 GB CF cards. It is fairly rare that I use more than 1 per day, and only once have I used all 4 in a single shoot (Bridal shower). For people who shoot 50 pictures per day or less, CF card space is not a particular issue.
--
Mitch

Well,

I consider myself not really advanced; I am no newbie though.
Fact is, since I bought my 300D I only shoot RAW.

Even more than that, I CANNOT shoot JPG. The feeling of being constrained by the camera conversion sends chills to my spine

My workflow is quite streamlined and I don't really feel that RAW puts an overhead to what I do. Photoshop is significantly more demanding in terms of time, but necessary whatsoever.

100% RAW devotee here!

Andrew Eric said:

They can be corrected, but if overexposed, RAW allows you to
actually get back the data in the overexposed areas. Try doing
that with highlights blown out on an overexposed jpeg. I'm not a
technical expert, just going by experience, so correct me if I'm
wrong. I often balance the file after converting from RAW, but I'm
not sure it's a good idea to make drastic changes to the "lossy"
file.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you are wrong or not. I was just curious. I have found that RAW images are more flexible when it comes to fixing exposure errors and also find that a touch more dynamic range is available with RAW. However, I don't think RAW offers a large advantage over JPG. For example, badly blown highlights are "gone with the wind" with either file format.

When I'm doing serious work, I always shoot RAW. (As "serious" is defined in "amateur photography")

Just recently I got my 20D and hadn't shot in raw not because I was scared to but because I don't use elements and only elements2 came with it and I didn't want to have to folk out for another program..I do have PSP9 but wasn't sure about the raw coversion part ( heard it was slow )but anyway having read through this link and now downloaded Rawshooter E I am a happy camper. Wow what a great program (well for the likes of me anyway) So now I am off to shoot some raw pics, read through the instructions and away I go. So thanks for the help of getting another newbie on the way of using raw....Churchmouse

Another satisfied customer. Keep shootin'

Andrew Eric

churchmouse said:

Just recently I got my 20D and hadn't shot in raw not because I was
scared to but because I don't use elements and only elements2 came
with it and I didn't want to have to folk out for another
program..I do have PSP9 but wasn't sure about the raw coversion
part ( heard it was slow )but anyway having read through this link
and now downloaded Rawshooter E I am a happy camper. Wow what a
great program (well for the likes of me anyway) So now I am off to
shoot some raw pics, read through the instructions and away I go.
So thanks for the help of getting another newbie on the way of
using raw....Churchmouse

Click to expand...

--
Andrew Eric

My 20D came with Canon EOS Viewer Utility which does RAW conversions and it also came with Canon Digital Photo Professional which also does RAW conversions.

If you use EVU, it has all of the same exact familiar controls and settings that the camera has for the parameters. In fact, by default, if you don't change something, it automatically uses whatever parameter settings you had dialled in on the body at the time you took the shot.

It'll even do the exact same black and white conversions and filter simulations for you so you really have no reason to shoot in any of the in-camera black and white modes either. Just shoot RAW and if you think you'd like to see what the in-camera B&W would have looked like, just try it later. Nothing lost You've then got color and black and white available.

I'm sure that like many of you, I've gotten so conditioned to believing that the software supplied with a camera is not something that I'd want, that I, too, am often reluctant to install the stuff that comes with a camera. So I understand why a lot of people somehow end up thinking that they've got to buy or download something else before they can use RAW.

But in this case, you really owe it to yourself to install EVU and DPP. They both work just great and can "batch convert" your RAWs to JPGs or TIFFs. So converting your RAWs takes almost zero effort.

Nobody who has a 20D needs to spend any money or even download anything extra in order to use RAW.

The package of software that comes with the camera may not be as cool as full-blown Photoshop and some other fancy RAW converters, but it'll darn sure do the job and the RAW converters in DPP and EVU do every bit as good a job as the "in-camera JPG" converter so there's no reason for people to believe that they are forced to shoot JPG because of lack of funds.

If you haven't played with EVU and DPP, give 'em a try. They're on that "Digital Solutions" CD that came with the camera.

Jim H.

RichO said:

Beginners need to focus first on the basic rules of photography
then how to get the most from their particular camera.

After they have a handle on getting a well exposure focused image
they should move into the world of post processing.

Click to expand...

Having started B&W processing in the late 60s, I would disagree with that statement. Learning exposure and learning to process the image go hand in hand. In fact, I would say that one has not completely learned the hows and whys of correct exposure UNTIL one is well into processing the image.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

Thanks I just presumed that they didn't do the conversions and as I have acdsee7 I didn't think to load the viewer and as I am a psp9 fan I didn't need another editing program. Hey go easy on this oldie ;-) Just got a new lease of life with photography so still learning heaps and willing to learn still...So tell me do both of those programs that come with the camera have the same program for converting raw or will I have to load both on. If not which has the better one.Thanks Churchmouse

Yeah, I use ACDSee as a viewer and love it. It's better than anything else I've tried. The name EOS Viewer Utility is very misleading. I'd never use it as a vewer after having ACDSee

But it does let you do RAW conversions and it also lets you run the camera under computer control which might be fun.

I also use an old version of PSP (5) as well as version 9. They've both got their strong points.

I tend to batch convert all of my RAWS to JPGs in EVU or DPP using whatever the defaults are and then I use ACDSee to go through and look at them.

Then, once I pick out a good one to play with, I go back to EVU or DPP and do another, more careful conversion but this time to a TIFF. I have to convert it to an 8 bit tiff since PSP doesn't seem to like the 16 bit ones.

I then suck that TIFF into Paint Shop Pro and do the rest of the processing and editing. That seems to work really well.

I'd bet that same workflow will work for you too - at least until you figure out a better way to do it. That's just what I've been doing lately. I'm sure it'll change as I learn more

Have fun!

Jim H.

Thanks Jim.. Will give it a try..I am here to learn and have fun trying...Cheers Churchmouse

RAW is better than JPEG when doing lots of cropping and extreme enlargements where JPEG compression artifacts begin to show.

I don't understand why someone would invest in pricy "L" optics for extra sharpness & contrast and then shoot lossy JPEG?

I think you and I would agree if we sat down and talked face to face. My objection here is to the concept that post-processing should "fix" the image. There is an implication that RAW will "fix" all manner or improperly exposed images. That is not the main reason to use RAW.

I too share your past experience...I had my own B&W darkroom and color processing for slides. Post processing is an important part of the learning curve for beginning photographers...its was for me. In the NYIP course, post processing was not the first lesson. Basic rules of photography and functions of the camera were covered first.

One always wants to start post processing with a properly exposed image/negative.

This was even more important when I shot color slides.

Would you disagree with that?

--
RichO
http://www.pbase.com/richo
http://community.wildflowerhaven.com