AmericanRebel

So Im new to this whole digital thing, been playing with my camera learning all the options and settings and investigating all the bells and whistles in this thing. Coming off 30+ years of 35mm most of the settings and terms are pretty common between film and digital but this RAW files is new to me. I have Photo Shop and I have downloaded the plug in for RAW files but Im not sure if I understand the difference between regular pictures and RAW? I did notice if I set the camera to RAW it records two pictures everytime I take one and eats up a lot of memory!

So is there something special about RAW files that I need to be using it?

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

what you call regular are actually jpegs. Camera is recording raw and jpeg at the same time, something you can change to raw only or jpeg only if you want. Unlike jpegs a raw file is one that has not been processed by the camera. Enter raw files in search and you will find a tremendous amount of information. Each serves a useful purpose and the decision as to which one, or both, you use is dependent upon what you want to do, particularly in post processing. Just remember, a raw file can always be converted to a jpeg whereas a jpeg can not be converted to a raw.

BigBob611 Loc: Charlotte NC

Yes, RAW are like digital negatives, which you can easily manipulate in a post-processing program on your home computer. They are larger files, but that is the information that would be lost forever if you chose JPG mode. When you shoot JPEGs, a tiny microchip in your camera processes the RAW image, saves a compressed and lossy file and then throws away the rest of the data. As years go by, post-processing software will get even better, and you can always go back to your collection of RAW "negatives" and process them again. You have the option of saving the newly processed files as JPG, or loss-less TIF, and nothing is done to the original RAW file. It stays the same as the day you captured it. To accomodate more files, buy a larger capacity card for your camera, and maybe an external storage drive for your computer. The cost is worth it to have every bit (byte) of your data preserved.

BigBob611 Loc: Charlotte NC

Agreed. A scrambled egg will never be soft boiled.

Musket Loc: ArtBallin'

Most camreas are bad at JPG results and there is not a lot of latitude to fix a Jpg compared to raw. If JPG is the cake, RAW is the ingredients used to make that cake.

Some folks will say RAW isnt needed, others will say shoot raw or you are a scrub. Play around with your camera with both file types and choose for yourself.

If you want more room to play/save/fix your images, shoot RAW as that will give you more room to push exposure and other settings before you start to ruin the image.

I am a mostly RAW shooter. Snapshot with friends are jpg but when I need to get the shot, its RAW every time.

Photo Phledgling Loc: tiny island between Hudson and East rivers

I'm in a very similar situation. Just bought my first DSLR after mothballing my 35mm film camera over a decade ago. I find the technology both fascinating and overwhelming at the same time. I just started playing around with RAW files and did some experiments last night with LR5 (another daunting but impressive piece of technology). I set the camera to record RAW and JPEG, took one shot at neautral, i.e., no changes to sharpness, contrast, and then created a setting at the opposite extreme, i.e., contrast and sharpness etc all set to +7. I imported these photos into LR5 and they both look exactly the same.

The way I understand it, the camera makes the changes to the jpeg file I recorded, but keeps the RAW file I created at "neutral" no matter what in-camera changes I made. The 2 JPEGs look very different, as I expected them to. The 2 RAW files were exactly the same, as I expected.

Actually they were converted to DNG (digital negative) as they were imported to LR5 as recommended by Scott Kelby in his excellent book on LR5, but that's another blog entirely!

So much to learn.....

BigBob611 Loc: Charlotte NC

Sometimes what you see as a thumbnail, is a jpeg version of the RAW file, but rest assured, all the data that your camera captured is in the RAW file, no matter what the thumbnail looks like.

AmericanRebel

Ok I think I understand it now, thanks. As for storage, I need to get some more SD cards for my camera, I currently only have one 32GB. As for storage on my computer that's not an issue, my computer was custom built it has four 512GB solid state hard drives and has 32GB of RAM so processing and storing pictures shouldn't be a problem.

Photo Phledgling Loc: tiny island between Hudson and East rivers

Big Bob - It is my understanding that in-camera changes (like those made by settings in photo "profiles" like "neutral", "landscape" and "portrait" ) are ignored in RAW. I believe my experiment last night confirmed this, but what I don't understand about this fills forums!

My brief experience has been with LR5 only, but it looks as if RAW files (and thus DNG) ignore "profile" changes made in-camera and appear to be neutral. Is this a valid argument?

Musket Loc: ArtBallin'

RAW ignores all in-camera settings except for Shutter Speed, ISO, Aperture. Everything else, sharpening, contrast boosting, Nikon Color profiles, Film sims (if your camera has those)gets tossed out upon import to Lightroom and reverts back to the BASE RAW DATA.

What you see on your camera screen when shooting raw and have "settings" in place is a jpg preview only that does not transfer unless your shooting RAW + JPG.

If you apply in camera effects/image tools as supplied by your camera, know that its a benefit to shoot RAW+Jpg or JPG only if you want to have those in camera effects applied upon import to Lightroom.

RAW data is 100% neutral to any in-camera processing effect. JPG and TIFF are not.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

What a load of crap!
MOST cameras today take EXCELLENT JPG if you set it for JPG-Fine. There are many here, pros included, that only shoot JPG-Fine. A lot of the RAW only shooters are more concerned about their egos.

RAW files MUST be post-processed and it takes quite a bit of work to get to the place that the camera will get you directly with the JPG results. And the JPG files can be post processed just as easily as the RAW files.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

I have no issue with most of what you post-- however I've not found that raw files require a lot of processing. I probably do less than I used to do with jpeg-fine. When (if) I get a camera with the AA filter removed, I'll expect to do less-- eliminating the general requirement to sharpen and de-noise.

Musket Loc: ArtBallin'

Im not spending hours editing my RAW files. Just the opposite. I find that fixing jpgs takes a lot longer now for me than RAW.

Your mileage will vary from my own experiences. What I do isnt necessarily what everyone else should do, and I have not implied that.

Also nothing I said was a load of crap. RAW gives you more room to work period. JPG is baked in color/wb/light data and has less room to move +/-. You may be happy with whatever color your camera produces. Good for you. I am not happy with jpg results out of a D800 so I choose to edit via RAW for my tastes and look. I guess what you are saying is that my taste is crap. Thank you.

As a working artist, I know what works for me and after years of trial and error found that RAW is a requirement for my workflow in regards to PAID WORK. I refuse to work with anything below a certain standard because I strive to put out the best work I can that is possible with the tools at my disposal. I have found what works for me and when someone asks what others do, I respond with that experience.

RAW isnt for everyone but there is a time and a place for it. Thats up to the individual person.

BigBob611 Loc: Charlotte NC

I could not DISAGREE more strongly. RAW are the best record of what you are recording. I want to make decisions on how that data is rendered, and save it in the format appropriate for the final usage. If the image is for screen resolution viewing only, then automatic in-camera jpg will be just fine. Likewise, disposable cameras do an adequate job, if the their only purpose is to take a snapshot. If you are concerned how the photograph is ultimately going to be used-- for example it will be reproduced in 4-color printing, or enlarged for display, the in-camera JPG process exposes the image to overall averages that may compromise the final file. If you want to interpolate the data to a much larger output size than the native file, then you don't want to "blow-up" a JPG that has unsharp masking applied in the camera. Rather, you want to "enlarge" the file first, and then apply the unsharp mask. That is just one example. The comment that it is too much work to post-process indicates a rather lazy attitude to what is an art-form. If you own a camera capable of shooting RAW, and you choose to shoot in JPG mode to save yourself trouble, I would compare that to taking a roll of film to Walmart, and being quite content with the prints that they produce. If the trouble of doing post-processing is too much to bear, I would think you need to re-appraise why you are making photographs in the first place.

And as for the ego component of the photography experience. Any photographer that you have heard of has an ego. Some folks take a great deal of pride in the skills and techniques that differentiate them from snap shot photographers. I have seen many lazy, snap-shooters, who take 100 lousy pictures because they have a motor-drive and I know of a few that may produce individual works of art, every time they press the shutter button. It boils down to the dichotomy of folks that buy and fondle cameras, and those who recognize that a camera is a tool, just like a pencil, a sable brush, or a chisel. If you don't mind the extra work involved, go sculpt a statue of David from a chunk of Granite with that chisel and hammer you have in the workshop.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Indeed. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: