New to RAW

[Merkyone]

Hi guys,

Hoping for some tips when using RAW. I've just started editing my RAW photos with photoshop.

Is photoshop ok for that purpose or should I be using another product like capture? Is it true that different products will produce different results?

While using photoshop, I've noticed that the RAW viewer allows me to calibrate for my camera. Is it worth doing? How do I go about it?

Thanks in advance.

Adam

[Marvin]

Well, I am not expert but I use Photoshop when I want to do detailed edits with more control. If I just want a batch conversion or some basic editing I might use Capture or lightroom. PS would be fine for editing raw images but it has a lot of features and isn't just for photos.

[BullcreekBob]

I guess it's partly a case of horses for courses and partly using what you know.

IMHO CaptureNX is 2nd to none when it comes to changing things like like exposure, contrast, colour, WB, curves and stuff like that that i.e. anything to do with photography. PS is used for *joke* effects like removing the ex-wife from pictures.

On a slightly more practical note the raw converters for PS don't seem capable of reading all the info from the raw file and subsequently they ignore any settings I may have made / set on the camera.

Capture NX does recognise and implement in-camera settings while leaving me the option of later changing them. As I don't have much time (or skill or effort) to PP images later, I try to get things right in camera. So a program like PS that can't use in camera settings seems to miss the point. I do think PS has its uses though, that is as a pixel editor to clone in or out things that were or weren't there.

[Glen]

Adam, some great answers above but to really give people a chance to properly answer your question it would be worthwhile mentioning the make and model of camera you have I assume you are talking CS3 as you didn't mention which version of Photoshop. Bob has mentioned NX, which may offer nothing if you are a Canon user. Some of the newer cameras don't have perfect converters yet available in all programs, so the actual model makes a big difference in getting the right answers.

[Merkyone]

Sorry Glen, how silly of me! I have a D40 with a 18-200mm VR lens.

I'm new to DSLR photography, and while I have has some great successes to date, recently I feel that my photos have been a little disappointing. I've spent some time going back to basics, just making sure I get the composition and the focus right. I'm not sure exactly what I am doing wrong, so I'm trying to narrow things down a bit. If I'm using the right software correctly, then I can start to look at my camera, lens etc.

Sadly, user error might be to blame but I would rather look at the equipment I use first before looking at myself!

I really appreciate everyone's help so far.

[Glen]

Adam, if you are not particularly happy with your photos why don't you post a few and say what you are not happy with? Might be quicker than asking about all the components one by one and you will be surprised how helpful people are here.

I assume you have the latest Camera Raw converter 4.4 from Adobe: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html I know 4.3 had D40 support, not sure of earlier versions. The D40 was after the Raw encryption fiasco between Adobe and Nikon so assume the converter should be ok.

[ATJ]

Adam,

In my experience, CaptureNX will do a much better job providing a good starting point than ACR (Adobe Camera Raw - used in Lightroom and Photoshop CS2/3). This is because CaptureNX uses the in-camera settings (as mentioned above) and if you get the images right in the camera, they will be right with CaptureNX. While ACR may give more control over the images (more things you can adjust), the fact that the starting point may be so far from the end point, you may end up doing far more work for something that was already just right, had you used CaptureNX.

My recommendation would be for you to download a copy of Nikon View NX (which is free) and use that to browse your images. ViewNX will display them identically to CaptureNX (but with very limited editing control). If you are happy with the way they look in ViewNX, it would be a good idea to get a copy of CaptureNX.

I use Lightroom for my PP, but I now shoot raw+jpg and use the jpg as a guide to how the raw should really look - at least as a starting point.

[DVEous]

... Obsolete ...

[Merkyone]

Here are a few examples. From my perspective, there is something not quite right about all three. I wonder a bit about the colours (maybe I am just pushing the lens beyond its limits). Perhaps the light is not right. I'm just not sure.

Thanks guys, I'll check out the Nikon NX view and see what they look like. I'll also update photoshop raw (I don't have the latest version for some reason).

ATJ- so when you view a RAW image, it will look different from a jpg? If so, great tip re: RAW + jpg.

VK4CP- thanks, I'll check out your findings.

[ATJ]

ATJ- so when you view a RAW image, it will look different from a jpg? If so, great tip re: RAW + jpg.

Adam,

As I said, I'm now shooting raw+jpg. If I view the NEF with ViewNX or CaptureNX, it is identical to the JPG in appearance. As it is a raw file, I have much more control over the image in terms of adjustments than I do with the JPG.

When I open the view the files in Lightroom (which uses ACR), the two images a chalk and cheese. I import the images using "General zeroed" which applies no settings the images. The JPG looks exactly the same in Lightroom as it does with ViewNX and CaptureNX. The NEF looks like crap. With some tweaking I can get the NEF to look like the JPG, in most cases and I have some presets which get me close. However, there are some images that I have never been able to get close.

[Glen]

Adam, the examples are perfect to show what you are not happy with. In 1 I think you are slightly out of focus, not unusually, that is a macro (close up) shot with the 18-200, hard to do and takes practice. I actually think the others seem a little soft but maybe they can be improved with some sharpening in whatever program you choose. I would think a bit more contrast would help, which can be added in post processing. I would have a play taking inanimate objects around the house and confirm you are happy with the focus. I am guessing these last 2 were taken in a rush so the roos didn't get away, so you may find your focus improves with time to get it right. Good luck

[Pehpsi]

RAW files usually look dull/flat because they haven't had any adjustments applied. Your job is to use a RAW Convertor to 'decode' the information that was recorded by the image sensor. People also usually refer to these files as 'Digital Negatives'.

Find a program that you like and start playing around and you will quickly realise the advantages of shooting in this format. If however, you hate spending time in the digital darkroom, then shooting JPG is for you, as RAW files require much more attention to get to the end result. If you want to see what can be achieved with a RAW file, then you can do what myself and others' do, and post a file for people to tinker with. Of course you don't have to, just a suggestion..

Here's a few of my thoughts:

JPG Pros: quicker, smaller, no need for RAW convertor, etc.
JPG Cons: lossy, adjustments applied in-camera, etc.

RAW Pros: maximum image data, extremely flexible, non-destructive, etc.
RAW Cons: large files, need RAW convertor.

Cheers and good luck.

James.

[Merkyone]

Well, I have been too busy working on the Budget to get the camera out over the last few weeks. Today was the first day I had to try a few of your suggestions out and I think I have identified the culprit.

I guess I always assumed that NEF and JPG were visually identical but for NEF retaining some extra information allowing more flexibility in PP. But after taking quite a few pictures today with NEF + JPG basic, I can see that the out of the camera pictures are very different. THe JPGs are far superior in clarity and colour. Will be using NEF + JPG from now on, giving me the best of both worlds.

Thanks for your help guys.

[ATJ]

THe JPGs are far superior in clarity and colour.

What? How are you viewing them?

[chrisk]

RAW files usually look dull/flat because they haven't had any adjustments applied.

and therein lies the rub.

[Merkyone]

THe JPGs are far superior in clarity and colour.

What? How are you viewing them?

I've been viewing them in Photoshop (latest version). Maybe I didn't explain very well- the JPGs have better colour and clarity straight from the camera. I always figured the NEF and the JPG would look the same straight from the camera. I appreciate I can convert the NEF to look like the JPG but I obviously have been doing a poor job in the past.

The JPGs I snapped today look good (IMO).

[Merkyone]

Hmmm, you're right ATJ. I d/led viewNX previously and didn't notice much difference with what I saw in photoshop (but I did not have JPGs for comparison). When looking now, the NEF images viewed in viewNX are very similar (perhaps the same) as the JPGs. I'm certainly not getting the same result in photoshop (even though I have the latest version).

I think this makes sense, but I am tired and am having a hard time typing.

[ATJ]

When looking now, the NEF images viewed in viewNX are very similar (perhaps the same) as the JPGs.

They will be the same as ViewNX uses all the same settings to display the NEF that were used by the camera to create the JPG.

I'm certainly not getting the same result in photoshop (even though I have the latest version).

And you won't. ACR (used in Photoshop and Lightroom) does not use any camera settings for raw conversion. The Adobe fans claim it is because Nikon won't reveal the propriety format information in the NEFs. I'm not convinced that is true as I used PaintShopPro 9 for 2 years with my D70 and it would display NEFs identically to the JPGs. How did Jasc get that propriety information?

[BullcreekBob]

ACR (used in Photoshop and Lightroom) does not use any camera settings for raw conversion. The Adobe fans claim it is because Nikon won't reveal the propriety format information in the NEFs. I'm not convinced that is true as I used PaintShopPro 9 for 2 years with my D70 and it would display NEFs identically to the JPGs. How did Jasc get that propriety information?

I use a program called ThumbsPlus for image file management and quick viewing / slideshows etc. It correctly decodes a NEF and shows the image after applying all of the camera settings. Hence in ThumbsPlus my NEF's and jpg's from the camera look identical. The fact that Photoshop can't read them, I suspect is more laziness or some misplaced arrogance on Adobe's part.

ThumbsPlus does miss out on some others scores though, it ignores any subsequent editing, adjustments or croppings that I make and are recorded in the NEF.

[ATJ]

I use a program called ThumbsPlus for image file management and quick viewing / slideshows etc. It correctly decodes a NEF and shows the image after applying all of the camera settings. Hence in ThumbsPlus my NEF's and jpg's from the camera look identical. The fact that Photoshop can't read them, I suspect is more laziness or some misplaced arrogance on Adobe's part.

Note that it may simply be using the JPEG image embedded in the NEF - especially if it is only giving you a thumbnail. Lightroom uses the JPEG initially but then switches to its own rendition of the NEF.