 |
| Nice landscape shots such as this often-times benefit from being shot in RAW mode vs the normal JPEG mode. |
Note: this posting on RAW is not meant to be a comprehensive, include everything type of article. There are probably certain important aspects I've not covered. I've covered what I consider important and how the usage and application of the RAW shooting mode has applied to me and my shooting and editing.
Overview
With advanced cameras such as DSLRs or "mirrorless" cameras, or even some advanced compacts, the option is offered for the shooter to have the camera record & save the image NOT in the final JPEG format, but in a non-finalized format known as RAW mode. (Most such cameras also offer the option to also record a JPEG file along with the RAW.)
In doing so, the shooter has many post-processing options that are not available in the normal JPEG mode, or are at least more difficult and/or messy to implement. For example, if the shooter had the white balance (WB) set at "fluorescent" when it was supposed to be "daylight," they can simply change WB to "daylight" and it is as if the shot was recorded in "daylight" to start with. If they shot using a picture "preset" of "vivid" but they wanted it to be "portrait," then the shooter can make the change & it is as if they shot in "portrait" to start with. If the image was shot at a higher ISO setting and noise reduction was applied, you can specify the amount of noise reduction to apply rather than it being already done & locked in as-is for that specific shot.
The shot is recorded in RAW, the user opens up the RAW file on their computer, makes the necessary changes, and once they're done, the file is "written" in a final JPEG format, thus the final product can be opened & used by software & labs etc just as a shot originally taken in JPEG. The difference is the work performed on the image prior to that.
The "Hamburger" Analogy
I like to use analogies. Think of JPEG as a hamburger from Wendy's which is finished, ready to eat, right out of the bag. Think of RAW as the hamburger before it's cooked or adorned with ketchup & tomatoes etc, with you able to specify the right amount of everything before it's made, so there is nothing to change after-the-fact. The former is less of a hassle and is often-times plenty great in its own right, the latter has more work & effort involved but the result is a product more readily tailor-made exactly the way you prefer it, without a huge amount of mess having to be undertaken to undo what's already there.
RAW is more of a "clean slate" approach to editing--offering the photographer the opportunity & ability to make many edits to their photograph before everything is "etched in stone" somewhat & thus in need of being undone from what's already there. Again you are starting from more of a "clean slate." Things like contrast, for instance--if your photograph is too contrasty, then sure Photoshop allows you to decrease the contrast to a JPEG, but you're destroying elements already there to achieve that. By contrast, RAW allows you to define the level of contrast from a starting point of zero--you don't destroy anything to get there. Thus, the result is often-times a "cleaner" result. The same applies with variables such as sharpness, brightness, color saturation etc--if a photo has too little sharpness applied it's easy to add more, but if there's too much it's nigh impossible to reverse the effect "cleanly."
Again, using the hamburger analogy--it's easier to make a hamburger with the right amount of mustard to start with (RAW) vs taking one that already has mustard on it and trying to add more or, especially, remove excessive amounts if there's too much present. You have to take the sandwich apart & move ingredients around that are already there. It becomes a mess. Think about cheese--if you get a hamburger with cheese on it & happen to dislike cheese, you can never quite peel off all the cheese, there's always some left behind, and you often-times really bent the bun up quite badly along the way. On the other hand, if you start from a clean slate, none of that is the case.
JPEG is trying to remove the cheese after the effect--RAW is making it over to start with so there's no mess made of things. The former is less work, the latter is more flexible in allowing you to make the final product as you please without remnants of the undesirable elements still left behind, as they often times are.
Some Technical Aspects
On the computer, RAW files are distinguishable from JPEGs in that they don't have the normal .jpg extension. The extension varies by brand of camera. With Nikons, the extension is .nef, which stands for {N}ikon {E}lectronic {F}ormat. With Olympus, the extension is .orf, which stands for {O}lympus {R}aw {F}ile.
The RAW file has the same settings applied to its parameters as if a JPEG had been shot--sharpening levels, white balance, picture "preset" etc are all the same. RAW files can be "compressed" (for storage size efficiency) or "uncompressed." If the camera was set to RAW+JPEG mode, the JPEG file will typically have the exact same settings in its parameters as the RAW, the difference being the RAW parameters can be edited after-the-fact. Entry-level cameras tend to have the RAW as a compressed RAW, whereas advanced motions offer the option of compressed or uncompressed.
Software & Other RAW Headaches
Naturally, the RAW approach has several burdens brought onto the user. One is software. JPEG, being universal, can be used by almost any program. Also, labs, even ones like CVS, have no problem making prints of JPEGs. JPEG is universal. Practically every snapshot camera out there, every camera phone etc, they all record their images as JPEGs.
On the other hand, RAW is proprietary, even within the same brand you can run across incompatibilities. You have to have dedicated RAW software to open & edit the files (after which, of course, you can save the RAW as a JPEG). As RAW formats & particulars change over time, you will find older software unable to open more recent models of cameras' RAW files. For example, when I upgraded my 2009 Nikon D5000 to the 2011 Nikon D5100, I found my 2010 Nikon View NX2 software, which opened & edited my D5000 files just fine would not work with my new D5100 RAW files.
How I Do My RAW Shooting
RAW or JPEG. I tend to shoot in JPEG with any "everyday" shot I don't figure on performing many edits to. Many pictures of my children or us just living life, "silly snapshots," tend to be JPEG. On the other hand, if a shot I'm taking is one that I think is going to be exceptionally good & I anticipate performing a large number of edits to it after the fact, I shoot in RAW. In my early DSLR days, when I didn't have nearly as much storage space (memory card in the camera or the computer's hard drive), I used RAW very sparingly even for "serious" shots I figured on editing a lot.
What RAW Mode. I tend to shoot in RAW+JPEG mode, and I have the JPEG set to as low in quality & small in file-size as possible. This is because I have found that with the shots I take in RAW, I tend to "cherry pick" the best ones & perform many edits to them, including RAW edits. Since I'm using the JPEG merely to "preview" the images (knowing that JPEG is universal), I use Basic/Small to make the file use up as little room as possible & this also has the effect of making the speed of browsing the thumbnails to be quick as well.
When I got my first camera which allowed you to specify the size-quality of your JPEGs in RAW+JPEG shooting, a Nikon D80, I shot in RAW+Fine/Large JPEG, thinking that there might be a fairly large number of shots where I was perfectly satisfied with how the image looked in JPEG & would simply use the JPEG & discard the RAW. I found this not to be the case: with any shot I took in RAW, I would always edit it to improve it, and I always edited the RAW file not the JPEG--I was only using the JPEG to "preview" the shot. Thus, I started shooting the JPEG as a Basic/Small.
One exception: with my Olympus E-PL1 "mirrorless" camera, I tend to shoot in RAW + Superfine/Large JPEG (rsf in the JPEG name), shooting a full-quality JPEG. This is because I often-times, when using this camera, am coming from the angle of wanting to do less work & have less fuss. This is aided by the fact that the Olympus's method of processing its JPEGs is one which many enthusiasts fine highly desirable, with exceptionally good "out of camera" characteristics. Often-times, the JPEG file is good-to-go as is, with only very minor edits applied to them, making the RAW file unnecessary. However I may wish for a RAW file for certain shots just in case.
Organization/Renaming. I have a renaming post which goes into great detail on this. I will keep it briefer here. I have JPEG and RAW files kept separately within the given date, in their own folders named jpeg and raw. The names match other than the JPEG file will have nbs (NEF+Basic/Small JPEG) or rsf (RAW+Superfine JPEG) etc to denote the usage of RAW mode being used for this resulting JPEG in RAW+JPEG mode, the RAW file will have raw in the same spot of the filename--they match exactly otherwise, thus the JPEG & RAW of a given image can easily be matched together. Any conversions I perform on RAW files in Lightroom 3 are kept in a lr3 folder within the RAW folder.
Conversion Steps: When I used Nikon software, I never saved the changes to the RAW file itself, I would convert to a 16-bit TIFF (which I'd then edit in Photoshop & save as a JPEG once I was done) but leave the RAW file as it was originally shot. Now: I process the RAW file in Lightroom 3.5, after applying the changes I "export" as a 16-bitt TIFF and process that file in Photoshop CS before saving as a final JPEG.
The "DNG Loophole"
Adobe, sometime ago, created a "universal RAW" format known as DNG. The idea was to overcome many of the headaches attributable to the varying formats of RAW common brand-to-brand (or even within the same brand amongst differing models) while still retaining the "blank slate" advantages of RAW files (white balance, sharpening, contrast etc).
For sometime I utilized this method, as I did not have current software for processing the RAW file as the software was out-of-date; DNG often-times overcomes this. However, eventually, I returned to "normal" RAW processing. The reason--in using DNG, one has to convert every RAW file to DNG format first. This creates extra work while also increasing storage requirements if both DNG & RAW files are kept (which was my tendency).
In Closing
I highly recommend the usage of RAW mode for serious photography. The headaches are more than made up for with the extra flexibility & the mental comfort that comes from knowing all of your edits are coming from a "clean slate" perspective, as opposed to dealing with the difficulties of trying to reverse parameters such as sharpening, saturation etc out of an image that's already "committed" to those particular amounts of sharpening, saturation etc.
If you are new to RAW shooting & aren't sure if your software is up-to-date or how you're going to work with it (e.g., do you want a full-sized JPEG to work with or will you always do all the edits to the RAW & only need a small JPEG), I recommend shooting in RAW+JPEG mode with the JPEG set to the highest quality & least amount of compression possible. (With Nikons, it's called "Fine, Large," with Olympus it's called "Superfine Large," these labels may vary amongst the brands.) I also recommend having the "picture control" (neutral, landscape, vivid, portrait etc) set to as "neutral" as possible, so that you're starting from as much of a "clean slate" as possible. I especially recommend this if you're using 3rd party software (such as Lightroom) instead of the camera brand's software (Nikon View or Capture in the same of Nikons) as you are not sure how the software will "interpret" the RAW settings.
Many shooters, once they know their software is fine, will shoot in "RAW only" mode (meaning there is no JPEG file written), as they say the RAW file has an "embedded JPEG" for previewing anyway. I prefer to shoot a JPEG to make sure I can at least preview the image no matter what, especially as I have 4 PCs, including a laptop with limited processing power & I often use it on the road for simply "previewing" my images or uploading the "proofs" to a site. I want to know that I have a JPEG that any computer can handle for previewing, especially since the Basic/Small JPEGs are small (about 700k) anyway--I know my home computers can handle the RAW file for creating the finished product.
No comments:
Post a Comment