RAW file format

[RBennett]

I had an issue as well, I changed the RAW format to DNG, its worked fine since then

Can you elaborate on this? The first thing I did when this happened was go into Elements and look for any updates; it said there were none. But how do I change the format over to DNG?? I don't want to have to go into EACH file and change the extension.

 

[Daisy14'sDH]

Turn your camera on and press menu
Browse right to item “3″ under the camera icon
Press down until you get to the “RAW file format” option
Press right on the “RAW file format” option and then select “DNG”
Press OK to select and then press menu to exit back to the normal status screen

 

[RBennett]

Turn your camera on and press menu
Browse right to item “3″ under the camera icon
Press down until you get to the “RAW file format” option
Press right on the “RAW file format” option and then select “DNG”
Press OK to select and then press menu to exit back to the normal status screen

Yeah, right before you posted that I went and searched through my manual and saw how to change it. Now I just need to convert my PEF files that I took with the K-x so far over to DNG. No problem!!

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I agree with Mark that it sounds like you don't have the most current update. Adobe does support the K-x so you shouldn't have to be converting to dng. What version of Elements do you have?

I've had to update lightroom for a new camera also even though the extensions appear to be the same.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I have Elements 8 and I will get that message if I don't have the file type set to Camera Raw. It sometimes defaults to some other type.

 

[pjacobi]

I can still view the shots in my Pentax Photo Browser, so it's only the Elements that this is affecting. Any ideas??????

Raw processing is usually done as a two step process.

1) Use the software supplied with camera to process Raw files and perform basic adjustments to photo. Save results as TIFF file.

2) Use Elements for cropping and more creative editing.

The Raw file format is specific to each camera model. Some of the information in the file format is shared with 3rd party software developers. Some of the information is extremely propriety and is not shared because it could be used by competitors.


-Paul

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

I've recently upgraded from my Canon S3 to a Canon T2i. There was a really cool hack for the S3 that enabled it to shoot RAW, but aside from some of the other features, I never used the RAW capabilities because every time I tried it, I liked the camera's JPEG at least as much if not more than whatever I spent 10-15 minutes tinkering with in the RAW software....

Now that I've got a DSLR, I thought I'd try the RAW again ... having read over and over on this forum and most other camera forums about how important shooting RAW can be for the DSLR user.

So far, however, my experience has been about the same.

I'm using the software that came with my new camera, and UFRaw for GIMP, and no matter how much I play around with the *HUGE* (33M!) RAW files, the result I get is practically indestinguishable from the T2i's JPEG!

About the only thing that makes a difference is DPP's ability to compensate for the known characteristics of the lenses I'm using and correct any (minor) distortions....

Am I doing something wrong?

Am I too easily satisfied with my T2i's image processing?

Do I need expensive software to get the most of our my enormous RAW files?

 

[AlbertZeroK]

I use lightroom which costs about $175. It is simply amazing once you get use to it - and I wouldn't live without it. Their are good open source alternatives, but to get the most out of your camera, I'd get Light Room! Also, if you don't have it, Photoshop Essentials is nice if you have no photo editing software, but look at buying a wacom tablet instead of photoshop essentials, often times, they include it free and the price is comperable (and you get a free drawing tablet.)

As for processing images, it's called Post Processing by us photog's (photo geeks). Applications like Lightroom can make HUGE differences in your pictures and can do so much to make an image even better! Much of that capability for me, comes from shooting in RAW.

Why? Well, RAW includes ALL the data from the camera's sensor. JPEG used 90% of the data, plus applies black level, sharpening and some generic post production work to the image. Now try to modify a JPEG and you get poorer results because you simply have less data to work with.

I can tell when I shoot JPEG and when I shoot Raw on the pictures, of course, I shoot through lenses that cost more than my first car.

If you can afford lightroom, I'd get it. If not, the capabilities of RAW may not be that great for you.

Oh yeah, Lightroom 3 just came out, so you can find good deals on Lightroom 2.5 (you will need the free update to 2.7 for the t2i).

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

As for processing images, it's called Post Processing by us photog's (photo geeks). Applications like Lightroom can make HUGE differences in your pictures and can do so much to make an image even better! Much of that capability for me, comes from shooting in RAW.

I understand quite a bit about post processing (I frequently use open-source GIMP for levels/defog/etc) ... but, I just can't really say that anything I've ever done has made more than a modest difference/improvement, let alone a "HUGE" difference....

Could you possibly post an example of where RAW processing made a big, noticeable difference over the camera JPEG? I *have* seen some impressive examples where RAW processing saved a picture from what looked to be a hopeless exposure error; but what about one where the pictures was "right" from the start?

Why? Well, RAW includes ALL the data from the camera's sensor. JPEG used 90% of the data, plus applies black level, sharpening and some generic post production work to the image. Now try to modify a JPEG and you get poorer results because you simply have less data to work with.

Yeah, I understand how RAW works ... what I don't get is how to get pictures that are better than what my T2i does!

 

[mom2rtk]

Check out post 37 on this thread:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2491060&page=3&highlight=castle+straight

It's absolutely amazing.

Try downloading the 30 day free trial for Lightroom 3. It should help you understand what can be done.

I just ordered myself, using a student discount in my high school student's name. It was $89.

 

[photo_chick]

About the only thing that makes a difference is DPP's ability to compensate for the known characteristics of the lenses I'm using and correct any (minor) distortions....

Am I doing something wrong?

Am I too easily satisfied with my T2i's image processing?

Do I need expensive software to get the most of our my enormous RAW files?

It's all in how you process. When you learn more, you will see improvements. Like everything, processing RAW is a craft to be honed. If your just starting out the image processor in your camera may likely do a better job. This is why a lot of people shoot RAW + jpeg or just process with the defaults.

The incentive to keep shooting RAW.... down the road when you learn more you can come back to these images and improve them.

You do not need expensive software, but different software will yield different results. Some pieces of software will make processing easier. But it all comes down to your work flow.

As for processing images, it's called Post Processing by us photog's (photo geeks).

Sorry for veering here, but this didn't sit well with me.

I'm definitely a photo geek. Many do draw a line between what is processing and what is post processing. There's no right or wrong here, it's all in your point of view.

Processing RAW files to jpegs is akin to processing film. And processing would be an accurate word. Since you are taking a latent image and processing it to something "usable". In camera that little chip that does the job is called an image processor, not an image post processor.

Post processing is more descriptive of going beyond the normal color, contrast, levels adjustments, etc.. and into creating HDR images, using cross processing effects, cloning things out, etc.... basically more serious editing.

 

[Mosca]

You know, LPZ, that is actually a really good question. You should read what everyone writes, and then do what is best FOR YOU. While lots of really good hobbyist photographers and lots of professionals shoot RAW (including me, except for the "professional" and "good" part), there are still a lot of really good hobbyist and professional photographers who shoot jpgs and don't look back.

Last month, in Disney, I shot my vacation in jpg, and really it didn't matter all that much. I lost a little detail in the shadows, and probably a little sharpness. But overall the camera did a nice job of deciding how to do the conversions. I wouldn't hesitate to shoot jpg again. There are so many other reasons to use the DSLR, reasons that are independent of the RAW/jpg decision, that I'd say, if your jpgs look great, then shoot jpg.

 

[zackiedawg]

Agreed with Mosca. I think you might be getting too much perceived peer pressure to use something that you just may not need, or want. Just because 'everyone' else says RAW is better...you need to honestly dig deep inside and determine if you really have any interest in it, or willingness to mess with it. Or truly, in the end, any actual need for it. Whether or not it CAN allow greater manipulation than JPEG isn't the issue...it's whether you want or need greater manipulation. And no matter what anyone says to the contrary - and believe this no matter how fervently anyone tells you otherwise - you are NOT a better, more professional, or superior photographer because you shoot RAW. It's a choice.

A good photographer using the right settings can get professional results from jpeg, right out of the camera. And there is even some modification and processing possible with jpegs. But not as much as RAW. What RAW is essentially doing is removing the processing built into the camera, and moving it over to the computer...you then can try to match or exceed what the camera's processing would have done. If you made mistakes while shooting, you can better fix them in RAW. If you didn't make mistakes when shooting, there isn't anything to fix...so now you're just processing the photo with your own parameters (or some preset ones in the RAW processor, which is fairly ironic given that you're now 'accepting' pre-programmed processing which is just the same as what the camera is doing). That is a fine option if A. You're willing to spend the time doing it, and/or B. you don't like the results of your camera's jpeg processing. Note also that you CAN tune your camera's jpeg processing with the settings controls of the camera...furthering the extent of user control you have over the jpeg.

Some people love the post processing process. Some people hate it. Many are somewhere in between. It doesn't make you a bad photographer if you don't like processing - it just makes you an unwilling processor. Some race car drivers intimately know the mechanics and technology in their race cars, and want to tinker with it...others simply excel at driving, and would rather leave the car tuning to folks who enjoy doing that and have experience with it. They can still be a professional race car driver, and win trophies left and right.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of peer pressure in online photography forums, and it is all too easy to feel belittled or uncompetitive, and question yourself, your photography, your equipment, and your technique. Whether it's pressure to buy camera A or B, because anything else is 2nd rate, shooting RAW over jpeg because jpeg is for P&Sers, use manual controls because P mode is for snapshooters, or whatever other common insults you see thrown about...they all cause people to question their photography. It shouldn't. Photography is an art, to be done how each person wants to do it, with whatever equipment they want to use, as long as it makes them happy and gives the results they want. You may just find that you are perfectly fine learning, expanding, and controlling your skills in the act of shooting photos, mastering your camera, tuning all the settings the way you want...and achieving the perfect JPEGs, and not doing any significant processing. Or you may find that you really want to do the processing yourself, on the computer, by shooting RAW photos and learning how to tweak and manipulate them to achieve the perfect result. Neither is the wrong way to go...so go with your heart!

 

[SrisonS]

Congrats on the jump from the S3 to the T2i. I actually mad the jump from the S3 to the T1i, myself.

One thing I've realized about shooting in RAW, is that you can really bring out some "hidden" colors.

Here's one example. I shot this in RAW, and here is the before and after:



A better look at what the RAW version produced:



But for the sake of argument; I converted the "straight out of the camera" RAW pic directly to JPEG before touching it at all, THEN made adjustments to that first JPEG version:


I tried to get both versions to look very much alike. But one difference you can definitely see, is the orange from the sky. There isn't any orange to be seen in the original RAW, but it was nicely brought during PP.

For "the argument", the orange was a struggle to even just bring out a little. And it still doesn't look nearly as good. This is just a small example, but I hope it helps.

But one reason I really like to shoot in RAW, is for peace of mind. I know I don't have to get exposure or white balance perfect; and I can pretty much just shoot away. In fact, my turning point from shooting just JPEG to shooting in RAW, is when I accidentally left the white balance set to Tungsten for outdoor pics. It was not fun to have to deal with blue tinted pictures.

As far as software, I'm a fan of Lightroom myself. At first, I thought that Canon's DPP software was good enough for what I wanted to do.... until I found out that Lightroom could easily do more (and in a very user friendly setup too). With one of the biggest differences, the ability to individually adjust separate color levels.

But don't be pressured into using RAW, if you don't really want to. Plus, the right PP techniques and software can REALLY turn JPEGS around.

 

[DizzyV6P]

Also check out Bibble at www.bibblelabs.com as another raw convertor with lots of features. I found it a cheaper alternative to Lightroom (I couldn't get a student discount...pp). I've been using it for the past few years and find their one-click "Perfectly Clear" process simply stunning. Not bad for $100 for the Lite version.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

Thanks for all the perspective, folks ... and especially to SrisonS for the before-and-afters.

It's not that I feel belittled or a "lesser photographer" but rather "What am I missing, here?"

I've spent about $1000 on my new gear, and I really want to get the best from it (just as I did with my S3). But, so far, I've been just really impressed with what's coming right out of my T2i.

I guess I'll just keep trying (shooting RAW+JPG), until I better get the hang of the RAW processing. I'm just going to have to find someplace to store these enormous files!!

My first PC, that actually *had* a hard drive, came with a whopping 10M (yes, MEGABYTE) drive ... and, at that time, I couldn't imagine how I'd *ever* fill it all!

I'd need more than three of those drives for just ONE of my T2i's RAW files ... and, I can shoot about 2 of those a second!!

 

[klmall]

Thanks for all the perspective, folks ...

I guess I'll just keep trying (shooting RAW+JPG), until I better get the hang of the RAW processing. I'm just going to have to find someplace to store these enormous files!!

That sounds like a plan! That way you can use the jpegs that are acceptable as is and store the RAW for future use if ever.

It took me awhile but I did move totally over to RAW and have never looked back. Now that I have pretty much mastered ACR and Photoshop Elements I can rescue almost any picture I take unlike all those jpegs with white skies or pictures taken in shady spots.

I forgot to say yesterday that I think much depends on the situations in which you take pictures. Most of my shots are outdoors including landscapes, hiking, camping, flowers, travel etc. When your conditions are optimal (outside or in good natural indoor light) you may not need to correct things in RAW.

But dark indoor shots, night scenes or shady outdoor shots may need that extra edge RAW allows you to tinker with. If nothing else, shooting in RAW is like having insurance to use if your pictures don't come out the way you hoped!

 

[photo_chick]

My first PC, that actually *had* a hard drive, came with a whopping 10M (yes, MEGABYTE) drive ... and, at that time, I couldn't imagine how I'd *ever* fill it all!

I'd need more than three of those drives for just ONE of my T2i's RAW files ... and, I can shoot about 2 of those a second!!

LOL... I just picked up another TB network drive on sale for $100. DH and I then launched into a conversation about saving to upgrade our old PC (an IBM running Windows NT) so that we had a total of 21 MB in hard drive space.

ahhh, the good old days. I'm so glad we're beyond saving to tape and floppies.

I agree with the others on not followign the pack... I didn't say that in my post. You gotta do what works for you. Some people are very happy only shooting jpeg. And some of us are control freaks that must have RAW.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I think while you are getting to know your camera, you shouldn't worry too much about RAW, especially if you're relatively happy with your JPEG images. There's so much to learn right now. Later, as you get better, then you can venture into RAW. At that point, it will probably mean more and you'll be able to do more with it.

I've been shooting RAW for a couple of years now and to me, it's a mixed bag. I felt this way from the beginning and I still feel this way: I just want nice images, not necessarily extraordinary images. Post processing is not my thing, and probably never will be. I accept it. It's not the part of photography I enjoy - at all. Plus, I am so backlogged with pictures it's not even funny. I've been considering lately just going back to JPEGs for some of my pictures (especially since I just upgraded to a camera that's better with them than my last one was) so they'll be usable right away.

I think there are two trains of thought, and I adhere to the former even though it's probably not the popular one here. You can work on getting the images right from the get go (ie in camera) or you can get them right in post processing. Since I don't enjoy pp, I've focused on trying to get them right in camera. And although I'm nowhere near perfect, I've improved a lot. Many of my pictures don't need much (in my view, lol), just conversion from RAW to JPEG. That makes me happy (cause I've finally figured most of it out) and has fueled my thoughts on whether I really need to be shooting RAW anymore in the first place.

All of these are thoughts that signify growth as a photographer, which is great. Again, echoing what others have said, it's very individual. While I love seeing the work that is possible in pp, I just don't see it as where I'm headed. I'd still like to take a class or something (as learning it on my own just doesn't seem to be happening, unlike basic photography) but realistically, it just ain't my bag, and that's ok. YMMV.

 

[photo_chick]

Pea-n-Me-- I agree that it's far, far better to get the image right in camera. For many photographers shooting RAW isn't about correcting what went wrong, but rather fine tuning the process and having more control.

Like I've said before.... shooting jpeg is like sending your film to a lab to be processed. Shooting RAW is like processing in your own darkroom. It's not for everyone and neither way is right or wrong.