Editing RAW Images

mac66

Senior Member
I've been reading some online photo articles of late, about shooting in RAW. Some of these folks, seem to shoot with very little regard, for how the camera shoots the image. I've seen suggestions, where they shoot, using very minute amounts of compensation if any, and set color to Neutral or Standard, then hope to doll it up in the editor. Now most of us, I assume, would want to get the camera shot as close to perfect as we can, but the consensus I see about RAW is just that...Shoot a basic RAW image then edit white balance, color, compensation etc, in an editor. What are your thoughts?
 

480sparky

Senior Member
You can use whatever WB you want in post when editing a .NEF/NRW file, but you don't have much latitude over exposure. Yes, more than editing a JPEG, but not much.

You also have the ability to edit colors much more in raw as well as well as sharpness, saturation, etc.

But yes, you should attempt to get as good an image as possible in the field first and not use post work to 'save' the image.
 

Xiopat24

New member
Hello, new to this forum,my friend asked me to take her save the date pictures, and I wanted to know if its recommended to take them in RAW format?, also I use a D3100 and would like to get a good reasonable lens for zoom, I currently have the one it came with the kit. Any suggestions? I will be using lightroom for editing.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
There is no one, single answer as to whether to shoot raw, raw+JPEG, or JPEG only. Each has their pros and cons, and you need to decide which works best for what you're wanting to shoot and how much editing you want/need to do.
 

Lawrence

Senior Member
My understanding is that if shooting only in RAW the camera doesn't pay too much attention to the white balance you select (this may be model specific) and the built in algorithm (or whatever you want to call it) will do the best it can regardless of what you select.
However I still think you need to do as much as you can prior to shooting and not depend solely on processing.
That being said one heck of a lot can be done in processing.

Hello, new to this forum,my friend asked me to take her save the date pictures, and I wanted to know if its recommended to take them in RAW format?, also I use a D3100 and would like to get a good reasonable lens for zoom, I currently have the one it came with the kit. Any suggestions? I will be using lightroom for editing.

Read more: http://nikonites.com/d3100/26231-editing-raw-images.html#ixzz3GHFDVuuF
@Xiopat24 check out this video to gain a bit more respect for and understanding of just how awesome the "kit" lens is! Make sure you watch to the end when the images are revealed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtPjNjifc70
 

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Raw will give you the best chance to adjust your results but thats no reason to not try to get it right in camera,lots of the camera settings dont apply to Raw
 

480sparky

Senior Member
The camera does pay attention to the WB, not only to apply to the processed JPEG thumbnail you see in the monitor, but it also gets transferred to the software and might get applied automatically depending on the software used and how it's set up.

Same goes for other settings such as sharpness, contrast, saturation, vividness, etc.
 

J-see

Senior Member
If you shoot RAW, there's little reason to set certain parameters. I have WB on auto, the rest on neutral. Exposure compensation I'll only use if really needed and then only to lighten up. Never to darken down.

I see no reason to tweak all settings before every shot since I can't see what they really do anyways. Sure I could check the LCD each time, zoom in (hope that what I see on the LCD is displayed correct) and adjust but I rather shoot. With the technology at hand these days, it simply makes no sense to set before what can be adjusted afterwards.
 
Last edited:

Deleted

Senior Member
Shooting in RAW does give you much more flexibility in processing the image. However it introduces issues as each image must be post processed. The images are larger than JPG you will need compatible software (& learn how to use it). You may even have to upgrade your computer to be able to run the software & store the files.

If you are prepared for that in order to get better photos, then go for it! :)
 
Last edited:

SteveH

Senior Member
I would suggest you start by setting your camera to RAW+JPEG to record both formats, then you can learn how to post-process your RAW images but you will still have a JPEG copy to look at as the learning process can be a fairly long one.
 

J-see

Senior Member
You can also freely download View or Capture NX and use it the same way you now use the settings on your cam. You import the NEF, adjust WB, sharpness, saturation... etc and then export as a JPEG.

That way the only difference is that what you do before, you can do afterwards and eventually correct if you don't like it. It allows you to continue shooting as normal and eventually practice more processing if that's what you desire.
 

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
A question as an answer :D if you set your camera for sharpness ect then shoot raw,download via capture then for now just convert to jpeg using capture can you set it to apply the camera settings as you export , leaving the raw file untouched to come back to when you feel you could improve it.
 

J-see

Senior Member
That's only an option when you use Nikon soft to process the NEF. Other programs ignore many to most of the settings.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
The thing a new RAW shooter needs to wrap their head around is this:

RAW = All the information captured by the camera sensor.
JPEG = One specific and permanent application of imaging parameters to the sensor information.

When you look at a RAW file you will generally get the default interpretation of the image information defined by your software. As stated, Nikon imaging products will generally pick up on the camera settings and give you an initial approximation of the in-camera JPEG preview you saw when you reviewed it. Other programs, like Lightroom and Adobe Camera RAW, will us their default (generally referred to as "Adobe Standard"), but there are Nikon specific profiles available, and not only can you change it with a simple click, but in Lightroom you can set it up so a different profile (i.e. Camera Vivid) is applied instead as a part of the import process. You can do the same with sharpness, noise reduction, etc.

Here's the key:

  • Shoot jpeg and nail it you can save a lot of time in post
  • Shoot jpeg and misfire and you may lose the shot entirely
  • Shoot in RAW and as long as you expose properly you can always get the "nailed" jpeg image, even when your camera settings missed it by a mile

Ever set the WB to fluorescent and then forget when you stepped outside to grab that Eagle flying by? RAW doesn't care that your bird is an amazing shade of blue - move a slider and it's perfect. Ever use custom settings to oversaturate something and then blow out a flower shot? RAW doesn't care because it's profile neutral and you can apply and reapply a million different camera profiles until you find one you like - and it's all non-destructive!!

And that is the biggest advantage of all when working with RAW. Screw up the processing and you can go back, because the changes are saved separate from the original file. JPEG? One bad adjustment and if your workflow doesn't involve backing up or saving your edit under a new name and you've lost your original forever.

Yes, working in RAW is more time consuming than shooting perfect JPEGs straight out of camera. How much more depends on what you want to do and how well you know your software. After 3 years of shooting a basic edit (i.e. one that replicates what would have come straight out of the camera in a JPEG) takes me under a minute in Lightroom. With 100 photos that's still 2 hours of my life, but it's 100 photos processed as perfectly as I could possibly get them out of camera. I know guys who have been shooting for decades who still bungle a jpeg SOOC, but their job is dependent more on turn around time than anything (i.e. news photographers). When the photo is the more important than the time spent they will all tell you that they switch to RAW. My take is if you want great, easy photos then there are some amazing Point and Shoots out there and you should have stuck with them (I still use mine for contest shots that require SOOC shots - or my iPhone!!). Shooting a DSLR in JPEG only is like buying a 120 piece MAC toolset and just using the hammers. It'll get you exactly what you want sometimes, but for the inexperienced carpenter it's a big waste of money.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
I've been reading some online photo articles of late, about shooting in RAW. Some of these folks, seem to shoot with very little regard, for how the camera shoots the image. I've seen suggestions, where they shoot, using very minute amounts of compensation if any, and set color to Neutral or Standard, then hope to doll it up in the editor. Now most of us, I assume, would want to get the camera shot as close to perfect as we can, but the consensus I see about RAW is just that...Shoot a basic RAW image then edit white balance, color, compensation etc, in an editor. What are your thoughts?


Yes, absolutely no regard or concern for the camera settings (other than Exposure). It simply does not matter if it is Standard or Neutral or Vivid. This very good reason is simply because those camera settings (all settings) are NOT IN THE RAW IMAGE. Raw is Raw. We do those settings later in the software, AFTER WE CAN SEE WHAT IT NEEDS, AND SEE WHAT IS USEFUL. That's one idea of Raw (Raw has several good ideas). It is Lossless editing, meaning, we do Not have to shift tones back and forth to undo those camera settings (probably set six months ago) before we do the right settings for this scene, which now we can see first. If you actually want Vivid, you can do it then, and see the result before using it. It is lossless editing, you can always get back your pristine original Raw data (but which would not be true if the camera settings could have screwed it up first).

Raw files do also include an embedded Large JPG file, which does contain those camera settings. This is because Raw is Raw, and the rear LCD is RGB, and cannot show Raw, so it shows the JPG. Also, the histogram is shown from this embedded JPG. And surely computer codex that can show Raw thumbnails also show the JPG. Simple photo editor programs like Irfanview and Faststone, which "open Raw files" merely open and work on the embedded JPG (they are the furthest thing from a Raw editor).

So saying, this embedded JPG shown on the rear LCD does show the camera settings, and the camera settings are in the Exif data, but those settings are not applied to the the Raw file data.

So while I dislike Auto WB errors, I use it with Raw, just to quickly see the rear LCD JPG a little better, and to see how approximate WB affects the histogram.
But I do the actual work and choices later in the Raw software.

Nikon Raw software (at least some of it) has had the option to apply those Exif setting to the Raw image later in the software (when it makes a RGB). Other brands cannot / do not do that. Adobe Raw can make a try at (only) White Balance (called As Shot WB). But the point is, why? It is rarely correct WB. And you are sitting there looking at the result, and you have the same tools to make it be like you want it to look?

Raw is the tool that can change your photographic life.
 
Last edited:

480sparky

Senior Member
........... Screw up the processing and you can go back, because the changes are saved separate from the original file............. .

Not always. Some programs don't use sidecar files. Capture NX2, for example, saves the editing steps right in with the image data and rewrites the image file. However, the editing steps can still be modified or deleted in later edits. The advantage is there no sidecar file to loose. The disadvantage is the possibility of corrupting the file by reading and writing the same filename can make you loose the image. My solution is to save all my images during ingestion to two separate hard drives. One I use for my normal editing process and the other I rarely touch unless it's needed.

CNX2 also has the unique ability to save multiple versions of the same image. You can edit an image 10 different ways, and save those 10 different edits, complete with their 10 different steps (all completely reversible as well), under one filename.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Which is one of the reasons why I don't use CaptureNX, or the feature in LR that will apply the edit directly to the RAW file.. The other disadvantage is that some photography competitions require you to submit the original, unedited RAW file. Sure, back up everything, but I don't want to have to go to a backup just because of an editing blunder.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Editing is completely reversible at any time. You can add, delete and modify any editing step.

If someone wants the original raw file, merely delete all the steps and save as a different name.
 

aroy

Senior Member
If you can set all parameters perfectly, as we did shooting slides, then there is no need to shoot RAW, as every shot you took as jpeg will be perfect. That imposes a lot of stress when you are shooting as you have to think and reset a lot of settings shot to shot. RAW, enables one to have a decent setting and correct every thing else in post processing. If you are a sports shooter or photo journalist, who has to get the shots to the agency ASAP, then jpeg is a better option, but if you can devote time to evaluating and tuning the settings for each image, then RAW will yield superior output. Of course if you are a wedding photographer and have to wade through 2000+ images, better get it right and shoot jpeg, you will save hours of work. For a few critical images RAW, for the rest jpeg.
 

mac66

Senior Member
I would suggest you start by setting your camera to RAW+JPEG to record both formats, then you can learn how to post-process your RAW images but you will still have a JPEG copy to look at as the learning process can be a fairly long one.

I started out with shooting jpeg only, then read an article on the RAW/JPEG setting. Recently I went to JPEG only, but like you mention JPEG/RAW is an excellent way to learn post processing. I'm heading back to RAW/JPEG.
 
Top