Charlie7

First post and confused. I have been shooting photos in RAW and uploading them into Photos on my Mac for quite awhile. I use photo's processing tools and the photos look good. What am I missing about processing RAW photos in a separate program before post processing?

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I don't use Photos, or even a Mac so I can't compare it with other software, but there are differences. IMO the best software is probably Photoshop (since it's most complete, and can do pretty much everything). I'm sure every piece of software out there does something well so there may be programs that will even beat Photoshop on one particular action.

I use the Adobe Photography Package because you get Lightroom and Photoshop (and a couple other programs as well). Lightroom is a fairly decent editing program, but the primary reason I use it is because it enables organization of all my photos. As an editor it's good enough to handle probably 90% of my shots, and the others can be sent to Photoshop. The two programs handshake well, and whatever you send to Ps from Lr gets sent back to Lr when you are done, so you have the result in the organized photopile. (LR will also handshake with other, non-Adobe programs).

If you don't have a lot of photos to keep track of, you may be able to do without Lr. But when I passed 10,000 shots I started having trouble finding things. Lr can find things now by searching on keywords (which I have to add to my photos). My catalog is probably around 25,000 now but I can find a photo in seconds through Lr.

SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer

Are you talking about photos from you iPhone? I've heard about Apples "RAW" files but never knew anyone who actually used them. Are they truly "RAW" files? What type of file do you see downloaded on your computer, i.e., .jpeg., tiff, ????

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

RAW editors usually afford more abilities to modify parameters than some JPEG editors. I'll do my initial editing with my manufacturer's RAW editor (DPP) and further editing if necessary with one of my JPEG editors.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

There is no need, for the most part, to process a photo in a "raw editor" and then process it again elsewhere: also, there might be some confusion on your part as to what people are saying and some people called any program that processes a RAW file a "raw editor." But, there might also be someone who does process their photos twice for some reason, people process their photos in a variety of ways, some much more involved and difficult than others. You might benefit from the purchase of a well-developed and robust software program that handles RAW files, such as Lightroom, Photoshop, Luminar, Affinity or ON1; many people use these programs. Any one of these programs will work fine for you. Each program has differences while all also have similarities. You can read up on them and try them out on a trial basis to see which one works best for you. As to the Apple Photos program, I was actually surprised at how well it did work for me fairly recently; but, I only keep certain photos on it, such as photos of the condition of a rental or a quick shot of something that I want to refer to later, all taken with my iPhone. I also keep family photos on it not shot with an iPhone. Any "art related" photos (photos taken specifically attempting to get well-composed and artistic shots of whatever) I take, always shot in RAW, are linked up to Lightroom and processed in Lightroom first, then often in other programs, too, after the initial processing. If you like what the Apple program does for you then keep on doing it, do not succumb to what others think. Photography is a process and, for you right now, Apple Photos works, although, in time, it may not work as well for you as learn more.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The raw conversion engine is crude in Photos - doesn't really give you the breadth of adjustments possible with a "real" raw converter like DXO, On1 Raw, Lightroom/ACR, Capture One, etc. These are all downloadable for free for 30 day trials. You will immediately see the difference with any one of these.

The bigger issue is what raw converters do compared to photo editing programs, like Corel and Photoshop - there is a limit to what you can do with a rules-based raw converter, which gives you really good results, but the changes are parametric in nature, and the changes are largely applied globally. Some converters provide limited local adjusting, but it is imprecise. Using Photoshop and others, you can edit with precision and with tools and modalities that are not available with any raw converter.

Charlie7

I am using a Nikon D3300 with a sigma 18 - 250 Macro HSM lens, Not an iPhone. I use Photos on my Mac to organize my photos. The editor in photos is quite complete and has an option to process in Affinity. I also have Lightroom and PSE but I do not see much difference in photo quality after I spend time using these programs.

One response; "You might benefit from the purchase of a well-developed and robust software program that handles RAW files, such as Lightroom, Photoshop, Luminar, Affinity or ON1", is exactly what I do not understand. Photos "handles" RAW files, my catalog contains a little over 15,000 and I have no trouble finding "things." My photos are stored in iCloud and backed up to a separate hard drive. I can view all of my photos from all my apple products.

Another response; "The raw conversion engine is crude in Photos - doesn't really give you the breadth of adjustments possible with a "real" raw converter like DXO, On1 Raw, Lightroom/ACR, Capture One, etc". What is a raw conversion engine? If you use photos, you will find that it is very comprehensive with many options.

I simply do not know why it is necessary to "convert" RAW files. And to what they are converted.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

To view a RAW file someone will need a RAW handler for that camera brand. Converting to JPEG or TIFF (etc.), which are transportable image files, allows anyone to view them.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

"I simply do not know why it is necessary to "convert" RAW files. And to what they are converted."

RAW files are not photos per se. What you see on a screen is an embedded JPEG within the RAW. You process the RAW data and then output it to a JPEG or TIFF or whatever other format you might want. In Photoshop products, the RAW data is untouched and the edits are put into an XMT sidecar file. Other products may do it differently. That's why they call it non-destructive editing, the original RAW is never changed.

Charlie7

Thank you, but I can view RAW files after uploading to my Mac and can view them on all my Apple products. Processing is also non-destructive. I always have the option to return to the original photo. There is no need for an additional file.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Allow me to give you a deeper explanation:

The term “raw” file (it really doesn’t need to be capitalized) refers to the data that the imaging chip records when a picture is taken. EVERY digital camera, from the lowliest point and shoot or cell phone to the fanciest digital cameras out there, start with the creation of this raw file. Note that a raw file is not an image at all (explanation to follow - beware it’s necessarily wordy)… the raw file needs to be what is called “demosaiced" in order to generate a digital image file. That file may be stored as a TIFF, JPEG, etc - all of which refer to actual image files.

Every digital sensor generates a unique raw file - so even though Nikon, say, appends all of their raw files with the “.NEF” and Canon uses “.CR2” the fact is that the actual raw file from a D500 is different than that from a D750 or a D5, etc. Each of these ‘versions’ requires that the appropriate demosaicing program be used to generate the image file.

By the way, the computer in your cell phone or P&S or fancy DSLR actually does just that in order to allow you to “chimp” the image on the camera’s screen. Many lower end cameras and cell phones do not allow you to opt to save the raw file - again, the chip DOES generate a raw file but the internal computer automatically interprets it to generate the JPG that is recorded to the memory card. It is, in fact, for this reason that JPEGs out of the camera have less flexibility than raw files do when it comes to manipulations - in the generation of that JPEG file the camera’s internal computer end up “throwing away” data that the chip originally captured. SO if you were to take a shot and have botht he JPEG and raw file from the camera, using an editing program you would see that the ability to pull up details from the shadows (as an example) is far more powerful with the raw file, which has all the data captured by the imaging chip.

On the Mac platform, the OS itself contains the appropriate demosaicing programs for a multitude of cameras, and with most OSX upgrades Apple adds newer camera models. So when the D850 came out, for instance, there was a short time when the Ma didn’t “recognize” the format; then Apple put out the next OSX upgrade and voila! - the D850 files were readable.

On Windows machines, this is not included in the base OS, but Adobe as well as other developers create the demosaicing programs that they offer as upgrades or include with their packages (nobody charges extra for the “upgrade” - if you have Lightroom, for instance, then at some point the Adobe upgrade will include the raw file capabilities for the latest camera models).

So, to answer your question, what you are “missing” is a better understanding of how all this fits together. And since there is no “one way” to interpret the raw file data, different demosaicing programs can actually generate slightly different image files from the same original raw file. For instance, some folks feel that Capture One creates more pleasing tones from raw files than does Adobe’s products. But that is a matter of opinion.

So, when you load your raw files in your Mac they are being “processed” by the OSX program, thus allowing you to see images in your Photos program, which then enables you to make alterations. If you were to use Lightroom, ON1, Capture One or any of the others they would allow you to make changes as well, with varying degrees of flexibility etc. Also, some, like Lightroom, incorporate cataloging capabilities so you can keep better track of the images that start to accrue on your hard drives.

I hope that helps.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Only if you want to send it to someone. For your use, no.
(I keep the JPEG so I can view them quickly in Windows Explorer.)

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

What you're looking at is the embedded JPEG. You can't print a RAW, it converts during the Print or you convert it to something else to print it.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

And, for those that want a verbose explanation explaining what a raw file entails, here goes nothing:

Think of a digital image as a matrix of rows and columns, where an array of 6000 by 4000 would yield 24 million "dots" or pixels (picture elements). An image file consists of pixels that have clearly specified colors in terms of Red, Green and Blue values (RGB). So, for each pixel of an image file, there is a precise RGB value.

A raw file is the stream of data that comes from the sensor. With a few exceptions (Leica's monochrome, Foveon) ALL digital sensors, from that new Hasselblad to your smart phone camera, work as follows: while they too have a matrix of dots (called photo sites), each of those photo sites is covered with a colored filter that is either Red, Green or Blue. This is because the sensor chip itself is natively "color blind", each photo site can only register how many photons have struck it when exposed. The pattern of those colored filters (called the Bayer pattern) is R-G-G-B (for upper left, upper right,, lower left, lower right) - and there are twice as many green filters as there are red or blue because the human eye is more sensitive to green. Fuji's X-Trans chip uses a different pattern, but the concept is the same.

When an exposure is made, the data captured by the imaging chip is a bunch of values that represent how much light hit each photo site - and those measurements are all based on the light that made it through those filters. As a thought experiment, imagine a subject that was only pure blue - the photo sites with red and green filters above them would not register anything! Lots of black gaps in that file, eh?
So a raw file first needs to be rejiggered to become a true image file, where each pixel has a stated RGB value. On the raw file, each spot has only an R OR a B OR a G value, but they are not blended. That process is called de-mosaicing, and the output of the process is the resultant image. Obviously there are a lot of calculations required to do this, but that's what the computer built into the camera (or phone) does. Cameras that only output JPEG do in fact create raw files to start with (there is no other option) but they quickly do the calculations and discard the raw file when the JPEG is created. And I believe Apple just announced that the next iteration of iOS will allow for raw file storage.

So, unlike a JPEG or TIF etc. file, the computer processing a raw file must interpret what actual color should appear at a given pixel, based on the readings made from the surrounding photo sites. There is no absolute lookup table, as there is for image file RGB values, to decide what color purple a given spot should be if one adjacent red reading was 500, another from the blue filter was 644 and yet another from a green filter spot was 42, or whatever. For those who say "yeah but you need a computer to interpret" any digital file!” I say that is actually incorrect - where a JPG specifies that RGB value (and leaves it to the hardware drivers and gear to not screw it up) the various demosaicing programs can actually result in different outputs from the same original raw file. Apple includes demosaicing software in OS X, but DxO, Phase One's Capture One, Adobe and others (including the camera manufacturers themselves) all have their own demosaicing software. While different software won't completely change the look of a given image, the subtle tonalities can well be different if you take an image and process it with C1 and compare that to the same raw file run through Adobe Lightroom.

Again, since you CANNOT see a raw image what you are looking at (on the back of the camera when you chimp, or on a computer screen) is a demosaiced image that has been interpreted by a computer, be it in the camera or on your desktop.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

What you are seeing when you view a raw file is the embedded jpg. That jpg is generated by the camera using the settings you choose for the camera. If that's all you're using you might as well just use the jpg out of the camera. The advantage of a raw file going through a conversion program is that all your camera settings can be changed after the fact. The only settings you can't change are shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and focus.

Again, I'm not a Mac guy, so I don't know the capabilities of Photos. But try this: set your camera's white balance to Tungsten (or other artificial lighting setting) and take a shot outdoors. It will have a blue cast to it. A good raw engine will be able to change the white balance to something that makes the picture look reasonable. I've tried to do this on jpgs with mixed (usually poor) results. No problem with a raw file.