I'm new to shooting RAW and a little unclear on a few things. I've currently got my camera set to take RAW+JPEG/fine/large. when I load images onto my computer the RAW and JPEG images look exactly the same. After making the conversion in ACR it seems that RAW conversion is just more editing. OK so, once converted do I have greater latitude in the editor than I would if it were JPEG? If I don't feel I need to make any changes to the image in ACR can I skip it and just start working on the image in the editor? Once I get farther into this what is PSE missing compared to the full version? So far I just don't see the advantage of shooting RAW, but I"m probably just not "getting it" yet. Any advice is appreciated.
The main advantage to RAW conversion is you can tweak things and have a lot of latitude in making adjustments which aren't available in JPEG. Adjusting the color, temperature (warmth), blacks, whites, sharpness, noise etc. are all steps taken in ACR and can be done with little to no damage to the image. If you try making these changes to a JPEG (you can load a JPEG as a RAW image in PS and use ACR to adjust a JPEG if you wish) it will degrade the image. Once you save the JPEG and try to make changes in the future, it will degrade the quality ever further.
If you take a look at my latest fauna post "back to seals" you can see Brad Hill's comments about the bright whites and deep shadows and my use of a high ISO. If I had used a lower ISO I would have had more room to recover the bright areas and dark areas in ACR. That would be nearly impossible in JPEG.
Also, remember that the JPEG is already a polished version so the RAW in many cases will look "worse" (duller, flatter, not as sharp) than the JPEG. But with the proper adjustments, the RAW will shine.
This is not an exhuastive or detailed explination but a general comment. Others I'm sure will give you much more precise explinations of the differences. Mike Moats will tell you that we're all wrong and wasting our time with RAW
If the raw file and the jpeg file look the same then I'd see if the camera settings are somehow getting applied to the raw file (sharpness, color intensity, etc.). I don't know if that happens with whatever camera you are using and whatever version of PSE you have, but it can happen with a camera and the camera manufacturer's conversion software.
Another thing to check are the auto settings in ACR - you want these turned off so that you get to see and work with the unaltered raw file. If you have the auto settings turned on ACR is probably making large changes to your file without you even knowing it.
With raw you should be working in 16 bit; jpeg is only 8 bit. That is a big factor if you need to make substantial changes in exposure during conversion - the greater bit depth of raw will lesser the amount of posterization in color ranges in dark areas.
Shooting raw and converting in ACR gives a lot of flexibility to fine tune the histogram and get the most detail out of both the darks and lights in the image.
Raw also allows the white point to be set after taking the image, rather than at the time of shooting. If you shoot in jpeg the ability to fix bad white balance is severely limited.
It's interesting to me to read this. In my cameras (Nikon) I can see color differences between the original RAWs and JPEGs- They're generally a little more saturated in RAW.
I agree that the controls in ACR are much better than in Photoshop- easier and better results in my opinion.
But here's the thing- You can open the JPEGs in ACR as though they were RAW files and use the same editing tools. It's pretty standard in the studio world when a shoot calls for JPEG capture and post-processing will be required. The extra control capabilities are worth it.
As for working RAW files in ACR, I only do that when color or light will mandate post-processing. I try as much as possible to shoot in such a way that post-processing is not required. Balancing light colors, using split ND filters, whatever. Kind of "old school" approach left over from our days of film, but in our business time is money. If the client is not paying you to sit at the computer, you're "losing money" any time you do it.
But here's the thing- You can open the JPEGs in ACR as though they were RAW files and use the same editing tools. It's pretty standard in the studio world when a shoot calls for JPEG capture and post-processing will be required. The extra control capabilities are worth it.
Hank - That's true, but all the controls for color, noise, and sharpness will work a little bit better on the original RAW file. This is because you are dealing with the original sensor pixel data, which has the original sensor values. Each pixel value in the JPG is an approximation made from merging (according to some very complex algorithms) the values of the various red, green, and blue pixels near it in the RAW data.
White balance, for instance, doesn't work nearly as well on a JPG as it does on a RAW file.
Thanks guys. I'll take another closer look to make sure there aren't any noticable differences in RAW vs JPEG. How do I check my Nikon D5000 to see if the camera settings are being applied to the RAW file if I'm capturing in RAW+JPEG? Should I just capture in RAW?
It seems I should make any adjustments needed in ACR then fine tune the image in the PSE7 editor? For example, Richard when you say "fine tune the histogram" do you mean in ACR or the PSE editor? I haven't seen the control options in the full version of PS, but there are only maybe eight sliders, etc. in PSE7/ACR; I can't say for sure at the moment. I also try to get the best image I can in camera.
Hank - That's true, but all the controls for color, noise, and sharpness will work a little bit better on the original RAW file. This is because you are dealing with the original sensor pixel data, which has the original sensor values. Each pixel value in the JPG is an approximation made from merging (according to some very complex algorithms) the values of the various red, green, and blue pixels near it in the RAW data.
White balance, for instance, doesn't work nearly as well on a JPG as it does on a RAW file.
Agreed, but as I said, time is money for us. Shooting everything in RAW mandates processing time on every single image for a shoot that calls for delivery in JPEG or TIFF. Using RAW controls on the few that need processing is money in the pocket compared to sentencing yourself to processing hundreds and hundreds of images overnight for delivery the next morning.
Different arenas have different "rules." When I'm shooting landscapes on my own time, yeah, I shoot RAW + JPEG fine. But when I'm getting paid to shoot JPEG or TIFF, RAW is a last resort.
Hank - Agreed. I was just pointing out that while the controls work for JPGs and TIFFs, they don't typically have the same results as in RAW. I've shot JPG for a few "event" type things I've done for friends.
But in some cases it's still quick and beneficial to shoot RAW. For a low light event, I shot RAW+JPG, and wound up using the RAW files, since the noise reduction necessary came out better from RAW. (And white balance was a nightmare.) I settled on "global" settings for ACR that I applied across the board and got me close. Then some tweaks to some images beyond that.
In most cases though, if I was going to come up with a single set of ACR settings to apply like that, I might as well just shoot JPG. But anytime I go out and expect to have only a few images to work on, I want them in RAW.
Plus, I'm weird in that I really like working on the computer, and don't make money from it. Different strokes and all.
Really enjoying the banter guys. Of course it can be approached from different angles depending on what's motivating you, such as business or pleasure.
Anyway, after a closer look I did notice in the RAW version the colors were a little more saturated and seemed a little richer, probably due to the 16 bit instead of 8 bit? However, when I opened the image after making some adjustments in ACR there were some tools that were unavailable in the editor because "PSE provides only limited support for files with 16 bit color depth." Are all the tools available in the full version in 16 bit? I've attached a macro of a Trillium I shot on Easter. This is the RAW capture. I'll post the edited JPEG below for comparison.
Here's the edited JPEG. Of course it's hard to match the two in regards to adjustments. They both look OK to me what do you think.
Posted by David Bostedo on April 6, 2010 at 11:33 PM
Bruce - By default, the RAW converter settings are likely trying to mimic the JPG settings in your camera (which is really doing RAW processing under the covers). So if the colors are more saturated, it's because ACR doesn't quite match the in-camera processing. You could make more saturated colors easily with either the camera JPG or the RAW file.
The detail, on the other hand, may have something to do with the particular RAW conversion, and it's possible that ACR is doing a better (or at least different) job than your camera there.
Keep in mind that the whole point of doing RAW processing is that you (rather than your camera) can control everything more finely - white balance, color saturation, fine detail, brightness, exposure, contrast, highlight recovery (something you CAN'T do with a JPG), etc.
In this case, I agree that it looks like the in-camera JPG conversion might have overcooked the center, and caused some detail loss. Of course, it looks like the RAW conversion brought the shadows way up (too far in my opinion). Whether that matters is up to you. I started working in RAW trying to get close to the in-camera JPG. But once you're comfortable with the RAW converter, you probably won't reference the in-camera much anymore.
As far as 16 vs 8 bit :
1) It doesn't affect color saturation as much as color transition. 16-bit will give you the ability to push colors around more (particularly in a large color space) without showing negative effects. 8-bit has less fine gradations between colors, and can potentially cause banding.
There are also color space issues; Color spaces and management, though, is a whole other topic I'd rather not confuse this with.
2) I think all adjustments are available in 16-bit in the full version of PS. (I have PS CS4, and I don't think I've run across anything that only works in 8-bit.) PS Elements has always been 16-bit limited.
Most of the time, 16-bit vs 8-bit won't make a noticeable difference. A lot of the time, RAW vs. JPG (if minimal processing is required) won't make a difference. It all depends on what work flow works best for you. I find that I tend to wring the most detail and fine options out of my files, so I really like working with RAW when I can.
Raw images especially those that are shot at 14 bit will record more information - color, dynamic range, headroom. Raw images are inherently sharper after proper sharpening, have smoother tonal transitions, less banding and more shadow and highlight detail than the same file shot as a jpg. Also, if you use a larger color space, such as Adobe RGB, you have more latitude in making adjustments without clipping your colors, than when you shoot in sRGB. Some may argue that sRGB is the LCD (least common denominator) and as such should be all you need. However, as you adjust your image in a larger color space you have more "room" for non-destructive adjustment, then you can always convert from a bigger color space to a smaller one when you are ready to distribute or print.
As far as RAW files taking more time, it depends on what you are looking for in a final product and what tools you are using to get there. You can get "almost" finished images with in camera processing of jpg files. RAW files will not appear finished - they will be unsharpened, lacking in color saturation and contrast etc. If you use a software tool that is intended for processing of single images, its true that it will take a lot of time to process your images, as you open them one by one to make the required adjustments. ACR, Nikon's NX2, Picture Window Pro, etc are all examples of tools that will allow you to edit and convert RAW images to jpg but have crude batch processing capability.
Capture One and Lightroom are the Ferrari and the Lambourghini of the RAW processing workflow. I am pretty good with Photoshop and have developed some actions to do repetitive tasks such as sharpening. But in terms of time to get to a really good final product there is no comparison. From the point where you plug in your memory card into the computer to conversion, these two tools automate everything - and they allow you to group images and define & apply adjustments to the entire group. All adjustments that can be performed can be copied and applied. Also, it is very easy to make images that need to be consistent appear that way, because both converters will allow you to view the adjusted images immediately and in tiled view.
I recently covered an indoor event where the lighting conditions were inconsistent as you moved around the room. I took close to 200 shots, took a bit less than an hour from start to finish to adjust, sharpen and convert the images, produce a set of low-res, medium quality jpgs for email distribution (proofs) and a set of high-res 16 bit tiff files for future editing in Photoshop for large print purposes. Couldn't imagine being able to do that in less than 5 hours if I were using only ACR. I showed these images to two different "pro" jpg event shooters and they both commented on the consistency and quality of the images.
I have not shot jpg images in over 3 yrs. Having gotten really comfortable with the RAW workflow provided by Capture One, the majority of the time I can get much better results than when I shoot jpg, and usually in less time anyway. Time is money, but quality is the ultimate goal.
Shooting is RAW is great in the event you screw up -- such as, say, you under expose or have the white balance set wrong. Also good for situations where the dynamic range of your scene is extreme. But I'd say insurance against screw-ups is reason enough to shoot RAW +Jpeg.
Chewing is good, Bruce! Each of us has different situations and habits. If you have the time or inclination to be at the keyboard rather than shooting, it's pretty amazing what can be done.
But keyboard time isn't always an option. That's why we focus on original capture, whether choice of file format, balancing light temps from multiple artificial sources, or using split ND filters rather than HDR processing. Others solutions will be entirely different, based on the results of their own chewing.
You hit the nail on the head Hank. I would much rather be out shooting than chained to my desk. I do strive to capture the best image possible in camera, that's my top priority and it will continue to be #1. This has been an enjoyable learning process for me as I'm sure it is for everyone. I view my computer and the software it contains as a tool, not too different from the camera, lenses, tripod or whatever. My goal is to become as proficient as possible using these tools by learning and practicing what I've learned, whether it's in the field shooting or at my desk editing. If I may loosely paraphrase a comment made by Joe Rossberg in a recent post, "the majority of a professional nature photographer's time is spent at their computer. Still want to be a pro? Hell Yeah!"
I'm certainly not a professional. But who knows what the future holds for those who go for their dreams?
Discussion
15 repliesIf you take a look at my latest fauna post "back to seals" you can see Brad Hill's comments about the bright whites and deep shadows and my use of a high ISO. If I had used a lower ISO I would have had more room to recover the bright areas and dark areas in ACR. That would be nearly impossible in JPEG.
Also, remember that the JPEG is already a polished version so the RAW in many cases will look "worse" (duller, flatter, not as sharp) than the JPEG. But with the proper adjustments, the RAW will shine.
This is not an exhuastive or detailed explination but a general comment. Others I'm sure will give you much more precise explinations of the differences. Mike Moats will tell you that we're all wrong and wasting our time with RAW
Another thing to check are the auto settings in ACR - you want these turned off so that you get to see and work with the unaltered raw file. If you have the auto settings turned on ACR is probably making large changes to your file without you even knowing it.
With raw you should be working in 16 bit; jpeg is only 8 bit. That is a big factor if you need to make substantial changes in exposure during conversion - the greater bit depth of raw will lesser the amount of posterization in color ranges in dark areas.
Shooting raw and converting in ACR gives a lot of flexibility to fine tune the histogram and get the most detail out of both the darks and lights in the image.
Raw also allows the white point to be set after taking the image, rather than at the time of shooting. If you shoot in jpeg the ability to fix bad white balance is severely limited.
I agree that the controls in ACR are much better than in Photoshop- easier and better results in my opinion.
But here's the thing- You can open the JPEGs in ACR as though they were RAW files and use the same editing tools. It's pretty standard in the studio world when a shoot calls for JPEG capture and post-processing will be required. The extra control capabilities are worth it.
As for working RAW files in ACR, I only do that when color or light will mandate post-processing. I try as much as possible to shoot in such a way that post-processing is not required. Balancing light colors, using split ND filters, whatever. Kind of "old school" approach left over from our days of film, but in our business time is money. If the client is not paying you to sit at the computer, you're "losing money" any time you do it.
Hank - That's true, but all the controls for color, noise, and sharpness will work a little bit better on the original RAW file. This is because you are dealing with the original sensor pixel data, which has the original sensor values. Each pixel value in the JPG is an approximation made from merging (according to some very complex algorithms) the values of the various red, green, and blue pixels near it in the RAW data.
White balance, for instance, doesn't work nearly as well on a JPG as it does on a RAW file.
It seems I should make any adjustments needed in ACR then fine tune the image in the PSE7 editor? For example, Richard when you say "fine tune the histogram" do you mean in ACR or the PSE editor? I haven't seen the control options in the full version of PS, but there are only maybe eight sliders, etc. in PSE7/ACR; I can't say for sure at the moment. I also try to get the best image I can in camera.
Agreed, but as I said, time is money for us. Shooting everything in RAW mandates processing time on every single image for a shoot that calls for delivery in JPEG or TIFF. Using RAW controls on the few that need processing is money in the pocket compared to sentencing yourself to processing hundreds and hundreds of images overnight for delivery the next morning.
Different arenas have different "rules." When I'm shooting landscapes on my own time, yeah, I shoot RAW + JPEG fine. But when I'm getting paid to shoot JPEG or TIFF, RAW is a last resort.
But in some cases it's still quick and beneficial to shoot RAW. For a low light event, I shot RAW+JPG, and wound up using the RAW files, since the noise reduction necessary came out better from RAW. (And white balance was a nightmare.) I settled on "global" settings for ACR that I applied across the board and got me close. Then some tweaks to some images beyond that.
In most cases though, if I was going to come up with a single set of ACR settings to apply like that, I might as well just shoot JPG. But anytime I go out and expect to have only a few images to work on, I want them in RAW.
Plus, I'm weird in that I really like working on the computer, and don't make money from it. Different strokes and all.
Anyway, after a closer look I did notice in the RAW version the colors were a little more saturated and seemed a little richer, probably due to the 16 bit instead of 8 bit? However, when I opened the image after making some adjustments in ACR there were some tools that were unavailable in the editor because "PSE provides only limited support for files with 16 bit color depth." Are all the tools available in the full version in 16 bit? I've attached a macro of a Trillium I shot on Easter. This is the RAW capture. I'll post the edited JPEG below for comparison.
The detail, on the other hand, may have something to do with the particular RAW conversion, and it's possible that ACR is doing a better (or at least different) job than your camera there.
Keep in mind that the whole point of doing RAW processing is that you (rather than your camera) can control everything more finely - white balance, color saturation, fine detail, brightness, exposure, contrast, highlight recovery (something you CAN'T do with a JPG), etc.
In this case, I agree that it looks like the in-camera JPG conversion might have overcooked the center, and caused some detail loss. Of course, it looks like the RAW conversion brought the shadows way up (too far in my opinion). Whether that matters is up to you. I started working in RAW trying to get close to the in-camera JPG. But once you're comfortable with the RAW converter, you probably won't reference the in-camera much anymore.
As far as 16 vs 8 bit :
1) It doesn't affect color saturation as much as color transition. 16-bit will give you the ability to push colors around more (particularly in a large color space) without showing negative effects. 8-bit has less fine gradations between colors, and can potentially cause banding.
There are also color space issues; Color spaces and management, though, is a whole other topic I'd rather not confuse this with.
2) I think all adjustments are available in 16-bit in the full version of PS. (I have PS CS4, and I don't think I've run across anything that only works in 8-bit.) PS Elements has always been 16-bit limited.
Most of the time, 16-bit vs 8-bit won't make a noticeable difference. A lot of the time, RAW vs. JPG (if minimal processing is required) won't make a difference. It all depends on what work flow works best for you. I find that I tend to wring the most detail and fine options out of my files, so I really like working with RAW when I can.
As far as RAW files taking more time, it depends on what you are looking for in a final product and what tools you are using to get there. You can get "almost" finished images with in camera processing of jpg files. RAW files will not appear finished - they will be unsharpened, lacking in color saturation and contrast etc. If you use a software tool that is intended for processing of single images, its true that it will take a lot of time to process your images, as you open them one by one to make the required adjustments. ACR, Nikon's NX2, Picture Window Pro, etc are all examples of tools that will allow you to edit and convert RAW images to jpg but have crude batch processing capability.
Capture One and Lightroom are the Ferrari and the Lambourghini of the RAW processing workflow. I am pretty good with Photoshop and have developed some actions to do repetitive tasks such as sharpening. But in terms of time to get to a really good final product there is no comparison. From the point where you plug in your memory card into the computer to conversion, these two tools automate everything - and they allow you to group images and define & apply adjustments to the entire group. All adjustments that can be performed can be copied and applied. Also, it is very easy to make images that need to be consistent appear that way, because both converters will allow you to view the adjusted images immediately and in tiled view.
I recently covered an indoor event where the lighting conditions were inconsistent as you moved around the room. I took close to 200 shots, took a bit less than an hour from start to finish to adjust, sharpen and convert the images, produce a set of low-res, medium quality jpgs for email distribution (proofs) and a set of high-res 16 bit tiff files for future editing in Photoshop for large print purposes. Couldn't imagine being able to do that in less than 5 hours if I were using only ACR. I showed these images to two different "pro" jpg event shooters and they both commented on the consistency and quality of the images.
I have not shot jpg images in over 3 yrs. Having gotten really comfortable with the RAW workflow provided by Capture One, the majority of the time I can get much better results than when I shoot jpg, and usually in less time anyway. Time is money, but quality is the ultimate goal.
If you use a
But keyboard time isn't always an option. That's why we focus on original capture, whether choice of file format, balancing light temps from multiple artificial sources, or using split ND filters rather than HDR processing. Others solutions will be entirely different, based on the results of their own chewing.
I'm certainly not a professional. But who knows what the future holds for those who go for their dreams?