1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

I thought RAW is suppose to be better?

Discussion in 'Photography, Art & Design' started by Major, 26 Mar 2008.

  1. Major

    Major Guest

    Hiya,

    Another newbie question, but I've been shooting in RAW + JPEG for the last week or so on the G9, and it just seems every RAW photo is over bright, has a blue tint sometimes and even has less quality than the JPEG version. I've basically deleted every RAW file I've taken because they are just pants. I'm using Adobe Elements by the way.

    Should I use another program to download and edit the RAW files?

    TIA.
     
  2. Vers

    Vers ...

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2007
    Posts:
    1,537
    Likes Received:
    12
    I am not sure if the G9 comes with Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) software or not, but that is what I use to convert all my RAW images to TIFF. The purple tint is normal, it shows up on some of my images now and then as well, when you convert the file it will go away. I am not sure what to tell you about the brighter exposure but I can tell you through DPP you can adjust the file to your liking...the best/only way to shoot is RAW.

    -Matt
     
  3. BioSniper

    BioSniper Minimodder

    Joined:
    5 Feb 2002
    Posts:
    3,815
    Likes Received:
    18
    I too was frustrated with raw when I first started, however it would seem that RAW is taken with way less in the way of pre-set filters on the camera and instead leaves is as a "raw" camera/sensor image that does need more tweaking where are jpgs are pretty much ready to go.

    If you want instant results sure, go for jpg.
    However if you want to enlarge images and have more creative control over the final outcome use raw :)
     
  4. Major

    Major Guest

    Ah ok I understand a lot more now. ;) I shoot in JPEG+RAW, but only downfall is that when you shoot in that mode the JPEG seems to be Fine quality and not Superfine.

    So convert all RAW files to TIFF.
    Check out Digital Photo Professional
    RAW files normally have a tint to them

    (lol)

    :p

    Thanks guys, some good information there. :)
     
  5. Tomm

    Tomm I also ride trials :¬)

    Joined:
    12 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    2,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    White balance adjustment is done in camera if you use JPEG, and off camera if you use RAW. RAW files are just what is shot with no post-processing at all. Software is required for rendering any RAW files - if they are too bright/tinted then it's because the software has done a poor job. For example in Picasa, RAW files are always very under-exposed. However, when opening them in Photoshop, they look fine.
     
  6. AlexB

    AlexB Web Nerd and WC Addict

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    41
    Highly reccomend Adobe Lightroom for Raw processing.
     
  7. Starfighter

    Starfighter What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    4 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    I use Adobe Photoshop elements too, and at first I got reaaly pants results from RAW files. I found it was because Camera raw was applying "auto tone adjustments".

    To see the options for Camera Raw, open Camera Raw by editing one of your pictures, then pressing CTRL + K. Untick the "apply auto tone adjustments" box if its ticked, and see if that yields any better results?

    The blue cast is likely to be a white balance thing -- try choosing "As Shot" to (in theory) obtain the same colours as used in the JPEG version, or "Auto" to see if Photoshop can do a better job. Or Just plain have a fiddle.

    RAW files can look crap when shot at higher ISOs, as the default amount of Noise Reduction isn't enough in Adobe Camera Raw. Click on the "details" tab inside Camera Raw, and play with the sliders and see if you can make it better, alternatively the inbuilt Noise Reduction in Photoshop is quite good :)

    As has been said, your camera does a heck of a lot of automatic Post Processing inside its little self, but the idea behind RAW is that you (the human) is better than the dinky ASIC inside your camera, and therefore RAW gives you the vanilla image to play with as you see fit.
     
  8. Firehed

    Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match.

    Joined:
    15 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    12,574
    Likes Received:
    16
    However, RAW still attaches the WB settings (and others) to the 'negative'. Whether your software is intelligent enough to respect those as defaults varies greatly.
     
  9. Da Dego

    Da Dego Brett Thomas

    Joined:
    17 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    3,913
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yeah, as an echo to what others have said - if your RAW looks pants, then you're using it wrong.

    White balance (the tinting) is a matter of adjusting the overall temp, and is done "in-camera" on JPEGS (sometimes not reliably). RAW will "attach" the info to it, but the actual RAW is nothing more than exactly the data read by the CMOS sensor. Think of it like an internet packet - it's the information, cold and plain, wrapped in EXIF data. That's why conversion of RAW varies from program to program - each one may look at how to interpret that information differently.

    Shooting RAW is the best for a LOT of reasons, including preserving bit depth, luminosity and preventing "artifacts" from the JPEG compression. It also allows more faithful adjustments of the base image (exposure, etc). Think of it this way - would you rather have your camera and its tiny little processor do something heavily computational, or would you rather your PC does it, with all of its abilities and memory and better algorithms and the ability to hit "undo!"?

    The conversion from RAW to JPEG, TIFF or anything else is but one step in the idea of photography workflow. You should be shooting RAW and letting the best tool for the job handle the conversion, which (if you choose the right software) is your computer. If you're a more serious amateur, an investment in adobe lightroom or apple aperture (both have great student discounts, by the way) would be worth your time. :) Personally, I use Lightroom to import my RAWs and let them get converted to Adobe DNG, which is a bit more "survivable" and standardized format.

    If you want to understand a little more of what's going on under the hood, I highly suggest you take a read over this article from Cambridge In Colour. It's a good read. :)
     
    Last edited: 27 Mar 2008
  10. Vers

    Vers ...

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2007
    Posts:
    1,537
    Likes Received:
    12
    I do not think he is referring to the images being 'tinted' rather more of a vignetting/purple fringing effect. WB generally would not be purple if there is an auto WB function enabled (which there should be).
     
  11. Da Dego

    Da Dego Brett Thomas

    Joined:
    17 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    3,913
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yeah, but his original post says "blue tint" :) That would lead me to think he's got daytime white balance enabled. ;) In fact, in Major's original post I see little that refers to fringing or even purple? I don't see where you pulled vignetting or CAs from his post

     
  12. BigPoppaJNutZ

    BigPoppaJNutZ Beyond the Dremel...

    Joined:
    14 Feb 2008
    Posts:
    128
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would stick with the RAW files and play with the conversion programs on your computer to edit them. The more practice you have with the programs, the more you will appreciate the RAW format. You can always start over, but you "start" with the most basic and unfiltered data allowing you a great range to play in.
     
  13. Firehed

    Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match.

    Joined:
    15 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    12,574
    Likes Received:
    16
    Perhaps, but if its not showing in the jpegs, we can rule out CA, which is what would normally come to mind with 'purple fringing'.
     
  14. Tomm

    Tomm I also ride trials :¬)

    Joined:
    12 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    2,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Photoshop ACR has CA reduction anyway. Not sure if it's automatic or what. It would be odd if a camera did CA reduction in-camera though (which would be required if the JPEG don't have CA but the RAWs do.
     
  15. Vers

    Vers ...

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2007
    Posts:
    1,537
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ah, but it does happen to me a bit, so an assumption was made that Major's wording was a bit off. Perhaps what he meant to say was that he receives cool images, but in that case both the JPEG and RAW file would be affected, not just the RAW image. As far as vignetting...I have no idea why I typed that, must be the medication talking. I did mean CA-- sorry for the typo.
     
    Last edited: 27 Mar 2008

Share This Page