Shooting in RAW and post processing

[pudgy_groundhog]

RAW scares me, but I want to start trying it use it. Any tips for a newbie? What kind of program do I need for post processing? Our new camera came with several programs and I think a program called Digital Photo Professional can be used for conversions, but I haven't looked in detail at it. Is there a basic workflow to follow when converting?

 

[DougPaul]

RAW scares me, but I want to start trying it use it. Any tips for a newbie? What kind of program do I need for post processing? Our new camera came with several programs and I think a program called Digital Photo Professional can be used for conversions, but I haven't looked in detail at it. Is there a basic workflow to follow when converting?

No reason for it to be scary. Many cameras can simultaneously record raw and JPEG. Then play with the raw and see what you can do--it is usually pretty easy to equal or beat the canned processing in the camera. (You can also process JPEGs, but the information that was lost in creating the JPEG is not recoverable.) Just save the originals and the risk is nil. One warning--raw files are a lot bigger than the corresponding JPEGs.

I work in the Linux environment and use (all of these are open source or free):
* Dcraw http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ The core raw-to-image format converter used by many other programs.
* UFRaw http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/index.html Does conversion and then does color compensation, exposure adjustment, and greyscale mapping.
* LIghtzone http://sonic.net/~rat/lightcrafts/ A sophisticated image processing program. Includes a complete workflow. Still has some bugs, but an improved version should be available soon. There are beta versions available now. (There are also PC and Apple versions available for $. http://www.lightcrafts.com/index.php)
* Cinepaint isn't there yet, but an improved version is promised soon http://www.cinepaint.org/
* Gimp is available, but is only an 8-bit app. http://www.gimp.org/ (You want to delay the conversion from 16 to 8 bits until the last step.)

Some cameras come with raw image handling software, but I have seen comments to the effect that some of it is not as good as some of the 3rd party software.

Someone else will have to suggest software for the PC and Apple environments. Photoshop is popular.

A nice tutorial on the digital workflow: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/process.shtml

A plug: there is a lot of useful info at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/, including tutorials http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/, and a rather unique set of (non-nut, bolts, and specs) reviews http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/. For example, take a look at the review for the Canon Digital Rebel XT: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/xt-350d.shtml

Disclaimer: I have no connection with any of the above websites or companies. Just a happy consumer.

Doug

 

[pudgy_groundhog]

Thanks DougPaul. I'll take a look at the link. I do have a limited version of Photoshop (and have access to Elements). I'll try both (the program that came with the camera and Photoshop). I only know the very basics of Photoshop -- I guess it'll just take some experimenting.

 

[DougPaul]

Thanks DougPaul. I'll take a look at the link. I do have a limited version of Photoshop (and have access to Elements). I'll try both (the program that came with the camera and Photoshop). I only know the very basics of Photoshop -- I guess it'll just take some experimenting.

Check out the tutorial listed in my previous post. That should help you get started.

Lightzone also has a nice movie tutorial on their website. http://www.lightcrafts.com/index.php.

IMO, both of these tutorials are worth looking at, no matter what software you end up using.

Doug

 

[darren]

As I'm sure you guessed, RAW post processing would be tough to explain in a thread. The thing about shooting in RAW format is that you get to make all the decisions. If you shoot in .jpg mode, the camera makes all the decisions on white balance, color, saturation, sharpening, etc. When shooting RAW, all the data from the sensor is available to you and no decisions are made. You can adjust white balance, saturation, sharpening, the works. It is up to you do decide how it comes out. It is like using your own dark room instead of an automated machine at the local drug store.

There is a learning curve, but if you really want control over your images the effort is worth it. If a person just wants photos to record memories, then I'd say go with .jpg. If a person is into photography as a serious hobby and an artform, then I would highly recommend shooting in RAW format and developing a workflow.

For RAW processing, I prefer Photoshop over the Canon supplied software. I use the Canon supplied software to browse all the images and pull out the best ones. Then I use Photoshop to post process the RAW files of the best ones.

I'm lucky and know someone that works at Adobe so I can get greatly discounted software. Photoshop is expensive, like $900. I'm not sure if Elements lets you process RAW images. I don't think it used to, but it might now.

One final thought. RAW is not magic. You still need to properly compose and expose a shot to get the best from it. RAW can fix some small user errors, but not big ones. Also, while you can apply filter effects in Photoshop (etc) you should use the proper filters when taking the original shot. Always start with the best image you can.

- d

 

[DougPaul]

Oh yes--if you want to do postprocessing, you need to have a calibrated (or "semi-calibrated") monitor. If you adjust your picture to look good on an out-of-spec screen, then it will look bad on other screens.

A pro will calibrate (profile) his screen frequently. This measures both the color temp and grey scales for all three monitor colors and allows them to be compensated to get an accurate display.

Some tutorials:
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/monitor_profiling.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/acd-profile.shtml
And the search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=monitor+profiling+"color+temperature"&btnG=Google+Search brings up a bunch more references.

If you don't have formal calbration and profiling tools (requires some special hardware), you can do the following to set your monitor in the ballpark:
* set your color temp to 6500K (most monitors default to 9000-9300K (much bluer) than the standards for color pics).
* set the brightness and gamma. I use the following tool: http://www.pcbypaul.com/software/monica.html.
* See the first of the above tutorials for more info.

Doug

 

[MichaelJ]

One other point not mentioned here is that depending on your camera, RAW files will have a greater dynamic range. On my Canon, they contain 12 bit data, which I can then use to adjust exposure as well as highlight and shadow correction, prior to rendering an 8 bit JPG image.

 

[DougPaul]

One other point not mentioned here is that depending on your camera, RAW files will have a greater dynamic range. On my Canon, they contain 12 bit data, which I can then use to adjust exposure as well as highlight and shadow correction, prior to rendering an 8 bit JPG image.

A small nit--just because the data is 12 bit does not mean that all bits are signifcant. Still, decisions have been made and information has been thown away in making the 8 bit JPEG so raw is a better place to start from.

Doug

 

[ghassert]

Oh yes--if you want to do postprocessing, you need to have a calibrated (or "semi-calibrated") monitor. If you adjust your picture to look good on an out-of-spec screen, then it will look bad on other screens.

A pro will calibrate (profile) his screen frequently. This measures both the color temp and grey scales for all three monitor colors and allows them to be compensated to get an accurate display.


Doug

I'm thinking about starting to capture photos in RAW format.

Does anyone have any experience with any of the monitor calibration tools?

The two most affordable ones that I keep seeing referenced are the Spyder2Express and the Pantone Huey

Any preferences or comments?

Thanks,

Glenn

 

[Brambor]

I shoot RAW and JPeg at the same time. 99 % of the time I process RAW. I shoot with Canon and I actually preffer the Canon Zoombrowser software to process RAW shots. RAW is especially good if you want to convert color to black and white or if you like to use some of the color profiles. Also RAW is great if you shoot in low light. You can pull out more stops out of RAW than out of JPEG if you need it. For example for shooting Ice Hockey I dislike using a flash and with RAW I can underexpose 1 stop to gain enough Fstop and shutter speed and then pull it out during RAW processing.

 

[MichaelJ]

I've used the Spyder2Pro. It did a wonderful job of calibrating my iBook's display, but with my Mac Cinema it came out *way* too warm and I stick to OS X's profile for that display.

 

[skiguy]

Archivalble

Just a simple point that probably has been extrapolated from the great info already given is Raw's archivalble attributes. Digital Photography is an evolving artform that will probably be so for some time to come. As new technologies in post production expand we will all have new and better tools to work with. By shooting Raw you are probably best protecting your files for future use (processing) as these technologies become available because of the nature of Raw having the most data available (no compression).

 

[Brambor]

I generally agree with what skiguy wrote but I think it is important to realize that RAW is not the same across systems. Canon RAW is not the same as Nikon RAW or Leica RAW. Each company has their own algorithm on how to access and process the file. One never knows what improvements to RAW processing will happen in the future but I think it is not inconceivable that 30 years from now you will not be able to open your raw file. Word of advice: archive a copy of the RAW processing software as well and hope that the future operating systems can install it. I archive jpeg and RAW for files that are dear to me as well as the processing software. With 100GB of images, including 100mb for RAW processing software installation is not a big deal.

Perhaps jpg will be the everlasting standard. Who knows.

 

[DougPaul]

One never knows what improvements to RAW processing will happen in the future but I think it is not inconceivable that 30 years from now you will not be able to open your raw file.

Not a problem. Dcraw is an opensource tool for reading a wide range of raw digital photo formats. It, along with UFRaw, an opensource GUI tool for using dcraw, will enable one to access the raw files for a long time to come. Dcraw is used by many other programs to read raw files and often does a better job than does the manufacturer's software.

http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/
http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/index.html

Doug

 

[Brambor]

just make sure you have the application handy in the year 2037 It's all good.

 

[Halite]

I'm lucky and know someone that works at Adobe so I can get greatly discounted software. Photoshop is expensive, like $900. I'm not sure if Elements lets you process RAW images. I don't think it used to, but it might now.


- d

Newer versions of Photoshop Elements will process RAW images. You may need to update your version of Adobe's RAW conversion file from its website to work with your camera. These newer RAW conversion files only work with newer versions of Photoshop.

Photoshop CS2 isn't quite $900 on the street, but it's still way more expensive than Elements. Elements has a lot of power for the money and can be greatly enhanced with the tools available with The Hidden Power of Photoshop Elements. http://www.hiddenelements.com/