Photo editing software and RAW

[DCBarner]

Everyone (except Ken Rockwell) says shoot in RAW. Why?

Answers I have heard:
1. You get to make more decisions ( are they talking in PP or on the camera?) I don't know how much adjustment my 20D has, so I assume it's in PP.

2. That's what my teacher told me.

3. What's RAW?


My main question is, will it look different when I load it on to my computer?


What about a simple manageable PP software? I have Picassa - which I don't think does enough. I have Photoscape - which I like, but sucks at organization. I know I could go to Photoshop Elements or something like that, but what do you think for non-professional editing. Your thoughts are appreciated.

Dane

[acedrew]

Software like Picasa doesn't leverage the benefits of RAW, you need to use a Post-Processing software that is capable of leveraging the benefits of RAW, to experience them. I prefer Lightroom, it's not free, but it's not photoshop either. Someone else may have recommendations about free software, but GIMP doesn't off full RAW capabilities because it doesn't support higher than 8-Bit depth.

Andrew Rodgers
Perfected Perspectives -- Photography by Andrew Rodgers | Andrew Rodgers (acedrew) on Twitter | Login | Facebook

[inkista]

Originally Posted by DCBarner

Everyone (except Ken Rockwell) says shoot in RAW. Why?

Because they don't know how to white balance. (ba-dump-dump!).

Seriously, though, it's the usual principle of more-data-is-better. Like, for processing, do you prefer the cropped image? Or the uncropped original? Having more data gives you more choices for processing and manipulation. There are drawbacks to shooting RAW, such as the processing/software hurdles, the additional storage space needed, and the fact that processing almost becomes mandatory. But the pluses are that you have a lot more latitude for color-balancing, and that you have all the data the camera can give you. JPEG compression discards data.

1. You get to make more decisions ( are they talking in PP or on the camera?) I don't know how much adjustment my 20D has, so I assume it's in PP.

Yup.

3. What's RAW?

RAW isn't an acronym. It mostly stands for raw output from the sensor. And it's not a data standard, which is why it's such a PITA to find software that will process it, and why you'll find out about an effort to try and move people from RAW to DNG (digital negative--an open format from Adobe to do most of what RAW does, but to be a brand/camera-agnostic standard).

When you buy a new camera, if you shoot RAW, chances are good you'll have to upgrade Photoshop/Lightroom/Aperture/ACR, because the company will have found a way to add some new feature to the EXIF, which means a new RAW file format, which means a new translator has to be written. Hence DNG. But also a lot of revenue for Adobe in license upgrades, so...

You can sorta/kinda think of RAW as TIFF with metadata add-ons. In reality, some processing actually does occur on RAW files, and it isn't actually a raw dump from the sensor (this is why cameras include image processors). But it's the file without the JPEG compression. Things that the camera processor can do with the RAW data are basically just notated as settings in the RAW file (like, say, the white balance setting or whether the image was taken as B&W). So, when you're in post-processing you can "remake" decisions: such as "I changed my mind. I want it in color, instead of B&W" or "I used the wrong white balance: I'd like tungsten instead of auto", and you can actually change that decision with a RAW file--with a JPEG, you've already tossed away the data that would let you remake that decision as you please in post-processing--you're stuck with what you chose when you took the shot.

My main question is, will it look different when I load it on to my computer?

Nope. The trick is getting it to load.

What about a simple manageable PP software?

Picasa can handle RAW files. But you'll probably want to eventually use something more sophisticated that can take advantage of what RAW offers you. A lot of us around here like Adobe's Lightroom. It's pricey, but it's a great workflow tool for RAW and it costs less than most lenses . You might want to try downloading the Lightroom 3 beta and playing with it.

[CapnJack]

DC

Some post processing operations work better in RAW than from a JPEG. I used to do math operations with images (lab work). The math worked from RAW images, not so well from JPEG. Fourier transforms, image ratios, and so forth marked much better from RAW.

Sometimes, the JPEG is good enough.

[DCBarner]

Thank you guys for your information. It, as usual, lends itself to an appropriate number of answers while opening Pandora's Box of further questions which will undoubtedly showcase the afact that I just barely know what I'm doing.

Fun times.

Dane

[mipo]

The first question to ask yourself is:
What do I want to do with my pictures?

Do I want to use them as they are. If the answer is yes then JPG is most probably what you need.

Do I want to do some changes, tweaks & experiments in PostProcessing. If the answer is yes than Raw is what you need and you must schedule lot of hours at the computer ( the new darkroom).

[teaking]

Like everyone has said it really does come down to what you want to do.

However I dont think quality is something to take into consideration as to me properly exposed versions of both files look the same.

If you have problems with exposure shoot RAW this is the main benefit as you can pull back some shadow and high light details.

If your only going to make slight changes like slight curves, contrast, saturation, sharpness adjustments you could use JPEG as you can apply some PP to JPEG files if you save them as TIFF first.

Its going to come down to your work flow if you dont mind a heavy PP end and enjoy that or if you prefer minimal PP and try to get everything right in camera.

There is no right and wrong.