 Mandy Hank |
Making the Jump to Raw I'm looking into shooting Raw but don't know where to start - can anyone out there point me in the right direction, maybe with software, Web sites, classes. Thanks for the help Mandy
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
Mandy: Don't make a big issue out of shooting in RAW. It's simply a different format to save your image information to not some new fangled technique that requires intensive study and classes.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mandy Hank |
Thank you Bob- I had a feeling it was a little like how you describe it and the pictures in RAW that I have seen have always looked amazing, which I hope to accomplish. They look more rich in colors, contrast, etc/ So thanks again for helping me out- I appreciate it
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
RAW file format compiles the information from the camera’s sensor, without pre-processing to compile it as a more portable file type like JPEG. RAW files are simply the raw image information not processed into a standard file type, and are not subject to standard pre-processing that the manufacturer has decided is correct. RAW files carry higher bit counts, meaning they have more image information to work with and greater *potential*. While opening images in the RAW dialog, there are a lot of options for change. Use the rotate right or rotate left to turn the image so the proper side is up. The settings to the left and bottom of the dialog are based on what is delivered from the camera - don't change them unless you have a good reason. The settings for the sliders to the right of the screen will be determined automatically based on the camera profile and exposure information passed from the camera in the file. These settings will be accurate for normal exposure, but you may want to make adjustments to optimize how an image appears if it is not exposed optimally. Make small changes in any one slider position and leave broader changes to later adjustments in Photoshop. Make few changes until after you gain experience with corrections in Photoshop and know better what you might want to achieve in Camera RAW. The graph at the upper right of the screen is a histogram that charts image information; you want to avoid large spikes in information to either end of the graph (see the image I've attached which has clipped detail in the shadows [left]; the smaller spikes in the highlights [right] are OK). Anyone can use RAW, but not everyone will use it to its best advantage. Its advantage is not in overhauling an image, but finessing it. I hope that helps!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
I agree wholeheartedly with Richard. Even in RAW, one can 'over-edit' an image and make it worse instead of better. But, on the other end of the spectrum, I think sometimes people can go to the extremes as far as using histograms and such to the point where we scrutinize an image under a microscope for things that wouldn't normally be seen by the naked eye in a final print. Just like people would run right out and by a new computer just because the latest chip scored a few points higher on someones benchmark. But, in real world, would the average user even notice the difference? Certainly if you are really interested, then by all means, obtain the knowledge by whatever means suits you best. Either by reading books written on the subject or by taking one of the courses offered. But in the end, so long as your monitor and printer are properly balanced, so that what you see on the screen is pretty much what your output print will look like and you have a good working knowledge and are comfortable at adjusting the controls then let your eye and your taste be your guide.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Maverick Creatives |
Hi Mandy. Here is a site where you can download a free raw conversion program. Raw Shooter Essentials is free and there is a small fee to download Raw Shooter Premium. These programs are so popular the company was purchased by Adobe and is now a part of the Adobe family. Have fun with raw shooting. It takes a bit more time editing and converting but if you enjoy the editing as most of us do it's extremely satisfying. I find that the biggest benefit of shooting in RAW is the fact I can adjust the exposure and save a photograph that would otherwise been trashed. http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.php
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
Bob said: "so long as your monitor and printer are properly balanced, so that what you see on the screen is pretty much what your output print will look like and you have a good working knowledge and are comfortable at adjusting the controls then let your eye and your taste be your guide" Absolutely. But it is usually the same people that don't know what to do with RAW exactly that don't know how to 'balance' a monitor and printer, or set up color management, etc. RAW won't be the only thing anyone needs. A solid workflow is important...
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Marianne Fortin |
I use the Adobe Raw Converter with PS3 and was confused at first (I am a beginner!). I finally figured out that when you use RAW you are taking a shot minus most of the in-camera processing. This allows you to have some control of those functions in post-processing. Bear in mind that any changes you make in RAW will change the image and once you open it in your photo editing software the changes you made in the RAW Converter are set (this is my understanding anyway). My way to understand it is that instead of the camera controlling certain processes you are controlling them. When you take a shot as a JPEG for instance, the camera adds it's own processing to the image (depending on your camera settings). When you take a shot in RAW the camera doesn't do this so you have to do it yourself. Obviously this gives you more control. This is just my way of understanding it - I'm not sure if I am correct!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
That's very similar to what I said above, Marianne, so I think you understand the overview of it just fine. A lot of the changes you make can be saved and done in Photoshop or Elements, sometimes with more appropriate tools. RAW is just a part of the workflow, I guess I have been trying to say that understanding the whole workflow helps put RAW processing in perspective.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Svami Gurupremananda Contact Svami Gurupremananda Svami Gurupremananda's Gallery |
Hi Mandy, From all the books and DVDs that I have studied about RAW, I would highly recommend Rob Sheppard's book: Camera Raw. His approach is from a photograpers's viewpoint, instead of what fantastic things technology can do. Best wishes,
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Richard - You speak of the proper balance between the monitor and the printer. Since Adobe Gamma really doesn't work well with LCD monitors, is everything else hype that is useful only when on uses a CRT monitor?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
By 'everything else' I assume you mean color management issues? First, there isn't just one way to set up color management...some people swear by one method, and others swear at those people who swear by method #1 and swear by another means (method #2)...This is often because either method (#1 or #2) can work depending on how you do it, and neither side wants to believe it. I only use an LCD on my wife's 20" iMac, so I don't have much experience with them--or first-hand with the idea that Adobe Gamma "doesn't work well with LCD monitors." The iMac LCD seems wonderfully bright and accurate, even before calibration. However, I do use a ColorVision Spyder ( http://aps8.com/spyder.html ) that has an LCD attachment--which suggests it does calibration for LCDs. I also called an LCD manufacturer and got specs from them for phosphors to help someone calibrate their LCD with Adobe Gamma--which I heard can't be done (I have also heard rumors circulated on forums). From these facts and discussions with people, it seems LCDs can be calibrated. If monitors of both species can be calibrated, then each can be appropriately used with profiling, or at least a well-considered workflow. I haven't studied it, but I am not sure why Adobe Gamma wouldn't work for calibrating an LCD, and if so why there isn't another method that would. Calibration ('balancing' or normalizing your monitor display) allows you to see things correctly so you can trust your eye...If you can't, you may end up seeing the lack of balance in your prints. It isn't just a matter of making the screen look pretty--it has to do with improving the accuracy of what you see. However, for some people what may end up being a tiny incremental improvement in accuracy may not matter--and that will probably depend on how good their logics and setup are for their system and/or in their workflow, or how lucky they are. As someone who worked with digital images for years before there was all the hubub about profiling and color management, smart choices in your workflow can virtually eliminate the need for much stress about color management. Luck can do a similar thing. So while I don't think 'everything else' is only useful for CRTs, putting all your eggs into the basket of color management--or dumping them all out--is not the best choice. A solid workflow is important to getting consistent results, and calibrating your monitor (LCD or CRT) is terribly important in taking the first steps toward consistent and predictable results. Do I think it is overhyped? Well, I think there are a lot of people who make a lot of money getting people to spend lots of money on complicated workflows--and they seem to me to prey on the confusion caused by color management choices. I think some people get lucky paying almost no attention to color mangement. On the other hand, it is invaluable to me to have confidence in what I see on screen, and invaluable to have confidence and understanding of workflow, which doesn't have to be complicated at all. I hope I answered the right question there!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||