# Shooting in RAW



## Lamora (Mar 28, 2015)

Hi again. I am stumped about shooting in RAW. I have that option on my camera, and I have heard it is the best quality to shoot in. But when I upload my photos onto my computer, there is nothing there! If I am very lucky, I am able to find them, but they want me to put them to another quality for me to see them. 

Am I missing something? Do I need something else? I am stumped on this... Please help??


----------



## Designer (Mar 28, 2015)

You need a software that converts the Raw file into a viewable image.  Adobe Camera Raw, for instance, or possibly your camera came with software.  There are some free ones available as I understand it.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 28, 2015)

Every camera produces a slightly different version of a raw file.  They are proprietary.  As such, each camera model needs to have specific 'decoding' instructions on your computer in order to see the image.  If you're not seeing anything, you need to update your software.

What camera & software are you using?


----------



## KmH (Mar 28, 2015)

The advantage of Raw is that it is a minimally processed image file that usually has more bit depth than a made in the camera using quite a bit of processing JPEG.
Both aid in giving the photographer more options for post processing.
Photo Editing Tutorials

By the way - Raw is a proper noun, but is not a file type acronym like JPEG or TIFF are, so only the first letter is capitalized.

JPEG - Joint Photographic Experts Group
TIFF - Tagged Image File Format
PNG - Portable Network Graphics
GIF - Graphics Interchange Format.

Nikon's Raw file type if NEF - Nikon Electronic Format.
Canon's most used Raw file type is CR2. I don't know what CR2 stands for.


----------



## snowbear (Mar 28, 2015)

KmH said:


> Canon's most used Raw file type is CR2. I don't know what CR2 stands for.


Chromium, because it's a heavy metal, but oh so shiny?


----------



## Derrel (Mar 29, 2015)

KmH said:
			
		

> By the way - Raw is a proper noun, but is not a file type acronym like JPEG or TIFF are, so only the first letter is capitalized.
> 
> JPEG - Joint Photography Experts Group
> TIFF - Tagged Image File Format
> ...



If you want to offer corrections to people, perhaps take a bit of time to offer *the proper spellings of said definitions*. JPEG is not "Joint Photography Experts Group" as you incorrectly wrote, it is actually Joint Photographic Experts Group.

PNG - "Portable networks Graphics" as you wrote is also incorrect: it is Portable Network Graphic. Please note the capitalized and also SINGULAR form, Network, and the SINGULAR form, Graphic. Your definition was incorrectly spelled. The correct file type is spelled Portable Network Graphic.

Glass houses, and stones, you know KmH?

As to the assertion that "RAW" is incorrect, experts seem to be divided on that. Nikon uses the term RAW in all of its materials, as does PC Magazine, and multiple other technical sites. Common usage seems to indicate a tremendous preponderance of people using the all-caps term "RAW" to differentiate a camera RAW file from say, raw beef, or raw fish, and so on.

Camera RAW Definition
RAW file Definition from PC Magazine Encyclopedia
RAW file definition of RAW file in the Free Online Encyclopedia
What are the differences between RAW NEF Compressed-NEF TIFF and JPG file formats Nikon Knowledgebase


----------



## soufiej (Mar 29, 2015)

Lamora said:


> Hi again. I am stumped about shooting in RAW. I have that option on my camera, and I have heard it is the best quality to shoot in. But when I upload my photos onto my computer, there is nothing there! If I am very lucky, I am able to find them, but they want me to put them to another quality for me to see them.
> 
> Am I missing something? Do I need something else? I am stumped on this... Please help??




You don't mention how you uploaded the image data nor to what file system on your computer.  First, if you are working with a Chromebook, it does not yet support a "RAW" file upload.   That also means there are no Chromebook apps which support RAW files.  Therefore, despite, say,  Picasa supporting RAW in a Windows OS, the Picasa you would add to a Chromebook doesn't.  I don't work with the Android OS but my understanding is it has similar difficulties with RAW files.

I assume you have shots saved as RAW files in your camera.  And you understand how to get them from your camera and onto the computer's hardrive.  I'm only going to address Windows OS though Mac should work similarly.  

Upload your files to the "documents" section of your computer first, instructing the computer to add them to "My Pictures".   If your computer doesn't want to accept the RAW files at that location, you'll have to do some software updates which can be found in, of course, the updates section of your computer's OS.  Once the files are in the computer, you can see what file names have been assigned to the "RAW" data files.  Jpeg will be noted as Jpeg or something very similar so anything that isn't Jpeg is your RAW file data.  

If all you want to do is view your photos and send them to a printer in that form, you really don't need to do any more.  Click on the file and follow the instructions provided for printing.   Microsoft offers some free basic editing apps which you either already have on your computer (check the "All Programs" listing found at the bottom of the left hand side of your start up screen) or you can download a new program from the Windows store.

Most people aren't likely to use RAW files without some editing though.  The advantage of using RAW files is to provide greater control over the final image so editing is almost always going to be applied to the RAW file before you hit "Save".   If you want more editing control than the free Windows software provides, you'll have to download an image editing app.  You can pay for software such as Photoshop in several different formats and have a very complete editing toolset in your computer or you can opt for freeware apps.  Nero came loaded on my Windows 7 update and it performs minor corrections.  I added Picasa and it handles RAW files and does a fairly complete job of editing without the steeper learning curve of the more sophisticated apps.  The choice is yours to make after a quick search engine turns out a few dozen possibilities.  When you are deciding which app (or apps if you want to try several) to download take note of the file data types each supports before you download the app.  If the editing software doesn't say it supports the file format of your camera as you see it displayed in the "My Pictures" section of Windows, the app won't do you much good for your camera's data.

Pick an editing app which supports the data files you want to work with and add it to your computer.  From there you should see a tab which allows you to either upload the image data from your camera or to move a file from your harddrive to the program.  From there it's all about learning each editing program and deciding which is best suited to your needs.  

Hope that helps.


----------



## dennybeall (Mar 29, 2015)

LAMORA,
A RAW file is the digital information captured by the camera lens. The camera will then convert that data into a picture and present that photo to you in jpg file format. The picture you see on the screen on the back of the camera is that jpg file. IF YOU want to convert that data to a photo yourself then you can copy that RAW data to your computer and use software, like Photoshop or Lightroom, to work with it. You can choose to save copies in jpg or tiff or other file formats.
The software built into the camera to do that conversion is pretty darn good so until you master pc software to do that job you're better off letting the camera give you photos already converted to the jpg format.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 29, 2015)

dennybeall said:


> LAMORA,
> A RAW file is the digital information captured by the camera snesor. ..........



Fify.


----------



## TCampbell (Mar 30, 2015)

Lamora said:


> Hi again. I am stumped about shooting in RAW. I have that option on my camera, and I have heard it is the best quality to shoot in.



This is a bit of an over-simplification.  It's actually not the best quality... it's the most adjustable.   There's a difference.

When the sensor captures an image, you'll have issues such as "white balance", color, "noise", sharpness issues, chromatic aberration, etc.  When the camera does it's in-camera processing to produce a JPEG, it automatically handles many of these issues.  It applies white balance correction.  It can apply color correction and color saturation adjustment.  It can do sharpening.  It can apply noise-reduction (typically to high ISO images).  The list goes on.  

But one "other" thing that it does, has to do with reducing the amount of space needed to store the image.  The JPEG algorithm uses a clever scheme whereby it takes advantage of weaknesses in human visual which actually have a very difficult time discerning the difference between similar hues.  The JPEG algorithm will take hues which are so close that your eye probably won't notice the difference... and just make them the same.  Since they are the "same", it means the compression algorithm to reduce size will work MUCH better.  

But here's the problem... if you take hues that are so similar that your eye probably can't tell the difference, and normalize them so that they actually ARE the same... but then you realize that they only looked the same because they were over-exposed... you might want to reduce the brightness to recover the details.  If you do this to a  RAW image, you actually DO recover the detail.  If you do this to a JPEG image, you recover nothing... the detail is lost forever.

When you shoot in RAW your images will come out of the camera with no white balance adjustment, no color saturation adjustment, no sharpening, no de-noising, etc. etc.   This means the computer has to do it.  Many RAW processing programs (such as Lightroom) can have camera profiles that automatically apply the most common adjustments for you.  But they do this in a "non-destructive" way.  The original image is still there and the adjustment is only applied to the on-screen version that you see.   So if you don't like an adjustment, you can back it out and not lose anything.

That means that RAW images are really the most adjustable and, by extension, a person who knows there way around the editing/adjustment software can ultimately produce a better looking image then the straight-out-of-the-camera JPEG.

But if you just compare a straight-out-of-the-camera JPEG to a straight-out-of-the-camera RAW... the JPEG will probably look better.  But once the image is processed on the computer... the RAW will look better.

The most popular software (by far) for working with RAW images is Adobe Lightroom.


----------



## dennybeall (Mar 30, 2015)

Anybody have any idea what "Fify" means??
Also, a good idea to cut and paste on a quote so you don't misspell it.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 30, 2015)

dennybeall said:


> Anybody have any idea what "Fify" means??
> Also, a good idea to cut and paste on a quote so you don't misspell it.



Fixed It For You.


----------



## KenC (Mar 30, 2015)

dennybeall said:


> Anybody have any idea what "Fify" means??
> Also, a good idea to cut and paste on a quote so you don't misspell it.



"Fixed it for you"

What does FIFY mean - FIFY Definition - Meaning of FIFY - InternetSlang.com


----------



## dennybeall (Mar 30, 2015)

Thank you.
Denny


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 30, 2015)

Not to pick nits here, (and correct me if I'm wrong) but you don't edit raw files, you edit the way the JPEG (or tiff or whatever else viewable format you're using) conversion of the raw file is rendered.  I don't know of any program that will edit an image at the raw file level, that is, editors don't alter the raw file data in any way. 

How editing a raw image works (best case scenario) is that you tell the conversion program to make different choices about how it displays the raw data from the raw file into a JPEG (or tiff or whatever else).  But if the raw file is saved, the data from the raw file is completely unaltered. Typically if you edit such a file, two things are saved: the original completely unaltered, unedited raw file and a record of how to display the conversion, such that if you edit the image again later, it doesn't edit the actual JPEG, but again edits the conversion from the raw file data.  Basically the program recreates a new JPEG from scratch every time you edit it.  You never actually edit the raw file or the JPEG image in such a scenario, you just create different a conversion from raw to JPEG.  A raw file is essentially just a record of the data the sensor recorded. 

Some poor editors though will convert the raw image once using the raw data, but then after you edit it again, you're editing the JPEG, in which case your options for editing are drastically reduced.


----------



## Joves (Mar 30, 2015)

Your camera came with uploading software, use it to see the RAW images. Also since you are it seems well versed in processing yet, so I suggest you just shoot in RAW+Jpeg Fine. Once you get a better handle on RAW then you can play with your older images as you learn. 
RAW files merely give you more latitude in fixing flaws, and editing to make your photos more acceptable. There are far too many in my opinion pushing the you must only shoot RAW dogma. Media cards are cheap, and the cameras are much faster, so why limit yourself by only shooting in one format?


----------



## TCampbell (Mar 30, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Not to pick nits here, (and correct me if I'm wrong) but you don't edit raw files, you edit the way the JPEG (or tiff or whatever else viewable format you're using) conversion of the raw file is rendered.  I don't know of any program that will edit an image at the raw file level, that is, editors don't alter the raw file data in any way.



The RAW data is "De-Bayered" into a visible image (and there are lots of algorithms to do this).  The beauty of good RAW processing software is that the adjustments are really only displayed on-screen.  There's no single file that contains the "image" until you choose to export it.   This gives you the ability to change your mind about every adjustment you made.

The software I use creates a "preview" image only for purposes of allowing me to rapidly sift through the library of images to find the one I want.  But as soon as I start working with the image, it immediately switches to the real data.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 31, 2015)

TCampbell said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Not to pick nits here, (and correct me if I'm wrong) but you don't edit raw files, you edit the way the JPEG (or tiff or whatever else viewable format you're using) conversion of the raw file is rendered.  I don't know of any program that will edit an image at the raw file level, that is, editors don't alter the raw file data in any way.
> ...


Correct. Also hard to write about it because raw is so all over the place with virtually 0 agree upon standards (there is even such a thing as lossy raw, for example).


----------



## Nettles (Mar 31, 2015)

Sweeping pro-RAW conclusions aside, (and OCPD tendencies!), dedicated photographers are getting quality results shooting JPEG and RAW.

I'm an advanced amateur and I know I need RAW -- but not very often. In my opinion (for what it's worth) it's a choice, not a necessity.

RAW and JPEG What s Your Preference The Image Plane


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Mar 31, 2015)

Derrel said:


> If you want to offer corrections to people, perhaps take a bit of time to offer *the proper spellings of said definitions*. JPEG is not "Joint Photography Experts Group" as you incorrectly wrote, it is actually Joint Photographic Experts Group.
> 
> PNG - "Portable networks Graphics" as you wrote is also incorrect: it is Portable Network Graphic. Please note the capitalized and also SINGULAR form, Network, and the SINGULAR form, Graphic. Your definition was incorrectly spelled. The correct file type is spelled Portable Network Graphic.



Well, thank God we got _that _straightened out.



> As to the assertion that "RAW" is incorrect, experts seem to be divided on that. Nikon uses the term RAW in all of its materials, as does PC Magazine, and multiple other technical sites. Common usage seems to indicate a tremendous preponderance of people using the all-caps term "RAW" to differentiate a camera RAW file from say, raw beef, or raw fish, and so on.



Regardless of what the "experts" say about it, "RAW" would be an acronym. Just because a lot of people use it doesn't mean they're right. I also think the suggestion that using "RAW" helps differentiate a camera file from "raw beef" is ridiculous.

I really hope your response was tongue-in-cheek. If not, well, that would be sad.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 31, 2015)

Mr. Innuendo said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to offer corrections to people, perhaps take a bit of time to offer *the proper spellings of said definitions*. JPEG is not "Joint Photography Experts Group" as you incorrectly wrote, it is actually Joint Photographic Experts Group.
> ...


He and Keith have that sort of "playful" back and forth because Keith loves to call people out on writing RAW instead of Raw or raw.

And it's not just that some "experts" call it RAW, it's that makes of RAW standards often call it RAW.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Mar 31, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> He and Keith have that sort of "playful" back and forth because Keith loves to call people out on writing RAW instead of Raw or raw.



Ah, okay; got it.



> And it's not just that some "experts" call it RAW, it's that makes of RAW standards often call it RAW.



When I type "RAW" into Google, the first hit is for some pro-wrestling site; WWE, and that site had it as "Raw".

The first entry which pertains to photography has it expressed as "Raw".

About a year ago, I had a client insist that I provide her with the "RAW" files from a shoot I did with her. I told her I would be happy to do that, just as soon as she told me what the acronym "RAW" stood for.

She still hasn't gotten those files...


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 31, 2015)

Mr. Innuendo said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > He and Keith have that sort of "playful" back and forth because Keith loves to call people out on writing RAW instead of Raw or raw.
> ...


That seems like a really passive aggressive way to deal with a paying client. 

Also, by that logic, I suppose we can only shoot JPEG with Nikons, since Nikon calls them RAW. So obviously their files aren't real, since it's not an acronym.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Mar 31, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> That seems like a really passive aggressive way to deal with a paying client.



She was a high-level pain in the ass, so I decided to have fun with her.



> Also, by that logic, I suppose we can only shoot JPEG with Nikons, since Nikon calls them RAW. So obviously their files aren't real, since it's not an acronym.



I never actually suggested anything remotely like that, but thanks for taking the time to respond.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 31, 2015)

Mr. Innuendo said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > That seems like a really passive aggressive way to deal with a paying client.
> ...



Just don't see why being professional and simply pointing to the part of the contract she signed which strictly prohibits her from getting RAW, raw, Raw, rAW, rAw, RAw, raW or RaW files wouldn't be sufficient. But I guess deal with customer service however you'd like. We've all had nightmare clients I suppose.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 31, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> ........ So obviously their files aren't real, since it's not an acronym.



Actually, Nikon raw files _are_ an acronym.  NEF stands for Nikon Electronic Format.  So they _are_ real.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 31, 2015)

480sparky said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > ........ So obviously their files aren't real, since it's not an acronym.
> ...


Nikon calls NEF files RAW files, is what I was referring to.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 31, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Nikon calls NEF files RAW files, is what I was referring to.



That doesn't make them the world's default authority on the subject.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 31, 2015)

480sparky said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon calls NEF files RAW files, is what I was referring to.
> ...


Of course. There isn't an authority on naming conventions for file types. Which is what me (and derrel) have been saying. I'm not claiming that RAW is correct, I'm claiming that it isn't wrong. A language is defined by its common usage. For example, there isn't a word in English that's more technically wrong than children. It's pluralized using two different ways of pluralization (Germanic -er and old English -en) neither which are standard modes of how we pluralize. The original word was/is child. The first pluralization was childer. But since the speakers weren't as familiar with Germanic pluralization they pluralized it *again* using "childeren" which eventually got shortened to children. I don't think anybody would argue that children is incorrect, even though it "flaunts" the rules of grammar. That is how a word is used and written ultimately decides what is correct, moreso than grammar rules.

The fact that one of the companies who is responsible for making the machines that produce a large percentage of the world's RAW files calls them RAW files does weigh heavily on how the term is used. They're not an authority, but they have a say. Especially considering it's a file extension name and thus isn't as firmly entrenched in regular grammatical traditions anyway. What perhaps weighs more than anything though is simply usage. Lots of people write "RAW file." In the end that will be the only thing that matters. And it's not unparalled either. SAT, for example, isn't actually an acronym anymore, or are we going to claim The College Board isn't an authority on the name SAT?


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Mar 31, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Just don't see why being professional and simply pointing to the part of the contract she signed which strictly prohibits her from getting RAW, raw, Raw, rAW, rAw, RAw, raW or RaW files wouldn't be sufficient. But I guess deal with customer service however you'd like. We've all had nightmare clients I suppose.



And she was definitely one of those.

I pointed to the part which states what she would get, and what she would not get. She decided, for whatever reason, that part of the contract wouldn't apply to her.

The larger point, though, is that no one has been able to explain what "RAW" would be an acronym for, despite the fact that they enjoy expressing it that way.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 31, 2015)

According to Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Fujifilm and Olympus "RAW" is the established usage.

How bored am I?...


----------



## soufiej (Mar 31, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Not to pick nits here, (and correct me if I'm wrong) but you don't edit raw files, you edit the way the JPEG (or tiff or whatever else viewable format you're using) conversion of the raw file is rendered.  I don't know of any program that will edit an image at the raw file level, that is, editors don't alter the raw file data in any way.
> 
> How editing a raw image works (best case scenario) is that you tell the conversion program to make different choices about how it displays the raw data from the raw file into a JPEG (or tiff or whatever else).  But if the raw file is saved, the data from the raw file is completely unaltered. Typically if you edit such a file, two things are saved: the original completely unaltered, unedited raw file and a record of how to display the conversion, such that if you edit the image again later, it doesn't edit the actual JPEG, but again edits the conversion from the raw file data.  Basically the program recreates a new JPEG from scratch every time you edit it.  You never actually edit the raw file or the JPEG image in such a scenario, you just create different a conversion from raw to JPEG.  A raw file is essentially just a record of the data the sensor recorded.
> 
> Some poor editors though will convert the raw image once using the raw data, but then after you edit it again, you're editing the JPEG, in which case your options for editing are drastically reduced.



Let's go back a bit.  Jpeg is, as stated, a lossy format used to reduce file size.  The RAW alternative after editing is not reduced in file size.  It is alerted.  Jpeg implies specific algorithms have been used to format the image which is, in part, an issue with Jpeg images.  Since they all use similar algorithms, they can have a very "automatic" mode look to them.   Using the data collected by the sensor in an unformated file, the editor can adjust parameters to their liking.  But no data points are being discarded in the process.  A "RAW file" simply becomes an "edited or re-formatted RAW file" with full bit size mapping after it has been saved.  It will occupy as much file space on your hard drive as the original RAW file.  A Jpeg data file will contain smaller package size.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 31, 2015)

soufiej said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Not to pick nits here, (and correct me if I'm wrong) but you don't edit raw files, you edit the way the JPEG (or tiff or whatever else viewable format you're using) conversion of the raw file is rendered.  I don't know of any program that will edit an image at the raw file level, that is, editors don't alter the raw file data in any way.
> ...


No, this is not how raw files work. None of the data on a raw file related what the camera recorded is, in any way, shape or form altered when you "edit" a raw file. At most, the instructions for converting the raw file into a viewable digital positive are saved. But the exact same sensor measurements are never altered.

Again, all viewable images you create from a raw file are "lossy" simply because ALL viewable images contain less information than a typical raw file. Almost every raw file creates more information than any display can display and certainly more than the human eye can view. They contain dynamic range that is outside of what is viewable simultaneously and they often even contain spectrum that isn't even viewable by the human eye.

Also, JPEG can in fact be non-lossy. And can, in fact, only discard information outside the visible spectrum.

And lossy v lossless isn't even the point of raw. There is, in fact, lossy raw. Raw is simply referencing that the file is a record of data from the sensor and not a viewable image. Ie it's the raw file, not formatted for viewing.

This is why some raw converters/editors are non-destructive and some are destructive. Photoshop, for example, is a destructive raw editor. Once you open a raw file in Photoshop, it converts to a viewable, editable file, which raw files arent. Non-destructive raw editors (like Aperture and Lightroom) work by re-creating the viewable image from scratch every time the raw file is edited. But the original raw file, with the record of the sensor's data is never altered.

This is obviously a fruitless argument, since you've never answered what it is you think you're looking at when you open a raw file for viewing.

The reason that a raw file is the same size no matter how much you edit it isn't because the viewable image contains more information than a JPEG image, it's because the raw file didn't change. The viewable image a raw file produces when put through a raw converter **** is**** smaller in size than the raw file. Viewable images contain less information than raw files because raw files contain information that isn't viewable.


----------



## runnah (Mar 31, 2015)

Raw = Unfiltered and unaltered sensor data. Meaning it's the 1's and 0's that the camera sees. jpegs are designed to save space.

Very simple really.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 31, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> This is why some raw converters/editors are non-destructive and some are destructive. Photoshop, for example, is a destructive raw editor. Once you open a raw file in Photoshop, it converts to a viewable, editable file, which raw files arent. Non-destructive raw editors (like Aperture) work by re-creating the viewable image from scratch every time the raw file is edited. But the original raw file, with the record of the sensor's data is never altered.



I'm not certain what you mean by saying ACR is destructive.

Here is the file unopened




 

Here is the file after opening, editing in ACR and closing. 
ORF raw file is same size.
Do you mean that some of the data are changed?
Also appended is the first few lines of the xml which is the instruction set for the RAW converter to apply upon opining the next time.


----------



## soufiej (Mar 31, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



Yes, WE ARE back at square one.  Because Jpeg implies a lossy format, a processed format a COMPRESSED format.  There would have been no reason to invent Jpeg formatting unless the designers wanted a smaller, more compressed, lossy file size.  Lossless Jpeg is a misnomer - at best.  It simply means you've not discarded any more data than the Jpeg algorithms have already thrown out.  A Jpeg file and a "RAW" file will not be the same package size and, therefore, cannot be the same data file.  A RAW file after editing is essentially the same package size as the original RAW file, it has not been compressed down into a Jpeg lossy file package.  The algorithms which in camera create a Jpeg file are not at work when editing or saving a RAW file to a hard drive or other storage media.    

You want an explanation you can argue with about RAW?  here; _A raw file is the image as seen by the camera's sensor. Think of it like unprocessed film. Rather than letting the camera process the image for you, turning it into a JPEG image, shooting in raw allows you to process the image to your liking._ How to process and edit raw files from your camera - CNET

I suppose you want to disagree with Cnet too.  You're correct that a RAW file is not an image but we could argue neither is a Jpeg file an image.  Both are simply data packages.  We can't view data packages and make them into images in our mind.  You can't likely print a RAW image so it too must be converted to a printer friendly data package and file format.  But Jpeg is a lossy, compressed and processed format.  RAW is not as it exists on the hard drive.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 31, 2015)

Raw = kitchen outfitted with every type of cooking apparatus available, as well as a pantry stocked with every conceivable ingredient possible.  Staffed by the most competent chefs known.

JPEG = The entree served to the customer.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 31, 2015)

soufiej said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > soufiej said:
> ...


No, what cnet said is correct. It's not what you said.  The fact that there are lossy raw files and lossless JPEG files is simply an objective fact. It's a fact in the same way that Abraham Lincoln was the president during the civil war is a fact.

What CNET is saying is that the camera can make the JPEG conversion, or you can save the raw file and make the conversion later, to your own liking. But the conversion will have to eventually be made, if you ever want to look at it.

For a raw file to be viewable, it has first to be converted into a ****lossy**** format.  Even tiff, which is both lossless and viewable is lossless because it holds the additional information a raw file stores, in addition to the lossy viewable format.

You just seem to not understand what the difference between a digital positive and a digital negative are. A digital positive image can directly be viewed on a display. A digital negative (like raw) doesn't even have a color space defined. Raw images literally don't have color. They literally don't have a contrast level, as recorded there is no way of saying what level in a raw image is black, which is grey and which is white. They have data that can be converted to color spaces and grey scale, but as soon as you do that it isn't a raw file anymore.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 31, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Raw = kitchen outfitted with every type of cooking apparatus available, as well as a pantry stocked with every conceivable ingredient possible.  Staffed by the most competent chefs known.
> 
> JPEG = The entree served to the customer.


It's even more than this, as the analogous pantry a raw file made would contain things humans couldnt taste. It would be like if the pantry had xenon and raydon as ingredients (which humans can't differentiate or even detect because they don't react chemically)


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 31, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > This is why some raw converters/editors are non-destructive and some are destructive. Photoshop, for example, is a destructive raw editor. Once you open a raw file in Photoshop, it converts to a viewable, editable file, which raw files arent. Non-destructive raw editors (like Aperture) work by re-creating the viewable image from scratch every time the raw file is edited. But the original raw file, with the record of the sensor's data is never altered.
> ...


Photoshop and acr aren't the same thing. once an image is opened in Photoshop and saved in as a Photoshop file (or exported as JPEG) it is destructive.  You can't work in Photoshop without getting rid of information (unlike Lightroom, acr and aperture, which are non destructive).

There's sort of a way around this if you save a layer that you never alter,  but even in that case it's still lossy, because what you saved is a lossy viewable image with no "memory" of the original sensor recordings. So if you save a layer that you never alter, it doesn't destroy anything from that layer, though that layer itself is lossy.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 31, 2015)

runnah said:


> Raw = Unfiltered and unaltered sensor data. Meaning it's the 1's and 0's that the camera sees. jpegs are designed to save space.
> 
> Very simple really.


JPEG serves two purposes in most cases

1) first and foremost to be a viewable image, or digital positive. It defines a color space and defines what white, black and grey are (amongst other things).

2) it can (and almost always does) serve as a compression algorithm as well.

However, purpose two is completely controllable, and can in fact be made precise to such a high degree that it doesn't miss any information that a viewable tiff would have and it can even be lossless. Lossless JPEG, though uncommon, is a real thing. People mostly use TIFF if they want a lossless digital positive, but that's only because it's more common, not because it's "better."


----------



## Joves (Mar 31, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Mr. Innuendo said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



Yeah they just like to be a little RAW with each other.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Mar 31, 2015)

This type of conversation is what sucks the fun out of photography.


----------



## JacaRanda (Mar 31, 2015)

Mr. Innuendo said:


> This type of conversation is what sucks the fun out of photography.


 
I agree if - if we let it.


----------



## photoguy99 (Mar 31, 2015)

I'm always amused to see a Disagree assigned a posting that is just a statement of fact or facts.


----------



## BrickHouse (Mar 31, 2015)

You guys must be fun at parties.


----------



## Overread (Mar 31, 2015)

Few things that might help

1) Most (all?) RAW photos have a JPEG embedded into them. This is the image you view on the LCD and also what you view in the computer as well. There are even programs out there which can extract the JPEG from the RAW. The JPEG is edited to whatever your cameras JPEG editing settings are set to (which is why most keep them to faithful/neutral so that its as near to the RAW result as possible when reviewing the LCD and histogram on the back of the camera). 

2) Adobe Camera RAW (which runs when you open any RAW in any photoshop/lightroom program) doesn't save nor change any data in a RAW shot. All it does is save a separate file which lists all the adjustments you make to that file in lightroom this also includes all the area selective work you do as well. 
When you save the RAW you pick a file format for the save (JPEG - TIFF - PSD - other) and then the program saves that output in that output format. Some data is lost in this transfer because the file has no need to keep all of the light data that isn't being presented in the edit.


----------



## soufiej (Mar 31, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> No, what cnet said is correct. It's not what you said.  The fact that there are lossy raw files and lossless JPEG files is simply an objective fact. It's a fact in the same way that Abraham Lincoln was the president during the civil war is a fact.
> 
> What CNET is saying is that the camera can make the JPEG conversion, or you can save the raw file and make the conversion later, to your own liking. But the conversion will have to eventually be made, if you ever want to look at it.
> 
> ...



Don't you remember?  You said I never mentioned what a RAW file is.

_"What CNET is saying is that the camera can make the JPEG conversion, or you can save the raw file and make the conversion later, to your own liking. But the conversion will have to eventually be made, if you ever want to look at it."_

No, Cnet hasn't said anything about "the conversion will have to eventually be made"_.  _Yes, the RAW file _can_ be downsampled to a corresponding Jpeg - or simply converted into one of several other formats.  *Cnet is not saying*, though, the RAW file _must_ be downsampled and compressed into a Jpeg package_.  _

If I load a Jpeg file into my monitor, I have used a compressed, processed data package.  It is "x" size.  If I load the RAW version of that same image into my monitor, the viewable data has not been downsampled to Jpeg format.  It is the data as the sensor recorded it and it is "X" size package.  At no point *must* a RAW file be "converted" to a Jpeg for viewing or printing.

RAW formatting is described as lossless in the same way the audio WAV file format is lossless.  It is a full wave representation of the original source.  Its accuracy exists in part in its sampling rate.  Jpeg is lossy in the same way Mpeg is lossy.  But they are both simply data packages, on's and off's, which cannot be viewed or printed until they have been turned into (converted to) an analog format.  The process of "reconstruction" from a digital file to an analog output though is not lossy in the sense data is intentionally thrown away as it is in downsampling and compressing the data into a lower bit rate package.

There is a noise component which exists, embedded in the digital file system of either format which acts as a baseline reference for how the file will be reconstructed.  You can loosely define the system as 8 bit, 12 bit, 16 bit or more by the number of bits of noise in the file.  The actual digital noise is at a very low level (the least significant bits) which generally don't intrude on the analog file.  If, in a RAW file, you consider that to be "lossy", then you're not comprehending how the digital data is being reconstructed into an analog format.

Make your "lossless" Jpeg file if you like by essentially using a higher bit rate in recording the data but you still will not have a data package as large as the corresponding RAW data package.  That is because Jpeg is, ultimately, a lossy, processed and compressed format.

The rest is all just words you are confusing in your head.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 1, 2015)

soufiej said:


> .....If I load a Jpeg file into my monitor, I have used a compressed, processed data package.  It is "x" size.  If I load the RAW version of that same image into my monitor, the viewable data has not been downsampled to Jpeg format.  It is the data as the sensor recorded it and it is "X" size package.  At no point *must* a RAW file be "converted" to a Jpeg for viewing or printing....



I think the crux of the problem is here: "It is the data as the sensor recorded it and it is "X" size package.  At no point *must* a RAW file be "converted" to a Jpeg for viewing or printing."

When you open a RAW file to edit you do not see "the data as the sensor recorded it." You see a converted RGB photo that is certainly lossy due to that conversion process. It does not have to be JPEG compressed which is a specific process, *but you do not see the data as the sensor recorded it.* The process to demosaic the RAW data is an interpolation process and as such does what the term interpolation implies -- it is lossy. There's all kinds of ways to be lossy. To see how lossy all you have to do is start comparing different RAW demosaicing algorithms. Furthermore, when you open a RAW file to edit you see a software interpretation of that interpolated data in terms of color and tone response. Open the same RAW file in two different processors and you'll see two different interpretations. An interpretation is also as the term implies lossy -- just not JPEG lossy -- there's all kinds of ways to be lossy.

Joe


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 1, 2015)

[QUOTE="soufiej, post: 3455420, member: 173037]



If I load a Jpeg file into my monitor, I have used a compressed, processed data package.  It is "x" size.  If I load the RAW version of that same image into my monitor, the viewable data has not been downsampled to Jpeg format.  It is the data as the sensor recorded it and it is "X" size package.  At no point *must* a RAW file be "converted" to a Jpeg for viewing or printing.

[/QUOTE]

Here is the problem, that single quote makes it clear: you can't load a raw file onto your monitor. You don't have to convert the raw file to a JPEG in particular, but you do have to convert it to a digital positive image, of which JPEG is one type (tiff is another). all of your other misunderstandings here stem from this fundamental misunderstanding. You can't view a raw file. You can't display a raw file on your monitor. You can't print a raw file. Raw files aren't digital images. You ***can*** display a JPEG image on a monitor (along with other types of digital positive images, like tiff, png, gif,etc). A JPEG image is a digital image 

I'm not even going to wade down the MP3 path again because arguing over a poor analogy is pointless when the poor analogy stems from a basic misunderstanding of the thing we are talking about.


----------



## Alexr25 (Apr 1, 2015)

soufiej said:


> A RAW file after editing is essentially the same package size as the original RAW file





soufiej said:


> No, Cnet hasn't said anything about "the conversion will have to eventually be made"_. _Yes, the RAW file _can_ be downsampled to a corresponding Jpeg - or simply converted into one of several other formats. *Cnet is not saying*, though, the RAW file _must_ be downsampled and compressed into a Jpeg package_._
> 
> If I load a Jpeg file into my monitor, I have used a compressed, processed data package. It is "x" size. If I load the RAW version of that same image into my monitor, the viewable data has not been downsampled to Jpeg format. It is the data as the sensor recorded it and it is "X" size package. At no point *must* a RAW file be "converted" to a Jpeg for viewing or printing.


A RAW file is never edited or changed in any way. The data contained in the RAW file is used to create a new file in a format that can be displayed by the computer. RAW file data cannot be displayed as an image on your monitor, the image you see as the file thumbnail is the file's embedded jpeg, to "edit" a RAW captured image you must first use the RAW data to generate a file in a format the the computer can edit.
You need to grasp this fact to make any sense of RAW processing.



soufiej said:


> RAW formatting is described as lossless in the same way the audio WAV file format is lossless. It is a full wave representation of the original source. Its accuracy exists in part in its sampling rate. Jpeg is lossy in the same way Mpeg is lossy. But they are both simply data packages, on's and off's, which cannot be viewed or printed until they have been turned into (converted to) an analog format. The process of "reconstruction" from a digital file to an analog output though is not lossy in the sense data is intentionally thrown away as it is in downsampling and compressing the data into a lower bit rate package.


File formats are never described as lossy or lossless but rather the compression algorithms that some file formats use can be lossy or lossless.  Whether a compression is lossy or lossless is not defined by whether data gets thrown away but rather on whether the original file can be reconstructed from the compressed file. Since WAV files are uncompressed it makes no sense to talk of them as lossy or lossless, they just are. RAW files on the other hand do come in all flavours, you can have RAW files that are uncompressed, compressed using lossless compression or compressed using lossy compression. The data inside the file is still RAW and still needs to be converted to an image format file (tif, jpeg, psd etc) before it can be displayed and edited.




soufiej said:


> There is a noise component which exists, embedded in the digital file system of either format which acts as a baseline reference for how the file will be reconstructed. You can loosely define the system as 8 bit, 12 bit, 16 bit or more by the number of bits of noise in the file. The actual digital noise is at a very low level (the least significant bits) which generally don't intrude on the analog file. If, in a RAW file, you consider that to be "lossy", then you're not comprehending how the digital data is being reconstructed into an analog format.
> 
> Make your "lossless" Jpeg file if you like by essentially using a higher bit rate in recording the data but you still will not have a data package as large as the corresponding RAW data package. That is because Jpeg is, ultimately, a lossy, processed and compressed format.


Nothing to do with bit rate.
Jpeg is a file format that uses a lossy compression algorithm but the amount of compression can be set by the user. So if you set the compression level to zero compression you will get an uncompressed Jpeg file. Quite simple really once you stop thinking of files a lossy or lossless and start thinking of the compression algorithm used to create the file. 



soufiej said:


> The rest is all just words you are confusing in your head.


What can I say about who's head is confused?


----------



## soufiej (Apr 1, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> [QUOTE="soufiej, post: 3455420, member: 173037]
> 
> 
> 
> If I load a Jpeg file into my monitor, I have used a compressed, processed data package.  It is "x" size.  If I load the RAW version of that same image into my monitor, the viewable data has not been downsampled to Jpeg format.  It is the data as the sensor recorded it and it is "X" size package.  At no point *must* a RAW file be "converted" to a Jpeg for viewing or printing.



Here is the problem, that single quote makes it clear: you can't load a raw file onto your monitor. You don't have to convert the raw file to a JPEG in particular, but you do have to convert it to a digital positive image, of which JPEG is one type (tiff is another). all of your other misunderstandings here stem from this fundamental misunderstanding. You can't view a raw file. You can't display a raw file on your monitor. You can't print a raw file. Raw files aren't digital images. You ***can*** display a JPEG image on a monitor (along with other types of digital positive images, like tiff, png, gif,etc). A JPEG image is a digital image

I'm not even going to wade down the MP3 path again because arguing over a poor analogy is pointless when the poor analogy stems from a basic misunderstanding of the thing we are talking about.[/QUOTE]

*
*
HERE is the problem as I see it* ... In an earlier post you said, "Basically the program recreates a new JPEG from scratch every time you edit it."

Now you say, "You don't have to convert the raw file to a JPEG in particular ... "

*The former is what I objected to.*  Then you launched into the same ol' CYA issues which don't really matter when it comes to how we display a digital file because we can't see a digital file.  Saying now the RAW file can exist as another form other than Jpeg is not what you had earlier claimed.  *End of discussion!*

We are dancing around words and trying to prove a point which, IMO, largely doesn't need to be made.  Most simply because how we express the words to describe the process can vary and still be either correct or incorrect depending on where in the use of a digital file we care to discuss the process. 

*The issue remains whether a Jpeg format is a lossy format.  And it is, by definition.*  It is a compressed (therefore, "proceesed") format without a restoration algorithm which returns the file to its (mostly) lossless size and quality.  Again, saying, "File formats are never described as lossy or lossless but rather the compression algorithms that some file formats use can be lossy or lossless", is just arguing words.  Is a motor driven device meant to transport individuals from here to there a "car" or an "automobile"?   Is it driven by a "motor" or an "engine"?    *Introducing more word games into this discussion is only going to muddy the waters even further*. 

We _do_ describe file formats as being lossy or lossless as a convenient shorthand rather than describing the mathematical algorithms used to compress, compress/decompress or simply transfer existing data files from one storage location to another.  _Jpeg is always described as a lossy file format just as MP3 is always a lossy file format._  You can increase the file size of a Jpeg compression but you can never create a Jpeg file with all the data of a RAW file.  If you could, what would have been the point in creating the Jpeg file format?  None!  So why bother with inventing Jpeg if you have RAW already?  How you display or print the file data package is not the real issue here.  *Jpeg is "x".  Raw is "X". * You can decrease the variance between the two but the Jpeg is always going to be the lower case (compressed) data package and the RAW file is always going to be the upper case (uncompressed) data package. 

How a RAW data file is displayed is again dancing around a dead tree trunk in the dark of night.  Data points in use are considered "least significant" and "most significant" with the vast majority of data points falling between those two extremes.  *Saying we cannot display a RAW file is stating the obvious and it is exactly what I have stated on several occasions. * Humans do not see nor hear in a strictly binary fashion.  Digital storage media and "use" is based upon a strictly binary process.  Therefore, right, we cannot display a series of on's and off's on a display monitor.  It must be converted to an analog format - _which everyone arguing about how a RAW file is displayed simply seems to ignore.  You all talk as though you are viewing 1's and 0's on your monitor.  And you are NOT!  _

However, given the conversion to an analog format which is usable for viewing, printing or listening to music,  digital storage began as a lossless format and several options remain for using the highest amount of available data points to construct and reconstruct the digital file.  Lossy formats were invented using algorithms which relied on perception.  Basically, if "this" exists, then "that" can be discarded without altering perception of the event.  *A lossy file format will always be an "if this/then that" file format used for compression of the file data package size.*  Because many folks detected problems with the "this then that" formats, newer formats which compress and decompress were created.   Ways to increase the package size were designed for the lossy formats.  _None though ever construct/store/reconstruct/transfer and use the original source image to the "X" size of a lossless file.   Again, if they act the same as a lossless file, why create a different algorithm?  Other than the monetary value of a proprietary format, there would be none.  _

*Arguing further about how much data is not viewed or not heard or not printed is beyond the point*.  Those data points which are used "mathematically" to form the file format exist in all formats and are deemed "least significant".  You can describe them as "lossy" but that is again semantics and, basically, wrong.  We cannot see an analog image by viewing the data from a digital file.  Therefore, a portion of the digital file is used to instruct the converter as to which file format it is working with.  Period.  Subcodes!  Period!  We can all say the same thing in a dozen different ways.  None of that changes the basic issue of the debate.

*The original debate was whether Jpeg is a "lossy format", which it is.*  This debate was whether editing a "RAW FILE" must create a Jpeg file.  Which it does not.  We have also debated whether RAW file formatting was accepted as " ..._ the image as seen by the camera's sensor", _which we do!
_
All the rest becomes BS words!!!  And a vast waste of time to continue!_


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 1, 2015)

This is pretty epic. Well done, everyone.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 1, 2015)

soufiej said:


> If I load a Jpeg file into my monitor, I have used a compressed, processed data package.  It is "x" size.  If I load the RAW version of that same image into my monitor, the viewable data has not been downsampled to Jpeg format.  It is the data as the sensor recorded it and it is "X" size package.  At no point *must* a RAW file be "converted" to a Jpeg for viewing or printing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Nobody here, least of all me, debated that JPEG is a lossy format.  (well, except that there is a such thing as lossless JPEG, but as it's not a common standard, we can ignore that).

What we have been pointing out is that, as you are using the term, all formats that are displayable are lossy.  Raw is not a displayable format.  This isn't a word game.

What I, and others, have repeatedly pointed out to you, is that when you view an image, you are viewing a lossy format.

And yes, when you "edit a raw image" you are not editing the raw file.  You are editing how your raw converter displays a lossy viewable image.

Even formats which are displayable and lossless, like some versions of tiff, create a lossy displayable image.

You keep sticking to some "analog to digital" conversion idea, which is what happens in digital audio, but not digital imagery.  There is no analog to digital conversion for digital imaging, until you get to the stage of literally lighting up pixels.  And at that stage it's simply turning the pixels that the digital files told the computer to do.

This very question belies a complete misunderstanding that you call a "word game" which is really just you not understanding how it works:

"why bother with inventing Jpeg if you have RAW already?"

Because raw is not a displayable format.  JPEG is (along with a few other types of digital images).

This isn't about digital to analog conversion (I think your WAV v MPEG analogy here is confusing you, comparing WAV to MPEG is comparing apples to apples.  They're the same sort of thing.  You can play a WAV file on a computer in the ***same exact way*** you can play an MPEG.  The only purpose of MPEG is to compress.  This is not the case with raw v JPEG.  Comparing raw to JPEG is comparing apples to organges.  They don't even do the same thing.  JPEG ***is not*** just a compressed version of a raw file.  JPEG is viewable, raw is not. You have to convert a raw file to a viewable format.  I hate to keep repeating this, but this is the fundamental issue that you seem to keep repeatedly missing.  When you "view a raw file" what you are viewing is almost certainly a jpeg.  When you take a raw file with your camera and view it with your camera, you are looking at a jpeg that your camera made with its internal raw converter.  If you want to view a raw image, it ***has to be converted to a viewable format*** JPEG does not require this.  JPEG is viewable on its own.

That is why a displayable format is necessary.  Yes, jpeg usually runs a compression algorithm, but you can set the level of compression such that it is only removing information that can't be displayed anyway.  But again, let's not get into minutiae, since it's not the issue you're misunderstanding.  You're misunderstanding the more fundamental issue.

JPEG does two things in most cases:

1) converts the raw image into a viewable image. It assigns tones on the grey scale and color (and a few other things).
2) compresses.

You understand the 2nd part for the most part (though I think you're analogizing it with MP3 confuses the issue more than it clarifies).  But you keep missing the first issue.  Repeatedly.

You can't "only use raw"

Yes, I said "you don't have to convert to JPEG in particular..." but notice the important part is what you cut with the ellipses.  I said that because there are other alternatives to JPEG.  But they're lossy viewable formats.  You ***HAVE TO CONVERT A RAW IMAGE***  The conversion can be to tiff, jpeg, bmp, gif, png, etc.  But you can't just leave it in raw, if you want to view it.


----------



## soufiej (Apr 1, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Nobody here, least of all me, debated that JPEG is a lossy format.  (well, except that there is a such thing as lossless JPEG, but as it's not a common standard, we can ignore that).






*OH! PLEASE!!! *

Find another hobby.  


Of course that is exactly what you have been saying and you can't even keep it straight when you deny you have said exactly that.

*GIVE IT UP!!!*


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 1, 2015)

soufiej said:


> *OH! PLEASE!!! *
> 
> Find another hobby.
> 
> ...



link?

Outside of saying that there is a such thing as JPEG lossless (which is true) where did I say that?  What I was responding to is how you kept talking about not needing to use JPEG.  You kept saying that JPEG's only purpose is to compress data (which isn't true, its primary purpose is to create a viewable image, yes it also compresses, I never said otherwise).  You kept saying that people shouldn't use JPEG because it's lossy, that they should instead use raw, because it was "higher fidelity."  You kept saying that you could view and edit a raw image (which isn't true).

What I kept saying like 2983432 times is that you ****HAVE TO USE A LOSSY FORMAT TO VIEW AN IMAGE**** so raw is only important if you are going to edit color and exposure.  I also said that if you open a raw file, you are viewing a lossy image, you are not viewing the raw file.  I said that if you "edit a raw file" what you are doing is creating a conversion (almost always JPEG) that is lossy and changing the way that the raw converter gets the JPEG from the raw file. 

To make it as simple as possible, JPEGs come from raw files.  Always.  You can't create a JPEG without a raw file.  Any time you look at or edit an image, you are not looking at or editing a raw file. 

The two are completely different things.  The choice isn't whether or not you use raw or JPEG, the choice is when you convert from raw to JPEG.  You can have the camera do it for you, shortly after it takes the picture, or you can have a program on your computer change your raw file into a jpeg.  but you ****MUST CONVERT YOUR RAW FILE TO JPEG (or another viewable image type)**** raw files themselves are completely useless on their own.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Apr 1, 2015)

You ever see the movie "Scanners"? That part right before the dude's head exploded?

Yeah... That.


----------



## Vic Vinegar (Apr 2, 2015)

I just want to chime in with something that you might not realize until it's too late. If you're doing RAW, get lots of memory cards or get high capacity cards because 30-40 RAW images can easily take up a GB worth of storage.


----------



## baturn (Apr 3, 2015)

I wonder what happened to the OP??


----------



## Nettles (Apr 3, 2015)

He's out taking photos.


----------



## mcap1972 (Apr 13, 2015)

Try using Lightroom on edit them.


----------



## beagle100 (Apr 14, 2015)

Nettles said:


> He's out taking photos.




good !


----------



## Joves (Apr 15, 2015)

beagle100 said:


> Nettles said:
> 
> 
> > He's out taking photos.
> ...



Yeah what a novel idea. Someone on a photography forum actually going out to shoot photos. I went out today but did not see anything that I wanted to trip the shutter on.


----------



## NCspotter (Apr 15, 2015)

I'll do my best to be serious here.

I'm not sure what camera you have, but it should have come with an editing program on a CD. That program will allow you to convert from RAW to JPEG. If not, head over to the website of the brand of your camera (nikonusa.com, usa.canon.com, etc) and look around for a free downloadable photo-editing program, which should be the same as the one that would have come on the CD.


----------

