Using RAW format - my experience

[Laird Knox]

This is actually the biggest improvement area I've been watching in DSLRs. The jump from something like a D90 to a D7000 (D7100 now) is amazing when it comes to dealing with lower light situations.

I went from the D70 to the D7000. Night shots went from points of light to starting to get some color out of the Milky Way. These days I'm loving the D800. The tech in a modern camera is amazing. Did you ever try to buy a roll of ASA 3200 film.

Well I'm finding more that photography is something where there is no one way that is best, only best for a particular situation. Your answer gives an insight in to ISO that I didn't previously have, so I feel better informed to make a decision when I next take a photo and have to consider any low light.

There is definitely more than one way to image a cat. While I didn't have an exact answer I'm glad I could pass on a bit of insight.

I'm still trying to get the whole thing working end-to-end myself. Right now I'm stuck on the printing. Just because you can capture an image doesn't mean you can make a print. A lot of my night work has really saturated colors that inkjets just don't like. I've had good results from Fuji Crystal Archive but that's not something I'll have on my desktop anytime soon.

 

[chirpie]

I went from the D70 to the D7000. Night shots went from points of light to starting to get some color out of the Milky Way. These days I'm loving the D800. The tech in a modern camera is amazing. Did you ever try to buy a roll of ASA 3200 film.

LOL. It's so weird to even think about those days. I think this highest I ever bought was 1600.

I would remember wishing I had multiple camera back just so I could have multiple ISOs to choose from. Now we wish for multiple camera backs just so we don't have to switch lens.

What a bunch of spoiled brats we are.

 

[talmy]

Raw + jpeg!

When I got my first DSLR (D70 in 2004) I tried JPEG the first time out. Then I tried RAW the second outing and never went back, even with the crappy Nikon software I had at the time.

But now I usually shoot RAW + JPEG because the memory card capacities are so large I can afford the space. This gives me a JPEG if I need something fast to view or post, but the RAW to work on to get that perfect processing.

 

[BJMRamage]

memory card prices are down but i guess now I need to be more diligent about deleting the bad photos. I've gone back about 10-12 years and started to delete the blurry photos i've been holding onto for, i suppose, memory-type reasons. but nothing has been done with them either (nephews first soccer games).

 

[Shhmmooove]

RAW all the way! A friend and I took a trip to Africa, and she had just bought a DSLR for the trip, despite being a beginner. She shot in JPEG then after getting home, she realised her shots were below par compared to mine and asked me to process them to make them look better....so I did what I could, but it is such a horrible experience! The tools one has in Camera RAW are amazing!!

 

[Laird Knox]

RAW all the way! A friend and I took a trip to Africa, and she had just bought a DSLR for the trip, despite being a beginner. She shot in JPEG then after getting home, she realised her shots were below par compared to mine and asked me to process them to make them look better....so I did what I could, but it is such a horrible experience! The tools one has in Camera RAW are amazing!!

You can actually open a JPEG in ACR but you are still limited to 8-bits per pixel per channel.

 

[Shhmmooove]

You can actually open a JPEG in ACR but you are still limited to 8-bits per pixel per channel.

This is brand new information!

Stupid question time: How do I do it?

 

[themumu]

RAW all the way! A friend and I took a trip to Africa, and she had just bought a DSLR for the trip, despite being a beginner. She shot in JPEG then after getting home, she realised her shots were below par compared to mine and asked me to process them to make them look better....so I did what I could, but it is such a horrible experience! The tools one has in Camera RAW are amazing!!

If she is a beginner, is it really the case that it was the JPEGs that kept the quality of her shots back? Most beginners have a lot to learn before the extra bits in raw files start to make a significant difference.

 

[Laird Knox]

This is brand new information!

Stupid question time: How do I do it?

In Bridge you can right click on the image and select "Open in Camera Raw." In Photoshop there is an Open As option but I'm not immediately seeing it in CS6.

 

[Shhmmooove]

If she is a beginner, is it really the case that it was the JPEGs that kept the quality of her shots back? Most beginners have a lot to learn before the extra bits in raw files start to make a significant difference.

In some cases yes, but in others when I assisted with composing the shots, used the Priority modes, adjusted the polariser, etc and ended with virtually the same shot, there simply wasn't enough information in the JPEG to dial out blown out skies, modify white balance, etc. Yes, adjustment layers did improve things, but for example, I find that the Lens Correction filter doesn't do as good a job as Camera Raw.

Ironically, photography is not a hobby for her, even if she shot in RAW I doubt she would have the patience nor time to understand what a RAW file is let alone do any PP! Some folk thing that when they go on an epic trip, they need an epic camera - in this case perhaps a low cost, high zoom, mirrorless wonder that 'cooks' in camera would have sufficed....

----------

In Bridge you can right click on the image and select "Open in Camera Raw." In Photoshop there is an Open As option but I'm not immediately seeing it in CS6.

Thank you Sir! Indeed I don't see it in CS6 either, but will have a look in Bridge!

 

[Razeus]

RAW is the Law.

Workflow:

Import RAW into LR
Delete obvious bad and blurry files
Convert to DNG for editing
Archive RAW
Flag files for editing
Export finished file to 16-bit TIFF as final Master file
Export finished file to high resolution JPEG
Export finished file to a 3000x2000 for iDevices, Web, and social networks.

 

[martinX]

I shoot flowers with my Nikon D5100 and Tamron 90 mm and for the first time I started shooting Raw + JPEG. The Raw shots are superior in both seeing more detail and better colour fidelity. If the files didn't get so damn big when I edited them, all would be good. Oh well...

 

[Laird Knox]

LOL, you should try stitching a panorama of stacked star trails shot with a D800. I had to bump my RAM up to 32GB and still would like more.

 

[ijohn.8.80]

RAW is the Law.

Workflow:

Import RAW into LR
Delete obvious bad and blurry files
Convert to DNG for editing
Archive RAW
Flag files for editing
Export finished file to 16-bit TIFF as final Master file
Export finished file to high resolution JPEG
Export finished file to a 3000x2000 for iDevices, Web, and social networks.

Okay, I'm only just starting to use Lightroom and I'm confused by the above. It seems convoluted to me and with a couple of extra steps.

Why convert to DNG?
Why export to 16 bit TIFF?

In the videos I watched from Kelby & NAPP, they never mentioned these two steps.

 

[Razeus]

Okay, I'm only just starting to use Lightroom and I'm confused by the above. It seems convoluted to me and with a couple of extra steps.

Why convert to DNG?
Why export to 16 bit TIFF?

In the videos I watched from Kelby & NAPP, they never mentioned these two steps.

And Kelby and NAPP aren't the end all be all of a photo workflow.

edit:

Ok, you're new to photography so perhaps I was too harsh. I've been at it as an amateur for 5 years now so I have my work habits down. Let me explain.

I convert to DNG as to work with LR/PS which works faster in Adobe software, retains all editing data without sidecar files, and are smaller than RAW files. These are my WORKING files

The original RAWs get archived to an external hard drive for safe keeping in case a DNG goes rogue or worse, AWOL. These are my ORIGINAL files.

The 16-bit TIFF is the final edited MASTER copy. I shouldn't have to go in LR to find an image using various flags, stars, keywords, colors and what not. All of my best images are in a folder, easy to get to without loading a program and filtering through 15k images. LR will contain 200-300 shots from an event, but I'll edit the best 10-20%. Then I let them "sit" and take my mind off it, and narrow it down to 5-10% a few days later. It just makes sense to have a folder of all your final edits in the highest resolution in an archivable format.

Furthermore, this folder is the folder my family would go to when I die so they can pass it on to future generations or what have you. If they had to go through Lightroom and see all those images, it would be overwhelming and wouldn't know how to use the program anyway, nor understand my editing and processing choices (I can imagine someone in my family asking how to export a file? what do the flags mean? why do some have stars? why some have flags, stars, and colors? which ones did he really like?).

The TIFF Master folder has a text document explaining what the folder is, how it is to be used and under no circumstances should anything in the folder be further edited, nor other images from Lightroom (or whatever cataloging system I use in the future) be used. In fact, there's instructions for the LR catalog to be deleted. People only care about the artist's output, not the tools to make the output.

You won't get that from listening to Scott Kelby.

 

[ijohn.8.80]

And Kelby and NAPP aren't the end all be all of a photo workflow.
<snip>
You won't get that from listening to Scott Kelby.

Thanks for the detailed response. I don't work as a pro and I know when I die that no body is gonna give a hoot about my pictures. I've already told the kids that they can wipe my hard-drives and fill them with porn for all I care, I'll be dead and gone!

I have no speed issues flicking pictures from Lightroom to Photoshop and back for editing on my run of the mill 2012 iMac. I like the idea of searching by keywords, ratings and flags. It's why I used PhotoMechanic initially for that purpose.

Still, an interesting method you have. I could see it being necessary for some pro's.

You'll have to share more with us. I haven't seen anything from you for ages.

 

[Evil Spoonman]

Okay, I'm only just starting to use Lightroom and I'm confused by the above. It seems convoluted to me and with a couple of extra steps.

Why convert to DNG?
Why export to 16 bit TIFF?

In the videos I watched from Kelby & NAPP, they never mentioned these two steps.

The workflow I use for Lightroom 5 is...

- Import in Lightroom from SDCard (all files are RAW, I only shoot RAW).
- Go through the automatic Previous Import group using the X key to reject photos and the P key to pick photos I really like. Use the U key to unflag a photo.
- The unflagged photos are ones I think are worth keeping but aren't my favourites.
- You can also do some quick develops doing this stage such as grabbing a new white balance or basic crops. I usually throw on some keywords too.
- I will then edit the ones I want as one normally would.
- To export several photos at once from various timeframes I will often hit B on them to create a quick collection of random photos. Then I will select all and export my quick collection, mess with my export settings, and export as a batch.

 

[snberk103]

And Kelby and NAPP aren't the end all be all of a photo workflow.
....

Truth.

I have a slightly differently workflow, which I present simply to show that there are different ways to achieve the same thing. Someone reading this thread and looking to start their own system may perhaps get some ideas from one of us.

I "Copy as DNG" from the memory card, or from the computer the camera has been tethered to. This leaves the "original" image in place on either the card or the tethered system until my nightly backup routine has had a chance to kick in. Nightly backup copies the image files automatically each night to an external HDD, and the external HDD is rotated off-site when appropriate. The Lr Catalogue is kept with the photos, so copied nightly...plus when I close Lr, Lightroom copies the catalogue to a volume that is backed up to a Time Machine backup. This way in case I get a creeping database corruption I can go back in time to recover the catalogue before it was corrupted. Since the DNGs are never really altered I'm not as worried about them as they just sit there.

I do my editing and processing of the images... lots of different workflows for people to do that. My final images, a very select few, are given a Green Flag and 5 stars. I have a couple of Smart Folders that will just show these Finals... so I don't have to go rooting around... I just open appropriate folder and there they are. And the Smart Folder updates automatically every time I make an image "Final". Most prints I print myself from Lightroom, I use the Caption field to note where it's being used, etc. If I send the image out for printing, then I will export it as either a Full Res JPEG or - it's a difficult image - a TIFF.

If it's part of project where I've needed to write something up, or there are other parts ... then I keep a mid-sized JPG in the folder with other bits that make up the project for reference. Naming the file to match the title is key to finding it again... and it takes 3 seconds if I've remembered to do this.

Basically, I let Lr manage virtually everything.

I'm a professional who does both commercial and fine art work.

The TIFF Master folder has a text document explaining what the folder is, how it is to be used ....

That's an interesting idea.. I'm going to have to think on that a little bit.

Thanks for the detailed response....
You'll have to share more with us. ...

I will second that! I like comparing notes like this.

 

[Razeus]

Thanks for the detailed response. I don't work as a pro and I know when I die that no body is gonna give a hoot about my pictures. I've already told the kids that they can wipe my hard-drives and fill them with porn for all I care, I'll be dead and gone!

I have no speed issues flicking pictures from Lightroom to Photoshop and back for editing on my run of the mill 2012 iMac. I like the idea of searching by keywords, ratings and flags. It's why I used PhotoMechanic initially for that purpose.

Still, an interesting method you have. I could see it being necessary for some pro's.

You'll have to share more with us. I haven't seen anything from you for ages.

I doubt anyone would give two craps about my images after my death anyway, but at least its something to show what I did in my spare time. I hate to see what's happening to Vivian Maier (someone else processing those images - how do they know what her intensions are? did she hide all those photos for a reason? did she want them to be found?). She made good work and it's something the world should see, but I'm not sure what her instructions where for the photos after her death. She seem to have kept them throughout her life even though she didn't have the means to process them.

 

[thegreatdivorce]

Um, no. There is much more data in the highlights than in the shadows.

This is paraphrased from luminous-landscape:

In a 12-bit file 1/2 of your image data is in the brightest stop of the exposure while the darkest stop contains a mere 1/32 of the total data. Of course this wont help you if your image is completely blown out but neither will shooting under exposed and blocking up the shadows.

This is true but misleading. The "darkest stop" does contain a low amount of detail (although this varies by sensor) compared to the brightest stop. But that "darkest stop" does not completely encompass the range of shadows. While you might not be able to pull much from the very bottom of a severely underexposed histogram, you can almost always get a ton of shadow and low-midtone detail.

Either way, recommending shooting overly to the right isn't really the greatest advice.

Like I said, a lot depends on which camera and sensor. I know on my M9 I underexposed a lot, because it clipped highlights really quickly, compared to my Nikons, which were fairly even on both ends (although they favored shadows too, in some ways.)

 

[BJMRamage]

Reading back through this thread and there is a lot of information here. Something to look into and check out how the camera responds/outputs.

Thanks everyone.

 

[Laird Knox]

This is true but misleading. The "darkest stop" does contain a low amount of detail (although this varies by sensor) compared to the brightest stop. But that "darkest stop" does not completely encompass the range of shadows. While you might not be able to pull much from the very bottom of a severely underexposed histogram, you can almost always get a ton of shadow and low-midtone detail.

Either way, recommending shooting overly to the right isn't really the greatest advice.

Like I said, a lot depends on which camera and sensor. I know on my M9 I underexposed a lot, because it clipped highlights really quickly, compared to my Nikons, which were fairly even on both ends (although they favored shadows too, in some ways.)

I agree, a photo should be exposed properly.

I was just referring to the post were somebody said it was best to underexpose an image because it contained more information in the shadows. This is simply not true. What is true is that different systems handle the exposure differently but that is a different topic.

I do have a question about your M9. When you say it is clipping the highlights is that on the LCD display, in the JPEGs it produces, in the RAW files or all of the above? I'm curious as I'm not familiar with that camera.

 

[thegreatdivorce]

I agree, a photo should be exposed properly.

I was just referring to the post were somebody said it was best to underexpose an image because it contained more information in the shadows. This is simply not true. What is true is that different systems handle the exposure differently but that is a different topic.

I do have a question about your M9. When you say it is clipping the highlights is that on the LCD display, in the JPEGs it produces, in the RAW files or all of the above? I'm curious as I'm not familiar with that camera.

Agreed, I wouldn't say it's best to underexpose. Especially if you shoot Canon.

The M9 had a really short highlight range in the actual RAW (native DNG) file. It was kind of odd. But it had amazing detail in the shadow, and never really got "bandy" no matter how much you pushed the shadows. Kind of odd. Apparently the new M240 is a lot better in the DR area.

 

[Laird Knox]

Interesting.

I was asking because I know Nikon is very conservative in showing the clipping on the LCD. It will show massive blown out highlights one the LCD when the RAW file is fine.

Sounds like the M9 has a very different bias when reading the sensor.

 

[overcast]

anyway, take what you will from this. I know RAW is not a fix for everything. but it seemed to hold more depth to work with.

It doesn't "seem" to hold more depth, it is ALL of the depth. RAW is literally the bit for bit raw unprocessed information directly from the camera sensor. JPG is lossy format, and once it's gone, it's gone.

RAW = Negative
JPG = Developed