Editing RAW Images

[Horoscope Fish]

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?

In my opinion, when you have decided to shoot RAW, you have also decided to post-process because these are two sides of the same coin. I am definitely concerned with "getting it right in-camera", but when I'm shooting RAW I don't really have to concern myself with things like white-balance, saturation, hue, etc. since those things will have to be worked up in post' regardless of how much attention I pay to them during the shoot. Since I don't need to think about all those things, I can expend that same mental energy on what I feel are the two, truly critical things to get right in-camera: composition and exposure.

....

 

[WayneF]

In my opinion, when you have decided to shoot RAW, you have also decided to post-process because these are two sides of the same coin. I am definitely concerned with "getting it right in-camera", but when I'm shooting RAW I don't really have to concern myself with things like white-balance, saturation, hue, etc. since those things will have to be worked up in post' regardless of how much attention I pay to them during the shoot. Since I don't need to think about all those things, I can expend that same mental energy on what I feel are the two, truly critical things to get right in-camera: composition and exposure.
....

Right. Some users of course apparently don't want to be bothered with getting it right. A few more seconds of work is just too much. Spending another hour on a couple of hundred varied pictures is simply unthinkable, no matter how good the result. Really, we could be watching some crap on TV or something. So we imagine we are done when we push the shutter button. They are just pictures, and the minimum requirement is good enough.

Frankly, I think this apathy is mostly because they have not learned a clue about how to do it better. If they knew how good and easy and fast it was, they'd be all over Raw. Very many of us do know, and we are. We of course do want to make our pictures as good as possible, and the Raw rewards are high. Photography is my hobby, and I think it is the best hour we can spend (on a couple of hundred pictures). The good result is much of the fun part.

When shooting film slides, we of course very well knew it was not always possible to get it right in the camera. When shooting film negatives, we imagined we could get it right, but of course, only because the print processor guy was making it right for us. But in digital, we are that processor. It is good when someone gives it some attention.

We can guess at the right settings in advance, but settings like white balance and even exposure are very vague and variable in precise degree - we have no way yet to know what is exactly "right". But Raw allows addressing it after we can actually see it, to KNOW what gives the best result.

It really all boils down to if we care enough to spend a few more seconds on our pictures, or not.

 

[mac66]

In my opinion, when you have decided to shoot RAW, you have also decided to post-process because these are two sides of the same coin. I am definitely concerned with "getting it right in-camera", but when I'm shooting RAW I don't really have to concern myself with things like white-balance, saturation, hue, etc. since those things will have to be worked up in post' regardless of how much attention I pay to them during the shoot. Since I don't need to think about all those things, I can expend that same mental energy on what I feel are the two, truly critical things to get right in-camera: composition and exposure.

....

After reading all these comments,I think your right on. If one shoots in RAW, they have already decided to post process their images. I've been experimenting, and think I'm going back to shooting RAW+Fine. That way I can save both the RAW image and a JPEG. Now some say, that post processing a RAW image will also save your original, which I think is right, but for those of us new to RAW, I think the RAW + JPEG route is preferable, in case we make a mistake. I am still in the process of learning the post-process ins and outs.

 

[TedG954]

Your camera gives you a choice....... edit in camera (before, or after the shot) OR editing at your desk later. I prefer the latter, as it is more convenient and provides far more options. The fastest, and simplest, is to set your camera up in JPG and shoot. That doesn't generally work for me.

 

[WayneF]

Now some say, that post processing a RAW image will also save your original, which I think is right, but for those of us new to RAW, I think the RAW + JPEG route is preferable, in case we make a mistake.

If you make a mistake editing raw, no problem, you just change it. All you are changing is the list of changes, the original raw file is always the source.
No harm done.

But FWIW, we can also use Adobe Raw software to edit JPG files. 8 bit JPG does not have the range that raw NEF files offer, so benefits are rather limited, but using the Raw software offers two advantages to the JPG. It offers the better tools, and it offers lossless edit (of JPG too).

If you edit JPG in the raw software, it never changes the original JPG (no additional JPG artifacts). Instead (like raw), it merely saves the list of your changes, but does not shift the data tones back and forth... Until you output a new JPG, the one time. One time meaning, this new JPG is expendable and temporary, for some specific use. When and if additional edits are desired, you discard that new JPG, and start over from the original JPG and your saved list of changes..

This means that other programs viewing that original JPG file do not see any changes, they only know how to see the retained original JPG. So we have use the raw software to output new JPGs which do have the changes incorporated, so that other programs can then view that new JPG and see the changes. Same concept as Raw, lossless edit (but from a limited starting point if JPG).

Of course, if doing this for those advantages, one would ask "why not just use the raw file?" (and get all the benefit). You can always output a JPG when needed.

If you think you want the camera settings, like say Vivid, you can set Vivid in the raw software too. And then see it, and maybe say "Oops, not on this one", and then fix it to look like you wanted it to look.

 

[Deleted]

After reading all these comments,I think your right on. If one shoots in RAW, they have already decided to post process their images. I've been experimenting, and think I'm going back to shooting RAW+Fine. That way I can save both the RAW image and a JPEG. Now some say, that post processing a RAW image will also save your original, which I think is right, but for those of us new to RAW, I think the RAW + JPEG route is preferable, in case we make a mistake. I am still in the process of learning the post-process ins and outs.

I'm not sure what you mean about in case you make a mistake?

 

[Deleted]

Of course, if doing this for those advantages, one would ask "why not just use the raw file?" (and get all the benefit). You can always output a JPG when needed.

Indeed. Head, nail, hit.

 

[RON_RIP]

I briefly use to shoot in both JPEG and raw to compare the 2 and see if I could do better than the JPEG image with my edited version. Once I determined that I could always get a better image by careful editing of the raw image, I discarded that method and now only shoot in raw, but it is a good tool for beginners while they learn to edit more adroitly.

 

[WayneF]

I edit my wife's compact camera JPG in the raw editor for those advantages. It offers no other choice. And she thinks her little camera takes wonderful pictures.


If anyone has never seen Raw in use, then there is no way you can know yet, but you are missing out on a very good thing.

I would invite watching the video near the top of the page at
Why shoot Raw? (intended as that first introduction)

If in a big hurry, maybe start about 7:30 minutes into it.

 

[mac66]

Your camera gives you a choice....... edit in camera (before, or after the shot) OR editing at your desk later. I prefer the latter, as it is more convenient and provides far more options. The fastest, and simplest, is to set your camera up in JPG and shoot. That doesn't generally work for me.

I think it also matters, whether or not you have the time to set up a shot. I recently read an article, that it takes a longer time to shoot an image in RAW vs JPEG. I experienced this at an airshow recently.

 

[J-see]

I shot JPEG until I knew my cam reasonable well and the shots started to matter. Now I only shoot RAW even for shots that matter little. If I want a JPEG for something trivial, that's a couple of seconds work.

Fine-tuning RAWs that matter more I frequently invest hours in. To me post is as fun as shooting. Often it is even more fun.

 

[J-see]

I think it also matters, whether or not you have the time to set up a shot. I recently read an article, that it takes a longer time to shoot an image in RAW vs JPEG. I experienced this at an airshow recently.

RAW is a bigger file; what you notice is the buffer filling up and the cam struggling with saving all to the disk. The shot itself is identical. If I take a 15 or 30s shot, I have to wait quite a while until the cam is finished writing.

I think my RAW shots are around 20Mb each, if you shoot + JPEG Fine, add another 10MB to that.

 

[john*thomas]

I shoot in RAW and edit because of the approach I take to my hobby. For me it is a hobby and more of capturing something I find is cool or interesting at the moment to save for later than getting the perfect picture.

I like to go, shoot and move on. RAW does give me the ability to make the picture a little better when I don't get it just right initially after I get home and sit down.

Yes sometimes I could have a better picture if I took the time but then I would miss seeing things. Photography gives me the excuse to get out and walk. Sometimes walk and walk and walk. Luckily the wife often times likes to walk with me. Not stand around while I get the perfect picture.

As has already been noted, there is no perfect or correct answer here. My approach would never work for a professional or one who has the desire in their hobby to gets things as correct as absolutely possible (there is certainly nothing wrong in that). It works for me.

 

[mac66]

I'm not sure what you mean about in case you make a mistake?

In case a beginner edits the original, instead of duplicating the original and working on a copy.

I learned a long time ago, to make backups of my originals. Several years ago, a pro-photographer, and I discussed manual over auto and the RAW format. Not having a RAW editor at the time, he advised me to shoot RAW+JPEG (RAW +FINE on the D-3100). That way, I could save all my shots in RAW for future editing, while also capturing JPEG's of the same shots. That said, I made duplicates of the JPEG's for editing, while saving the originals, and also saved RAW images of the same shots to DVD for later use, when I got a RAW editor.

The problem however, is using up card space and limiting the number of photo's one can take. After experimenting with RAW, I'm going back to RAW+JPEG. I hear one can preview both images on an editor, but haven't tried it yet. Also, still learning the in's and outs of post-processing.

 

[mac66]

I shoot in RAW and edit because of the approach I take to my hobby. For me it is a hobby and more of capturing something I find is cool or interesting at the moment to save for later than getting the perfect picture.

I like to go, shoot and move on. RAW does give me the ability to make the picture a little better when I don't get it just right initially after I get home and sit down.

Yes sometimes I could have a better picture if I took the time but then I would miss seeing things. Photography gives me the excuse to get out and walk. Sometimes walk and walk and walk. Luckily the wife often times likes to walk with me. Not stand around while I get the perfect picture.

As has already been noted, there is no perfect or correct answer here. My approach would never work for a professional or one who has the desire in their hobby to gets things as correct as absolutely possible (there is certainly nothing wrong in that). It works for me.

I do the same, (Excuse to leave the house, lol)! I believe your right, in that everyone has his/her on way of doing things. However, after playing around with the RAW format and editing, I can see, why so many folks, use it. It's been awesome to see everyone's reaction to the question, and how they either like it a little, a lot or not.

 

[Deleted]

In case a beginner edits the original, instead of duplicating the original and working on a copy.

Thank you for the explanation. The same applies however to JPG surely?

The point about backups applies to anything on the computer, including both RAW & JPG.

I'm very grateful to members of this forum for convincing me to shoot in RAW shortly after buying my new camera. I shot in JPG for 1 week & sadly feel some of those shots to have been wasted.

Seeing my first RAW shots after a few minutes in Lightroom was a revelation.

 

[mac66]

Yeah, I think that is one thing a new RAW user. Thought something was wrong with my camera!

 

[mac66]

Thank you for the explanation. The same applies however to JPG surely?

The point about backups applies to anything on the computer, including both RAW & JPG.

I'm very grateful to members of this forum for convincing me to shoot in RAW shortly after buying my new camera. I shot in JPG for 1 week & sadly feel some of those shots to have been wasted.

Seeing my first RAW shots after a few minutes in Lightroom was a revelation.

I don't think of the JPEG's as wasted shots, unless of course you edited the original and didn't save a copy. If you duplicate the original and screw up the edit, you can always go back, make another duplicate of the copy and re-edit.

 

[WayneF]

I don't think of the JPEG's as wasted shots, unless of course you edited the original and didn't save a copy. If you duplicate the original and screw up the edit, you can always go back, make another duplicate of the copy and re-edit.

But not nearly as well as from Raw. For one thing, JPG is only 8 bits, it cannot withstand much tonal shifting.
For another thing, the wrong stuff is already in the JPG file, and that previous work has to undone (new values shifted from the old wrong values). That's a lot of shifting, esp of 8 bit data. And JPG artifacts, etc, etc.

JPG starts as Raw at the camera sensor too, then the camera processes them, from our camera settings. My bet is some of us don't even know what settings are in there.
Raw files start from that same raw value, and we process them after we can see them. We make it look like it want it to look.

We cannot shoot JPG and Raw, and compare them. JPG has the settings from the camera, and raw files have no settings. Of course, we likely set JPG Daylight WB and Vivid color several months ago, they are not even necessarily even related to the current scene in front of us.

But raw files do have to be processed. White balance at minimum. We can specify Daylight there too, or we have other better ways then. Then they are better.

The most common thing done to raw files is to set white balance and correct exposure. But other settings can be applied. If you really want Vivid, you can select Vivid in raw too.

It is such a huge advantage to actually see the result, to know what it needs, and to simply do it.

 

[480sparky]

Here's the best analogy I can offer for shooting raw:

When you walk into a restaurant and order a sandwich and drink, you partake of the meal you order. Let's say,....... ham & cheese on rye with a cup of coffee. That's a JPEG meal. You get a couple slices of rye bread with ham and cheese between them, and a cup of coffee.

But suppose you walk into that same restaurant, order the same ham & cheese with coffee, and decide when the plate is set down in front of you you want something different. So you grab the plate, walk back to the kitchen, and make a chipped beef on toast. Or a cheeseburger. Or BLT. Or turkey club. And the coffee can become a soda, or iced tea, or lemonade......... That's raw.


Sure, you can make some adjustments at the table with your JPEG sandwich. Like to add ketchup, ask for extra guacamole or scrape off the mayo. But you still have basically the same sandwich you started with.


JPEG is the meal set down before you. Raw is access to the kitchen as well as the pantry stock.