Western Railroad Discussion > Digital Images using RAW format

I have bee looking to upgrade the Photoshop Lite that came with my slide scanner and was looking at the new Photoshop CS2. On their web site they discuss using RAW format of the camera and not capturing in JPEG format that I use now.

Does anyone have any experence in using RAW format and does it convert to a better JPEG using the converters in the photo program than in the camera.

Thany for you opinion in advance, I would like to know before I spend the $500 on the new photoshop.

Espee 99

Can't speak to the subtleties of RAW versus JPG, but before you blow $500 on Photoshop, investigate their package called Photoshop Elements -- it's got all the Photoshop features most people use (unlike their Light version), is easy to learn and use, and costs less than $100. Maybe you need the full-blown Photoshop, but if you haven't looked into Elements, take a couple minutes to see if it does what you're thinking about.

--Mark J

I shoot in RAW on my Canon and convert using the supplied ZoomBrowserEx app. It takes some time and more storage but you only shoot a photo once so you might as well save it uncompressed and convert it later. I haven't compared the quality of a JPEG converted in-camera vs. in an external app. Hopefully others can share their experience and knowledge about this.

-Ryan Wilkerson
http://www.shastarails.com

RyanWilkerson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
It takes some time and more storage but you only shoot a photo once
> so you might as well save it uncompressed and
> convert it later. I haven't compared the quality
> of a JPEG converted in-camera vs. in an external
> app. Hopefully others can share their experience
> and knowledge about this.
>
> -Ryan Wilkerson
> http://www.shastarails.com
>

Ryan,

Not sure how Canon RAW works but my Nikon RAW files are compressed files (10 mb), one of the better reasons to shoot RAW since the TIFF files run about 18 mb each.

Now to answer the original question, when I purchased my first DSLR I shot only TIFF. Once I tried RAW I never went back to TIFF or jpeg. A RAW file is the original digital file similar to a negative or slide and it can be modified in PS just like a negative in the darkroom but without the mess. Photoshop CS is worth it, but look on ebay. No sense in paying full list for it.

Funny you should ask today. I just got my camera raw going today and all I can say is WOW!! You can buy Photoshop elements 3.0 for less than $100 and download their CameraRaw 2.4 plug-in from their website. I don't know if you will notice a lot of difference in your JPEG web postings but if you print yourself you will have your socks blown off. I'm shooting Raw with my K-M 7D and I am sold. You just can't beat that 16 Bit capture. I was just geeting ready to post 2 pictures that I shot in RAW so stay tuned for them.

Once again --- You can download the Camera Raw 2.4 plug-in for PS Elements and save the BIG $$ cost of CS. Elements is a lot easier to learn if you are not already Photoshop proficient. I was real intimidated by PS Elements having cut my teeth on Microsoft Picture-It. I took a non-credit PS Elements class at the local Comm'y College which took care of the itimidation factor.

Definitely shoot in RAW. There are many advantages, some as noted above, but the key element is that the camera performs no post image processing, such as sharpening, attaching color space, leveling, etc, etc. The image is recorded as it was shot. The Photoshop RAW plugin is definitely the easiest and cheapest way to go (other than the supplied software with your camera), although with Photoshop CS2, the RAW plugin is included (didn't realize that the RAW plugin was available for PS Elements...

Shooting in RAW format allows you to process the image some from the plug-in, then additionally from the image processing software you have (Photoshop Elements). One other thing. Only the camera can save to the RAW format, meaning that you always have your original available.

RAW is definitely the best way to go, and since CF cards are becoming so cheap, upgrading to larger cards if you don't already have one shouldn't be a terribly costly issue.

As a new DSLR owner (300D) I'm still trying to find a
way to justify using RAW. I've been using the large - normal
setting and I can find absolutely no difference in image
quality even after lots of cropping. I've noticed the same
thing when looking at the image comparisons over at dpreview
also. Am I missing something? Thanks.
Geoff

Bless you, Geoff. I can't see any difference either. I don't doubt there's differences, but I think it takes a particularly sensitive soul to notice, much less appreciate, them. It sounds to me a lot like when audiophiles argue about whether 128-bit or 132-bit encoding is better, or when wine drinkers get hot over whether merlot is better than pinot noir. I believe 'em when they say they can tell the difference, but it sure isn't part of my life.

Orfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > As a new DSLR owner (300D) I'm still trying
> to find a
> way to justify using RAW. I've been using the
> large - normal
> setting and I can find absolutely no difference
> in image
> quality even after lots of cropping. I've
> noticed the same
> thing when looking at the image comparisons over
> at dpreview
> also. Am I missing something? Thanks.
> Geoff

It depends on how much post processing you do. Shooting in JPEG much is already done, so you don't know what WAS done. Then editing more you add slight noise. If you do your own adjusting use RAW, because the RAW image is EXACTLY what the image processor saw with no ISO adjustments, color adjustments etc. Shoot in JPEG and you get what the camera thinks it needs, and can't undo it if it turns out to be not what you were after, you can only edit what you are given and hope it holds together. Start from scratch with RAW and you minimize adding noise. Try this....set up a scene with areas of light and dark and high and low contrast and at least some degree of many coloredness. Shoot once in your usual format, then reset the camera to RAW and shoot it again. Download the shots to your puter, and edit each to your liking, Print each image as large as you can using the finest printer settings you have and the fanciest papers. (Crop a section of each and blow it up too) You will find that the one that started as RAW, probably is visibly better in a number of ways. Personally since I have Pshop Elements 2 I can't use Adobe Camera raw. So I use my Canon Utilities to convert to TIFF, which is indeed a large file, but preserves much more information than JPG.

Thanks for the info, I will continue to experiment with RAW. File
size and ease of handling is the main reason I've become attached
to JPEG. On files that require a lot of processing I'll usually
save the original and modify a copy since JPEG's don't hold up to
processing very well. I'm still new to the DSLR thing though, so
I'll keep my options open. Thanks again.
Geoff

Thanks to everyone who responded. I will be working in RAW and will take someones advice and see if the less espensive photoshot elements will work for me.

Also to support my new aflection I have installed a file server and external storage on my home network. Hope to have some new images to post soon.

Espee 99

The common feeling on the photo forums is the camera manufacturers RAW decoders do a better job of opening the RAW files. Adobe Photoshops decoder is really close in most instances. The rest of the camera companies software functions are far behind what Photoshop can do once the image has been opened. You will have to try out both yourself and see. The Adobe Raw converter should work just as well in Elements 3 as in CS for opening the RAW files but I think Photoshop CS is able to work more functions in the 16 bit mode than Elements can.

If you are even THINKING about using RAW buy the book, "Real World Camera RAW with Adobe Photoshop CS" by Bruce Fraser, published by Peach Pit Press. It is about $34 at Amazon.

The huge difference in the camera jpeg or tiff image rather than the same format image after it has been decoded by Photoshop is the 16 bit color depth. If you can't see it on your computer monitor then it might be time to upgrade your monitor or set the one you have to higher color depth. The difference just jumps out at me on my laptop. The downside is that most inkjet and laser printers do not print more than 8 bit color.

I work in 16 bit RAW and have since the first flash card I filled with RAW instead of tiff images. I doubt I will ever go back and I just picked up my new Fuji S3 which is one of the best jpeg cameras out there.

Plunk around the camera related forums some as there are usually discussions of the different RAW converters out there and new ones or upgrades come along all the time. Imaging Resource just reported (go back a day or two on their "news") on an upgrade to Pixmantec's Rawshooter Essentials - it's free and Corel is also offering it to use with Paintshop Pro which may be a price comparable option to the Adobe PSE, etc.

I don't deal with RAW right now so can't offer any real comparison results. Printed results may be a more valid comparison than reduced resolution screen viewing?? Other than shooting fast action where there may be some slowdowns depending on camera, it seems that there may be some initial cost differences (getting away from the freebie editors) and some slight added fiddle factor but little "quality" reason not to at least try RAW if you are serious. If casual, jpg isn't bad and does everything many folks need.

Unscientifically, I just pointed the 7D at the wall across the room and pressed the button on RAW, RAW+JPEG, and extra fine and there was some perceivable added speed fall-off with the RAW modes over extra fine but I don't see that kind of shooting being very necesary for me. I would suggest seeking out a USB2 or Firewire download capability because downloading a full 1 gig card, whatever format, benefits greatly over a plain old USB 1 reader.