First time to work with RAW...Am I doing it right?

rgs_45 · May 18, 2015

My first time to convert RAW to JPEG to see the difference in the outcome. ALL 3 photos are OOC with no PP. From what I see, the JPEG version is much cleaner.

Is it supposed to be this way for RAW to JPEG conversion?

Am I doing something wrong in my conversion?

What is your workflow in converting from RAW to JPEG?

Any other things I should know about converting RAW to JPEG?

Thank you very much for your time and any help anyone can provide?

Camera/Lens: Olympus EM-1 + 75-300 II

**BTW I also posted this to the Retouching forum http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55839002

Shot as JPEG OOC.

Opened it as RAW the saved (save as) as JPEG

Opened it as RAW, converted to TIFF then saved as JPEG

--
- Richard -

Denjw · May 18, 2015

You probably need to understand the differences in the file formats to get a handle on this subject.

Click on the link 'Understanding digital raw capture" on this page

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/camera-raw.html

But to try and keep it simple the OOC Jpeg is what the camera processes based on the camera settings selected. These settings cannot be changed although you still do extra edting such as adjusting brightness, contrast, colours etc.

Whilst with the RAW file the only settings that cannot be altered are ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture. Other settings such as WB, Noise Control, Sharpness, Contrast, Saturation are the default values applied when taking the image but can changed using the RAW converter.

Your OOC Jpeg probably appears better because the camera has processed the image using the selected settings whilst the RAW file has not been processed.

RAW files generally appear to look flat/lifeless because they need some processing/tweaking in areas such as exposure, colour, contrast, noise control and sharpening.

I use either of Lightroom or Olympus Viewer 3 to process my RAW files.

Using Oly Viewer 3 as your RAW converter you make changes to the camera settings or other adjustments that maybe required.

With Olympus Viewer I convert the RAW file to a 16 bit TIFF and do any extra editing in Photoshop Elements.

You generally have to do more processing with RAW but it does give you more flexibility, creative control, quality control and quality assurance.

But if you are happy with OOC Jpegs then you probably do not have to worry about RAW capture and processing.

Here is an example of what can be teased out of a RAW file.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55719022

You will probably receive multiple replies regarding this subject and the RAW vs JPEG debate.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

Dennis

--
http://dwehner.zenfolio.com/

Tom Axford · May 18, 2015

As Denjw has said, you need to put more work in to get the best from raw. The effortless solution is to use jpeg.

What software are you using to process the raw file and what adjustments are you making? Also, what aspects of the image are you expecting to be improved by processing from raw? There are many experts on these forums who will probably be able to help with more specific questions.

Alternatively, post an image on the Retouching forum and ask people there how they could improve it. You'll get plenty of suggestions (good and bad)! By the way, there is no need to post the raw file (which isn't acceptable to dpreview anyway) - adjustments can be made to jpegs (although the results may be a bit better if done on a raw file).

alcelc · May 19, 2015

A lot of comments and good suggestion from other members. I learnt a lot from them also.

Just looking at the 1st (OOC jpeg) and 3rd images (PP from raw), it seems that the white feather around the neck of the bird in your OOC sample was largely white. But there had been a lot of green (chromatic aberrations?) hided inside deep the white feathers. Something wrong with you raw engine while developing the images?

Isola Verde · May 19, 2015

rgs_45 said:
My first time to convert RAW to JPEG to see the difference in the outcome. ALL 3 photos are OOC with no PP. From what I see, the JPEG version is much cleaner.

Is it supposed to be this way for RAW to JPEG conversion?

Am I doing something wrong in my conversion?

What is your workflow in converting from RAW to JPEG?

Any other things I should know about converting RAW to JPEG?

Thank you very much for your time and any help anyone can provide?

Camera/Lens: Olympus EM-1 + 75-300 II

**BTW I also posted this to the Retouching forum http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55839002

Shot as JPEG OOC.

Opened it as RAW the saved (save as) as JPEG

Opened it as RAW, converted to TIFF then saved as JPEG

--
- Richard -

Why aren't my RAWs like my JPGs.....

See this concurrent thread in the Retouching forum..

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Peter

--
Recent

Peter Bardwell

Explore Peter Bardwell’s 3,505 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Older

Galleries by Peter Bardwell

www.pbase.com

Paul Auclair · May 19, 2015

if you'd like to keep your RAW 'work' flow very streamlined i'd suggest using DXO to convert RAWs.

if you are not going to do anything processing-wise other than converting then saving as jpeg you might as well use jpeg only.

i shoot RAW simply to allow for wider latitudes of processing after the fact.

Paulmorgan · May 19, 2015

rgs_45 said:
My first time to convert RAW to JPEG to see the difference in the outcome. ALL 3 photos are OOC with no PP. From what I see, the JPEG version is much cleaner.

Is it supposed to be this way for RAW to JPEG conversion?

Am I doing something wrong in my conversion?

What is your workflow in converting from RAW to JPEG?

Any other things I should know about converting RAW to JPEG?

Thank you very much for your time and any help anyone can provide?

Camera/Lens: Olympus EM-1 + 75-300 II

**BTW I also posted this to the Retouching forum http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55839002

Shot as JPEG OOC.

Opened it as RAW the saved (save as) as JPEG

Opened it as RAW, converted to TIFF then saved as JPEG

--
- Richard -

My first time to convert RAW to JPEG to see the difference in the outcome. ALL 3 photos are OOC with no PP. From what I see, the JPEG version is much cleaner.

You answered you own question.

What software are you using ?

Raw software gives your more choices, the results are of your own making, be it good or be it bad.

rgs_45 · May 19, 2015

Between the replies i got here and from the Retouching Forum, I have now a better understanding of what RAW is. There are more to it than I expected but all in a good thing. I will try to invest on a good RAW converter. I am currently using ADSee Pro 7. I guess the majority are using LRx

One final question: Do I need a separate RAW converter or a SW like LRx than can process is good enough?

Again, Thanks to all.

Happy Shooting.

SirSeth · May 19, 2015

rgs_45 said:
Between the replies i got here and from the Retouching Forum, I have now a better understanding of what RAW is. There are more to it than I expected but all in a good thing. I will try to invest on a good RAW converter. I am currently using ADSee Pro 7. I guess the majority are using LRx

One final question: Do I need a separate RAW converter or a SW like LRx than can process is good enough?

Again, Thanks to all.

Happy Shooting.

John King · May 19, 2015

Gidday Richard

Get a good book on post processing.

I can highly recommend Scott Kelby's "Seven Point System for Adobe Photoshop" (any edition). Its a terrific, step by step guide on PP, with a sample image for each chapter. The images are separately downloaded from his web site (free to download the images).

Another excellent book is Schewe and Fraser's "Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop". This is pretty well applicable to LR or Photoshop Elements as well.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
.
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
Galleries: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

AndyS1967 · May 19, 2015

rgs_45 said:
One final question: Do I need a separate RAW converter or a SW like LRx than can process is good enough?

Hi Richard

If you are a beginner with RAW you might just be better using Olympus Viewer for your conversion. This allows basic retouching and as an Olympus owner is a free download with a valid camera serial number. I've even read reports that this software can give better conversion as it is optimised for the Olympus image processor though never seen anything empirical on this.

If you ever begin to feel constrained by Viewer then look at upgrading to something that costs money like LR.

Andy

TheEye · May 19, 2015

My workflow:

Use RPP to develop RAW. I make basic adjustments in RPP: WB, contrast, highlight recovery (if necessary), tone curve adjustment. Save file as 16-bit Beta RGB.

Open file in Photoshop: Add adjustment layers: Levels, Curves, Color Balance. Save as 16-bit PSD. Make scaled copies, use Unsgarp mask based on output size and medium, then save as JPG or for Web in sRGB, depending on use.

If needed I will do other things, like adjust color channels or use noise reduction, remove distortion etc.

Denjw · May 19, 2015

Here is good article regarding RAW converter comparisons:

HugeDomains.com

You already have ACDSee Pro 7 which will do the job, I suggest you get to know how to convert and enhance RAW files using that program first.

I notice ACDSee PRO 8 is going for a reduce price of USD 59.95 at the moment.

You will get a lot of different opinions on RAW converters and it can be daunting.

I have looked at /used plenty and keep coming back to good old clunky Olympus Viewer 3.

Go figure!

Cheers

Dennis

khoss · May 20, 2015

Although it takes some effort to even match the jpeg on some cameras, for the once in a lifetime shot, RAW is a much safer option. Although it is rare, the jpeg engine sometimes gets confused. This photo shots the jpeg engine mis-interpreting the image and it gets blurred whether I used the SOOC jpeg or converted in the manufacturers converter. Taking the raw, shot at the same time (RAW+JPG), a third party converter properly interpreted the image. You'll probably only notice this if you shoot RAW+JPG and it doesn't happen often but something to consider, aprticularly if it's an assignment.

Regards,

Kurt

--
For some random samples:

Galleries by Kurt Hoss

www.pbase.com

http://www.susanshawuniverse.tumblr.com

Galleries by Susan Shaw

www.pbase.com

Susan Shaw

A life, pocket cameras, paper making and a studio practice.<br> Posting once a week and sometimes more!

www.susanandkurt.blogspot.com

S.L. Shaw

S.L. Shaw a.k.a. Susan Shaw, sensously explores light and abstract interrelations of color in nominally realistic scenes. Her new work in painting and sculpture is enriched by her two decades of widely recognized work in photography.

www.slshaw.info

TheEye · May 20, 2015

khoss said:
Although it takes some effort to even match the jpeg on some cameras, for the once in a lifetime shot, RAW is a much safer option. Although it is rare, the jpeg engine sometimes gets confused. This photo shots the jpeg engine mis-interpreting the image and it gets blurred whether I used the SOOC jpeg or converted in the manufacturers converter. Taking the raw, shot at the same time (RAW+JPG), a third party converter properly interpreted the image. You'll probably only notice this if you shoot RAW+JPG and it doesn't happen often but something to consider, aprticularly if it's an assignment.

Regards,

Kurt

--
For some random samples:
http://www.pbase.com/khoss/
http://www.susanshawuniverse.tumblr.com
http://www.pbase.com/susanshaw
http://www.susanandkurt.blogspot.com
http://www.slshaw.info

That is quite bizarre. Why would the RAW converter add blur?

--

Tom’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

Paulmorgan · May 20, 2015

I would start with the free Olympus software, its a little slow and a bit basic for me but its geared up for beginners, its easy to use and it also does a pretty good job.

khoss · May 20, 2015

The fuzzy one is jpeg out of camera. When I put the RAW through DPP it just emulated the camera and was just like the sooc jpeg. ACR and Capture One did a clean conversion.
Regards,
Kurt
--
For some random samples:

Galleries by Kurt Hoss

www.pbase.com

http://www.susanshawuniverse.tumblr.com

Galleries by Susan Shaw

www.pbase.com

Susan Shaw

A life, pocket cameras, paper making and a studio practice.<br> Posting once a week and sometimes more!

www.susanandkurt.blogspot.com

S.L. Shaw

S.L. Shaw a.k.a. Susan Shaw, sensously explores light and abstract interrelations of color in nominally realistic scenes. Her new work in painting and sculpture is enriched by her two decades of widely recognized work in photography.

www.slshaw.info

BJN · May 21, 2015

khoss said:
Although it takes some effort to even match the jpeg on some cameras, for the once in a lifetime shot, RAW is a much safer option.

Once you have the skill and workflow, it takes very little effort to produce better images than the majority of in-camera jpegs.

khoss said:
Although it is rare, the jpeg engine sometimes gets confused. This photo shots the jpeg engine mis-interpreting the image and it gets blurred whether I used the SOOC jpeg or converted in the manufacturers converter. Taking the raw, shot at the same time (RAW+JPG), a third party converter properly interpreted the image. You'll probably only notice this if you shoot RAW+JPG and it doesn't happen often but something to consider, aprticularly if it's an assignment.

What's rare for me is a camera jpeg that is good enough that I can't better it working from the raw file. But working efficiently and creatively with raw files takes study, practice, and experience with the tools. It's very much worth the effort since image processing can really make an image, and it can improve on almost anything straight from the camera.

Nobody will master the skills overnight and based on a few suggestions from photographic forums. If you want to speed the process, use good tutorials that start you out with basic concepts and work your way through more advanced techniques. Raw image processing doesn't really take much time, but it does take some effort up front to learn the tools and how to see opportunities to improve an image.

--
BJ Nicholls
SLC, UT

First time to work with RAW...Am I doing it right?

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Paul Auclair

Guest

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

New member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts