Reading mode: Light Dark

Must I edit RAW images?

Go to last post
John Photo said:
bobn2 said:
Klaus dk said:
I save raw+jpeg. If the picture needs tweaking, I use the raw file, if the jpeg is fine, I use it as it is.

Although I agree with bobn2 that processing and editing are conceptually different, I often combine them in one session: lens correction, lifting the shadows, tweaking WB, cropping, removing a zit, straightening the horizon. All this can be done in DPP.
Click to expand...
That's entirely true. What I'm getting at is that it pays to separate processing and editing in terms of understanding what is going on under the hood. Most tools these days combine operations of both processing and editing. I used to use a technique 'processing for editing', where I'd process the raw file not to be the final image, but to be a good subject for a powerful editor. It's useful when you need to do operations involving multiple layers. Essentially you process to a 16-bit or, better, a FP TIFF with a low black and high white point and a linear tone curve, but set up colour temperature and balance. It's kind of the equivalent of a video log file, designed to be suitable for onward grading.
John Photo said:
BTW, raw is a word, not an acronym. These are literaly the raw data from the sensor.
Click to expand...
I'm so glad someone else said that, so I didn't have to.
Click to expand...
BTW, Canon .outlying uses RAW in its information, but....😉
Click to expand...
So?
 
Tom Axford said:
For several years after I started digital photography I shot only JPEG images and was quite happy with those.

Later, I became dissatisfied with the JPEG images from my cameras and decided that I would try shooting raw images and processing them myself.

I now shoot raw images all the time for two reasons: (1) I prefer the images I get by doing my own processing, and (2) I enjoy doing the processing myself (although it is very time-consuming).

Don't be deceived into thinking that shooting raw is just as easy as shooting JPEGs. It takes considerable time and skill to process all your raw images into JPEGs. Unless you enjoy doing the processing (and are skilled enough to produce good results), stick to using JPEGs straight from the camera.
Click to expand...
A good honest answer.
 
Veducci said:
Tom Axford said:
For several years after I started digital photography I shot only JPEG images and was quite happy with those.

Later, I became dissatisfied with the JPEG images from my cameras and decided that I would try shooting raw images and processing them myself.

I now shoot raw images all the time for two reasons: (1) I prefer the images I get by doing my own processing, and (2) I enjoy doing the processing myself (although it is very time-consuming).

Don't be deceived into thinking that shooting raw is just as easy as shooting JPEGs. It takes considerable time and skill to process all your raw images into JPEGs. Unless you enjoy doing the processing (and are skilled enough to produce good results), stick to using JPEGs straight from the camera.
Click to expand...
A good honest answer.
Click to expand...
Consider these:

- a raw converter in the camera will produce the same (or better) JPEG from raw as if you were setting the camera to shoot JPEGs, and that is with all the defaults, no user intervention is needed; plus you still have a raw if you need it for a different look;

- a raw converter the manufacturer distributes will allow you to do the same as above (possibly in a batch mode), from the comfort of your computer; again, no special skills needed;

- raw converters improve, allowing to re-process the raw files for better quality / new and different goals;

- having raw files, you can start gaining raw conversion skills in case you would need them; without the raw files you can't learn what they are and how to process them;

- those who never shoot and process raw don't know what they are missing.

As somebody who is involved in several projects dealing with raw files, I can tell this:

- millions use raw, amateurs and pros, nature, landscapes, studio, tourism, weddings, sports, you name it;

- ages (based on feedback) are 12 to 80

The complexity of using raw is far below following the rules of the road and driving safely.

--
http://www.libraw.org/
 
Last edited:
Iliah Borg said:
Veducci said:
Tom Axford said:
For several years after I started digital photography I shot only JPEG images and was quite happy with those.

Later, I became dissatisfied with the JPEG images from my cameras and decided that I would try shooting raw images and processing them myself.

I now shoot raw images all the time for two reasons: (1) I prefer the images I get by doing my own processing, and (2) I enjoy doing the processing myself (although it is very time-consuming).

Don't be deceived into thinking that shooting raw is just as easy as shooting JPEGs. It takes considerable time and skill to process all your raw images into JPEGs. Unless you enjoy doing the processing (and are skilled enough to produce good results), stick to using JPEGs straight from the camera.
Click to expand...
A good honest answer.
Click to expand...
Consider these:

- a raw converter in the camera will produce the same (or better) JPEG from raw as if you were setting the camera to shoot JPEGs, and that is with all the defaults, no user intervention is needed; plus you still have a raw if you need it for a different look;
Click to expand...
Typically yes, but that is not true for JPEGs created using certain in-camera simulations. It is very hard or impossible to emulate those with a raw converter. That is why some Fuji cameras allow users to transfer raw files from the computer to the camera, convert them there, and send them back to the computer.
Iliah Borg said:
- a raw converter the manufacturer distributes will allow you to do the same as above (possibly in a batch mode), from the comfort of your computer; again, no special skills needed;
Click to expand...
I agree, but some forum members cannot associate comfort with computers.
Iliah Borg said:
- raw converters improve, allowing to re-process the raw files for better quality / new and different goals;
Click to expand...
Yes. An obvious example is DxO's tools with DeepPRIME.
Iliah Borg said:
- having raw files, you can start gaining raw conversion skills in case you would need them; without the raw files you can't learn what they are and how to process them;

- those who never shoot and process raw don't know what they are missing.

As somebody who is involved in several projects dealing with raw files, I can tell this:

- millions use raw, amateurs and pros, nature, landscapes, studio, tourism, weddings, sports, you name it;

- ages (based on feedback) are 12 to 80

The complexity of using raw is far below following the rules of the road and driving safely.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Those who do not work with raw files are missing photography's very fun and creative part.
 
SrMi said:
Iliah Borg said:
Consider these:

- a raw converter in the camera will produce the same (or better) JPEG from raw as if you were setting the camera to shoot JPEGs, and that is with all the defaults, no user intervention is needed; plus you still have a raw if you need it for a different look;
Click to expand...
Typically yes, but that is not true for JPEGs created using certain in-camera simulations.
Click to expand...
Those same simulations are available in both in-camera and manufacturer-branded and supported raw converters.

In the case of Fujifilm , I think "a raw converter in the camera" covers it, no? ;)
 
Last edited:
[No message]
 
Iliah Borg said:
- raw converters improve, allowing to re-process the raw files for better quality / new and different goals;
Click to expand...
I bought a D70s, and Adobe software. I could process RAW files but I almost never did. Then I bought a D300 and I could no longer process RAW files. I downloaded the Nikon software and decided it was too difficult for me to deal with. Then I bought a D7200, then a D750. I still did not have software that would convert RAW files so I downloaded the latest Nikon software. It was somewhat buggy and would frequently crash. Nikon basically said my computer did not have enough power to run it. I couldn't buy any software that would run on my computer and convert RAW files, and I couldn't download any free programs that would do it. I finally had to spend a substantial amount of money to buy a new computer so the latest software would run on it. Now I have new Adobe software as well as the latest Nikon software, but I don't have that much interest in processing RAW files. At some point dealing with new computers, updating editing software, buying editing software, crosses the line to the point where it is no longer fun.
 
are a resource in a marketing campaign to sell your car. OK photos will help you get an OK price. Good photos will help you get a good price. Great photos will help you get a great price.
 
Raw files ALWAYS reuire editing to turn them into an image of any given format. A raw file is still merely some sensor data and not yet recognizable as a colour image.
 
newmikey said:
Raw files ALWAYS reuire editing to turn them into an image of any given format. A raw file is still merely some sensor data and not yet recognizable as a colour image.
Click to expand...
To some people, the word "edit" implies some sort of manual intervention by a person. This is not the case.

To be clear, raw files do not require that a person individually intervene for each file.

As a general rule, you can use the manufacturer's software to batch process a large group of images. This will produce JPEG images practically identical to those produced by the camera.

The advantage of raw files, is that you have the option of using different software to process that raw data. That default, or "auto" settings in that software may yield a result more to your liking You also have the option to take control of the conversion from sensor data to a full color image.

.

Many people refer to the conversion from raw data to a full color image as "processing" the raw data. That processing includes a number of steps (demosaicing, application of color temp, mapping to a standard color space, application of a tone curve, sharpening, etc.).

Many people think of "editing" as what might happen after the raw data has been processed to a full color image.
 
Hi All - Would this thread be an acceptable place for me to post some of my trial edits to request your opinions? I'll assume so for now, until somebody says otherwise.

I actually happen to have 2 Ford GTs, the red one I'm selling and this silver one I'm keeping. I had the silver out for a drive Sunday and decided to use it for some more practice shots. I used a exposure bracketing, tripod, remote shutter release, circular polarizer and a lens hood. Would you please let me know your thoughts on my edits, if there's anything you'd do differently, etc keeping in mind the purpose being for-sale images (if that's relevant)?

JPEG image saved from the original RAW image using PS, no edits (didn't even blur the license plate 🙂 ), no crop, just loaded the RAW in PS and saved-as JPEG at Quality 12 "Maximum".
JPEG image saved from the original RAW image using PS, no edits (didn't even blur the license plate 🙂 ), no crop, just loaded the RAW in PS and saved-as JPEG at Quality 12 "Maximum".

For this edit, I actually started with the JPEG out of my 70D rather than the RAW, cropped, reduced size, sharpened, spot-healed, slight contrast/brightness.
For this edit, I actually started with the JPEG out of my 70D rather than the RAW, cropped, reduced size, sharpened, spot-healed, slight contrast/brightness.

I tried using 2 different exposures, layered, and the process of applying different exposures to different areas went fine, but I ended up thinking the exposure of this single image already looked good all over to me. Edit: Wait a sec, I actually might've used a different exposure for the background. I tried so enough variations that I can't remember now! Once I have a better feel for the settings, I'll make good notes so I can be consistent from image to image. Do you agree that the car's exposure looks OK on this? How about the fore- and back ground?

Thanks again ...

Edit 2: I found the "Samples and Galleries" subforum ... Should I post my comparison images and request for critique there instead?
 
Last edited:
Iliah Borg said:
newmikey said:
A raw file is still merely some sensor data and not yet recognizable as a colour image.
Click to expand...
Raw data is an image, often in TIFF ( Tag Image File Format ) Conversion from sensor space to working colour space isn't editing. It's just a routine colour management operation.
Click to expand...
Very true. The common notion that a raw file cannot be viewed until it is converted into a "viewable" file format is nonsense.
 
alfn said:
Iliah Borg said:
newmikey said:
A raw file is still merely some sensor data and not yet recognizable as a colour image.
Click to expand...
Raw data is an image, often in TIFF ( Tag Image File Format ) Conversion from sensor space to working colour space isn't editing. It's just a routine colour management operation.
Click to expand...
Very true. The common notion that a raw file cannot be viewed until it is converted into a "viewable" file format is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that many raw files have an embedded preview image. When you are "viewing" a raw file, you may be looking at the embedded preview and not the associated raw data.

Also many operating systems contain built-in raw file converters. So when you are viewing a raw file, it may have been converted on the fly.

But let's not confuse terminology over reality.

A typical raw data does not directly contain full color data for any pixel. For each pixel, the raw data contains data for only one of the three color channels (red, green, or blue).

In order to display the pixels in full color, you need to generate the other two channels for each pixel. To put it bluntly, this involves the software making educated guesses. Not all software guesses the same, and thats one of the reasons that you get different results from different raw converters.

In other words, the raw data is "pre guess", and the full color image is "post guess". In order to see a full color image, something has to do that guessing. it can be a JPEG guess embedded by the camera. it can be a guess made by the operating system. it can be a guess generated by other software.

This is also the reason why raw files can look different when "viewed" with different software, or on different operating systems. You are seeing the results of different software guessing as to what the colors should be.

These are the facts. The only issue here is the terminology you want to use to describe the process. But the bottom line is if you are viewing image, and each pixel has an RGB value, then some piece of software has already converted the raw data to something viewable.

Keep in mind that if you open the raw file with different software, the results may not look like what you have already viewed.
 
Michael Fryd said:
A typical raw data does not directly contain full color data for any pixel.
Click to expand...
Neither do a CMYK print or an RGB monitor. Not an issue, raster image is still an image. In the words of Thomas Knoll, "The fact that a mosaic array is “grayscale” is a red herring in this argument".

If a viewer for undemosaicked raw files displays red pixel values as red, green pixel values as green, and blue pixel values as blue, you will see colors before demosaicking.

--
http://www.libraw.org/
 
Last edited:
I wouldn’t post in Samples and Galleries; it doesn’t seem to get much traffic. Maybe create a new thread here, since this thread is quickly reaching the 150 post limit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
  • Question Question
Can image be edited in Adobe Camera RAW, after stacking?
Replies
4
Views
5
Jared Willson
J
H
  • Solved
About beginners practicing photo editing, starting with RAW.
2
Replies
26
Views
27
UncleVanya
UncleVanya
L
First trip with new camera, need help with editing basics
2
Replies
26
Views
107
mreynolds767
mreynolds767
mike in london
Camera system that does in camera Multiple Exposure photos saved as RAW files
Replies
0
Views
36
mike in london
mike in london
wh1tby
Archiving pictures processed from RAW, what do you do?
Replies
2
Views
7
wh1tby
wh1tby

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top