I’ve always worked in JPEG format but have finally been convinced that RAW is worth the effort, but I’m not sure how to go about it.

With JPEG my workflow was this:

Download images using Windows software. That would provide me with thumbnails.
I’d then screen the pictures using Windows photo viewer.
If something looked promising I would then open it with Photoshop Elements and do a bit of editing.
Save as JPEG file.

How do I manage RAW images? Can I download them the same way, and if so, do RAW files give me thumbnails to work from?
Can Photoshop Elements work with RAW, or do I need something else?
In what format is the final image saved?

Any info appreciated.

I shoot in RAW + JPG, which allows me the compatability of JPG, and the benefits of RAW.

Essentially, RAW is much more difficult to play with, and you have to go to some effort to even have the thumbnails displayed in Windows Explorer so I keep all the JPG files and delete all RAW files except for the good ones.

I shoot in RAW probably 90% of the time. Most image processing programs these days should be able to handle RAW files. I use Canons ‘Digital Photo Professional’. Most cameras also embed a JPG into the RAW file that you can extract if you wish.

The advantage of using RAW is that any editing that you do on the RAW data is non-destructive. When you alter a RAW image, you are simply creating a ‘recipe’ that the software then uses to process that RAW file into a JPG (or whatever other format you choose). You can then go back at any time and undo or change any modifications as required. A RAW image is also the highest quality that you can get from your camera.

If you decide to use RAW, you might want to invest in a bigger memory card. RAW files are MUCH larger than a corresponding JPG. I carry two 16GB cards and get around 600 images per card using an 18MP sensor.

There is a bit of a learning curve to processing RAW files, but once you get the hang of it, it is pretty easy.

The advantage of using RAW is that any editing that you do on the RAW data is non-destructive. When you alter a RAW image, you are simply creating a ‘recipe’ that the software then uses to process that RAW file into a JPG (or whatever other format you choose). You can then go back at any time and undo or change any modifications as required. A RAW image is also the highest quality that you can get from your camera.

that doesn’t really make a lot of sense…

editing raw is ‘non destructive’??? huh?

you edit the raw file and you generally save that image as a different file/format, so in that way it’s “non destructive”, but its a very odd-use of the term.

FWIW, if you’re starting out shooting in RAW then most cameras allow you to capture both the RAW and the JPEG, so do both..

Dropbear said:

FWIW, if you’re starting out shooting in RAW

Are they the pics you post on your deviantART account?

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

FWIW, if you’re starting out shooting in RAW

Are they the pics you post on your deviantART account?

They were shot in RAW yes :P

(or webcam, depends on the circumstance)

Dropbear said:

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

FWIW, if you’re starting out shooting in RAW

Are they the pics you post on your deviantART account?

They were shot in RAW yes :P

(or webcam, depends on the circumstance)

I hear they have a very good media program at ADFA

Dropbear said:

The advantage of using RAW is that any editing that you do on the RAW data is non-destructive. When you alter a RAW image, you are simply creating a ‘recipe’ that the software then uses to process that RAW file into a JPG (or whatever other format you choose). You can then go back at any time and undo or change any modifications as required. A RAW image is also the highest quality that you can get from your camera.

that doesn’t really make a lot of sense…

editing raw is ‘non destructive’??? huh?

you edit the raw file and you generally save that image as a different file/format, so in that way it’s “non destructive”, but its a very odd-use of the term.

FWIW, if you’re starting out shooting in RAW then most cameras allow you to capture both the RAW and the JPEG, so do both..

The edits that you make to the RAW data do not alter that data, they only affect the final output file. If you edit a JPG and save it, then you cannot revert that JPG back to the original. When you edit a RAW file and save it, you can go back at any time and change those edits or remove them. In this way, RAW edits are non-destructive.

fsm said:

Dropbear said:

The advantage of using RAW is that any editing that you do on the RAW data is non-destructive. When you alter a RAW image, you are simply creating a ‘recipe’ that the software then uses to process that RAW file into a JPG (or whatever other format you choose). You can then go back at any time and undo or change any modifications as required. A RAW image is also the highest quality that you can get from your camera.

that doesn’t really make a lot of sense…

editing raw is ‘non destructive’??? huh?

you edit the raw file and you generally save that image as a different file/format, so in that way it’s “non destructive”, but its a very odd-use of the term.

FWIW, if you’re starting out shooting in RAW then most cameras allow you to capture both the RAW and the JPEG, so do both..

The edits that you make to the RAW data do not alter that data, they only affect the final output file. If you edit a JPG and save it, then you cannot revert that JPG back to the original. When you edit a RAW file and save it, you can go back at any time and change those edits or remove them. In this way, RAW edits are non-destructive.

That’s like saying edits you make to Microsoft Word are non destructive as you can choose to “save as” instead of “save”..

Shrug.. There is nothing stopping you actually changing the RAW file, and resaving it as that Raw file, it’s just that no one’s workflow actually does this – because typically a RAW file is useless for display/printing etc

Dropbear said:

That’s like saying edits you make to Microsoft Word are non destructive as you can choose to “save as” instead of “save”..

Shrug.. There is nothing stopping you actually changing the RAW file, and resaving it as that Raw file, it’s just that no one’s workflow actually does this – because typically a RAW file is useless for display/printing etc

It has nothing to do with ‘Save As’. When you edit a RAW file the RAW data does not get changed, only the recipe changes.

fsm said:

Dropbear said:

That’s like saying edits you make to Microsoft Word are non destructive as you can choose to “save as” instead of “save”..

Shrug.. There is nothing stopping you actually changing the RAW file, and resaving it as that Raw file, it’s just that no one’s workflow actually does this – because typically a RAW file is useless for display/printing etc

It has nothing to do with ‘Save As’. When you edit a RAW file the RAW data does not get changed, only the recipe changes.

No..

Just no.

There is nothing “special” about editing a raw file, the difference is simply work flow.

“All the changes made on a raw image file are non-destructive; that is, only the metadata that controls the rendering is changed to make different output versions, leaving the original data unchanged.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

fsm said:

“All the changes made on a raw image file are non-destructive; that is, only the metadata that controls the rendering is changed to make different output versions, leaving the original data unchanged.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

That seems to be talking about in-camera processing to me …

When you apply things like White Balance to a JPEG on camera, that is applying those changes ‘destructively’ to the file in camera – in that once applied, they cannot ‘unapplied’.

This sort of information is not applied to RAW files (ie: white balance is not applied to raw files in camera).

But that has nothing to do with post-shooting work flow, once you get the raw file off the camera.. Which is what the OP was (I think) asking about.

Dropbear said:

fsm said:

“All the changes made on a raw image file are non-destructive; that is, only the metadata that controls the rendering is changed to make different output versions, leaving the original data unchanged.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

That seems to be talking about in-camera processing to me …

When you apply things like White Balance to a JPEG on camera, that is applying those changes ‘destructively’ to the file in camera – in that once applied, they cannot ‘unapplied’.

This sort of information is not applied to RAW files (ie: white balance is not applied to raw files in camera).

But that has nothing to do with post-shooting work flow, once you get the raw file off the camera.. Which is what the OP was (I think) asking about.

It is not just in-camera processing, all operations on a RAW file are non destructive.

fsm said:

Dropbear said:

fsm said:

“All the changes made on a raw image file are non-destructive; that is, only the metadata that controls the rendering is changed to make different output versions, leaving the original data unchanged.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

That seems to be talking about in-camera processing to me …

When you apply things like White Balance to a JPEG on camera, that is applying those changes ‘destructively’ to the file in camera – in that once applied, they cannot ‘unapplied’.

This sort of information is not applied to RAW files (ie: white balance is not applied to raw files in camera).

But that has nothing to do with post-shooting work flow, once you get the raw file off the camera.. Which is what the OP was (I think) asking about.

It is not just in-camera processing, all operations on a RAW file are non destructive.

I can delete a raw file, thats destructive
I can open a raw file in a hex editor and change the values – that’s destructive.

The ‘non destructive’ part applies to in-camera “affects”.

Dropbear said:

fsm said:

Dropbear said:

That seems to be talking about in-camera processing to me …

When you apply things like White Balance to a JPEG on camera, that is applying those changes ‘destructively’ to the file in camera – in that once applied, they cannot ‘unapplied’.

This sort of information is not applied to RAW files (ie: white balance is not applied to raw files in camera).

But that has nothing to do with post-shooting work flow, once you get the raw file off the camera.. Which is what the OP was (I think) asking about.

It is not just in-camera processing, all operations on a RAW file are non destructive.

I can delete a raw file, thats destructive
I can open a raw file in a hex editor and change the values – that’s destructive.

The ‘non destructive’ part applies to in-camera “affects”.

It has nothing to do with in-camera “affects”. All edits to a RAW file are non-destructive (disregarding deletion and hex-editors).

fsm said:

Dropbear said:

fsm said:

It is not just in-camera processing, all operations on a RAW file are non destructive.

I can delete a raw file, thats destructive
I can open a raw file in a hex editor and change the values – that’s destructive.

The ‘non destructive’ part applies to in-camera “affects”.

It has nothing to do with in-camera “affects”. All edits to a RAW file are non-destructive (disregarding deletion and hex-editors).

So disregarding editing which is destructive, all editing is non destructive.. got it ..

But without sarcasm, I can edit a raw file, change all the values for the RED channel to 0 and save the file..

thats’s a destructive edit – so your claim is false.

BUT

Things like white balance and sharpening, in camera, IS stored in meta data and not applied directly to the file, as is done, in camera on a jpeg – and that is probably what you’re meaning.

Dropbear said:

fsm said:

Dropbear said:

I can delete a raw file, thats destructive
I can open a raw file in a hex editor and change the values – that’s destructive.

The ‘non destructive’ part applies to in-camera “affects”.

It has nothing to do with in-camera “affects”. All edits to a RAW file are non-destructive (disregarding deletion and hex-editors).

So disregarding editing which is destructive, all editing is non destructive.. got it ..

But without sarcasm, I can edit a raw file, change all the values for the RED channel to 0 and save the file..

thats’s a destructive edit – so your claim is false.

BUT

Things like white balance and sharpening, in camera, IS stored in meta data and not applied directly to the file, as is done, in camera on a jpeg – and that is probably what you’re meaning.

How are you going to change all the values for the RED channel to 0?? Colour values, white balance &etc are not altered in the RAW data, only in the metadata recipe – in camera or out of the camera.

fsm said:

Dropbear said:

fsm said:

It has nothing to do with in-camera “affects”. All edits to a RAW file are non-destructive (disregarding deletion and hex-editors).

So disregarding editing which is destructive, all editing is non destructive.. got it ..

But without sarcasm, I can edit a raw file, change all the values for the RED channel to 0 and save the file..

thats’s a destructive edit – so your claim is false.

BUT

Things like white balance and sharpening, in camera, IS stored in meta data and not applied directly to the file, as is done, in camera on a jpeg – and that is probably what you’re meaning.

How are you going to change all the values for the RED channel to 0?? Colour values, white balance &etc are not altered in the RAW data, only in the metadata recipe – in camera or out of the camera.

Thats what a raw file IS, it’s the values 0..bitdepth for each colour channel..
It’s the raw data, straight off of the sensor..

Changing the red channel on an image in a raw file to 0, for example, is pathologically easy..

Dropbear said:

fsm said:

Dropbear said:

So disregarding editing which is destructive, all editing is non destructive.. got it ..

But without sarcasm, I can edit a raw file, change all the values for the RED channel to 0 and save the file..

thats’s a destructive edit – so your claim is false.

BUT

Things like white balance and sharpening, in camera, IS stored in meta data and not applied directly to the file, as is done, in camera on a jpeg – and that is probably what you’re meaning.

How are you going to change all the values for the RED channel to 0?? Colour values, white balance &etc are not altered in the RAW data, only in the metadata recipe – in camera or out of the camera.

Thats what a raw file IS, it’s the values 0..bitdepth for each colour channel..
It’s the raw data, straight off of the sensor..

Changing the red channel on an image in a raw file to 0, for example, is pathologically easy..

When you turn off the red in your image, your image editing program will modify the recipe, not the RAW data.

This is a great thread & I’m learning a lot from it.
I only ever use Tiff with jpeg for emailing so know nothing about RAW.
Thanks.

fsm, can you try something for us? Open a RAW file in Digital Photo Professional, make some changes to the picture, save it (not using “Save As…”, but just “Save”), close the program, then re-open the file and try to recover the original. If all edits are non-destructive, and only the metadata is changed, recovering the original picture should be simple.

I suggest you take a copy of the original file, though, just in case it does get changed.

Wocky said:

fsm, can you try something for us? Open a RAW file in Digital Photo Professional, make some changes to the picture, save it (not using “Save As…”, but just “Save”), close the program, then re-open the file and try to recover the original. If all edits are non-destructive, and only the metadata is changed, recovering the original picture should be simple.

I suggest you take a copy of the original file, though, just in case it does get changed.

Yes, undoing the edit is quite simple.

I have been churning through a backlog of RAW data today, 1385 RAW images processed and now I am using these images to produce quite large composites. I use DPP on an almost daily basis.

Wocky said:

fsm, can you try something for us? Open a RAW file in Digital Photo Professional, make some changes to the picture, save it (not using “Save As…”, but just “Save”), close the program, then re-open the file and try to recover the original. If all edits are non-destructive, and only the metadata is changed, recovering the original picture should be simple.

I suggest you take a copy of the original file, though, just in case it does get changed.

Most commercial editors I am aware of will save in a different format after you open a raw file – ie photoshop will save as a PSD file.\

Dropbear said:

Wocky said:

fsm, can you try something for us? Open a RAW file in Digital Photo Professional, make some changes to the picture, save it (not using “Save As…”, but just “Save”), close the program, then re-open the file and try to recover the original. If all edits are non-destructive, and only the metadata is changed, recovering the original picture should be simple.

I suggest you take a copy of the original file, though, just in case it does get changed.

Most commercial editors I am aware of will save in a different format after you open a raw file – ie photoshop will save as a PSD file.\

A PSD file (PhotoShop Document) is a layered image file, not a RAW file.

fsm said:

Dropbear said:

Wocky said:

fsm, can you try something for us? Open a RAW file in Digital Photo Professional, make some changes to the picture, save it (not using “Save As…”, but just “Save”), close the program, then re-open the file and try to recover the original. If all edits are non-destructive, and only the metadata is changed, recovering the original picture should be simple.

I suggest you take a copy of the original file, though, just in case it does get changed.

Most commercial editors I am aware of will save in a different format after you open a raw file – ie photoshop will save as a PSD file.\

A PSD file (PhotoShop Document) is a layered image file, not a RAW file.

indeed… I didn’t say otherwise.. im saying that most editors will not allow you to re-save your edits over the top of an existing RAW file.. they save in other formats.. note there is no technical reason why they couldn’t. but as I said earlier on in this discussion, that is not a sane workflow.

Dropbear said:

fsm said:

Dropbear said:

Most commercial editors I am aware of will save in a different format after you open a raw file – ie photoshop will save as a PSD file.\

A PSD file (PhotoShop Document) is a layered image file, not a RAW file.

indeed… I didn’t say otherwise.. im saying that most editors will not allow you to re-save your edits over the top of an existing RAW file.. they save in other formats.. note there is no technical reason why they couldn’t. but as I said earlier on in this discussion, that is not a sane workflow.

Well, that would be because RAW data is read only. Any edits are only made to the recipe.

—> http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-vs-jpeg

A Raw file is…

• not an image file per se (it will require special software to view, though this software is easy to get).
• typically a proprietary format (with the exception of Adobe’s DNG format that isn’t widely used yet).
• at least 8 bits per color – red, green, and blue (12-bits per X,Y location), though most DSLRs record 12-bit color (36-bits per location).
• uncompressed (an 8 megapixel camera will produce a 8 MB Raw file).
• the complete (lossless) data from the camera’s sensor.
• higher in dynamic range (ability to display highlights and shadows).
• lower in contrast (flatter, washed out looking).
• not as sharp.
• not suitable for printing directly from the camera or without post processing.
• read only (all changes are saved in an XMP “sidecar” file or to a JPEG or other image format).
• sometimes admissable in a court as evidence (as opposed to a changeable image format).
• waiting to be processed by your computer.

Haven’t read through all of this, but I think the confusion here is in the definition of the word “Edits”.

Yes, you can load a RAW file into some editors and change some non-destructive settings such as white-balance, contrast, etc (the ones that would normally be set ‘in-camera’ when saving to Jpeg)

The best advantages of using RAW + JPG for someone learning is the ability to make the settings in the camera you think should be done, and then loading up the raw file to see if other settings would have produced a better image. Once you find the settings you specify for a certain lighting environment do in fact give you the best image, you can go back to shooting JPG and only use RAW for the difficult shots.

After all the hype, the main advantage of RAW is the extra dynamic range and the ability to manipulate the colour balance. If these aren’t a problem for you, then the effort of shooting in RAW may be greater than the benefits.

I have heard of a person who shoots in RAW and JPG for his portrait work – he shoots in B&W which allows him to test his lighting on a per shot basis by using the histogram graph. He then has the full-colour RAW file to edit up.

I agree with Tamb: some photographers do seem to like a tiff.

If I understand correctly, RAW is not a fixed format. The RAW format differs between camera manufacturers and may even differ from camera to camera. So saying that software handles RAW really only means that it handles RAW datafiles from at least one camera manufacturer, it may not handle RAW format from other manufacturers.

I can help you. Just relax and give me the psychedelics…….

http://expanded—consciousness.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/psychedelics-can-unlock-mysteries-of.html

Leading Neuropsychopharmacologist- Psychedelics Can Unlock Mysteries of Brain

Scientists should have access to illegal psychedelic drugs such as LSD and psilocybin to aid them in brain research, according to the government’s former drug adviser Professor David Nutt. He said that research into the deepest mysteries of the brain, including consciousness and mental illness, had been curtailed by the prohibition of the drugs.

mollwollfumble said:

If I understand correctly, RAW is not a fixed format. The RAW format differs between camera manufacturers and may even differ from camera to camera. So saying that software handles RAW really only means that it handles RAW datafiles from at least one camera manufacturer, it may not handle RAW format from other manufacturers.

This is correct, but most image editing suites have a ‘raw processor’ component that has modules released for it as camera manufacturers release new sensors..

The Raw image format is typically sensor dependent.. Different releases of the same camera (Canon 5D Mark II vs III) have a different RAW file format.

SCIENCE said:

I agree with Tamb: some photographers do seem to like a tiff.

+1

Carmen_Sandiego said:

SCIENCE said:

I agree with Tamb: some photographers do seem to like a tiff.

+1

its a good format to take to the lab ;)