Any RAW experts out there?

[Gonska]

Hi all,

I did an online photo course and the instructor was suggesting that I shoot in RAW if possible. I now would like to upload my work to a site e.g. exposuremanager.com or similar but noticed that image in RAW mode cannot be uploaded.

My questions are
1) Are the any sites that accept images in RAW mode?
2) Is it better to shoot in RAW + JPEG mode? Would that allow me to upload my images to sites where I can publish my work?
3) I have iPhoto/Aperture (still playing around with it) - would I need some application to convert the RAW images into JPEG?

Thank you sooo much in advance for any help in clarifying this mystery for me :-)).

Gonska

[RecurrentNerve]

Both iPhoto and Aperture will allow you to save your RAW files out as JPEGs (File > Export in iPhoto). RAW files will not display in browsers so no site will accept them, not to mention the fact that they are far too big, and in any case you don't want to make them available to all and sundry anyway! You shouldn't put any photo that you care about up on the web without applying a watermark (in Aperture in your case) first.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by RecurrentNerve

Both iPhoto and Aperture will allow you to save your RAW files out as JPEGs (File > Export in iPhoto). RAW files will not display in browsers so no site will accept them, not to mention the fact that they are far too big, and in any case you don't want to make them available to all and sundry anyway! You shouldn't put any photo that you care about up on the web without applying a watermark (in Aperture in your case) first.

Bingo.

RAW files are for local use only, not for online sharing. Once youve done your editing (from the RAW file) then you save to a shareable format (like JPG, or TIFF)

[Gonska]

Ahhh - makes sense. Thank you both so much for explaining this to me!!

[ElCapitan]

Just to go a little bit more in depth, the RAW file isn't an actual image, but the data that makes up the image. You need software that can take that data and make an image you can see. The great thing about shooting in RAW is the amount of control you have over the image and the ability to get the most out of the image.

When you shoot jpeg, the camera does the post processing for you. A RAW image is exactly what the sensor captures, and the sensor captures a lot more information than the jpeg would have you believe. When processing a RAW image, you can get a great deal of data back from the shadows and highlight, change the white balance, sharpen, and much more without degrading the image too much, if at all. Once you have processed the RAW file, you need to save it as another type of file. I use Photoshop, so I save the file as a PSD that I can then edit with in PS and from there save it to a file to either share online or send of to clients/contests.

[Joe Gazil]

As a new member to DPS, I am here to listen and learn!
My new SLR, Sony alpha 350 is my starting point into this catagory.
I want to start taking my photos in Raw+jpeg. I understand that I will have more control of my photos with Raw, but I am confused as to what software I should use as a beginner?

I have been to Alaska last year on vacation-What a trip! I took over 1200 pics and struggled as you might guess with correct settings and compositions!
I can use some help and guidance. Any suggestions as to software and books would be greatly appreciated ! Joe

[ElCapitan]

I personally use Adobe Bridge and Photoshop. I like Bridge because I do a very good job of keeping my photos well organized and I have PS CS4 which has PS RAW. I was able to get the student discount though, which makes getting everything much easier.

Adobe Lightroom is a really good program to organize all your photos as well as editing RAW files. What it lacks is pixel based editing. You can make adjustments to the entire image, but if you need to brighten just one area, you cannot do that. You need Photoshop or another pixel based editor to do that (Correct me if I am wrong that Lightroom cannot do that, and when I say pixel based editing I may be using that term wrong. What I mean is only adjusting very specific parts of the photo rather than the whole thing).

Lightroom is a very good place to start as it will allow you to get the most out of your RAW images without needing something like PS. It will be enough for most basic photos, but it depends on what you want to do with your photography.

[ravncat]

Originally Posted by ElCapitan

...

Correct me if I am wrong that Lightroom cannot do that, and when I say pixel based editing I may be using that term wrong. What I mean is only adjusting very specific parts of the photo rather than the whole thing

Lightroom can indeed - Adjustment brushes - though they can slow your system down if it`s not up to spec - the adjustment brushes are located near the crop tool - in the develop tab. Lightroom can indeed handle some basic localized adjustments.

[Photologyst]

Lightroom can do most everything that Photoshop can do, and do it much more easily and efficiently, when it comes to general photo adjustments, simple spot and red-eye removal. It sorts your photos beautifully too. As was already mentioned, specific portions of a photo can also be adjusted, within limits. LR can also produce many useful presets, that would be actions in PS.

What LR can’t do is the special, specific adjustments such as facial or body sculpting, blurring backgrounds, super healing and cloning, burning, dodging, special filtering specific to PS, etc.

Many people use LR for most PS processing, especially RAW, and only pull pix into PS for the special effects.

There are a few things that one can do in LR that can’t be done on Photoshop: Lightroom tricks you can't do in Photoshop on Vimeo

[teaking]

Just to be a pain, and when have I been anything less

I would personaly say that all the things in the video that cant be done in photoshop can be done in photoshop. Its probably more than moving a slider but I would like to bet it can be done in photoshop.

I have to agree it is a more advanced product than lightroom and more complicated to use with about a million ways to do the same thing so probably not best for everyone.