Shooting RAW for a complete beginner

[Richard Greenwood]

So far I have been shhoting my pictures as JPEGs, and have not had the "bottle" to attempt to shoot in RAW!!

I'm thinking of giving it a go next time I can get out into the field but it's totally alien to me.

So, can anyone give me any really basic pointers & tips as to how to get the best out of shooting RAW? How would I start with a decent RAW conversion workflow?

I have the standard Canon software on my PC as well as PSE 8.

Thanks in advance,

Richard

[John Storjohann]

Hi Richard;

Everyone has their own workflow...so I hope others chime in here as well, because there are a lot of excellent resources on the board!...but I am more than happy to share a few thoughts with you on what works for me. I don't use either of the software apps you mention, but I would have to think that some basics would carry over.

a) Set the white balance, using the temperature and tint sliders (in LR that's what they are...).
b) Adjust the exposure using the exposure, recovery (highlights) and fill light (shadows) sliders.
c) I usually tweak the clarity and vibrance sliders as well; personal choice/taste!

To be honest, I seldom do much more than that in the RAW converter; a well exposed image (set your camera up to show "Info" on the rear LCD and watch your histogram) is key to everything else that follows. After those basic adjustments I usually head to PS for the "finish" work. I would recommend looking at some of the blogs of the publishers and moderators here - they're full of excellent tips. I know this may seem sparse...but I hope it helps!

Take care.

[Don Lacy]

Hi Richard, It would take me hours to write up my Raw work flow as I use ACR extensively before going into Photoshop just about everything I know about ACR I learned from this book http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Camera-Adobe-Photoshop/dp/0321713095/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315058029&sr=1-3.
If you want to use Canons DPP converter just check out their learning websites plenty of goo info on them for free.

[Charles Glatzer]

I recommend reading CS5 for Nature Photographers by Ellen Anon

http://www.amazon.com/Photoshop-CS5-Nature-Photographers-Workshop/dp/0470607343

Chas

[Roger Clark]

Richard,

Jpegs can be very good, but for those times when you need to push limits, raw is much better, giving a little more dynamic range and higher signal-to-noise ratio. Those two factors allow one to dodge and burn more with less degradation for the final image. Plus many raw converters have great tools for things like highlight recovery, exposure level (which works on the linear sensor data), and chromatic aberration correction. But to gain from these to the fullest, one needs to work with at least 16-bits/channel. I don't think PSE works on 16-bit image data.

I generally record raw+jpeg because memory (both CF cards and disk space) are cheap and getting cheaper. I dislike the time it takes to convert from raw, especially when I'm on an intense trip with little time to process images. I never run out of buffer space (at least I can't remember the last time I did). When I'm downloading from the card to had drive, I can start reviewing images while the images are copying, being just a few images behind. After download, I review the jpegs, then convert from raw only the best images that I intend to display. It saves me a lot of time. If I'm rushed, I'll just show the jpeg.

Here is my workflow:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digitalworkflow/

and here are some advantages of raw over jpegs:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/post_processing.1/
This page also shows you can get more detail from raw images over jpeg, It is kind of like getting a new higher resolution, lower noise sensor for the cost of some good software and time in post processing.

Figure 1 on this page shows the exposure latitude and signal-to-noise-ratio difference between raw and jpeg:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/exposure_latitude-1/
The data show that with raw you can gain 2 to 3 stops on both the shadow and highlight sides and get 2 to 3 times higher signal to noise ratio.

Roger

[John Chardine]

Hi Richard- I remember my trepidation about RAW some years ago. I recall trying it out and at the time my computer had a hard time with the files. The time it took to process RAW files seemed much longer than for jpegs. These days modern computers have no problem handling RAWs and I've shot them exclusively since at least 2008.

Workflow for RAW is straightforward. There are many RAW converters out there and some are proprietary and come with your camera -some would say that these convert better than other software. However, my experience with Canon's Digital Photo Professional is that is might do a nice job of conversion but the software itself is slow and quirky. As show stopper for me is that if you send an image from DPP to Photoshop on the Mac platform, DPP renames the file and the new name bears no resemblance to the original. There are other issues with the software. So, I use Adobe Camera Raw to convert. As part of the conversion, and as mentioned above, you can do a heck of a lot of processing before you even hit Photoshop proper. ACR also has very good batch processing facility.

There are many reasons to shoot RAW. I particularly like the fact that you cannot write over top of a RAW image so it is archival. With jpegs it's just too easy to process an image including perhaps downsampling and sharpening, then save over top of the original and realize that you have destroyed your original copy of the image. Another aspect I like is that all the changes you make in ACR do not change the actual RAW file- they are non-destructive. Any time you go back to the RAW file the settings are there but you can revert to default settings or change the settings you have already made.

I would say, go for it. Record jepgs as well (as suggested by Roger) as you start the move to RAW. I don't feel the need to shoot jpegs as well because the reviewing software I use (Photo Mechanic) works on the jpeg embedded in the RAW files I don't need a separate file.

[Robert Amoruso]

Richard,

Another good source is this: http://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=252.

[Richard Greenwood]

Thanks for the replies, guys. All very useful stuff.

I've taken the plunge & taken a few shots in RAW when I visited one of our local RSPB reserves a few days ago. I'll post my first effort for comment once I've given the post processing a go!!!

Richard

[Richard Greenwood]

How did I do for a first atttempt?

The first image is a resized jpeg of the original RAW file:

http://i54.tinypic.com/10podtv.jpg

This is the jpeg of the converted file:

http://i51.tinypic.com/xnrz85.jpg

[John Chardine]

Hi Richard- It looks like you were trying to see how powerful RAW is in recording detail is a severely under-exposed image! It does a pretty good job although notice the noise, especially evident in the green area in the BG. The best way to test RAW is to expose optimally- to the right without clipping the highlights- and then see how you like it.

[Richard Greenwood]

Thanks John,

Must admit I did pick out an extreme example off my card. I wanted to see if I could recover the detail off that particular shot as it was the only picture I managed to take of that particular bird before it flew off the feeder.

I have to say I appear to be converted to the value of shooting RAW - just need to learn a lot more about post processing!!!!

Richard

[John Chardine]

Hi Richard- RAW seems equally if not more capable of recovering from over exposure too. Give it a try.