Working in the RAW

[marlene]

I have avoided learning anything about RAW format because I didn't need to know.

A client has a jazzy new digital camera (don't know which model, I was only told the cost -- about a thousand buckeroos) and shot a bunch of photos in RAW format. He saved/converted them to TIFFs and sent me those.

Now, can some explain (in words of one syllable) about RAW format, and whether I should ask my client for the original RAW files? And what would I do with them when I got them?

mxh

[Mike]

First you need to make sure you can open them. Check the camera against the list that is supported by Adobe's Photoshop plug-in (you'll find it somewhere on the Adobe downloads page).

When you open a RAW format photo with Adobe's plug-in you have the option to change the colour temperature and the exposure settings as well as nifty things like correcting for colour fringing and suchlike. If you're after high quality then RAW format can give you a flexibility that is lost once the photos have been converted to tiff.

If, however, the photographer has produced a good conversion then there's little point in doing it again.

[marlene]

Okay, the camera (Canon EOS Rebel XT) is on the Adobe list. I've downloaded a file that contains the RAW plug-in plus a DNG plug-in (although I'm not sure I need the DNG).

If, however, the photographer has produced a good conversion then there's little point in doing it again.

Well, I guess I won't know until I compare images, but I have a feeling nothing will fix what I'm most concerned about -- many of the photos are not sharp. Could be camera shake on some images, and in some cases the wrong area is in focus. But in any case, I guess it's nothing to do with the RAW to TIFF conversion. Or could it be?

I was expecting these photos to be very sharp and clear, and most of them aren't as sharp as what I get from my little Olympus.

mxh

[Steve Rindsberg]

Hi Marlene,

RAW gives you the data more or less directly from the camera's CCD array, where with a TIFF or JPG you'd get the data as sharpened, white balanced, color and gamma fiddled etc by the camera.

With the RAW file, you can choose which of these things to apply (or not) and how much; once you get the non-RAW file you can't undo what the camera's already done. It's mostly a matter of flexibility afterward.

I doubt the RAW to TIFF conversion would have fuzzed the images (though it wouldn't have sharpened them as your little Oly might be doing). But if they're really bad, then it's likely the photographer's fault.

[Mike]

Could be camera shake on some images, and in some cases the wrong area is in focus.

Doubt if raw images would help much there -- although working on the raw images in Photoshop might just be a marginal improvement on whatever sharpening has been applied to the tiff files.

I guess what you really need is one of Thomas Jerome Newton's cameras. (A somewhat obscure reference, perhaps.)

[marlene]

Steve,

So when a RAW file is converted, one has to make decisions (about sharpening, color, etc.), right? And if one doesn't know what one is doing, the final converted image could be less than lovely?

It would be fun to experiment, though. I'm trying to get the client to send me the RAW files to play with.

FvH

[marlene]

I really suspect the lack of sharpness is a camera shake issue. Not everyone knows you have to keep holding the camera still for a couple seconds after you press the shutter.

And, of course, not everyone knows how to fix focus (or whatever it's called -- you press the shutter halfway down to lock in focus where you want it, then re-aim).

I get a lot of digital images of people where the background's in perfect focus, but the person isn't.

>>Thomas Jerome Newton<<

And who's that when he's at home? <g>

mxh

[Steve Rindsberg]

That's the deal, yup. But of course if the results are sub-lovely, you close the file and start over.

[Mike]

>>Thomas Jerome Newton<<

And who's that when he's at home? <g>

mxh

The David Bowie character in The Man Who Fell To Earth. He marketed a camera which always took the picture you wanted regardless of where you pointed it or how you held it. Wonderful invention.

[michelen]

One Word: TRIPOD
I couldn't live without mine.
Another (couple of) words: Nikon D70.
It's the equivalent of my beloved film cameras.
Another (couple of) words: Jpeg Basic + RAW
The D70 lets you shoot both with one exposure. I edit (keep, dump) looking at the jpegs, then edit the RAWs. Correcting white balance in the RAW filter has made my life a whole lot easier.
But if it ain't in focus when you shoot it, quite frankly, you're screwed (excuse the language.) You can't sharpen a shot that isn't sharp to begin with. Digital magic only goes so far.

[marlene]

The David Bowie character in The Man Who Fell To Earth.

I should have remembered that!

mxh

[marlene]

I've tried to tactfully give my client some tips on avoiding camera shake. I know he's not going to use a tripod, though. Most of these photos are candids, shot at conferences and other events.

mxh

[lurkalot]

Loads of people on some of the Photography site's, are recomending Rawshooter, this program was free, and I think it still is.

http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.html

Also the Raw plugin with Photoshop CS2 is supposed to be much improved.

[marlene]

Thanks for the link, I've just downloaded Rawshooter.

I haven't experimented with the Photoshop CS2 Raw plugin yet -- my pesky clients keep expecting me to do work, which gets in the way of my scientific experiments.

mxh

[donmcc]

You realize. of course, how boring this thread has been, compared to the title Marlene "working in the raw!"

<grin>

Don McCahill

[ktinkel]

You realize. of course, how boring this thread has been, compared to the title Marlene "working in the raw!"That’s because you Canadians have dirty minds, and were thinking of Marlene working in the RAW!

Ho.

[marlene]

ROFL!

I'm actually working in men's underpants (boxer shorts) and t-shirt. But I didn't think that would get as many responses. <g>

mxh

[marlene]

... Canadians have dirty minds ...

Or good imaginations. (Much better than the reality, I can promise.) <g>

mxh

[ElyseC]

I'm actually working in men's underpants (boxer shorts) and t-shirt. But I didn't think that would get as many responses. <g>Glad to know my mind's eye still matches real life. Ever since you told us eons ago of your standard attire, I've imagined you no other way. Well, OK, I didn't picture you that way when you told of your trip to Nevada and wedding. <g>