Posted by jim dole on October 13, 2006 at 10:47 AM
I edited a RAW photo and printed it out and wasn't happy with the editing. I know I have to go back and redo some things. I was told to just print out the RAW photo without editing it at all. Question.... what would it look like printed out and shouldn't RAW photos be edited first? Has anyone printed a RAW photo without editing and if so, how did it look? I won't be able to get back on this site till later this evening, but please give me ideas and comments on how to do this. I would post the photo but I and not a paying member yet. Thanks for your help in advance.
Printing straight from raw is like eating flour and yeast and hoping it will taste like bread
Seriously - raw files simply capture the data read from the sensor and are converted into image information using a variety of algorithms. They are meant to offer you the greatest flexibility in editing so will inherently have very low contrast, bland color, and lots of detail and tone information. The assumption is that you will "bake" them into the final rendition you want to, rather than allow the camera's computer to make all the decisions for you.
> Printing straight from raw is like eating flour and yeast and hoping it will taste like bread
That's an amazing analogy!
Posted by Rob Coomer on October 13, 2006 at 12:23 PM
You may accept the RAW software's, or camera's default / auto settings as a starting point for a print. This should give you a decent result. Much like an auto processed jpg. This is why I shoot RAW + med jpg. The jpg is already processed for quick review and printing, but the RAW is there if I see potential in the image as a large print.
I was told to just print out the RAW photo without editing it at all.
I'm very surprised someone suggested this course of action; printing an unadjusted RAW file is going to lead to disappointment nearly 100% of the time. As Guy mentioned, the goal behind RAW capture is to preserve as much detail as possible; this inevitably leads to a flat, desaturated image. The first thing I learned after moving from film to digital capture more than three years ago was not to despair upon viewing the RAW image right out of the camera.
In your RAW conversion package of choice--and hopefully using a calibrated display , eyeball the image for exposure. If it appears modestly under or overexposed, tweak that setting to taste. The other thing to check is the image's white balance; the common course of action is to at least view the image after converting the white balance to the preset option best corresponding to the conditions present when the image was captured--e.g. direct sun, shade, cloudy. This should give you a reasonable starting place.
These are the only adjustments I ever make (and, truthfully, I rarely adjust exposure; white balance is another story) during RAW conversion. Any other enhancements I deem desireable are performed in Photoshop; I know some people do a lot more during RAW conversion, and of course there's nothing wrong with that approach.
Best of luck.
Posted by Richard Wong on October 13, 2006 at 2:30 PM
I find RAW to be plenty saturated to begin with, with Canon cameras anyway, assuming you shot a colorful scene. Adjusting the levels and curves though can really make your images pop off the screen.
Richard, the raw file itself is not saturated at all (it's just the readings from the sensor). What you see as a saturated image is actually created by the converter which applies its own default settings (in the absence of any user customization). These defaults can sometimes be very saturated and contrasty unless changed.
Most users actually change the defaults so they are not that extreme and more finely tuned adjustments can be performed in the imaging software (e.g. Photoshop) rather than applied broadly by the converter.
Other than allowing more flexibility in editing, capturing the raw file also avoids compression artifacts that plague the JPG format and allows for a much greater range of tones (12- or 14-bit as opposed to only 8-bit in JPG).
Guy
Posted by Peter Carroll on October 13, 2006 at 3:59 PM
Guy - you have my vote for analogy of the year! I'll remember the yeast/bread idea for some time!
Thanks for your responses. I really do appreciate it very much. A guy I work with told me just to try it and see what happens. The picture is of a doe that I took at a park here. I got the composition right for you can see all chin hairs, eye lashes, hair in the ears and on the neck and chest you can see the hairs really nicely. I am not a member here so I can't post it but I can make a jpeg of it and email it to someone to see what they think. Also if they want a hand at editing it they can with my permission. After all, aren't we all here to learn and help one another. I really do like this site.
Posted by Ed Cordes on October 14, 2006 at 10:46 AM
Jim, you have gotten outstanding advice here from very experienced photographers, some of whom actually make a living at it.Your continued participation will only increase the knowlege you will gain. My advice is to take advantage of the new 30 day trial membership and then pay the $49 to be a member. You will not regret it one bit. I have ound my NPN membership to be the most value of any photography $$ I have spent in my 40 years of amature photography.
Posted by Bill Chambers on October 17, 2006 at 11:29 AM
Discussion
12 repliesPrinting straight from raw is like eating flour and yeast and hoping it will taste like bread
Seriously - raw files simply capture the data read from the sensor and are converted into image information using a variety of algorithms. They are meant to offer you the greatest flexibility in editing so will inherently have very low contrast, bland color, and lots of detail and tone information. The assumption is that you will "bake" them into the final rendition you want to, rather than allow the camera's computer to make all the decisions for you.
Guy
That's an amazing analogy!
I'm very surprised someone suggested this course of action; printing an unadjusted RAW file is going to lead to disappointment nearly 100% of the time. As Guy mentioned, the goal behind RAW capture is to preserve as much detail as possible; this inevitably leads to a flat, desaturated image. The first thing I learned after moving from film to digital capture more than three years ago was not to despair upon viewing the RAW image right out of the camera.
In your RAW conversion package of choice--and hopefully using a calibrated display
These are the only adjustments I ever make (and, truthfully, I rarely adjust exposure; white balance is another story) during RAW conversion. Any other enhancements I deem desireable are performed in Photoshop; I know some people do a lot more during RAW conversion, and of course there's nothing wrong with that approach.
Best of luck.
Pete D.
Most users actually change the defaults so they are not that extreme and more finely tuned adjustments can be performed in the imaging software (e.g. Photoshop) rather than applied broadly by the converter.
Other than allowing more flexibility in editing, capturing the raw file also avoids compression artifacts that plague the JPG format and allows for a much greater range of tones (12- or 14-bit as opposed to only 8-bit in JPG).
Guy