FunkyL Loc: MD

...and it got me thinking. My friend travels frequently and takes very good photos with a point and shoot camera. She was browsing in a photographers booth at a craft fair, and asked the photographer how he got the vibrant colors in his prints. If she understood him, and I understood her, he told her they were NOT edited, he got the colors by shooting in RAW. If I look at my RAW photos on screen next to jpegs of the same photo, The Raw photo does often look more vibrant. I told her the next time we get together I'll introduce her to RAW v/ jpeg so she could see for herself.

My friend was left with the impression that the photos were printed SOOC, with the vibrant colors being simply the result of being shot in RAW. Thing is, I have my doubts about the prints she saw being completely unedited. I expect to have to do at least a little editing to almost all of my RAW photos, and in UHH discussions, several people prefer to shoot jpegs because they don't want to have to edit. If the stars align just right, I may occasionally get a RAW photo that looks exactly the way I want it to SOOC, but its not the norm. In addition, I gather that if you send photos out to be printed, most printers will want to work with jpegs or some other format than RAW. I can print directly from RAW to my little Canon inkjet, so maybe that's no longer true, especially if the photographer owns or has access to professional printing equipment. Is this photographer so good that he usually does not need to edit, or did he maybe mean that because he's working with RAW, he can use a much wider range of colors when he prints his photos for sale?

ricardo00

I will be interested to hear other's comments but think your friend was "misled" by the photographer at the craft fair. Even if you shoot in RAW, the files shown on your camera are translated into a JPG file and most professional print labs I know will not accept a RAW file. One can make vibrant colors in most cameras with the settings one sets, even if you shoot JPG. The info in a RAW file will allow much more post processing, bringing out richer colors. However viewing a RAW file often looks more washed out then the final processed JPG. But will be interested to hear what the experts say.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I'm not sure what your main question is. I consider RAW to be the digital version of a negative in the film days. When you shoot in RAW, you have the actual data from the sensor and have the greatest ability to make the most adjustments if you don't like what you see. Most printers use a CMYK ink space, so they need something that easily translates to that. If you print from Lightroom, or something similar, using the proper software, you do not need to make any file changes as that is automatically done for you. When you send a file to a company that makes prints, they will specify the file type, usually a jpeg. I own an Epson P800, anything that can't print for me goes out. Best of luck.

User ID

UHH SOP:
The reader should always beware of any thread title about "A Friend" !!!

As reported from him to her to you, it makes no sense, as youve noted.

It makes great sense if you correct one word. He says the images are not edited.

Clearly they are processed cuz he shoots raw. Now that we know he has a flawed vocabulary, common sense tells us that he really means "not enhanced in post" when he says "not edited".

Sometimes, little things mean a lot !
Just fix that one little word.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Worth noting. Theres some possibility that he means (almost) exactly what he says. In some instances, if you optimize all your SOOC settings you can directly use your "unedited" raw files for printing or display.

Acoarst the pix are not really unedited. They were edited by the raw processor which "respected" the camera settings for style, color, sharpening, etc. Certain raw processors supplied by the camera maker will do that (I dont recall which ones).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Its also possible the photographer did not say the pix were "unedited". That might be a distortion introduced in your friends relating to you what the photographer had said ... or even by you reporting to us what your friend had told you.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

When shooting in RAW most people will see photos that are less vibrant than JPEGs shot alongside. The reason is that in RAW you get a much deeper, wide range of colors -- you get everything, and JPEGs tend to follow a format set out by the camera manufacturers that will enhance certain color schemes to their interpretation of how the photo should look. A good example is the Fuji cameras. A friend of mine had the XT2 and was crazy about how beautiful the shots looked straight out of the camera. I mentioned this to a gentleman who tests and looks at the engineering aspects of cameras. He told me my friend was shooting JPEGs and they looked that good because FUJI set their processors to emulate their extremely popular FUJI film. He said he would not have been as impressed if he was shooting in RAW. To get the best image from a RAW file it is necessary to do Post Processing. Only then can you bring out the colors that enhance the shot while subduing colors that aren't as relevant.

Bill_de Loc: US

I'd guess a photographer shooting in a booth would have their lighting and cameras set to produce the image that sells. I'd guess vibrant colors, slight increase in contrast, etc.

Same thing every day.

---

User ID

In what booth ????

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

A RAW "image" is just the camera data. JPEG and Tiff, and ... are also simply files where the image data was saved in a particular format. JPEG and TIFF files are really just image data also, and even that data needs to be interpreted to be either displayed or printed.

RAW editors will interpret and "display" the data for humans to view. That process may have a greater capability of displaying the information than a displayed JPEG because more image information is available. The "RAW editor display" is not a JPEG, nor a TIFF, nor ..., but simply a fabricated display based on the RAW data. When one saves "the displayed information in the editor, the image data is modified (converted) into a JPEG format, just as it would be for a TIFF, etc. When you print a RAW image displayed in an editor, the program process the <proprietary information> that it is displaying, for sending to the printer driver. More image data usually provides better prints.

If one is printing a JPEG or TIFF, the printer drivers will process JPEG and TIFF file information so the images can be printed. Of course since both that data and processing are different between each format, the prints will most likely look different.

Pick the image data format you like the most....

Bill_de Loc: US

The one around the corner.

---

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Without more information it is impossible to understand what is happening here. If this person actually shot in raw than he would have needed to use software to convert his images to Jpeg or Tiff. Without knowing what camera and software he was using we are left with an unanswerable question with regard to the image file your saw. First things first. Anyone who shoots raw and says he doesn't edit them is either a liar or has no clue what raw is. Raw files contain unfinished images which tend to lack vibrance, sharpness, and contrast. There are a couple of possibilities for why his images looked good. First, he may have been using proprietary raw processing software from Canon or Nikon. Canon's DPP and Nikon's NX Studio both automatically apply the in-camera setting to to their raw files so that they look exactly like Jpegs straight out of the camera. Second, most raw software applies preset enhancements to raw files such as sharpness. contrast and lighting, as well as distortion corrections, vignetting corrections, and chromatic aberration corrections. The fact is his images are not unedited raw files..

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You and / or your friend misunderstood the story about shooting in RAW. The rich and wider gamut of colors is a feature (potential feature) of editing images in a higher bit-depth of color data beyond the 8-bit data of a JPEG. Shooting in RAW alone will not accomplish exceptional results. Editing in a tool that maintains the 12-bit (or higher) color data through the creation of the print file is necessary, and a calibrated monitor, and skills as an artist, and a quality printer, etc, etc.

User ID

Okaaaay ... I wont ask "what corner ?"
.

(Download)

fredtoo Loc: Houston

If one didn't plan to edit (and perhaps extensively) what would be the point of shooting RAW? They are by design much larger images, and just fill up a card or your computer for no good reason I can think of other than editing.

a few years ago, a friend was telling me how he had his camera set to produce both a RAW image and a jpg with each single press of the shutter. I asked him if he didn't get tired of all that editing on his computer (he traveled a lot, so I'm guessing he was spending many nights after a trip to get his RAW photos ready for "consumption").

He looked a little sheepish and then admitted that he really didn't and almost always just used the jpgs. But boy he was sure proud of being able to make them both with his camera.

I gained little appreciation for RAW from that conversation, and haven't really gained much since. Maybe after I finally retire and need something to do with my time?

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

This isn't an uncommon method of photographing things like events. Often a jpg. image is totally acceptable (you aren't doing fine art photography shooting events). Some shots could use some work and therefore the RAW image will be used to bring the image up to the acceptable level.

User ID

Yup. The raw file is your insurance. Better to have it and not need it than to face the vice versa scenario. Paying for a roomier card is your insurance premium. And you even get a rebate if you seldom file any claims ! (You get to reclaim the space.)