File :-(, x, )
Why should I use RAW? Anonymous
hello I just bought a digital SLR a few weeks ago, I took some pictures with it, I had it set to a low compression JPEG and the pictures turned out pretty good for a beginner. I have lurked around photography sights and forums and everyone talks about RAW format and post processing. I can't afford photo processing software right now and I tried shooting in RAW and TIFF format. Both setting where large in format dimensions but at the kiosk where I develop my pictures it could not read the RAW file so I have been shooting pics in TIFF because of its low compression rate and its ability to be printed right off from the memory card. Is there any reason other then post-processing that I should use RAW for. Or a reason I should move away from TIFF and go to JPEG format?
I have a Olympus E500 8 Megabytes
THE picture enclosed is just one of the crappier pictures I took while learning the camera
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareOLYMPUS Master 1.42Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution314 dpiVertical Resolution314 dpiImage Created2007:06:04 16:28:09Exposure Time1/320 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length39.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3200Image Height2400RenderingCustomExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessHardCompression SettingUnknownMacro ModeNormal
>> Anonymous
RAW lets you adjust almost anything about the photograph. Did you camera come with some sort of software? That should let you process the RAW, though it won't be as good as if you did it with Photoshop.

If it did, shoot in RAW and use that software to make a TIFF. You'll be able to go back later on and properly post-process if you ever get Photoshop.

If it didn't, shoot in TIFF. TIFF lacks most of RAW's advantages, but it (like RAW) lacks the main flaw of JPEG: JPEG compresses the file by taking out some of the detail, whereas TIFF saves all the detail while making it smaller, though not as small as JPEG.
>> Anonymous
>>58831
I think I can edit it in RAW form but it just asks me if I want to RAW EDIT? YES/NO in JPEG/TIFF i can adjust b/w sepia redeye and saturation and resizeing
>> Anonymous
>>58833
>JPEG/TIFF i can adjust b/w sepia redeye and saturation and resizeing

You should be able to adjust all of those, and much more, in RAW.

Have you ever clicked, "yes," when it asks you about the RAW edit? What happens?
>> Anonymous
My camera is all disassembled for storage right now, Ill play with it a bit later, thanks for the help those
>> Anonymous
>>58829
If you aren't going to be doing anything particularly fancy (only level adjustments), then you can get freeware that'll help. Use Irfanview if you have a Windows machine. Also, Google's image app, Picasa, is very nice as well. There's a "I'm Feeling Lucky" button for automatic level changing. Works quite brillantly too on a good number of my photos. Finally, if you're looking for something that's almost on par with Photoshop, you can download GIMP at no charge. It has most of the capabilities of Photoshop which should be more than enough for your typical post-processing.
>> Anonymous
I use gimp and it works fine for photo processing, however I shoot all my pictures in Jpeg large fine.
>> Anonymous
RAW is good because when you post process you want the highest amount of information possible in the photo.
>> Anonymous
>>58829
>I have a Olympus E500

Then you have 4 options to process RAW files.
a) Process RAW in-camera - that's where it just asks you "RAW EDIT? Y/N" and then applies the current shooting settings to a given RAW file. This should be used as a last resort only.
b) Process RAW with Olympus Master software that should be on a CD bundled with your camera. It's kinda slow and doesn't have much features, though.
c) Process RAW with Olympus Studio software (it can be bought from Olympus for a hundred bucks or stolen on the internets). It looks uglier than Master, but has more features and is faster.
d) Process RAW using Photoshop CS3 or CS/CS2 with updated Adobe Camera Raw plugin. That's where you get the most comprehensive set of adjustments.
>> Anonymous
Use Photoshop Elements 5. $100 and does almost everything Photoshop (at least CS2, which I have alongside Elements) does.
>> ??????? !KEBab7wem6
     File :-(, x)
Alternatively, download the trial to Lightroom and if needed, unlock the 30 day trial counter in whatever way suits you best. I'm in a gap between Lightroom and Aperture. Lightroom feels nicer in some aspects, while Aperture in the others...
>> Anonymous
To all you artsy geeks that don't understand the technicals, its called lossless and lossy compression. Lossless preserving every aspect of the image but simply using algorithms catered to working specifically with data from a still picture to make it smaller. Lossy compression does the same thing but just as someone pointed out it allows for the loss of data in order to save more space.
>> Anonymous
>>58973
Yeah. That's how lossless and lossy compression work. I don't think anyone was saying otherwise. Both RAW and .TFF are both types of lossless compression. No one is arguing that lossy compression is the same as lossless compression.
>> Anonymous
OP here, what if the pictures I would be taking would be printed off in 5x7/ 5x8 (what ever the dimensions are) should I still shoot in TIFF? (which is what i have decided to do for now)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>59054
Basically, if you don't do any postprocessing (and don't plan to), just shoot JPEG.

Especially if you're just printing 5x7s and not postprocessing, even TIFF is overkill.
>> Anonymous
>>59054
Don't shoot in TIFF unless you want to make big prints straight out of the camera for some reason (e.g. no time to get to the computer and process them). RAW files usually have more or less the same size, but you can get better quality out of them, since to produce a TIFF/JPEG file, the camera processes the same RAW data internally using algorithms inferior and less flexible than those in your PC software like Photoshop, etc.; so it's nearly always better to shoot RAW first and then convert them to JPEG or TIFF (whatever you need) using PC software.
>> Anonymous
>>59066
>>59068
I have to firmly disagree. Lossy compression is just ridiculous: "for a slightly smaller file, I'm going to damage my photographs before they even get written to the card!"

OP: Shoot in RAW or TIFF, regardless of what you plan to do with it. If RAW won't work out for you, shoot TIFF.
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
Slightly smaller?! Switching from the biggest jpeg on my d40 to raw cuts the number of pictures I can take almost in half. That is a huge difference.
>> Anonymous
>>59070
Compared to TIFF, which is what the OP will probably be shooting it, it IS slightly smaller.

And do you really need all those pictures on one card? Just stick in another one. People did it every 36 frames back when they shot film.
>> Anonymous
>>59069
There ARE some situations when you need to shoot lossy JPEGs.
a) When you need to give photos ASAP to a person who doesn't want to deal with 20MB TIFF files or doesn't have the necessary space on his thumbdrive.
b) When you need to shoot continiously - the E500 has a lousy 3-frame buffer for continious RAW shooting, but can shoot an unlimited number of consecutive JPEGs if the card is fast enough.
c) When you have nowhere to dump photos to (a long trip, for example) - a 2GB card can hold about 140 RAW images, and not everyone has Unlimited Compactflash Works.

I usually shoot RAW + 1600x1200 JPEG. The latter is for quick evaluation if the photo is worth it or for situation a) above.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>59070
Cuts it more than in half for me.

And more importantly (for me, at least), it cuts my shooting buffer from "Basically infinite" to "Way too fucking small". I.e., when I switch to RAW, I'm almost always annoyed with having to wait for my camera to flush to disk at some point.

Not to mention the extra postprocessing time (e.g., the extra "Convert from RAW" step). And the extra disk space required to store the damn things.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
For those of you who are new to /p/, I will now summarize this entire argument that we've just started, and which is likely to continue for a while:

A: "My shooting style is the One True Shooting Style and anyone who doesn't shoot like me is a fool."
B: "No, MY shooting style is the One True Shooting Style, and anyone who doesn't shoot like ME is a fool!"
A: "But my way has [desirable feature X]!"
B: "Yeah, but my way has [desirable feature Y]!"
A: "UR DUM"
B: "UR UGLY"
OP: [blank stare]

Lather, rinse, repeat.
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>59071
Okay, can't comment on TIFF. That may not be such an issue.
Guess I probably should buy another memory card at some point, at least to have a backup.
Eh, personal preference, I hate postprocessing, though I understand the necessity with digital, and my best shots require minimal or none anyways, so it's moot for me. Just do what works and keep experimenting.
>> Anonymous
>>58945
Pirated CS2 ftw!
>> Anonymous
TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp TheGimp
>> Anonymous
>>59069
Depends on the purpose as well. If you plan on decreasing the DPI and/or size later on, most artifacts from even moderate compression will disappear through pixel averaging.
>> Anonymous
I shoot RAW because me and my camera usually don't agree how the image should look like. Also, I can edit the raw as much I want/make new versions without destroying the original image. Size isn't a big issue.. I can shoot over 450 images to my 4GB card.
>> Anonymous
>>59295
Seriously. My Vanilla 400D gives me "correct" shots, with boring contrast and sat.