10-step beginner's raw tutorial

[Andy]

okay so you'd like to try raw, but you're feeling a bit daunted. take a deep cleansing breath, and work with me here.

1. set your camera to "raw" (rtfm if you don't know how to do this :D)

2. take a pic

3. open photoshop (in this case, it's photoshop cs).

4. if you haven't updated your adobe camera raw plug-in, go to adobe (http://www.adobe.com) and download the latest version

5. open the raw file (file>open and click on the file name)

6. you'll next be presented with this:
http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/8271896-O.jpg

7. if you are just starting out, only concern yourself with the things i've circled here - white balance (color temperature and tint) and exposure. forget everything else, for now! this is an important step for beginners to raw.

8. start by playing with the color temp slider and the tint slider. notice how it changes the pic - you may wish to adjust this, or you may wish to accept your camera's auto wb setting. but play around with it, notice the effects.

9. play with the exposure slider - you can get as much as 2 stops either way without adversely affecting the image quality - sometimes - and it depends on the type of scene and the lighting / iso / etc. start by making small adjustments to the exposure, carefully watching the histogram upper right, don't blow any of the highlights :D

10. when you have finished your tweaking, click on "ok" (upper right) and the file will be brought into "regular" photoshop. now edit as you would any other pic in photoshop, and remember, save the file as a different name than the original raw file!

there, not so hard, is it?

[ginger_55]

Andy, I appreciate the tutorial, I am sure others will find it useful. I might use it a few times, unless the photoshop thing costs money.

It is a financial issue with me. My fun is in taking the photos. I only have two 512 mb memory cards, and no money for more.

Also I would need to buy more hard drive space. We have looked into that because of PC problems, since I have been uploading so many photos. However, we can't afford it now..............don't know when.

I know I can't afford tennis shoes until the end of the month, so the hard drive will have to wait. I spend a lot of time trouble shooting my computer. Today was an example.

It is really not fear, it is the restriction of not being able to take as many pictures as rapidly as I like to, and the fear that my computer is going to crash totally from the weight of the photos I put on it.

Repeating, if I could afford the setup, I would certainly try and use RAW, it is financial.

ginger (The tennis shoes were budgeted then the tripod was more than expected.................and so it goes)

We do not all have the same resources. I will print this out. Might try it some night, unless I really need the photoshop plug in and it costs money, then the tennis shoes are the next priority.

[Andy]

the adobe camera raw update is *free* no charge.

i'm not suggesting that you shoot in raw full-time, but why don't you just TRY it TRY it ginger for your nightshots?

you won't regret it.

oh and ginger - i carry only 1gb of memory card. and i shoot raw 100% of the time.

i made this tutorial just for you.

Andy, I appreciate the tutorial, I am sure others will find it useful. I might use it a few times, unless the photoshop thing costs money.

It is a financial issue with me. My fun is in taking the photos. I only have two 512 mb memory cards, and no money for more.

Also I would need to buy more hard drive space. We have looked into that because of PC problems, since I have been uploading so many photos. However, we can't afford it now..............don't know when.

I know I can't afford tennis shoes until the end of the month, so the hard drive will have to wait. I spend a lot of time trouble shooting my computer. Today was an example.

It is really not fear, it is the restriction of not being able to take as many pictures as rapidly as I like to, and the fear that my computer is going to crash totally from the weight of the photos I put on it.

Repeating, if I could afford the setup, I would certainly try and use RAW, it is financial.

ginger (The tennis shoes were budgeted then the tripod was more than expected.................and so it goes)

We do not all have the same resources. I will print this out. Might try it some night, unless I really need the photoshop plug in and it costs money, then the tennis shoes are the next priority.

[ginger_55]

the adobe camera raw update is *free* no charge.

i'm not suggesting that you shoot in raw full-time, but why don't you just TRY it TRY it ginger for your nightshots?

you won't regret it.

oh and ginger - i carry only 1gb of memory card. and i shoot raw 100% of the time.

i made this tutorial just for you.

I think you and I shoot a little differently, Andy. I would like a 1gb card, or another 512, I just got the second 512 a couple of months ago, I thought it would give me unlimited shooting, it doesn't.

I will use the raw this week, my husband suggested that I call to ask you if I could shoot two hours before sunset, it was almost totally dark, just the weather.

But when it looks a bit clear, I will set it on RAW and go to Shem Creek, to see what I get.

Thanks, ginger

[ginger_55]

I have my camera set on RAW. Just reporting. The settings are AV (aperture priority), auto focus, thought that could change, AWB white balance, might be 100 ISO (should be bumped up for night, right? but how much?).

Then I can upload the photos as normal, to my PC, with my trusty old SanDisk.

I have the tutorial filed, and also the book How to WOW (Kelby's easiest to follow).

Now for the tripod...............good thing Bill fished the carrying case out of the marsh where it was blown last night.

ginger

Any hints would be appreciated. Also any remarks on my settings.

Tomorrow I can get the thing from Photoshop, hope they don't want proof of ownership. (PS 7)

The rain might stop tomorrow afternoon, with clearing on Thursday. I have done all I can for now? I took a picture of a dog (no Snappy, not Red, you seem to be keeping that dog), mine was lying around looking like a dog.

[DavidTO]

Well, that was easy. No wonder you write so many tutorials, you do a good job!

Andy (and anyone else) I have a question. I use C1 for my RAW processing. I never adjust my saturation, but do adjust the white balance, exposure compensation, black and gray points, and sometimes contrast. But I never adjust saturation.

Question is, I just got back another order of prints from smugmug. Shots that look good to me on my monitor, but are overly saturated on the prints. In your experience do you have to tone back on the saturation when you process RAW? Or is there something that I could be doing with the other settings that could be boosting the saturation somehow?

No doubt that I'm going to start knocking back the saturation. But I am curious why it would be overly saturated in the first place. Is it just that it's more than the CMYK print can handle? Is there a way to gauge what a print can handle as far as saturation?

Here's all the relevant info I can think of: I shoot on a Digital Rebel, process with C1SE, OSX 10.3.5, monitor calibrated with the calibration tool built into OSX, gamma set to the PC standard (not Mac standard).

Some shots come back fine, others look odd. So it's not entirely consisten.

[gubbs]

Well, that was easy. No wonder you write so many tutorials, you do a good job!

Andy (and anyone else) I have a question. I use C1 for my RAW processing. I never adjust my saturation, but do adjust the white balance, exposure compensation, black and gray points, and sometimes contrast. But I never adjust saturation.

Question is, I just got back another order of prints from smugmug. Shots that look good to me on my monitor, but are overly saturated on the prints. In your experience do you have to tone back on the saturation when you process RAW? Or is there something that I could be doing with the other settings that could be boosting the saturation somehow?

No doubt that I'm going to start knocking back the saturation. But I am curious why it would be overly saturated in the first place. Is it just that it's more than the CMYK print can handle? Is there a way to gauge what a print can handle as far as saturation?

Here's all the relevant info I can think of: I shoot on a Digital Rebel, process with C1SE, OSX 10.3.5, monitor calibrated with the calibration tool built into OSX, gamma set to the PC standard (not Mac standard).

Some shots come back fine, others look odd. So it's not entirely consisten.
David,
Now that you have said it, I've noticed at least a couple of your pictures that have been over saturated, your "song titles" entry, and your "movement" entry. The grass is REALLY green in both of them.

[DavidTO]

David,
Now that you have said it, I've noticed at least a couple of your pictures that have been over saturated, your "song titles" entry, and your "movement" entry. The grass is REALLY green in both of them.

Yeah, and it's just out of the camera like that. I must just be so used to it. The song titles one actually printed nicely, though.

[ginger_55]

I can't do it. I set my camera, shot the photos, uploaded them to the computer, windows, with an old SanDisk thing. I can't get them to show up on Adobe. The folders does, but nothing else. The only plug in that I saw avail from adobe last night is for CS.

I have a pirated PS7 program from a friend of my husband's. He is not available today.

I went to the help pages for PS 7, they said that if "I" couldn't do it, I might need to install the plug in, and it had a thing to click on for the plug in. There was nothing about a RAW plug in.

I have wanted CS for a long time, no way that I can afford it, I could not have afforded PS 7............. it was just given to me to download.

I have no idea what C1 is that is being talked about. The photos I took were just junk, trials, so I have lost nothing except face here. (When I uploaded the pictures, they did not show up as pictures, just funny looking files. I thought they would open in photoshop, but they don't even appear there.)

I don't see how I can do this.

ginger I am going to ask for help, but bear in mind that it is hot AND very humid in here. I am not going to be able to stay at this level of frustration and failure very long.

[ginger_55]

My bought and paid for programs is Elements 2.0, I am more used to PS7 after a few months using it. But I did try this same thing, to bring up the Raw files to Elements. It is the same as PS 7.

There are instructions as to how to do it, however, I don't see the files to bring open one............. same as PS 7.

I don't need a 1 gb card, would be nice, but not needed, if I can't figure this out, for free.

ginger

[spockling]

Ginger, try downloading your images from your card using the canon software (zoom browser) that came with your camera. There is a tab there to process raw images.

[ginger_55]

Ginger, try downloading your images from your card using the canon software (zoom browser) that came with your camera. There is a tab there to process raw images.
Thank you, Spockling, that has occurred to me. I do not have that anymore. I am sure there must have been something, but I have been doing this very efficiently for so long. I had a Canon Elph for years, it did not occur to me that I needed to save the stuff that came with the camera longer than it took for my husband to throw it away.

ginger

[ginger_55]

The raw files are still on my hard drive. They cannot be opened, the computer tells me, as it doesn't know what program created them.

I was not afraid of this at the beginning, shooting in RAW, I mean, but it is beginning to be rather frightening. I threw stuff away I shouldn't have, I can't open files. I am sure this is a trial to all you who just wanted to help me.

I have no idea what to do next.

ginger

[tmlphoto]

My bought and paid for programs is Elements 2.0, I am more used to PS7 after a few months using it. But I did try this same thing, to bring up the Raw files to Elements. It is the same as PS 7.

There are instructions as to how to do it, however, I don't see the files to bring open one............. same as PS 7.

I don't need a 1 gb card, would be nice, but not needed, if I can't figure this out, for free.

ginger
Ginger, You can use the Canon software that came with your camera to view and convert the raw images to JPEG. It is slower than the PS CS method, but should work. Not sure about a plug in for PS 7. I'll try to find one for you.

[tmlphoto]

The only plugin for PS 7 I can find is from Adobe and appears to cost $99. You can upgrade to PS CS for about $150 on Adobe's site. I realize that this might not be in your budget right now. For now, I would suggest using the Canon software that came with your Rebel. Let me know if you need help using it.

[lynnma]

Thank you, Spockling, that has occurred to me. I do not have that anymore. I am sure there must have been something, but I have been doing this very efficiently for so long. I had a Canon Elph for years, it did not occur to me that I needed to save the stuff that came with the camera longer than it took for my husband to throw it away.

gingerGinger.. zoombroweser also comes with the DRebel... rummage about and see if you can find it...

[Andy]

The raw files are still on my hard drive. They cannot be opened, the computer tells me, as it doesn't know what program created them.

I was not afraid of this at the beginning, shooting in RAW, I mean, but it is beginning to be rather frightening. I threw stuff away I shouldn't have, I can't open files. I am sure this is a trial to all you who just wanted to help me.

I have no idea what to do next.

ginger

my goodness. don't throw anything away :D we'll get you sorted out ginger. in the meantime, shoot jpg for cryin' out loud, so you won't have any problems.

did you find your disks that came with your camera?

[Baldy]

Great tutorial, Andy! :clap:clap:clap

[ginger_55]

my goodness. don't throw anything away :D we'll get you sorted out ginger. in the meantime, shoot jpg for cryin' out loud, so you won't have any problems.

did you find your disks that came with your camera?
Yes, I went upstairs to the room where Bill puts things when I say, "Do not throw this out". I found a hole in the ceiling, a lot of old water damage, and new (don't tell the insurance people).

On the bed I found the box the camera came in. I climbed over everything, got it, brought it downstairs to see what was in it.

The discs are !) it came with Elements which I already had, and 2) it came with
EOS solution disc ver 6.1 (unopened).

There is no info with the discs, they put it on the disks now, if they can get away with it, it is cheaper.

There is a cable to connect the camera to the computer. It says to stop and be sure to install the driver software from the enclosed CD (the solution one?)
before connecting the camera to the computer with this cable.

The weather is a brighter grey today.

ginger (that is all i have, plus the hole in the roof. I had better move all the family photos away from that) I think this is the entire contents of the box. I often warn Bill he will "die" if he throws something out, but he puts it somewhere, often in that room. I was obviously concerned. But if this hadn't come up, I would never have needed it.

[lynnma]

Yes, I went upstairs to the room where Bill puts things when I say, "Do not throw this out". I found a hole in the ceiling, a lot of old water damage, and new (don't tell the insurance people).

On the bed I found the box the camera came in. I climbed over everything, got it, brought it downstairs to see what was in it.

The discs are !) it came with Elements which I already had, and 2) it came with
EOS solution disc ver 6.1 (unopened).

There is no info with the discs, they put it on the disks now, if they can get away with it, it is cheaper.

There is a cable to connect the camera to the computer. It says to stop and be sure to install the driver software from the enclosed CD (the solution one?)
before connecting the camera to the computer with this cable.

The weather is a brighter grey today.

ginger (that is all i have, plus the hole in the roof. I had better move all the family photos away from that) I think this is the entire contents of the box. I often warn Bill he will "die" if he throws something out, but he puts it somewhere, often in that room. I was obviously concerned. But if this hadn't come up, I would never have needed it.Ok.. sounds good.. look on the disc under FOR WINDOWS (if you have windows) you don't have a Mac do you? and you'll see all the stuff thats on there.. file viewer, zoombrowser, photorecord, etc etc... go put the disc in your computer and download zoombroweser and anything else that looks interesting.. and move the family photo's from on top of the bed and put them under the bed.. or better still, in the chest of drawers..

[lynnma]

Ok.. sounds good.. look on the disc under FOR WINDOWS (if you have windows) you don't have a Mac do you? and you'll see all the stuff thats on there.. file viewer, zoombrowser, photorecord, etc etc... go put the disc in your computer and download zoombroweser and anything else that looks interesting.. and move the family photo's from on top of the bed and put them under the bed.. or better still, in the chest of drawers..p.s. how do you connect your camera to the computer now.. do you use a Card Reader??

[ginger_55]

Ok.. sounds good.. look on the disc under FOR WINDOWS (if you have windows) you don't have a Mac do you? and you'll see all the stuff thats on there.. file viewer, zoombrowser, photorecord, etc etc... go put the disc in your computer and download zoombroweser and anything else that looks interesting.. and move the family photo's from on top of the bed and put them under the bed.. or better still, in the chest of drawers..
Thanks, Lynn. I am doing some health insurance stuff now. I did check and zoombroweser is listed. So, I will download it, etc.

But not tonight!! I just want to try out the tri-pod and hope the weather is OK for something, so that I can go out tonight. I have about 10 days to get this all in.

So, my original question was RGB settings, if I go out tonight, before the zoombrowser which is more likely this weekend. I have to test it first, anyway.

So, is there anyone who can answer RGB settings? I was thinking of putting it on cloudy, if I am outdoors, 400 or 800 or 1600 ISO?? Then AV, which is aperture priority? And about -1 for exposure compensation??

Those were the questions I wanted to know first. I think where I am going I will be able to use the tripod, the sun is coming in and out. Might be tomorrow night.

ginger

[lynnma]

Thanks, Lynn. I am doing some health insurance stuff now. I did check and zoombroweser is listed. So, I will download it, etc.

But not tonight!! I just want to try out the tri-pod and hope the weather is OK for something, so that I can go out tonight. I have about 10 days to get this all in.

So, my original question was RGB settings, if I go out tonight, before the zoombrowser which is more likely this weekend. I have to test it first, anyway.

So, is there anyone who can answer RGB settings? I was thinking of putting it on cloudy, if I am outdoors, 400 or 800 or 1600 ISO?? Then AV, which is aperture priority? And about -1 for exposure compensation??

Those were the questions I wanted to know first. I think where I am going I will be able to use the tripod, the sun is coming in and out. Might be tomorrow night.

gingerGinger.. here are the tips that Andy left.. lowest ISO etc and remember, if you shoot in raw.. not saying that you should or should'nt it's your choice, but if you did, you can change the white balance in post, and some exposure, etc... just for fun you could do a couple jpgs and couple raw....:wink go on .... be a devil.. put on yer purple hat..

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=2564

[snapapple]

I have discovered that I have a program that can process RAW files. I have Jasc Paint Shop Pro 8. I took a shot in RAW. I opened it in Paint Shop Pro. It was very small, maybe 2" by 3". When I zoom in on it, it gets all pixeley. How can I edit this? Am I doing something wrong? Can I set my camera on a higher resolution or something? Please, can anyone help?

[DavidTO]

I have discovered that I have a program that can process RAW files. I have Jasc Paint Shop Pro 8. I took a shot in RAW. I opened it in Paint Shop Pro. It was very small, maybe 2" by 3". When I zoom in on it, it gets all pixeley. How can I edit this? Am I doing something wrong? Can I set my camera on a higher resolution or something? Please, can anyone help?

Never used the app, but I can tell you what I know.

Most RAW files have an embedded preview, which is basically a large thumbnail. This might be what you're viewing. Also, when you're viewing a RAW file prior to processing it out to jpeg or tiff or whatever, you're not looking at the final product, unless you view it in a particular way. In C1 (the software I use) it's called the focus tool. Processing the RAW file takes a bit of thinking, and for the most part the apps aproximate what it's going to look like until you've processed it out. Lastly, depending on the app and the speed of your machine, it may be that the computer is working towards a non-pixelated version, but that the processing is taking time, and you need to be more patient.

Hope that helps.

[snapapple]

Never used the app, but I can tell you what I know.

Most RAW files have an embedded preview, which is basically a large thumbnail. This might be what you're viewing. Also, when you're viewing a RAW file prior to processing it out to jpeg or tiff or whatever, you're not looking at the final product, unless you view it in a particular way. In C1 (the software I use) it's called the focus tool. Processing the RAW file takes a bit of thinking, and for the most part the apps aproximate what it's going to look like until you've processed it out. Lastly, depending on the app and the speed of your machine, it may be that the computer is working towards a non-pixelated version, but that the processing is taking time, and you need to be more patient.

Hope that helps.

Thanks David,
I looked at the files again and I see two files. One has an extension of THM and the other is ORF or something like that. I think I opened the THM file, which, of course, stand for thumb. Duh. The other file didn't open when I clicked on it. But, maybe I didn't wait long enough. I'll try again. Thanks for your help. :D

[Andy]

Thanks David,
I looked at the files again and I see two files. One has an extension of THM and the other is ORF or something like that. I think I opened the THM file, which, of course, stand for thumb. Duh. The other file didn't open when I clicked on it. But, maybe I didn't wait long enough. I'll try again. Thanks for your help. :D

your camera probably came with software that allows you to read this .orf file. or, you can check adobe and see if there's a plug-in that covers your camera :D

[ginger_55]

p.s. how do you connect your camera to the computer now.. do you use a Card Reader??
Yes, I use a small SanDisk card reader. Works great. I have used it so long the lettering is almost worn off.

g

[windoze]

i never saw this before!!! seems as if it was made for me, but im willing to bet it wont work for me ;( but right after my meds ( Severe swimmer's ear - yet i dont swim; go figure ) wear off im trying it ...

PS ( i bet the 1st thing that goes wrong is - it doesnt open a 20 D RAW and then since i have CS ill have to upgrade to CS2 and then Ill need a plugin and with all that fixin-up, ill be broken )


troy
okay so you'd like to try raw, but you're feeling a bit daunted. take a deep cleansing breath, and work with me here.

1. set your camera to "raw" (rtfm if you don't know how to do this :D)

2. take a pic

3. open photoshop (in this case, it's photoshop cs).

4. if you haven't updated your adobe camera raw plug-in, go to adobe (http://www.adobe.com) and download the latest version

5. open the raw file (file>open and click on the file name)

6. you'll next be presented with this:
http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/8271896-O.jpg

7. if you are just starting out, only concern yourself with the things i've circled here - white balance (color temperature and tint) and exposure. forget everything else, for now! this is an important step for beginners to raw.

8. start by playing with the color temp slider and the tint slider. notice how it changes the pic - you may wish to adjust this, or you may wish to accept your camera's auto wb setting. but play around with it, notice the effects.

9. play with the exposure slider - you can get as much as 2 stops either way without adversely affecting the image quality - sometimes - and it depends on the type of scene and the lighting / iso / etc. start by making small adjustments to the exposure, carefully watching the histogram upper right, don't blow any of the highlights :D

10. when you have finished your tweaking, click on "ok" (upper right) and the file will be brought into "regular" photoshop. now edit as you would any other pic in photoshop, and remember, save the file as a different name than the original raw file!

there, not so hard, is it?

[Dani]

heres a dumb question that I prolly already know the answer too....

what is the advantage of opening the raw in regular pshop after the basic conversion and doing your standard adjustments (levels, curves, sharpening etc etc etc) to the raw file and then saving as a jpg or whatever vs doing the basic raw conversion, saving as a jpg from there and then opening the jpg to do adjustments?

I'm asking this because I have CS2.. and unlike CS it doesn't have an OK and CANCEL button..... it has SAVE, OPEN, CANCEL and DONE.... and I'd just been clicking on save.. which lets you save as a jpg and then opening that back up to process. Only because I figured OPEN just let you open another raw file.

Well.... turn out OPEN opens the raw file in standard pshop so you can do regular post processing... DOH!!!!!!!!! I didn't know that!!! LOL!!!!!!!!

and here all this time I didn't even know you could do regular post processing to raw files... just the conversion!!! :uhoh :doh


duh.... :noob


hey I have been shooting in raw only though from the day I got the cam!!!! I'll shoot in nothing else :D

[gus]

Thanks David,
I looked at the files again and I see two files. One has an extension of THM and the other is ORF or something like that. I think I opened the THM file, which, of course, stand for thumb. Duh. The other file didn't open when I clicked on it. But, maybe I didn't wait long enough. I'll try again. Thanks for your help. :D
Snapapple...download Rawshooter essentials (http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.html) its free & does a good job for free.They do ask for a real email for registration but never pass it on or annoy you.

My 20D has never shot a Jpeg. Once the penny drops as to how you can change the temp of a shot in RAw then you can get so much more form an 'ordinary' shot.

[Rohirrim]

what is the advantage of opening the raw in regular pshop after the basic conversion and doing your standard adjustments (levels, curves, sharpening etc etc etc) to the raw file and then saving as a jpg or whatever vs doing the basic raw conversion, saving as a jpg from there and then opening the jpg to do adjustments? I'll try and help you with this one :):

Everytime you modify an image you lose some data. To see this in action open a jpeg file and watch the Histogram while you add a curve adjustment or a levels adjustment. You will notice small gaps in the histogram. These "gaps" are image data that is lost. With small adjustments you will be unable to tell that the data is lost, but with larger adjustments your image will suffer.

With RAW images you can make larger adjustments without losing as much data. AND- you can always go back to the original RAW image and start all over again, without losing anything.

Another advantage of RAW is you never have to worry about the White Balance setting as you can change it to whatever you need during RAW conversion.

RAW workflow is for making global adjustments to your image. Exposure/Shadows etc. Once you are done with your global adjustments and saved your image as a PSD, TIFF or JPEG then open it up in Photoshop and then do your local adjustments (lighten dark areas, darken light areas, clone, heal etc). Its best to wait and do sharpening in Photoshop as well. The Sharpening feature in RAW converters is not as good as the Sharpening available in PS.

You also have the advantage of layer masks etc in PS.

The SAVE button in ACR allows you to save image(s) while you continue to work in ACR. Then you can come back to the saved image and do your local adjustments.

My RAW workflow goes something like this:





Convert all camera RAW images to DNG RAW images
Open up the RAW images I want to work with in ACR, can open up dozens at a time.
Perform global adjustments (see Andys tutorial)
If you have multiple RAW images that were shot under the same conditions you can apply the same settings to multiple images.
Save images as PSD files
While images are being saved I can continue to work on the rest of the RAW images.
After I'm done performing all the global adjustments I go back and open up the PSD files and perform any needed local adjustments, sharpen, convert to jpeg and upload to smugmug :D
I sure hope that makes sense!

Regards,

[gluwater]

I'll try and help you with this one :):

Everytime you modify an image you lose some data. To see this in action open a jpeg file and watch the Histogram while you add a curve adjustment or a levels adjustment. You will notice small gaps in the histogram. These "gaps" are image data that is lost. With small adjustments you will be unable to tell that the data is lost, but with larger adjustments your image will suffer.

With RAW images you can make larger adjustments without losing as much data. AND- you can always go back to the original RAW image and start all over again, without losing anything,
Very good info Rohirrim. In case anyone is wondering why you don't lose any data is because you are working in 16bit instead of 8bit. So instead of working with 256 colors per bit you are working with thousands of colors per bit. Another important piece of info to point out is that once you make your changes and then hit open to transfer the image to CS2 you are still working in 16bit. So if you then try to save your file as a jpg you won't have the option. Why you ask? Because you are still in 16bit of course and jpg's are 8bit. So all you have to do is Mode and select 8bit. Viola your done! I love RAW by the way, if you don't have CS or CS2 I would suggest Rawshooter Essentials like Gus suggested, it's very good for a free program and is very easy to use.

Nick

[Anson]

real easy and ( lickity split!) smooth..from start to finish, the download took no longer than 3.5- 4 minutes, Tops!:clap

I played with my first raw photo on RawShooter and I made myself dizzy :oogle trying to match PERFECTLY the colors/is it sharp or not sharp enough etc. of all the pens, magic markers (orange, pink & black), pencils with and without erasers, tiny brown brush?, red scissors and the holder sitting next to my monitor, with my RAW photo on screen!

Any tidbits that you could pass my way, that might save on the learning curve, would be most appreciated!

p.s. perhaps it is to darn late in the AM, but I missed how to save the freshly tweaked photo.

regards,

[gus]

Anson i use CS2 these days but RawShooter is still value for free no worries there. I did what you did & just blundered about till i worked it out.

To save once you are done just go to the 'Batch Convert' tab up on the top right & select that screen...be aware that it always saves in Tiff unless you tell it to save in Jpeg (well my version always does.)

Good Luck

[david_h]

Snapapple...download Rawshooter essentials (http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.html) its free & does a good job for free.They do ask for a real email for registration but never pass it on or annoy you.

My 20D has never shot a Jpeg. Once the penny drops as to how you can change the temp of a shot in RAw then you can get so much more form an 'ordinary' shot.
I agree 100% with the man from Down Under.

RSA runs soooo much faster than the Adobe Raw software and does the job at least as well - maybe better. You can set the program to open the image in Photoshop when it's converted, just like the Adobe plug-in does.

The main reason I avoid the Adobe software is that it takes so long to load the thumbnails in the file browser. Why is it that people like Pixmantec and Bibble can make a simple browser that loads images in a few seconds when Adobe can't. I tries CS2 to see if that new Bridge thing was any better than CS but it was just as slow. Spent my upgrade budget on Bibble instead. [/rant]

[Anson]

http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0205/ar0205-2.html

http://photography.about.com/b/a/148279.htm

http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_18/essay.html

http://www.rawworkflow.com/index.html

[vermenton]

My bought and paid for programs is Elements 2.0, I am more used to PS7 after a few months using it. But I did try this same thing, to bring up the Raw files to Elements. It is the same as PS 7.

There are instructions as to how to do it, however, I don't see the files to bring open one............. same as PS 7.

I don't need a 1 gb card, would be nice, but not needed, if I can't figure this out, for free.

gingerJust to reply to ginger about small card. I bought a portable hard drive ( image tank) which can hold 20 gigs of raw picture. you just insert you memory card into the slot of the hard drive and you download you picture. So if you are on the field or travel and don't have access to a pc or laptop, this is the ideal solution at least it work for me.

[rallymaniac]

Snapapple...download Rawshooter essentials (http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.html) its free & does a good job for free.They do ask for a real email for registration but never pass it on or annoy you.


yeah, too bad it doesn't work on AMD Athlon based PCs :dunno

[gus]

yeah, too bad it doesn't work on AMD Athlon based PCs :dunno

Hmmm...someone had better tell my AMD Athlon then because it runs perfectly on it.

Why would the prog not run on it :scratch :dunno

[rallymaniac]

Hmmm...someone had better tell my AMD Athlon then because it runs perfectly on it.

Why would the prog not run on it :scratch :dunno

when i launched it last night it said that pentium III or better is required and that AMD Athlon based machines need some upgrade in BIOS or something. Didn't want to play with all that and got DPP from Canon website that i read about in other thread. It works now :):

[Scott_Quier]

There are a number reasons to seriously consider shooting "in the RAW"

1. You get much more color data per color channel (12 bits vs. 8 bits found in jpg)

2. The biggest reason is creative control over more of the photographic process! If you will allow that the RAW file is your negative, then shooting/processing the raw file is very much analogous to processing your film in a wet-chemistry darkroom. You have much more control over what happens to the image than if you rely on the computer in your camera to translate the image to JPG format for you. And, the beauty here is that, if you don't delete your RAW file, if you don't like one attempt at processing the RAW data, you can start over and do it again!

3. When the image comes out of the RAW processing (ACR for sure, most others I believe) you can elect to retain all 12-bit based color data (usually stored in 16-bit values) to continue with your processing.

So, what does the 12-bit vs 8-bit data get you? In 8-bit RGB data (jpg), each channel has 8 bits with which to express each channel. This means you have, essentially, 256 different values for the red channel (same for green and blue). This gets you a maximum of 16,777,216 (256 ^ 3) distinct colors in your pallet.

But, with the 12-bit, you have 4,096 colors in each channel, getting you a maximum of 68,719,476,736 (4,096 ^ 3), a really rediculous number :roflto consider.

But, what this means is, with the 8-bit color depth, there are a lot fewer values to express/represent a color in your image. What happens if your image has a color that is not "exactly" expressable in one of these fewer colors? It gets approximated and you get positorization :puke1(my spelling on this, I believe, is incorrect).

Long story short, the greater the depth of your data, the better the chances your image will contain the intricate detail that first caught your eye. :clap:clap

[Andy]

Excellent post, Scott :thumb

[colourbox]

In case anyone is wondering why you don't lose any data is because you are working in 16bit instead of 8bit.

That's sort of correct, but not totally. If the camera could give you a 16-bit TIFF, that still wouldn't be as editable as RAW. The real reason RAW preserves your image data is because it hasn't been converted to RGB yet. It's still raw data. As an analogy, you can only do so much to alter a recipe after you bake it. If you get to work with the raw ingredients before you put it in the oven, you can change the recipe in all kinds of ways. RAW is raw, RAW conversion is the oven, and JPEG and TIFF are cooked. Once it's cooked, you can still "edit" the dish, but your options are limited.

Another analogy: RAW is like undeveloped film. If you develop it yourself, you get to control chemistry and development time. JPEG and TIFF are like developed film - if it was developed by some outside lab in a way you don't like, too bad. Using a RAW converter is like gaining the expertise to develop your own film to get exactly what you wanted from start to finish. I was never that good at developing my own film in a darkroom, but fortunately, I finally got the control I've always wanted, by shooting RAW.

[Scott_Quier]

That's sort of correct, but not totally. If the camera could give you a 16-bit TIFF, that still wouldn't be as editable as RAW. The real reason RAW preserves your image data is because it hasn't been converted to RGB yet. It's still raw data. As an analogy, you can only do so much to alter a recipe after you bake it. If you get to work with the raw ingredients before you put it in the oven, you can change the recipe in all kinds of ways. RAW is raw, RAW conversion is the oven, and JPEG and TIFF are cooked. Once it's cooked, you can still "edit" the dish, but your options are limited.

Another analogy: RAW is like undeveloped film. If you develop it yourself, you get to control chemistry and development time. JPEG and TIFF are like developed film - if it was developed by some outside lab in a way you don't like, too bad. Using a RAW converter is like gaining the expertise to develop your own film to get exactly what you wanted from start to finish. I was never that good at developing my own film in a darkroom, but fortunately, I finally got the control I've always wanted, by shooting RAW.

Color -

You are absolutely correct in both of these statements (though you did restate my film analogy which I plagiarized from someone else).

I agree that the process of generating TIFF (even though a camera might be able to deliver 16-bit TIFF, I don't know as I don't do this) would be two steps away from the really raw data. I say two steps because, remember, the data comming off the sensor has to be processed to a very small extent to

Convert from analog to digita
Translate/organize the data stream to the RAW format
On some cameras, the RAW data is actaully losslessly compressed
On some cameras, insert a large JPG thumbnail of the imageI think I will let it rest with that. I tend to get too involved in the details of things and that would not reflect well on me. :):

[Scott_Quier]

Excellent post, Scott :thumb

Thank you. Donations are being accepted at the rear of the auditorium.:rofl

[SteveLajoie]

Well, that was easy. No wonder you write so many tutorials, you do a good job!

Andy (and anyone else) I have a question. I use C1 for my RAW processing. I never adjust my saturation, but do adjust the white balance, exposure compensation, black and gray points, and sometimes contrast. But I never adjust saturation.

Question is, I just got back another order of prints from smugmug. Shots that look good to me on my monitor, but are overly saturated on the prints. In your experience do you have to tone back on the saturation when you process RAW? Or is there something that I could be doing with the other settings that could be boosting the saturation somehow?

No doubt that I'm going to start knocking back the saturation. But I am curious why it would be overly saturated in the first place. Is it just that it's more than the CMYK print can handle? Is there a way to gauge what a print can handle as far as saturation?

Here's all the relevant info I can think of: I shoot on a Digital Rebel, process with C1SE, OSX 10.3.5, monitor calibrated with the calibration tool built into OSX, gamma set to the PC standard (not Mac standard).

Some shots come back fine, others look odd. So it's not entirely consisten.

I might be wide of the mark here ... but

On reading one of the help pages there was a reference to the i2e processing software the EZP use to pre-process images before developing so I went to there web site and found a CS2 plugin for sale, so I got it. Now what is interesting is the way it very cleverly 'cleans' and image up nicly in one step but if I have a complaint it is the amount of saturation it adds .....

Now, knowing that your images will go through this process when it is being commercially developed if you have your gallery set to 'Auto' could this be what is happening to your developed priints?

[Andy]

I might be wide of the mark here ... but

On reading one of the help pages there was a reference to the i2e processing software the EZP use to pre-process images before developing so I went to there web site and found a CS2 plugin for sale, so I got it. Now what is interesting is the way it very cleverly 'cleans' and image up nicly in one step but if I have a complaint it is the amount of saturation it adds .....

Now, knowing that your images will go through this process when it is being commercially developed if you have your gallery set to 'Auto' could this be what is happening to your developed priints?Hi Steve,

We use our own private "recipe" for i2e at our Lab - which is different than most I2E default configurations - we get extremely low return rate on our Auto prints...


I've not seen the plugin for photoshop so I can't know what settings you have it on - and there are probably ways to "dial it back" some? Anyhow, I hope this helps :)

[SteveLajoie]

Great explanation I am new to RAW but persavering.

Last night did a night shoot, well not night but a live band, so very dark ambience with super bright vivid lighting, and all the red, blue and greens you can handle to make the pictures as spotty as .... well

My workflow (to date) is open with CS2 CameraRaw/DNG Converter (free tool) and then I am forced to 'zero' out all the corrections. If I do not when I 'open' the file in CS2 it pixilates, most noticably the reds, to virtually an unrecoverable state.

Now I know why, as the post points out, I am going down from 12bit to 8bit and that explains a lot. However this is controlable if you do not process in the converter prior to load you can then use, in my case I use 'Shadows' and 'Noiseware Pro' to finalise, then as recomended by Andy/Smugmug team, save down to jpg10 for uploead to Smugmug.

Now here is the question: Ultimatly we are recomended to upload in jpg10, this is cool and works well for me, but this is 8bit, so what is the point in having 12bit in the first place because no matter what you do you are going to loose a range you cant possibly use. Unless you are going to upload the rae/dng is there any point in shooting in the raw12bit in the first place, does that make sence????

Dam fine post/thread this one, I have learnt a lot from it, many thanks to all contribs!!

Regards
Steve


There are a number reasons to seriously consider shooting "in the RAW"

1. You get much more color data per color channel (12 bits vs. 8 bits found in jpg)

2. The biggest reason is creative control over more of the photographic process! If you will allow that the RAW file is your negative, then shooting/processing the raw file is very much analogous to processing your film in a wet-chemistry darkroom. You have much more control over what happens to the image than if you rely on the computer in your camera to translate the image to JPG format for you. And, the beauty here is that, if you don't delete your RAW file, if you don't like one attempt at processing the RAW data, you can start over and do it again!

3. When the image comes out of the RAW processing (ACR for sure, most others I believe) you can elect to retain all 12-bit based color data (usually stored in 16-bit values) to continue with your processing.

So, what does the 12-bit vs 8-bit data get you? In 8-bit RGB data (jpg), each channel has 8 bits with which to express each channel. This means you have, essentially, 256 different values for the red channel (same for green and blue). This gets you a maximum of 16,777,216 (256 ^ 3) distinct colors in your pallet.

But, with the 12-bit, you have 4,096 colors in each channel, getting you a maximum of 68,719,476,736 (4,096 ^ 3), a really rediculous number :roflto consider.

But, what this means is, with the 8-bit color depth, there are a lot fewer values to express/represent a color in your image. What happens if your image has a color that is not "exactly" expressable in one of these fewer colors? It gets approximated and you get positorization :puke1(my spelling on this, I believe, is incorrect).

Long story short, the greater the depth of your data, the better the chances your image will contain the intricate detail that first caught your eye. :clap:clap

[SteveLajoie]

Yes Andy there is a dialback when processing it with the plugin, and I have to heavily dialback the saturation elements to get it to work what I consider properly, however it is woth this in pure timesaving on post-processing because of its ingenious 'memory' it know blues should be blue and greens green so save an awfull lot of masking to get a good dynamic range to fine tune from there.

I come from the basis, and I have heard this from many photags that have come from film to digital (does not include me, I started in digi) is that in digi there is not the same dynamic range between lights and darks as there is in traditional film. I beleive digital is there now in the higher end camera's 12mp plus but the 6 and 8 still have this problem to a degree. I certainly notice it on my 20/30D and almost always have to tweek the lights and darks.

But as pointed out in previous reply in this thread I am moving over to RAW now (big steep curve!). The upside I think, subject to the replies I get to my previous post about down scaling the bit rates from 12 to 8, is that if I am going to shoot in raw when I do an event it is not unusual to end up with 1200/1500 shots when useing motor drive that is going to be an awfull lot of editing because I am shooting in 'TV' (speed) most of the time as the lights are changing as I swing from say east to west depending where the sun it so I have to rely on the camera to trick the light, manual is no good as the start of the sequence will be right getting more and more over exposed as I pan and dambed if i can change the setting fast enough manually when panning on a Ferarri F1 car (he he)

Regards
Steve

Hi Steve,

We use our own private "recipe" for i2e at our Lab - which is different than most I2E default configurations - we get extremely low return rate on our Auto prints...


I've not seen the plugin for photoshop so I can't know what settings you have it on - and there are probably ways to "dial it back" some? Anyhow, I hope this helps :)

[Andy]

if i can change the setting fast enough manually when panning on a Ferarri F1 car (he he)

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/105517822-M.jpg
Not an F1 but an F430, from a shoot I did this week.
:thumb

[SteveLajoie]

Not an F1 but an F430, from a shoot I did this week.
:thumb[/quote]

Seriously nice, and that is not stricctly true as the 430 was built useing the F1 technology!!! More importantly, with a car like that I would have been expection the driver to watching where they were going and not looking at the cameraman OR was the car still and you were running by it to simulate motion ????????

Can I be you assistant?

Steve

[Angelo]

6. you'll next be presented with this:
http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/8271896-O.jpg


Hey Andy - great thread. I can't believe I haven't seen it before now. :scratch

The preliminary window I see when I launch CS, opening a RAW file, looks different than the one above and with less options. I'd show you mine but I don't know how to capture a screen shot.

[ChrisJ]

Hey Andy - great thread. I can't believe I haven't seen it before now. :scratch

The preliminary window I see when I launch CS, opening a RAW file, looks different than the one above and with less options. I'd show you mine but I don't know how to capture a screen shot.

You on Windows, Angelo? Alt-PrtScn will copy the current window into the buffer. Then just Paste it into your favorite image editor. I usually use mspaint, but Photoshop works too...

PS Tip, if you have an image copied to the clipboard, if you do a File->New, the default image size will be correct for the copied image.

[Angelo]

Thanks Chris.

Here's my screen shot:

[canon400d]

Thanks Chris.

Here's my screen shot:

I have just purchased a Vosonic portable storage VP5500 250GB. I use this if I am on a big shoot. I shoot RAW and am only able to get around 150 files on a 2GB card. When the card is full I insert it into the Vosonic storage and then I can clear my card and start again.
I use a 40D and as I have said I shoot RAW. The problem I have come up against is when I transfer the files from the Vosonic Storage onto the computer they come up as CR2 files and I am unable to preview them without first sending them into Photoshop. I find this most unhandy and time consuming.
I have tried changing from RAW to 'L' Jpeg and when I transfer these from the Vosonic Storage onto the computer they transfer perfectly and the type of file is: Graphics Interchange Format Image and I can open them in Preview without a problem.
What I would like to know is can I continue using RAW and getting rid of the CR2 files and if so what or where do I make the change.
Regards
Bob
<!-- / message -->

[pathfinder]

Bob,

RAW files from a 40D ARE *.CR2 files - that is their designation, part of their name. You can't get rid of it if you want the RAW files, and you do. Adobe RAW 4.1+ with CS3 recognizes .CR2 files, but the operating system may not.

[dmmattix]

I don't know if this will help you or not but Canon has released a Codec for their RAW files for Windows (you don't say what platform you are on...). You can download it here if it works for you.

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Canon_RAW_Codec.htm

Hope this helps

Mike

[canon400d]

I don't know if this will help you or not but Canon has released a Codec for their RAW files for Windows (you don't say what platform you are on...). You can download it here if it works for you.

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Canon_RAW_Codec.htm

Hope this helps

Mike

Thanks Mike, I am operating Windows XP. However, I have downloaded the codec and it has been installed in Canon files and I will let you know how I get on. Thanks once again.
Bob

[Ozzwald]

After we feel comfortable with he first 4 settings you told us to stick with, which controls should we start to explore next?

[pathfinder]

After we feel comfortable with he first 4 settings you told us to stick with, which controls should we start to explore next?

Ozzwald, this thread was originally posted in SEptember 2004. There have been two or three iterations of Adobe Camera Raw since 9/2004, so the appearance, and commands available in ACR are completely different now.

The present initial screen for ACR 5.5 looks like this now

[Ozzwald]

Well regardless, White balance, Tint, Temperature and exposure is still there...which settings should we start exploring next?

[pathfinder]

The workflow for ACR 5.5 requires a book level discussion to be thorough. After the basics of white balance, exposure, black point, fill light etc. I look at a few different camera profiles available with the later versions of ACR. I then correct the luminosity curve, chromatic aberration, noise reduction, selective color adjustments, and any other defects I see in the RAW file


The bible is Real World Camera RAW with Adobe PS CS4 by Bruce Fraser and Jeffe Schewe. Very thorough and clear and helpful to gain a real understanding of Raw Processing.

Kelby talks about Raw Processing in most of his recent books about CS4.

If you understand the RAW processor steps in Lightroom2, they are essentially the same.

Luminous-Landscape Guide to Raw Processing - New in CS4 - a video available on the Luminous landscape is quite helpful.

One of the reasons I have not tried to update Andy's post is that a thorough description of the use of ACR would literally require many chapters of work to do justice to the task. Fraser and Schewe have already done a stellar job. Thats where I would start.

[Ozzwald]

Thanks, i completely understand. Defidently a huge amount of options and overwhelming.

I guess after these 10 basics, i may need to pick up a book...

[arodney]

Well regardless, White balance, Tint, Temperature and exposure is still there...which settings should we start exploring next?

Generally speaking, top down, left to right. The controls are placed in a recommended order although since we’re dealing with metadata (parametric editing), the order is always applied in an optimal processing order in the ACR engine. That said, if you try working top down, left to right (panes in ACR), you’ll generally get to your desired goal faster.

[pathfinder]

Generally speaking, top down, left to right. The controls are placed in a recommended order although since we’re dealing with metadata (parametric editing), the order is always applied in an optimal processing order in the ACR engine. That said, if you try working top down, left to right (panes in ACR), you’ll generally get to your desired goal faster.


Andrew, would you include the choice of camera profile in your top down, left to right sequence, as last, or would you do it very early in your editing sequence in ACR? Color Profile is the lower most choice in the right panel, isn't it?

I usually choose the camera profile very early - along with color temp and Exposure. They all seem to interact with each other a bit. I usually start with Color Temp if the exposure was accurate. But if the exposure was significantly off, I usually get that closer and then visit Color Temp. I would then select the camera profile I choose to use, and revisit Color Temp and Exposure before moving on to Black point, Clarity, Curves, Chromatic aberration correction. Is this the right sequence, or is there a better way to do it?

[arodney]

You really do want the profile selected from the get go (and there are discussions the profile selection needs to be more upfront). I have this set globally as a default profile per camera serial which I setup in Lightroom.