 Posted 6/6/2008 5:38:12 PM
|
|
|
|
| My camera has several options as to how I can capture my images, I always use TIFF, but should I be using RAW? I must admit I know next to nothing about RAW, is there some great advantage to it? Does anyone know of any good websites or books I can visit/read to help me gain some understanding of RAW? Thanks-Jackie
|
|
|
Posted 6/6/2008 5:58:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Jackie (6/6/2008)
My camera has several options as to how I can capture my images, I always use TIFF, but should I be using RAW? I must admit I know next to nothing about RAW, is there some great advantage to it? Does anyone know of any good websites or books I can visit/read to help me gain some understanding of RAW? Thanks-Jackie
Jackie, this is a big topic. But, I'll be happy to offer some suggestions. My quick answer is "yes"! As you advance in your photography, you will definitely want to move to RAW image capture. Of this, I have no doubt.
Shooting in RAW format gives one the opportunity to use one's computer (a machine with a much larger and more sophisticated processing engine than your camera) to adjust the shot parameters after the shot!
Capturing in TIFF format is good. It is a lossless format, as compared to the lossy JPG format, but you would find many benefits from capturing images in RAW format, if your camera permits. RAW images contain all the shot data the camera collected. TIFF format does discard some data. Not as much discard as the JPG format, but enough to reduce your postprocessing flexibility. And, I think TIFF files write to your storage card as slowly as a RAW file capture.
When capturing images in JPG or TIFF format, one delegates the responsibility for the image parameters to the algorithms of the camera. This can be very good, if one happens to hit the exposure, contrast, color temperature, brightness, levels, saturation, etc. quite correctly at the time of exposure. Well, that's everyone's goal! But, I often miss on one or many of those parameters.
RAW processing software allows one to shift almost all parameters with computer processing. For example, exposure can be shifted +/- 2 camera stops. Other shot parameters have similar flexibility. The RAW format contains all the image data collected by the camera. So, great flexibility in final image processing is available. RAW format images are the analog to film negatives. You can go back and process many times with very different results.
I don't know about your specific RAW processing software. But, I think you'll find the latitude offered will be a delight. There is a steep learning curve, btw. RAW image capture is not for the new DLSR owner. But, when you've hit a wall and are ready to go to the next level, RAW capture is my highest recommendation.
For PCs, consider Adobe's Lightroom.
For Macs, consdier Apple's Aperture.
 My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 6/6/2008 6:32:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 6/6/2008 6:51:22 PM
|
|
|
|
Tonka (6/6/2008)
....Since then, well RAW is the way I go and has been for me ever since.  ..
So just my RAW story 
Yes, I hear you! RAW capture processing is not for the recent, first DSLR owner. One has to "evolve" enough with JPG format captures to understand there are opportunities offered by RAW capture. It takes more work, but the end result will be better.
If one can't tolerate working on your computer to pp (post process) images, then one needs to focus on getting the shot parameters perfect at the time of image capture. Actually, the goal should always be to get the shot parameters quite right at the time of image capture... regardless of choice of file format. It's just that JPG image format reduces your pp options.
If this doesn't make sense, please ask questions. (I now know that sweet Tonka "gets it". Atta girl!)
My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 6/6/2008 9:24:43 PM
|
|
|
|
Okay Jackie was trying to reply to both of us Richard but was having problems with it posting...
So here is her reply..
Thanks Hahn23 and Tonka!
I had heard, like Tonka mentioned, that it took sooo long for the images to up load to the computer, however, I checked my camera and both the TIFF setting I use and the RAW save the image file the same size, 3264x2448 I guess they should upload about the same.
I've also heard some good things about the Adobe Lighthouse, you mentioned Hahn23, I think I'll check it out, while I am new to the dslr, (I've only had the E-500 for about a year), I am excited about learning new things about photography, I have read some articles and books and they all pretty much said that RAW is the way to go, but never really discussed it much. I will have to get a different editing software for RAW, the one I have now is the editing software for my camera (I have Photoshop 7.0 and Corel Paint Shop Pro IX or XI, but I do not think they support RAW). So, you gave me lots to consider and I can not thank you enough for taking the time to help out a "newbie" THANKS
I may not always be wRIGHTbut I am never wrong Profile -  Top 24 - 
|
|
|
Posted 6/6/2008 9:38:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Okay,
So anyway  ...I got my XTi, and with it came some goodies as far as editing..
It uses a program called "Zoom browser"...which uploads the RAW images very quickly..
I have my issues with photoshop just like I do with a Tripod(still has not come out of the box yet  ).
there are several issues across the board with editing but for now...
Picasa has recently enabled users to edit RAW files which is great..!! I still use Picasa 2 (latest version) for 99.9% of my post processing.. You can get it through google or just google free picasa ..
Here is the thing though....picasa likes to auto read the info (not sure if I have the technical issue right so don't laugh ) and so it changes the way the image looks..it will look very dark in the Canon software , Zoom browser but when opened in Picasa ,it ends up being much lighter...
To be honest, I would probably use the Canon software but
See here, this where I have all kinds of issues lol....the Canon software, once I save the edit to JPEG, well it seems to lose like tons of quality.
Now when I edit in Picasa and upload to web, I have no idea if it displays as I see it or not..I would imagine so but I am not totally satisfied with this process because most of the time I like what I see in Canon RAW like wayyyy better than the end result from Picasa..
I cannot stand Photoshop because it auto puts every single image in and it is a dog taking way too much to settle itself...yes , I do believe I have said many times that I am impatient..but have to multitask and do laundry, watch kids, cook dinner , settle knock down drag outs and pet the dog while I am editing. Ya can't blame me..
So for now this is my process...RAW is awesome if you have a fairly quick upload and thanks again Richard.....I remember that lesson like it was yesterday...heh heh...
Oh and geesh who was it that tipped me off about Picasa? Thank you again too!!! ..
Picasa has served me well I must admit.. That is not to say that I won't try any other free suggestions anyone else has..
Off the box
I may not always be wRIGHTbut I am never wrong Profile - Top 24 -
|
|
|
Posted 6/7/2008 7:09:49 AM
|
|
|
|
I'm your Picasa girl Zzzzonka!!!
I love it!!!! and it is nice and easy! 'Tis also where I do 99% of my post processing!
Susan
________________________________________
Find pleasure in the simple things!
Susan's Top 24
Susan's Profile
|
|
|
Posted 6/7/2008 7:19:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
