oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

I shoot using Canon camera bodies but this question may pertain to all manufactures.

Not counting your normal setting such as white balance and your exposure settings, are there any settings you can make when shooting raw or are we are at the mercy of the manufacture with raw photos when taken? It is my understanding that the manufactures do make some adjustments such as minor sharpening to the raw files before we download them. Is there a way for us to make any adjustments with out modifying the firmware?


I understand that the picture style setting is only going to affect jpg shots and have no effect on a raw photo, correct?

Jim D

snowbear

I shoot raw almost exclusively. I usually shoot auto white balance unless I am shooting a lot in the same lighting (like indoors), then tweak the wb in post. Other than aperture or shutter priority, I don't set anything else to auto. I use noise reduction, but I'm not convinced it does anything in raw.

My next goal is to get out of the TTL/Auto flash setting, and make those adjustments manual, too.

MWAC Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy

Think of raw as your digital negative, if you're shooting raw, your white balance setting doesn't actually affect the actual image data in the raw file. It does however effect how the image is displayed on the camera's LCD.

When you dowload your raw images they will have NO adjustments made, no sharpening, no w/b adjustments, etc. You will need to make all of those in post. You are correct picture style will only affect jpegs, not your raw images.

nikonshooter Loc: Spartanburg, South Carolina

RAW files.....

I tried to explain the RAW format this way, if you have just baked a cake, it is out of the oven and you take your first bite, if you missed an ingredient, it is beyond fixing. The cake is baked! Yes, you can put hot sauce or some other spice on it to mask the taste but the cake is history. What I have described is all formats other than RAW.

If you had baked your cake using a RAW format oven, and then you taste the baked cake and realize you failed to add an ingredient...no problem, you can still make those changes without damaging the cake....

All JPEG images are 8 bit........with 8 bit you are making a decision to take your cameras "genius computer" which has captured billions of different colors and you are electing to throw away this information. You may not see a difference between the jpeg and raw image but ....and this but is the biggie, if you take the image into post processing, those missing colors/information are likely to show up as unsightly, unmanageable artifacts as you begin to make you levels, curves, sharpening adjustments.

For me it is a matter of common sense, I shoot RAW, I would rather have the information and not use or need it.....than to need the information and not have it.

If I was a great photographer.....never needing to make tight crops, make composition changes, color corrections......I would still shoot RAW, just in case!

The only downside is memory. RAW will fill a card faster than JPEG.....and you have to spend some time in post processing tweaking your RAW files to taste.

I realize this is not the same thing but it reminds me of shooting a polaroid camera - presto your pic is developed and it is what it is.....compared to shooting some film and then taking the roll into the darkroom to make your tweets. You still have control over the image - push it, dodge/burn it....and so on.

dar_clicks Loc: Utah

All of what is said is correct about the RAW data, but different RAW converters might use the data from the camera's RAW file differently and show sliders set to some standard values or even some actual camera values for such things as white balance, etc. For example, when I open a .NEF file in the Camera RAW plug-in for Photoshop, the white balance is at "As Shot" with other labeled choices and a field for entering custom Kelvin values if wanted. Certainly not everything carries over from the camera choices but not everything is zeroed out, either. Again, how other cameras' RAW files are handled or the experience with the way other RAW converter software functions might vary a lot from my experience. Another UHH thread had offered this helpful reference page: http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

With all the post be the folks who claim to have mastered the art of Out Of The Camera photography none have chimed in with any statements on how they don't need or use RAW - all are silent here.
My impression with what has been said so far here is that most open their RAW file and look to see what PP tweeking may help them achieve a better photo. + on contrast seems to always boost my image quality.

nikonshooter Loc: Spartanburg, South Carolina

[quote=dar_clicks]

All of what is said is correct about the RAW data, but different RAW converters might use the data from the camera's RAW file differently and show sliders set to some standard values or even some actual camera values for such things as white balance, etc. For example, when I open a .NEF file in the Camera RAW plug-in for Photoshop, the white balance is at "As Shot" with other labeled choices and a field for entering custom Kelvin values if wanted. Certainly not everything carries over from the camera choices but not everything is zeroed out, either. Again, how other cameras' RAW files are handled or the experience with the way other RAW converter software functions might vary a lot from my experience. Another UHH thread had offered this helpful reference page: http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide[/

Unfortunately nikon RAW files contain information that can only be accessed by using Nikon Capture NX 2. This is step one for me. Correct color - white balance in NX 2 then save as TIFF files and import into LR 4. Then from LR4 to CS6 if needed.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

That is strange. I thought Adobe raw converter covered all the raw files from the different manufactures.

Jim D

nikonshooter Loc: Spartanburg, South Carolina

They do, and when in a hurry to get pics to a source where the quality is not all that important, as in newspaper, I use LR4 and not NX2. But, Adobe cannot harness ALL of the Nikon's information, NX 2 does. So if you are working on a money image, especially when skin tones are involved, you had best begin the color cast correction in NX2.

There is one caveat, if you are comfortable working in LAB mode in Photoshop, you can get it right....but you will fail miserably using in PS using RGB mode and end up settling..... and even when in LAB mode, your colors may be look right but when you move to soft proof, they are often out of gamut. It's an issue that I wish Adobe could fix and Nikon would assist in.....but so far, Nikon is unwilling. This has been going on since Adobe tried to force the RAW world to adopt DNG RAW as THE universal RAW file.

dar_clicks Loc: Utah

Thanks for the correction to my previous comments and your helpful information. I'd been puzzled why much of what I've been reading hasn't matched my experience so I had posted (not shown in these quoted texts) what I could to see what more I could find out. This and other further reading is going to help a lot with getting the camera set properly and understanding more about what's going on in post processing.

nikonshooter Loc: Spartanburg, South Carolina

One of our photographers shoots concerts among other venues....here is a link to some of Ken's pics where a few concert pics are posted,http://www.edoverstreet.com/2011photos/jatoney/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> http://www.edoverstreet.com/2011photos/jatoney/ Ken has a good friend in Atlanta that is also a concert shooter and his pics always seemed to be correctly white balanced. Often they are at the same venue, he told Ken the key was to use NX2 to marquis white balance the NEF file first, then export as a TIFF and import into lightroom for further edits and PS if needed. Vince Versace and Jason Odell both have been shouting, mostly to deaf ears, about the limits of PS and LR when working with Nikon RAW files. As a NPS member, Nikon is quick to point out that no none should complain about Nikon color - when compared to Canon, if LR or PS is used to process the RAW files. I brought this to Nikon's attention two years ago when I purchased a Canon 7D and IDS Mark III and some Canon glass....we use at least two photographers for every sporting event, sometimes more....but we used the Canon on one side of a football field and Nikon D3S and D700's on the other. We shot RAW. When we brought the images into LR, I was blown away at how good Canon's color was.....there is zero need for correction, zero. On the minus side, the Canon 7D and Mark III had far too many images out of focus. The Nikon was just the opposite......zero out of focus shots but I had to color profile the cameras and white balance (passport checker) all images in LR to get usable images. My call to Nikon just reaffirmed what I had been told by Vince and Jason years before.....if you want correct color with Nikon RAW files, best add NX 2 to at least begin your work flow. Honestly, back in 2001,02, 03, 04, 05 ...NX 2 was so slow you could grow a beard waiting for images to process. The Upoint technology got a lift in 05 or 06 thereabouts. But the earlier versions had driven me away - swearing never to return. This is not the case now - it's engine processes images faster than LR. In fact, were it not for the 1,000,000 plus images that we have cataloged using LR, I would be using NX2 for all post processing.