Does a RAW file *have* to be processed?

[DannyF1966]

Originally Posted by jdepould

The short answer is yes. Raw files are designed to be as neutral as possible, so they aren't going to have much contrast or color; without toning they aren't going to pop.

The secret is learning how to make the image pop without ruining it, or making it look obvious that it's been tweaked

[DannyF1966]

Originally Posted by Dirt_Bike_Ryda

so what happens if one were to shoot 1300 RAW photos in one day, does each one have to be converted? or can u do them as a big bunch, and go back to the RAW file if the need arises ?

In Photoshop Elements 7, if you have a batch of photos taken at about the same time of day, or at least in the same lighting conditions, you can apply the same basic processing to them in a batch. One of the advantages of RAW is that all the changes you make are stored in a separate file, so you can always undo them and/or go back to the original RAW file if you need to.

[Mr Guy]

In most programs you can also set a variety of automatic modes, and let the software take it's best guess. A third option, if you don't intend to pixel peep or make exceedingly large prints, is to use one of the many tools that can extra the built in jpeg thumbnail most (all?) raw formats have incorporated. That'll typically be slightly smaller than the highest quality jpeg setting and be done with whatever settings were on your camera at the time, as if the camera was in jpeg mode.

[dakwegmo]

Since you shoot Nikon, you can use ViewNX to batch covert all of your NEF files to JPGs using whatever the camera settings were. The resulting JPGs are nearly identical to what you would get if you shot JPGs in camera. The advantage of this is that you don't need to shoot RAW+JPG unless you really need to get to the images fast (the program is slow), plus you can output higher quality JPGs than you could with your D40, since it doesn't do RAW+JPG Fine/Large. You can also output tiffs 8bit or 16bit, and adjust many of the raw settings like exposure compensation, white balance, color mode, etc. It's not the best RAW processor, but if you want the flexibility of shooting RAW, but still want your images to look exactly like they do on your LCD, it's a good option to consider. Plus it's a free download from Nikon, so it doesn't really hurt to try it as part of your workflow.

http://support.nikontech.com/app/ans...il/a_id/16370/

[Kn1nJa]

I am pretty new to the whole RAW thing too, and my canon saves in RAW + jpeg. I use the digital photo professional software that came with the camera to tweak the photos as I am very scared of photoshop right now.

Any hints that could benefit me? Should I use a different program? Should I set to shoot in only raw?

[morts]

Lightroom. Pure and simple.

I have yet to come across a better tool specifically aimed at digital photographers. Photoshop is a graphics package whereas LR contains all the tools you need to process photos however you see fit. It doesn't do things like photomanipulation as that's Photoshop's piece but if you want to batch-process 1500 RAW shots in a single import then you can't get better than LR, really.

Also, you can set your camera to shoot in RAW only under "Quality". I find it's a waste shooting in JPEG AND RAW when you have much more flexibility with RAW.

[listenthenspeak]

I second the lightroom comment. It's amazing...you can download a free trial on Adobe's website to check it out for 30 days. Or you can get it for cheaper than the normal price by buying lightroom 1.0 on Amazon for $100, then buying the upgrade to 2.0 for $90....saves you $100.
Anyway, I can't get enough of lightroom. It's so easy to go back and forth between photos, and to rate them with so many stars, and to create collections and tag them, and of course to do all the edits on lighting and color, etc. I was skeptical at first until I tried it out for 30 days...I was hooked.

[Dirt_Bike_Ryda]

yea.. well i filled up 8GB in one day shooting in JPEG (FINE ). but that was mostly burst shots. so i wouldn't need to edited them all so your saying, only sorta do the ones that are needed.

[morts]

That's usually the case, yes.

LR does a good job of interpreting .CR2/[nikon RAW] files and does a good job of guessing the colour depth and saturation and so forth for the images. This means that you rarely need to do any major editing on your photos. Occasionally, you'll need to do some batch WB correction because LR is guessing colours and WB and stuff as it can't natively interpret manufacturer RAW files as the profiles aren't open to the public in most cases.

Also, when you import your files from RAW, convert them into DNG as LR does a better job managing colours and adjustments when they're in DNG as opposed to native RAW.

[DannyF1966]

Originally Posted by dakwegmo

Since you shoot Nikon, you can use ViewNX to batch covert all of your NEF files to JPGs using whatever the camera settings were.

Thanks, I haven't really spent a lot of time looking at ViewNX, looks like it deserves a little more attention.