Hey all, I'm just curious, if I am shooting strictly RAW do the Picture Styles settings come into play? For example, I always shoot in Neutral mode even when in RAW but I thought that RAW is pretty much a file that contains all information and has no processing in it. This true?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Question about XSi and RAW
- Thread starter soLoredd
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Best think of RAW as a film negative, even if you haven't ever actually worked with one. As stated above, only noise reduction will affect this negative so shooting with any idea of PP in camera is essentially wasted. What you do get is the ability to actually work with your negative and perhaps correct small exposure issues and the likes.
Welllllll.... I think Nikon's raw converter can apply the settings to batch produce JPEGs, which could actually save some PP time... Not sure if Canon offers the same thing, but it seems likely.
Paul
Canon's software actually does do the exact same thing. It better to do the actual post processing yourself rather than rely on presets though.
Depends on the situation- for instance having 300 event photos, of which you have time, the need or the inclination to hand-process a dozen or so- having the ability to batch the other 288 and have them come out reasonably well is "better" than running each of them through a converter manually- especially if they're not all shot in the same light where a run one and use it as a preset works well...
Thanks for the replies. I've actually been shooting RAW ever since I got the camera in September. I just found it odd that I could change Picture Styles and it even shows on the LCD what PS I have chosen. So, I thought that the camera might do something funky to the RAW file.
I'll need to experiment some more as far as using JPG because, as been posted above, having to PP hundreds of RAW files sometimes can be daunting. I'm always afraid, however, of editing JPGs.
If given the option, do you folks think RAW+JPG is a better way to go? In this mode, it would be good for getting out photos quicker to a site or photo library but still have the "negative", correct?
I lift attributes in aperture and paste them onto a ton of shots from the same area. Works well with my indoor sports, save when those pesky fluorescence are around.
Depends on how much space you have and how quickly you need the images. Batching raw files isn't a big deal, trying to put the card into the printer at Wal*Mart might be- personally I used to shoot raw+JPG, but now just shoot raw.
Lr has essentially the same Canon and Nikon presets that you can use with raw images, and you can also design or tweak your own.
If this guy has 300 event photos, he owes it to himself to check out the 30-day eval/demo versions of Lr and/or Aperture.
To the OP, once you get to trust doing non-destructive edits with a program like Lr you'll quickly lose the need to shoot jpg + raw; since you can generate corrected and cropped jpgs at will from the software. Also, you'll get something on the order of 20% more photos per card shooting just raw.