# Use Raw?



## buckenmeyer (May 6, 2006)

I was wondering if its necessary to shoot and work with with raw images. Canon includes software with the camera to manipulate images in raw format. The jpg images look perfect to me, can I just use Photoshop to edit them, or is it a good idea to preserve the quality of the raw image?


----------



## benhasajeep (May 6, 2006)

If the jpg is just fine stick with it.  Deppending on what Canon Camera you have.  Some have a choice of Raw+JPG when you take a shot.  Of course it takes more time and memory space on the card.  But you would have you jpg for easy clean up.  And RAW if you have a master piece on your hands.


----------



## Digital Matt (May 6, 2006)

I always shoot in raw, because I want maximum quality, and I don't shoot for quantity.


----------



## Don Simon (May 6, 2006)

It's not _necessary_ to shoot with RAW. It is however much more advisable, especially if you plan to edit the image (and let's face it, when are you not going to do that?). I don't have a DSLR myself but I've seen people who do working with RAW and specialist conversion software (as opposed to standard Canon software) and the results were noticeably better than JPEGs from the same camera. My advice would be stick with jpeg for shots where preserving quality is not too important (i.e. purely functional photos e.g. for insurance) , or when you really need to work quicker, but otherwise use RAW.


----------



## Dweller (May 6, 2006)

People often refer to RAW as a digital negative. Storing photos in RAW you get it just how it came from the camera without any of the post processing the camera is doing before saving it in JPEG format.

Of course if it looks fine to you then that is what counts most, but as I learn more about both Photography and digital image processing I like knowing that I have the RAWs available to me. 

The only time RAW has been an issue is if I am at someones house and want to offload some shots that I had just taken, but for that circumstance I can set my camera to take RAW and JPEG together. I still have the RAW pics available and I have the portable JPEGs for quick viewing and printing.


----------



## Iron Flatline (May 6, 2006)

Work in raw. There will be a steep but short learning curve as you figure out which extra steps you will have to take. You will find that it is worth it.


----------



## HoboSyke (May 7, 2006)

yeah another RAW shooter here. After using my 20D for about 6 months on jpg i wasnt entirley happy. Shooting raw and editing it with adobe photoshop CS2 has made my DSL-R experience much better!


----------



## danalec99 (May 7, 2006)

I shoot RAW, because I can have a lossless Tiff file.


----------



## bigfatbadger (May 7, 2006)

I don't shoot in RAW, because I don't like being chained to the computer editing them for ages afterwards.


----------



## photogoddess (May 7, 2006)

For snapshots, I shoot large jpg files. For things that I know I'll want to frame, use for portfolio or that has dicey lighting, I shoot raw. The dynamic range of digital isn't that great so shooting in Raw can give you that little extra help when your lighting is mixed and harsh.


----------



## thebeginning (May 7, 2006)

bigfatbadger said:
			
		

> I don't shoot in RAW, because I don't like being chained to the computer editing them for ages afterwards.



hmmm.  it shouldn't take that long I dont think.  I can edit (correct color, contrast, brightness, etc.) and convert a RAW photo in under a minute...You don't have to edit every single one, just the keepers.  

I always shoot RAW for portraits and my more 'serious' stuff.  If I'm taking snapshots or shots that I know I won't need the latitude of RAW, I shoot JPEG.


----------



## ksmattfish (May 7, 2006)

Shoot jpeg if you want your images pretty much ready to go out of the camera.  Shoot raw if you like the control afforded by post-processing.


----------



## buckenmeyer (May 29, 2006)

You guys can see the difference between the raw and jpg image? Sorry Im a total newbie and the jpgs look great. You can visually see the difference or it's better for making adjustments to the image?


----------



## darich (May 29, 2006)

buckenmeyer said:
			
		

> You guys can see the difference between the raw and jpg image? Sorry Im a total newbie and the jpgs look great. You can visually see the difference or it's better for making adjustments to the image?



I don't think there is a difference in quality except that the RAW image hasn't been processed in any by the camera prior to writing to memory card. You won't be able to print a larger image and get better results.
I very rarely use RAW because I think the jpegs are pretty good out of my camera - if i did use RAW I'd end up editing it to look almost like the jpeg straight from the cam - so I let the cam process it and save it. I can still edit afterwards but not to the same extent as I could with RAW.
I've had jpegs overexposed by 1 1/3 stops and managed to rescue it and print it at 30inches by 10inches.


----------



## Simon (May 29, 2006)

What about RAW processing software?

A little of topic, but again another deciding factor when using RAW.

What do people recommend?


----------



## HoboSyke (May 30, 2006)

Adobe Photoshop CS2.


----------



## fotogenik (May 30, 2006)

RawShooter's Essentials


----------



## Simon (May 31, 2006)

Thanks guys,

Is RawShooter's the best or are their others that are better?


----------



## Arch (May 31, 2006)

its the best free one...... the other better ones you have to pay for.... they're not too expensive tho


----------



## Simon (May 31, 2006)

I've just been looking at C1, the LE version is very reasonable are there some others I may have missed?


----------



## Arch (May 31, 2006)

Thats the one i'v heard recomended in several places, so if you wanna buy one i'd look into that........ i dont know of any others that are suppose to be better.


----------



## Digital Matt (May 31, 2006)

You can liken this debate to film.  Would you just shoot and drop off your film to a lab to be developed, or would you develop yourself, and work your darkroom magic on the picture?

Raw puts the development in your hands.  You control the contrast and saturation, losslessly, and you have much greater control over the exposure.  Nobody nails there exposure everytime, and even if you get a perfectly acceptable exposure, there's no telling when it might look better at a half stop under, or over, and you'll get the best result from a raw file for situations like that.

You can use other software than the one supplied with the camera too, (which I find a bit clunky)  

C1 LE is a great one, which I highly recommend, and there is also Photoshop CS and CS2 with adobe bridge and the camera raw plugin, and lastly RawShooter Essentials (which is free).


----------



## Simon (May 31, 2006)

Thanks Archangel,

never sot RAW before so I'm looking in to the advantages.

I'm getting the impression that shooting in RAW is really a personal preference.


----------



## Simon (May 31, 2006)

I see your point Matt, a very valid argument.

I have tried the rawshooter essentials and wasnt too impressed with the limited control. I could however upgrade and have slighlty more control, but if I need to spend money to gain morre control then I'd want good software so I need to review my options


----------



## Digital Matt (May 31, 2006)

Simon, I don't like RawShooter myself.  I think you might enjoy C1, and if you were thinking of paying to upgrade RawShooter, you might put that money into C1 LE, which is only $99.


----------



## 964 (Jun 1, 2006)

There is definitely a quality advantage in RAW, I have direct comparisons shooting RAW to CF and JPG to SD simultaneously. When I look at the full size view on CS2 I can see a difference. Also, RAW as already mentioned is not processed in the camera (unless you specify it) so my personal style is that I want the image to reflect what the lighting/conditions was that day as I can easily 'pimp' it up later on....if I really must! Personally, I convert all my RAW files to 8-bit TIF's immediately and do processing in CS2. The files are 23-24MB each but I burn them to DVD regularly so I don't use more than say 100GB on my PC. 

My father though uses his 350D to take photos sort of 'journal style'. i.e. he knows what he was doing on a particular day just looking at his 'archives' He uses JPG so he can keep almost a year's worth on a PC before burning them onto one single DVD. I get around 200 shots or so on a DVD (single layer) so I burn more regualry but with the TIF format it allows me to go back at later stage and have as many options as possible for re-processing/publishing etc....nothing wrong with JPEGs just that I prefer RAW/TIF...


----------



## Fate (Jun 1, 2006)

Im too lazy to shoot in RAW at the mo.... JPEG all the way at the moment.. thnk i'll start shooting RAW in the summer hols though


----------



## Richard Daley (Jun 1, 2006)

Maybe I missed this in scanning the above responses, but the quality difference between raw and jpg's is going to be seen in large enlargements, not in 4x6's or something small. So, if you aren't intending to blow up images to more than 8 x 10, jpg's will usually give you the quality you want. For those of us who always want the option to blow up to large size prints for ourselves or clients, we really have to use raw files.

From beautiful Sedona,

Richard Daley


----------



## Simon (Jun 1, 2006)

Thanks for the tip Matt.


I'm still undecided on the need for me to shoot raw at this early stage with my limited experience.


I see a number of down sides to shooting raw.


1. Larger file size would mean slower processing of the image in the camera?


2 The need for larger / more memory cards, or the loss of the number of shots your able to take


3 allocating RAW processing software with the added expense of paying for anything decent.


4 Time consumption in processing the RAW images


5 plenty of space needed on your PC to store them or having to regularly backup to disk


Advantages are:


1 Better quality pics, only at larger print size


2 Post processing of raw gives you more control over the image


Number 2 is what is pushing me to use raw, but the down sides I have listed, offer me personally more reasons to not shoot raw.


Please feel free to correct me if anything I have said is inaccurate.


----------



## Digital Matt (Jun 1, 2006)

Simon said:
			
		

> Advantages are:
> 
> 1 Better quality pics only at larger print size



I don't think the advantage is only at a larger print size.  I think the advantage of more control makes for a better image, period, any size, print or not.  You have more possibilities with raw.  If it's not your style to post process your images, then that is totally fine.  Don't waste your time, money, and CF space.  If you like to really imprint your own artistic vision using all the means you can, then I think you would shoot raw despite it's drawbacks.  They are much the same "drawbacks" to developing your own.

If you are still developing your own style, and unsure, then I would shoot jpg and learn to use your camera and lenses, and get a feel for what you like to shoot, and how you want your shots to look.  Then invest in raw software.


----------



## ShutteredEye (Jun 1, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> I don't think the advantage is only at a larger print size.  I think the advantage of more control makes for a better image, period, any size, print or not.  You have more possibilities with raw.  If it's not your style to post process your images, then that is totally fine.  Don't waste your time, money, and CF space.  If you like to really imprint your own artistic vision using all the means you can, then I think you would shoot raw despite it's drawbacks.  They are much the same "drawbacks" to developing your own.
> 
> If you are still developing your own style, and unsure, then I would shoot jpg and learn to use your camera and lenses, and get a feel for what you like to shoot, and how you want your shots to look.  Then invest in raw software.




Listen to what this man says.  There is a reason his name is Digital Matt.....

This comes up every few weeks or so, and honestly I'm amazed that there is ever even a debate.  If its worth pulling the trigger (shutter) on, why wouldn't you want to make it the best possible image?  RAW is hands down the best way to reach the best quality image.  Period.

I started shooting RAW the second day I had my dSLR, and I've never looked back.  Not once.


----------



## Simon (Jun 1, 2006)

I have read other threads about shooting raw/jpg and wanted to move forward with shooting raw.

This thread came up, so I wanted to find out which software is best to process the raw file. Then more people posted in this thread which made me re think, so I listed others views posted in this thread to try and benefit form other experience, such as Matt.

I have the greatest respect for Matt, and again his advice is correct, I need to practice taking good shots, so I can then enhance them by shooting raw.

Thanks Matt, and I appologise if I caused offence.


----------



## hot shot (Jun 1, 2006)

i have only just started shotting in raw (first attempt last weekend) but i strugled to work the interface in photoshop cs2, dont serpose and one knows of any tutorials for using raw in photoshop??? Cheers Dom


----------



## JohnMF (Jun 1, 2006)

I've just started using RAW within the last week also. I regret that i never got around to it sooner. I keep thinking of all the shots i've taken in jpeg mode for the last couple of years and how i wish i had the RAW image to go back and work with. I think the main benefit is not so much the RAW file but the TIFF file you can export it as


----------



## clarinetJWD (Jun 1, 2006)

ShutteredEye said:
			
		

> I started shooting RAW the second day I had my dSLR, and I've never looked back.  Not once.


Ditto...except it was halfway through the first 

Oh, and if you're using photoshops RAW plugin, do yourself a favor and download Pixematic's RawShooter Essentials.  It's free and one of the best RAW conversion progs out there


----------



## 964 (Jun 2, 2006)

Just use the software that came with whatever camera you have to conver the files to TIF's - and then use Photoshop. Just as an aside, I have not found a printer that can print from 16-bit TIF's so just save them as 8-bit...as the 16-bit files are exactly twice as big (like 48MB on my camera)....unless you have clients that absolutelty need 16-bit of course...!


----------



## 964 (Jun 2, 2006)

p.s. The reason why I say use the camera software, is because I find Photosop CS2 'clunky' when converting files. If I use Canon Pro software, I just 'select all' and batch process all of them to 8-bit TIF's into a directory that I specify. As the 300 images get converted automatically over the period of say half an hour I can just do something else in the meantime....


----------



## Digital Matt (Jun 2, 2006)

Simon, no offence 

964: 

I think if you just batch convert to tiff, you might as well shoot jpg.  The adjustments you make in the raw file do a lot less damage to the pixels than they do in photoshop.  You should try and get the image looking as good as possible in your raw software, and then fine tune it in photoshop.


----------



## markc (Jun 2, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> I think if you just batch convert to tiff, you might as well shoot jpg.  The adjustments you make in the raw file do a lot less damage to the pixels than they do in photoshop.  You should try and get the image looking as good as possible in your raw software, and then fine tune it in photoshop.


Not to start a fight, Matt, but do you have any references for this? It seems like it could be one of those things that someone says and sounds good, so everyone repeats it. If you use layers in PS, you aren't "damaging" the pixels. You can easily go back to the layer and readjust. Basically, I haven't seen any specific reason why anything you do in the converter is any different than what you do in PS. Is there one? I can't image that exposure control is any different than a curves adjustment by a set amount. It's not like it has this magic database of what the scene was so that it can re-expose. It's adjusting what the real exposure was. You can't pull out detail that isn't there by messing with it and more than you can with curves.

If you are going to convert to 8-bit TIFFs, then yeah, using the RAW converter first will do the adjustments while you still have a fuller color gamut to work with, but other than that, I'm not aware of anything.

Plus, you still don't have the JPG artifacts, which can be a big deal if you print large.

And to throw another converter into the mix, I use BreezeBrowser, which has a couple of nice features, like automatic lens distortion correction based on EXIF data (which I haven't tried yet) and combined raw conversion which helps prevent loss in highlight areas by combining data from both the standard and linear RAW conversions.


----------



## Digital Matt (Jun 2, 2006)

Mark, over expose a shot by 1 stop, shot in raw, and convert it to tiff.  Open it in photoshop, and try and fix it.  Then go back to the raw file, grab the exposure bar, and bring it down a stop, and see what you get.


----------



## Arch (Jun 2, 2006)

yes, exposure is the main difference here...... sure you can use ps and adjustment layers to alter your image with little noticable difference from using your RAW converter..... but if a slightly blown area needs fixing, the alterations are best made in the RAW conversion.


----------



## markc (Jun 2, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> Mark, over expose a shot by 1 stop, shot in raw, and convert it to tiff.  Open it in photoshop, and try and fix it.  Then go back to the raw file, grab the exposure bar, and bring it down a stop, and see what you get.


I tried playing around with this, but it doesn't look like the exposure slider is much different than moving the middle slider in a levels adjustment. It mainly seems to change which area of the histogram is expanded or emphasized.



			
				Archangel said:
			
		

> but if a slightly blown area needs fixing, the alterations are best made in the RAW conversion.


My question is "why". I'm looking for a technical reason.

I agree that it's better to start in RAW than JPG, but why is it better to do the adjustments while converting rather than after. I've looked, but haven't been able to find anyone that covers this. I'm not convinced yet. I'm pushing the point because I think it's important to know the details.


----------



## Arch (Jun 2, 2006)

markc said:
			
		

> I'm pushing the point because I think it's important to know the details.




So do I....... Without doing a bit of research myself, i cannot say 100% the technical processes which occur when altering exposure using RAW software, so I would like to know if there is any science behind what i 'think' happens.

But what i'v been led to believe, is that because the RAW data has not been processed by the camera, there is a 'window' for exposure compensation where you can choose to reveal more pixel data by exposing one way or the other.  As apposed to the idea that once you have a tiff file with a blown area, you cannot recover any possible existing pixel data simply be moving a curves or levels slider.

But i think i may look into this further....... i want to know if im wrong now


----------



## Cuervo79 (Jun 2, 2006)

youst my humble 2 cents here...
physical image size (as in the space it takes in a hard drive) sometimes has nothing to do with the overall quality of an image. Yes to have a definate answer it is better to do more research on it, but transforming any file to another does not guarantee you will take the information identically when you finish transporting it (as in the case of tiff files), just beacause its big doesn't mean you have the same advantage to the raw format adjustments (tiff files are also compressed), the question is out there and its a valid one, but to be able to specify that you lose no data converting from raw to tiff you would have to look at each software independendtly depending on the brand.

Wich ends in that depending on your taste use raw or comvert to tiff, wich ever you prefer. Because if some people find visible diferences and some don't, unles you want to make a paper about it, why bother. 
Just keep shooting.


----------



## markc (Jun 2, 2006)

Archangel said:
			
		

> But what i'v been led to believe, is that because the RAW data has not been processed by the camera, there is a 'window' for exposure compensation where you can choose to reveal more pixel data by exposing one way or the other.  As apposed to the idea that once you have a tiff file with a blown area, you cannot recover any possible existing pixel data simply be moving a curves or levels slider.


Well, once it's blown, it's blown. It doesn't matter the format. But it's true that you can end up with more usable data depending upon the method of conversion. That's why I used the "combined" method in BreezeBrowser for the shots that need it.

Okay, playing around with it a bit more, I now see that it must be doing more than I thought. I haven't had to worry about blown out areas in most of my images so far, so I don't think I've missed out on much, but my most recent shots did have some areas blown out because I wanted a wide aperture at midday and my shutter speed didn't go fast enough. Using the exposure slider did result in a much better conversion on those. Okay, I'm convinced! Thanks guys! I'm going to have to go back through and revisit some others from the past and see if there are any it would help. I've been planning to do this anyway, since I've learned a lot since doing some of them.

It still might not have much affect on shots that don't have blown areas when converted, but I'll have to look at that closer too. It may be similar to getting your white and black points set correctly when scanning so that you take full advantage of the dynamic range available. At any rate, it looks like it's time to change my workflow again.


----------



## Arch (Jun 2, 2006)

Another thing i have thought (but again could do with confirming) is that subtle tones in the 16bit RAW file can be adjusted more accuratly without loosing tone graduation data. If you shot the image as a jpeg you start at 8bit and further editing can reduce tonal data further (especially if your not using layer masks) and of course re-saving causes information loss.

The idea is that although you may save a copy of the 16bit file as an 8bit jpeg, you dont have the same amount of data loss because the editing of the tonal graduations and other alterations like sharpening, have taken place.

Try to imagine if the effect on sharpening pixels of a 16bit image, then saving it at 8bit, would be as severe as sharpening an 8bit image.


----------



## Digital Matt (Jun 2, 2006)

I don't have time to write a long reply now, but notice when you tweak the exposure of a raw file, the entire histogram shifts left and right.  You can't do that in photoshop.


----------



## fotogenik (Jun 2, 2006)

Curiousity has gotten me here.  How does one tell how much to adjust the exposure slider bar to get the exposure up or down 1 or 2 stops excatly?  I have been guessing for the most part but am curious whether there is a guide to tell you how much adjustment is needed to lower the exposure by 1 f-stop.


----------



## markc (Jun 2, 2006)

Archangel said:
			
		

> If you shot the image as a jpeg


I don't know if you are still replying to me, but I'm definitely not talking about JPEG. As far as I know, RAW files use 12bit color data, and 16bit TIFFS can easily store it all. The difference is that RAW files are linear at 1.0 Gamma and get boosted to 2.2 (I think it's 2.2) when converted to TIFF. Since the brighter areas are getting boosted, you have to be careful as to how much so they don't get blown.


----------



## markc (Jun 2, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> I don't have time to write a long reply now, but notice when you tweak the exposure of a raw file, the entire histogram shifts left and right.  You can't do that in photoshop.


If you mean in the PS RAW converter, it looks it does behave differently than I first thought, but it is very much like using a levels adjustment. I think  "exposure" is a lousy label for it, and seem to be there for the layman. What it's doing is moving the white point, and you can see the effect on the histogram live, which you can't when you do a levels adjustment. "Shadows" moves the black point in the same way.

In levels, if you move the white point, that position becomes the new white point and everything to the right of it becomes white (right in my configuration, anyway). The black point stays the same and the histogram "stretches" in the view, because the right edge is always white, not somewhere in the middle. The opposite happens with setting the black point. It looks like the same thing is happening in the RAW converter, except that the histogram stretches "live". That, and moving the exposure slider to the right is picking a lower white point rather than higher. Moving the shadow slider to the right picks a higher black point like PS though. You can also pick a really high white point when you move the slider all the way left, which is interesting. I'm assuming this is because the RAW data is linear at 1.0 gamma and so gives you a lot of breathing room there. I really do have to read up more on this.


----------



## markc (Jun 2, 2006)

I was thinking that moving both sliders all the way to the left would show you how the RAW data is stored linearly, and finding this makes me more confident in that.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor+linearity


----------



## markc (Jun 2, 2006)

I compared this to a linear converstion, so it is the same. So what this means is that those sliders _are_ just a levels adjustment on the linear data to bring it into a gamma that looks right for our eyes. I'm going to play with some linear 16 bit TIFF conversions and see what I get.

--edit--

Crap. No it's not, but it's close. There are too many auto settings.  Still playing. I'll shut up until I my brain is working again.


----------



## markc (Jun 2, 2006)

Okay, I'm guessing that some other things are going on in that PS RAW converter screen, but it give you a good idea of what linear looks like. You still need to do an actual linear conversion elsewhere. 

I do believe that letting a converter auto batch convert every image may not be the best idea, but I think it only comes into play when you have blown out areas. If you don't, you're fine. It looks like there are a group of people that prefer to convert linearly and do all editing in Photoshop.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/photoshop_corner/essay_12/essay.html

This avoids the blown out issue completely so that you can do all processing in PS, and the only way the TIFF will have a blown spot is if the RAW data is blown to begin with. If you use the RAW converter to make adjustments without blowing out a spot (or compressing the black, but that's unlikely unless you move the slider), it's like doing a PS adjustment on a linear conversion.

And it looks like "brightness" is the one that is the same as the middle slider in levels for setting the mid grey.


----------



## Digital Matt (Jun 3, 2006)

I've exhausted my expertise in this area.  I'm no expert.

There are thousands of different workflows, and in the end, who can really see the difference in a print?

For me, it's a labour of love.  I love taking the photos, processing the raw file, and making the print, and I've found the workflow that works best for me, ie: gives me the look I want in my prints, and allows me to enjoy the process from start to finish.


----------



## markc (Jun 3, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> I've exhausted my expertise in this area.  I'm no expert.
> 
> There are thousands of different workflows, and in the end, who can really see the difference in a print?
> 
> For me, it's a labour of love.  I love taking the photos, processing the raw file, and making the print, and I've found the workflow that works best for me, ie: gives me the look I want in my prints, and allows me to enjoy the process from start to finish.


That's cool, and I have no problem with that at all. I just think it's good to know exactly why something is the way it is, or _if_ it _really_ is the way someone says it is before repeating it as fact. If it's repeated often enough, it becomes a fact in the mind of people hearing it. I think we do that a lot, especially if it sounds good and makes sense to us.

Here's one I've repeated: "A good prime lens will take a better picture at a certain focal length than a good zoom lens, becuase the zoom lens has to make compromises across it's focal range." It makes sense to me, and was often repeated years ago, but does it still hold true today? Has modern manufacturing caught up? Have any of us done the research to check?

Ultimately, whether it involves simply trusting someone's deductions or looking at data yourself, you have to trust the source, so it's hard to call much of anything a "fact". Anyway, I certainly learned something new, so I'm happy, and it's prompted me to change my workflow for some images. Maybe every image.


----------



## Arch (Jun 3, 2006)

markc said:
			
		

> I don't know if you are still replying to me, but I'm definitely not talking about JPEG.



Na, i wans't..... just making sure all bases were covered.... this thread should be a good link for people asking about RAW in future.

As for your latest findings, I have to say there is little info out there to question the linear conversion method. Im not overly convinced by the 'outback' website.... seems you need an action to get the most out of thier method..... and that action is at a price  ....... but the theory is sound...... I am unable to find any further information which says otherwise. Nor can I find any more info that implies that thier are any other benefits for altering an image in RAW software as apposed to PS.

It does seem to me that as long as thier is no information loss or compression from the transition between RAW software and PS, then there is no real benefit to sticking with editing using RAW software....... it all comes to personal preference...... and in a similar way to matt, im use to my method...... and the chances of being able to notice a difference in the finished artical is slim to none.

It does beg one question tho...... why some of the more expensive RAW converters claim to produce better results?........ this could just be the fact that they have more options for the people that wish to edit more in RAW software...... but they can also be misleading....... the following is from a magazine about using RAW....

"While the results from the Adobe Camera Raw plugin are quite acceptable, for example, professional level software like Capture One Pro produces the best results of all - though at 287 pounds (thats $540), you might expect it to."

So is this not rubbish?..... if you can make the same adjustments in ps without damaging the image file, how can this software be better?


----------



## Digital Matt (Jun 3, 2006)

Archangel said:
			
		

> "While the results from the Adobe Camera Raw plugin are quite acceptable, for example, professional level software like Capture One Pro produces the best results of all - though at 287 pounds (thats $540), you might expect it to."
> 
> So is this not rubbish?..... if you can make the same adjustments in ps without damaging the image file, how can this software be better?




I get very different results from different raw software, with my 20D files.  C1 handles noise and sharpening differently than any other software, including photoshop.  At work, we use Adobe Bridge and CS2, and I've occasionally shot stuff on the way to work and processed it at work with CS2.  I found there to be more noise, and I was unhappy overall with the look of the file.  Upon bringing it home and using C1, I was able to get a much smoother look, which is what I'm accustomed to getting from my 20D.

Every piece of software using it's own algorhythms to process the files, and all of them, except for the software that comes from the camera manufacturer itself, are "reverse" engineered, so they cannot be all created equal.


----------



## markc (Jun 3, 2006)

Archangel said:
			
		

> Na, i wans't..... just making sure all bases were covered.... this thread should be a good link for people asking about RAW in future.


S'cool.



> As for your latest findings, I have to say there is little info out there to question the linear conversion method. Im not overly convinced by the 'outback' website.... seems you need an action to get the most out of thier method..... and that action is at a price  ....... but the theory is sound...... I am unable to find any further information which says otherwise. Nor can I find any more info that implies that thier are any other benefits for altering an image in RAW software as apposed to PS.


Yeah, that's the same boat I'm in. I'm going to try out the linear method myself, though. I think the action is just to give you an automated and quick way to get to a visually "usable" image.



> It does seem to me that as long as thier is no information loss or compression from the transition between RAW software and PS, then there is no real benefit to sticking with editing using RAW software....... it all comes to personal preference...... and in a similar way to matt, im use to my method...... and the chances of being able to notice a difference in the finished artical is slim to none.


That's exactly my thought, and until there's some proof otherwise, I didn't want to see other workflows labeled as inferior.



> It does beg one question tho......


Sort of...



> why some of the more expensive RAW converters claim to produce better results?........ this could just be the fact that they have more options for the people that wish to edit more in RAW software...... but they can also be misleading....... the following is from a magazine about using RAW....
> 
> "While the results from the Adobe Camera Raw plugin are quite acceptable, for example, professional level software like Capture One Pro produces the best results of all - though at 287 pounds (thats $540), you might expect it to."
> 
> So is this not rubbish?..... if you can make the same adjustments in ps without damaging the image file, how can this software be better?


It could be the number of adjustments, or how the adjustments are made. There are certain adjustments in PS that will kill your data. Again, this is repeating info I've heard elsewhere, but as far as I know, using the dodge and burn features, or contrast and brightness, can lose data. You lose distinction between one pixel and the next. If two pixels next to each other (in b&w to make it simple) are at 240 and 250, they can be changed to 242 and 244 and still have a distinction, even if that distinction is visiably smaller. You can make more changes and they will still be treated as different colors. However, if they both become 242, then that distinction is lost and they will forever after be treated as the same color. Data is "lost".

If the conversion in the PS RAW software isn't good, then maybe it isn't keeping all of the various levels of color distinct. That's one of the benefits of working in higher bit color, like 16bit vs. 8bit, and why you should use 16bit TIFFs when converting linearly. There are more levels of distinction, and you might compress the blacks otherwise.

Or maybe people just don't like how the conversion looks, and there really isn't a data problem. There doesn't seem to be a lot of hard info out there, just people sharing their workflows.


----------



## markc (Jun 3, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> I get very different results from different raw software, with my 20D files.  C1 handles noise and sharpening differently than any other software, including photoshop.


That's a good point. There's a lot more going on than just the color conversion if you have the other options checked. I could see those easily coming into play. I guess we each need to do some comparisons and find which software does what better. Maybe our RAW converter removes noise better than whatever PS plugin we are using, but there may be a plugin out there that does a better job if we weren't happy with it.


----------

