What is the benefit of taking pics in the RAW format? How can I open these onto my computer to view the photo as well? Can't seem to open them up. Thanks everyone. Just went digital so please pardon the naive question.
Shooting in camera raw means that you are storing the actual zeros and ones recorded by your camera sensor on your storage media. As a result, raw files lose none of the information recorded by your sensor. Some conventional image files (jpeg for instance) are compressed files and they lose some of the data captured by your sensor. With jpeg files you can select the degree of compression which directly determines how much sensor data is lost. Shooting in jpeg mode allows you to get many, many more images on your storage media than raw files, so there is your tradeoff.
Raw files are not image files in the conventional sense, and conventional image viewers and editors are not able to work with them. Viewing and editing raw files requires a special tool or plug-in for the particular editing software you are using for your work. Adobe Camera Raw is a plug-in that works with Adobe Bridge, Photoshop CS# and Photoshop Elements. Apple Aperture works similarly on Mac systems. Some cameras that allow you to shoot raw will come with software that allows you to open and edit their proprietary raw files. Canon DPP is an example. I believe Nikon has a similar product, but you have to pay some extra money for it.
Some of the raw tools are very good at letting you modify exposure, white balance, saturation, correct lens defects, etc. with the raw files. I think it is easier to do this with raw files than it is to do the same in an editor like photoshop. YMMV.
Shooting in RAW really gives you some flexibility in dealing with the output from your camera. I only shoot in RAW. I try my best to get the exposure right in camera, but I like the latitude that RAW files give in tweaking that exposure a little bit.
If you are on a windows system, go to www.pixmantec.com and download Raw Shooter Essentials 2006, the free version. This is a great program, and very intuitive for dealing with your RAW files. I use the 2005 version and I love it.
Most, if not all, camera sensors detect 4096 (12 bit) levels of light intensity from black to white. These levels are all preserved when saved in a RAW file. JPEG files (8 bit) can only preserve 256 levels. Photoshop, and other programs that can work with 4098 levels during the editing phase are better able to avoid visible banding or 'posterization' in a finished image. A JPEG image is at a considerable disadvantage since the increments are much larger to begin with, and closer to what the eye can detect. Once editing is completed, the image can be saved as a JPEG or 8 bit TIFF, but it's advisable to preserve a 16 bit TIFF version in case further editing may be required at a later date.
It should be noted that the camera sensor is a linear device, while the eye is not, so most of the RAW levels are in the brighter tones, half in the brightest stop, half of the remainder in the next stop down, and so on.
White Balance! There have been other good reasons listed too, but I didn't see this (my apologies if I missed it).
When you shoot RAW, you get to go back and try different white balance settings in software. If you shoot JPEG, you're stuck with whatever WB setting you picked (or what the camera picked if you had Auto WB selected). Sure, you can do some colour correction on a JPEG, but you can do it much, much, much easier, and with less loss if you shoot RAW.
Another benefit is linear conversion. Digitial sensors are not equally sensitive to light and dark. A sensitivity curve is applied in conversion. If you shoot JPEG, that's done in camera, and you can't change it. If you shoot RAW, you can change it. In some software you manually change the curve, but in general, you'll either pick the default curve, or a linear curve. A linear curve makes everything look really dark, so you'll almost never use it alone, but it's great for extracting extra detail from bright areas of a picture--an area where digital has a bad reputation. It takes some Photoshop skill to combine the linear converstion with a regular conversion to get a picture that looks real, but it is sometimes worth it. If you don't shoot RAW, you don't have the choice. (And you're more likely to blow your highlights, because less detail is recorded in JPEG, 8 bit vs 12, as has already been stated.)
I'm fairly new to the digital stuff too, and in fact just started to shoot in RAW mode. I have to say that it is worth the effort to get set up to work with this format. I didn't think so at first, I just used the highest quality .jpeg settings and converted to another format like .tiff ( to do my editing ), which is another format that , while doesn't give you the small files and ease of use of .jpegs, is "lossless" type of format.
Beyond the much greater control , over all aspects of adjustments, that RAW gives you, another great advantage is that , it is as close as you can get to a "digital negative", in that the original RAW file is never touched. When you import the file into whatever software you are using, all the adjustments are stored within a seperate file. You can always go back to the original RAW file and start from scratch, if you want.It will always be there, in it's original form, just like when you first shot it. That's a huge advantage , in my opinion. Tim
I'd also suggest doing a search on this forum for more on using RAW, I'm thinking there's lots of info here. If you're using Photoshop, also be sure to pick up a copy of Bruce Fraser's Real World Camera RAW for Adobe Photoshop CS (or CS2). Also check out this article in the NPN article archives.
It will allow your "My Pictures" and any other Windows software to view your RAW files directly. This helps a lot when opening files in programs as thumbs will appear.
I agree RAW is worth the effort and space. More detailed shadows and highlights with better control is the reward for spending megabytes and a little time.
I've also shot RAW only for my nature work for the last two years. I've found all the above to be important advantages to RAW vs jpeg. One other advantage I've found is in the size/quality of enlargements. With the 8.2 Mp camera I primarily shoot, I have enlarged RAW images using Photoshop's interpolation (adding pixels) and get sharp prints that maintain color subtlety to 20x30 inches. My largest jpeg enlargement to date off at 8.2 Mp camera is 13x19. It's very good, but not quite as good even at that size as a RAW enlargement of similar size.
I will go larger than 20x30 with RAW from that camera if I get an order for something larger. One other factor with enlargements is that, as the size increases, the resolution can decrease, because the larger the image, the farther away people stand to view it. There is a limit to that, of course.
Discussion
8 repliesRaw files are not image files in the conventional sense, and conventional image viewers and editors are not able to work with them. Viewing and editing raw files requires a special tool or plug-in for the particular editing software you are using for your work. Adobe Camera Raw is a plug-in that works with Adobe Bridge, Photoshop CS# and Photoshop Elements. Apple Aperture works similarly on Mac systems. Some cameras that allow you to shoot raw will come with software that allows you to open and edit their proprietary raw files. Canon DPP is an example. I believe Nikon has a similar product, but you have to pay some extra money for it.
Some of the raw tools are very good at letting you modify exposure, white balance, saturation, correct lens defects, etc. with the raw files. I think it is easier to do this with raw files than it is to do the same in an editor like photoshop. YMMV.
If you are on a windows system, go to www.pixmantec.com and download Raw Shooter Essentials 2006, the free version. This is a great program, and very intuitive for dealing with your RAW files. I use the 2005 version and I love it.
Nathan
Most, if not all, camera sensors detect 4096 (12 bit) levels of light intensity from black to white. These levels are all preserved when saved in a RAW file. JPEG files (8 bit) can only preserve 256 levels. Photoshop, and other programs that can work with 4098 levels during the editing phase are better able to avoid visible banding or 'posterization' in a finished image. A JPEG image is at a considerable disadvantage since the increments are much larger to begin with, and closer to what the eye can detect. Once editing is completed, the image can be saved as a JPEG or 8 bit TIFF, but it's advisable to preserve a 16 bit TIFF version in case further editing may be required at a later date.
It should be noted that the camera sensor is a linear device, while the eye is not, so most of the RAW levels are in the brighter tones, half in the brightest stop, half of the remainder in the next stop down, and so on.
Hope this isn't too confusing.
When you shoot RAW, you get to go back and try different white balance settings in software. If you shoot JPEG, you're stuck with whatever WB setting you picked (or what the camera picked if you had Auto WB selected). Sure, you can do some colour correction on a JPEG, but you can do it much, much, much easier, and with less loss if you shoot RAW.
Another benefit is linear conversion. Digitial sensors are not equally sensitive to light and dark. A sensitivity curve is applied in conversion. If you shoot JPEG, that's done in camera, and you can't change it. If you shoot RAW, you can change it. In some software you manually change the curve, but in general, you'll either pick the default curve, or a linear curve. A linear curve makes everything look really dark, so you'll almost never use it alone, but it's great for extracting extra detail from bright areas of a picture--an area where digital has a bad reputation. It takes some Photoshop skill to combine the linear converstion with a regular conversion to get a picture that looks real, but it is sometimes worth it. If you don't shoot RAW, you don't have the choice. (And you're more likely to blow your highlights, because less detail is recorded in JPEG, 8 bit vs 12, as has already been stated.)
-Paul
Beyond the much greater control , over all aspects of adjustments, that RAW gives you, another great advantage is that , it is as close as you can get to a "digital negative", in that the original RAW file is never touched. When you import the file into whatever software you are using, all the adjustments are stored within a seperate file. You can always go back to the original RAW file and start from scratch, if you want.It will always be there, in it's original form, just like when you first shot it. That's a huge advantage , in my opinion. Tim
It will allow your "My Pictures" and any other Windows software to view your RAW files directly. This helps a lot when opening files in programs as thumbs will appear.
I agree RAW is worth the effort and space. More detailed shadows and highlights with better control is the reward for spending megabytes and a little time.
I will go larger than 20x30 with RAW from that camera if I get an order for something larger. One other factor with enlargements is that, as the size increases, the resolution can decrease, because the larger the image, the farther away people stand to view it. There is a limit to that, of course.