RAW Format Advice Needed

[jwlast]

Howdy. I've got a C-5050, Inon D-180 strobe. Been diving with the camera for about a year and a half, usually shoot in the manual mode. Results have been pretty good after editing in photoshop (pretty good, not great). Most pictures are taken in the 25-70 ft range off Oahu. Been thinking of giving RAW a try, have no experience with it and not sure the advantages/disadvantages/proper set-up to shoot. Not sure how to download/edit, etc. I other words, I have no clue on RAW photos from shooting through printing.

Any advice from anybody expereinced with the in and outs of RAW would be greatly appreciated.

Been looking at UR Pro Filters, too, but that's a question for another time.

Thanks

JW

 

[alcina]

You need to make sure that your software supports working with RAW - Photoshop CS does and maybe Elements 3, but I am not sure on that.

If you have the software - at least something that can save a copy of the RAW file as a lossless format - then shooting RAW is a good idea, I think. I put the little note in there because eventually you will move up to a software program that CAN edit RAW files so even if you can't do it right now I still think it's better to have the most information you can saved in the original. So right now you might have to work on an image with the same limitations as you would if shooting jpeg, but the future looks rosier for those "almost" shots!

As for shooting, you don't need to change anything. Be aware that RAW takes longer to write than jpeg does...it'll be a transition.

I have only begun to play with RAW in software and it seems like I learn something new each week.

To me the only possible disadvantage is the write time, but I'm used to it and I work with it now.

 

[crestgel]

RAW is the way to go. It is equivalent to a negative from a film camera. RAW files hold more information then their jpeg counterparts. RAW files however take more time and work to make them look good. Not only do you have to process the RAW file to produce a work file, you also have to adjust them to make them look good.

You see most of these cameras have chips that do post processing of images for contrast, highlight, shadow and color. They also have sophisticated algorithms to remove blooming, black noise and other thing. What most ppl do not know is that these great features are only applied to jpegs and not the RAW files. RAW files are the unprocessed information from the camera.

That is why your RAW files will not look all that good until you have worked them up.

A note on exposure

When shooting with a digital camera, one should always "Shoot to the right" of the Histogram. If you have a histogram on your camera you should always overexpose your images so that the white areas are as far to the right of the histogram as possible without blowing the whites.

 

[alcina]

you should always overexpose your images .

I am thinking you mean UNDERexpose your images. There is much more room for improvement on a dark image than on a light/blown out image

And FWIW on a lot of my RAW shots the pics do look good straight out of the camera. Others need a bit of tweaking, but I have surprisingly found that I spend less time now that I work with RAW - of course, I am getting better, too!

 

[crestgel]

I am thinking you mean UNDERexpose your images. There is much more room for improvement on a dark image than on a light/blown out image

And FWIW on a lot of my RAW shots the pics do look good straight out of the camera. Others need a bit of tweaking, but I have surprisingly found that I spend less time now that I work with RAW - of course, I am getting better, too!

I said to keep it as light as possible without blowing it out.


Nope I mean overexposing the image. A digital camera unlike film is a linear device. It’s response to light is linear. So lets take this simplified example. Your digital camera can only capture 4096 shades of gray. 4096 is white and 0 is black. Each block is a stop in exposure.


[Look at image barrowed from a friend’s book]


As you can see more then have of the available grays are used in the brightest stops leaving the other half for the darker stops. Look at the extreme end, 64 shades of gray represent the darkest area.

My question to you is do you need 2048 shades of gray to represent the bright areas of your picture? I would rather have more shades or gray represent my darker areas.

When you overexpose without blowing the whites you shift the image to the right of this chart while still having information in the bright areas. Just moving it one stop to the right from 64 will give you 128 shades of gray to render the darker parts of your image. That is 64 more shades of information in the dark area of your image.


The RAW file does not look good out of your camera. It looks good after you convert it in your RAW conversion program. Take off all the auto correction and zero out the settings and you will see your RAW image as it is without adjustments.

I hope all that makes sense

 

[herman]

A couple of thoughts. Be aware that RAW files are double the size of SHQ so plan on buying a lot of memory. In the 5050, a 256 card will hold 69 SHQ shots or 34 in RAW. Photoshop 3.0 does support RAW. You can download a 30 day trail version off the Adobe web site.

 

[Scubatooth]

JW

RAW is the ultimate format for shoots who want the ultimate control over there images from start to finish. as a poster said above it is like a film negative that can hold a extreme amount of detail from high to low. the only real down side is that you are required to have a editor that will handle raw files (PS CS,PSE 3, Phase One C1 (capture one), etc) for making adjustments. If your images out of the camera look bad then the image should have been reshot as the convertor isnt going to save a bad image.

as for the speed concern its real not that bad as its comparable to recycle rates of most of the modern strobes. in my 5050 i have a 1GB 80X Lexar CF Card, and a 512mb Oly XD card and the write times for raw files are 1.5-2.2, and 3.-4.5 seconds respectively for (CF & XD). With both of these cards in my camera i get just under 200 images i cna shoot before they are full, which for me is just fine for a 2 tank dive trip, for as about as long as a set of rechargeables will last for me. for the 5050 the files size of the raw files is ~7.11MB a piece (just an FYI)

as for the comment on overexposing digital images, i have to disagree big time as once you blow out the highlights there gone and your left with a white mass that is un editable . If your watching your histogram you want to keep the graphs values between the lines and you will keep the images levels just right. now if you shift them were they are stacked either left or right you will either lose ( or clip) the highlights or shadows. So what you would want to do is similar to slide film, as you would want to slightly underexpose the image to saturate the colors, but mainly i follow the histogram for exposure settings.

As for the graph you posted that is possible if your using 16 bit color for which most cams(no pro, DSLRs, Drum scanners etc) can only do between 8-12. further more the meters in most cameras are incapable of moving the image just a point or two on the scale , its more or less its gonna be like 20+ point jumps (1/2- 1 stop shifts) for which is gonna cause highlights to be lost.

just me opinon so FWIW

Tooth

 

[crestgel]

as for the comment on overexposing digital images, i have to disagree big time as once you blow out the highlights there gone and your left with a white mass that is un editable . If your watching your histogram you want to keep the graphs values between the lines and you will keep the images levels just right. now if you shift them were they are stacked either left or right you will either lose ( or clip) the highlights or shadows. So what you would want to do is similar to slide film, as you would want to slightly underexpose the image to saturate the colors, but mainly i follow the histogram for exposure settings.

As for the graph you posted that is possible if your using 16 bit color for which most cams(no pro, DSLRs, Drum scanners etc) can only do between 8-12. further more the meters in most cameras are incapable of moving the image just a point or two on the scale , its more or less its gonna be like 20+ point jumps (1/2- 1 stop shifts) for which is gonna cause highlights to be lost.

just me opinon so FWIW

Tooth

I NEVER said to blow the whites out. I said:

"If you have a histogram on your camera you should always overexpose your images so that the white areas are as far to the right of the histogram as possible without blowing the whites."

I did not say to blow the whites out! It is true that blowing the whites out will result on the lost of white information “Clipping” That is why I DID not say you should blow your whites out.

now if you shift them were they are stacked either left or right you will either lose ( or clip) the highlights or shadows.

Shooting to the right by overexposing your image, being careful that YOU DO NOT blow out your highlights. You gain more information in your darker areas.

As for the graph you posted that is possible if your using 16 bit color for which most cams(no pro, DSLRs, Drum scanners etc) can only do between 8-12. further more the meters in most cameras are incapable of moving the image just a point or two on the scale , its more or less its gonna be like 20+ point jumps (1/2- 1 stop shifts) for which is gonna cause highlights to be lost.

You can change exposures by using exposure compensation. You can also manually set the exposure if your first metered shot was not ideal. I do not think you understand what I was trying to say. I’m not saying that you should move the exposure in points I would much rather you move in 1/3 stops ot ½ stops. I do not know of a camera that can make exposures based on points.

 

[crestgel]

I found this using Google. It explains it better then I can.

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

You can also buy my friends book
"Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS" by Bruce Fraser


Give it a try and see the diffrence

 

[RonFrank]

You see most of these cameras have chips that do post processing of images for contrast, highlight, shadow and color. They also have sophisticated algorithms to remove blooming, black noise and other thing. What most ppl do not know is that these great features are only applied to jpegs and not the RAW files. RAW files are the unprocessed information from the camera.

This is kinda true. ALL camera's have chips to post process data. A digital sensor does NOT see color, photosites count the amount of light, so to speak. While RAW files DO contain native data that is less processed, that fact is RAW files ALSO contain ALL the original settings that the camera used in capturing data, and THAT is applied to the RAW data when it's displayed by the camera, or the software. This is why MANY applications do NOT process RAW data well, and EACH model (not just brand) must have a RAW converted built into the software for it to work.

A well shot RAW file will NOT need ANY processing to print other than to convert the file into a format that the printer will recognize, and generally not even that. I can save NEF (NIKON RAW) files in Photoshop, and then print then using the NEF format. That said some RAW software conversions are better than others vs. the in camera counterpart. Unfortunately OLY's RAW software as supplied with the 5060 is about useless, however I've read the Adobe's is very good, AND that the E1 software includes RAW tools that are very good, and may even support the 5060.

So the HUGE advantage of RAW is that ANY settings that the camera does apply which include WhiteBalance (huge), sharpening, saturation, tone, ect., can be applied and CHANGED just like they would have been shot in camera. There are limitations however, and one can NOT change the aperture, or modify exposure beyond the detail that is captured in an image.

That is why your RAW files will not look all that good until you have worked them up.

A note on exposure

When shooting with a digital camera, one should always "Shoot to the right" of the Histogram. If you have a histogram on your camera you should always overexpose your images so that the white areas are as far to the right of the histogram as possible without blowing the whites.

RAW files can look FINE without "working them up". And as to the comment on overexposure, well see my next response.

The bottom line is that working with RAW has only ONE disadvantage, speed and size. With EVERY camera there is some limit to how many RAW image can be done in a specified time, and they are big. With my D1x, I can shoot about 20 RAW images at 3 frames per second, and then I must wait until the buffer clears enough to shoot another. That is Very good for most every situation I would ever shoot.

Ron