# I shot in RAW now what??



## iluvphotography (Jul 31, 2006)

So as was recommended by gurus in this forum, I took some shots of the fireworks in RAW, but I don't know what to do now??


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Jul 31, 2006)

depending on your camera, you need to get a program that will then read the RAW files.  Mine came bundled with my camera (pentax *istDL) but I have yet to use it.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 31, 2006)

That's right.  Use your software to open the RAW image...it should give you the options to adjust things like exposure, white balance, saturation, sharpness, contrast etc.

You should then have your image as an output from the RAW software...it could be a Photoshop PSD file, or a TIFF file or a JPEG etc.  Then you just edit the image as you normally would.

It's really not much different than editing a JPEG shot, except that you have to go through the initial RAW conversion step.  It is that step, however, that gives you more leeway than if you were editing an image that was shot in JPEG mode.


----------



## rmh159 (Jul 31, 2006)

Not to start up the JPEG vs RAW debate but is that extra editting power worth the disk space?  What size hard drives to RAW fans have or is there any other trick to archiving shots?

I was psyched to finally shoot RAW after getting my D50 but when I saw the files were 17 megs I rethought it.  I think I'll save the RAW shots for the ones I KNOW I'll want prints of.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 31, 2006)

Actually, that's what I do most of the time.

I shoot JPEG for my everyday stuff but switch to RAW (or bracket JPEG shots) when I'm not sure about the exposure.  When I'm anticipating that I will want more options for a shot (large prints etc.) then I'll use RAW.

RAW has more latitude as well...give you a better chance of not loosing detail in shadows or highlights.  When it's a once in a lifetime kind of thing...you often want the best chance of getting a great shot.

I guess you could even say that anytime you are shooting...you could catch a once in a lifetime shot...you might regret not capturing it with as much detail as possible.

Actually, digital memory is getting cheaper all the time.  You can get large hardrives for a lower price everyday.  It's cheap to store images on CD or DVD.  Memory cards get cheaper all the time as well.


----------



## iluvphotography (Jul 31, 2006)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> You should then have your image as an output from the RAW software...it could be a Photoshop PSD file, or a TIFF file or a JPEG etc. Then you just edit the image as you normally would.


 
I lost you there.. What do you mean by "Have your images as an output from the RAW software"? You mean save it as PSD , JPEG etc file?


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 31, 2006)

iluvphotography said:
			
		

> I lost you there.. What do you mean by "Have your images as an output from the RAW software"? You mean save it as PSD , JPEG etc file?



I wasn't sure what software you are using.  Let's take Adobe Camera RAW for example.  I would open Photoshop and then open a RAW file.  A separate window will come up (this is A.C.R.).  This is where I can make the RAW adjustments.  Then I would click OK...then A.C.R. closes and I'm back to Photoshop with the image (I think it is then in the default image format (PSD, TIFF etc.)...I can then save it as what I want (PSD, TIFF, JPEG etc.).

If you were using a separate RAW program, you would open it and make your adjustments...then save it as a file type of your choice (this is what I meant by output).  Then you can open and edit this new file just like any other.

Typically you want to retain as much detail/information as possible...so save the file as TIFF or PSD.  If you save it as a JPEG, you will loose some information because of the JPEG compression.  

Does that help at all?


----------



## bitteraspects (Aug 1, 2006)

rmh159 said:
			
		

> Not to start up the JPEG vs RAW debate but is that extra editting power worth the disk space? What size hard drives to RAW fans have or is there any other trick to archiving shots?
> 
> I was psyched to finally shoot RAW after getting my D50 but when I saw the files were 17 megs I rethought it. I think I'll save the RAW shots for the ones I KNOW I'll want prints of.



i have a couple 4G ultraII cards i use. so i dont really worry about the disk space


----------



## markc (Aug 1, 2006)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> I guess you could even say that anytime you are shooting...you could catch a once in a lifetime shot...you might regret not capturing it with as much detail as possible.



This happened to me when I was shooting film. I don't have many keepers from when I was starting, but I do have one, and it was taken on 800 speed film. I _really_ wish I had put 100 speed in that day. I always shoot with RAW now. You never know when you'll get a shot worthy of an enlargement.


----------



## hobbes28 (Aug 1, 2006)

markc said:
			
		

> This happened to me when I was shooting film. I don't have many keepers from when I was starting, but I do have one, and it was taken on 800 speed film. I _really_ wish I had put 100 speed in that day. I always shoot with RAW now. You never know when you'll get a shot worthy of an enlargement.




I totally agree with this.  I also notice that shooting RAW, you start to be more careful with your shot selection like back in the film days because you don't want to waste space with bad ones.


----------



## markc (Aug 1, 2006)

hobbes28 said:
			
		

> I totally agree with this.  I also notice that shooting RAW, you start to be more careful with your shot selection like back in the film days because you don't want to waste space with bad ones.


That's another good point. I didn't really change my habbits when I switched from film to digital, so it works really well for me.


----------



## hobbes28 (Aug 1, 2006)

When I switched, I turned into a tourist.


----------



## Torus34 (Aug 2, 2006)

Adobe has the beta 3 version of their new Lightroom[tm] software available for download in Apple[tm] and Windows[tm] versions.  Right now, it's a freebee.  It's geared to the pro whose shooting in RAW.  You have to register at the site, but it's no real bother.  There are two versions; bare and bare with photo example files.  The latter will be a long, long download [>118 MB] if you're on dial-up.


----------



## 964 (Aug 2, 2006)

My RAW files are around 10MB each - 17MB would seem awful big for a 6MP D50??


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Aug 2, 2006)

bitteraspects said:
			
		

> i have a couple 4G ultraII cards i use. so i dont really worry about the disk space


 
if that 4G stands for 4 gigs, and if by a couple you mean 2 or 3, that isn't a whole lot of space, but of course you are talking about memory cards while the original poster was concerned with harddrive size.

Now that I am getting into photography I will be upgrading my harddrive soon to a 200GB SATA drive.  I save every picture I take as long as it is exposed correctly and in focus.  Even though I may never use them for things, it is fun to go back and see how you improve your shooting and I am just the type that doesn't like to throw things away if I dont have to.  Of course this way of life works much better in the digital world.  

Fill a 1GB card up with RAW shots and the look at how many pictures are on the card.  Use that as a guideling for what size harddrive you'll need.  I have yet to use RAW but I am sure I will in the near future.  Right now I am learning basics as far as post processing goes with photoshop, so RAW will be next.


----------



## Torus34 (Aug 2, 2006)

IluvPhoto;

Check out

http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 2, 2006)

Compared to most other digital photography accessories hard drive space is cheap.  Top of the line, name brand hard drives are going for less than $0.50 a gigabyte.  That's less than half the price of quality CD-Rs.


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Aug 3, 2006)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> Compared to most other digital photography accessories hard drive space is cheap. Top of the line, name brand hard drives are going for less than $0.50 a gigabyte. That's less than half the price of quality CD-Rs.


 
good point.  Also if you are worried about loosing files on a harddrive you could always buy 2 (200GB for example) and use raid to mirror the files so you'll have a copy even if a harddrive fails.  Try that with CDs and the every persistent rot.  Not to mention who wants to keep 200 CD's worth of pictures around to then have to sort through when you can do it on a harddrive and just use the search function on your computer to find what you want (if you label well enough).


----------



## iluvphotography (Aug 3, 2006)

Thanks everyone... this actually turned out to be a very informative thread.  The article about the advantages and disadvantages of RAW was very good.  I learned a lot about it and the reason why you wanna use RAW.  I am still not 100% on the process from RAW to JPEG.  I think you just have to play with it in Photoshop or something to get what you want.. My problem is when I edit a picture in Photoshop, I usually make it worst :-(
But I guess that comes with practice!!!
I am going to take a Photoshop course in the Fall..


----------



## Johno (Aug 3, 2006)

xfloggingkylex said:
			
		

> Not to mention who wants to keep 200 CD's worth of pictures around to then have to sort through when you can do it on a harddrive



.....dual layer DVD's helloooo?? 8 gigs a piece. I have 2, 4 gig cards. They fill up I burn a disk and label it intelligently. Just have to stay on top of the workload.


----------



## Fiendish Astronaut (Aug 12, 2006)

All this makes me question whether I am processing my pictures correctly. When I shoot in RAW (which is usually) I don't do anything to the image until I have converted in into TIFF using the conversion software that was bundled with my Canon. Then I go into Photoshop and make the adjustments. Should I be looking to do some processing on the RAW image BEFORE I convert into TIFF (and then finally in JPG)?


----------



## D-50 (Aug 12, 2006)

10MB RAW? I shoot in raw with a 6mp D50 and my files are under 6mb each. How are you guys getting 10-17mb raw files?  As for disk space if its a concern why not shoot in raw, do you editing in raw save to JPEG and delete the raw file, its not that hard to delete a file and shooting in Raw will alow for more leeway in computer editing.


----------



## Meysha (Aug 13, 2006)

Fiendish... definately do your editing in RAW mode if that's what you're taking the picture in. RAW mode doesn't 'destroy' the image each time you edit it. If you've got the computer power raw is simply amazing to work with. Especially for fireworks like the original poster said they were using it for. I got the most amazing firework photos from my first time shooting raw. It's soooo flexible!!

Why do you convert your photo from Raw to tiff then to Jpeg?
So long as you're not planning on editing the jpeg/tiff again after you save it, then it's pretty safe to cut one of these steps out. Just keep your original raw, your edited raw and a web friendly jpeg.


----------



## Arch (Aug 13, 2006)

Fiendish Astronaut said:
			
		

> All this makes me question whether I am processing my pictures correctly. When I shoot in RAW (which is usually) I don't do anything to the image until I have converted in into TIFF using the conversion software that was bundled with my Canon. Then I go into Photoshop and make the adjustments. Should I be looking to do some processing on the RAW image BEFORE I convert into TIFF (and then finally in JPG)?



Thats up to you..... i would change white balance and exposure, if needed, in the RAW software...... once its in ps, you can use adjustment layers to alter your image how you want..... with no real difference from using RAW software.



			
				D-50 said:
			
		

> As for disk space if its a concern why not shoot in raw, do you editing in raw save to JPEG and delete the raw file, its not that hard to delete a file and shooting in Raw will alow for more leeway in computer editing.



I wouldn't choose this method..... deleting your RAW file is like throwing your film negatives in the bin.....
I would process the RAW.... edit and save in ps as a tiff or psd..... save a jpeg copy for the web..... once you've uploaded the jpeg to the web you can dispose of it..... but keep your RAW in case you go back and re-edit the pic..... and use a tiff to print from.



			
				Meysha said:
			
		

> definately do your editing in RAW mode if that's what you're taking the picture in. *RAW mode doesn't 'destroy' the image each time you edit it.*



Neither does editing a tiff in ps using adjustment layers


----------



## markc (Aug 13, 2006)

Archangel said:
			
		

> I would process the RAW.... edit and save in ps as a tiff or psd..... save a jpeg copy for the web..... once you've uploaded the jpeg to the web you can dispose of it..... but keep your RAW in case you go back and re-edit the pic..... and use a tiff to print from.


This is similar to what I do. I keep the RAW as the original, and the TIFF as the edited form. For me, the JPG is the least important one, since it has the least quality and can easily be recreated from the TIFF. I do almost no editing before converting from RAW. Since I work in b&w, I don't care about color balance. If the default has blown areas, I'll make special adjustments, but I usually batch convert. Keeping the TIFF is very important to me, since that's where all the work is, in case I want to go back and tweak it.

The end goal for me is a print, not just the web, so quality takes precedence over space.


----------



## Fiendish Astronaut (Aug 13, 2006)

Meysha said:
			
		

> Why do you convert your photo from Raw to tiff then to Jpeg?
> So long as you're not planning on editing the jpeg/tiff again after you save it, then it's pretty safe to cut one of these steps out. Just keep your original raw, your edited raw and a web friendly jpeg.



Thanks for the advice. The final stage is to convert to jpg because that's what I use to post the image online, plus storage issues. I once took some pictures for a band and when I came to cut the CD for them I could only fit jpg images on it! I guess I need the RAW plugin for Photoshop as it will only read TIFF files I believe.


----------



## luma (Aug 14, 2006)

I don't notice any difference when shooting raw or jpeg.  I sometimes shoot raw with a jpeg copy.  There's never a difference between the two.  What am I missing about the greatness of raw?


----------

