Photoshop RAW files

today we all use digital cameras. then use photoshop for editing one feature is to use raw files
i personally don’t care for it. here is why

Pros and Cons
A raw file is essentially the data that the camera’s chip recorded along with some additional information tagged on. A JPG file is one that has had the camera apply linear conversion, matrix conversion, white balance, contrast, and saturation, and then has had some level of potentially destructive compression applied.

Reasons to Shoot JPG

– Files are smaller and therefore more of them fit on a card.

– For many applications image quality is more than sufficient (family snapshots, news images).

– Small files are more easily transmitted wirelessly and online. This is important to newspaper photographers.

– Many photographers don’t have the time or inclination to post-process their files.

– Many cameras (especially digicams) can not shoot quickly when working in raw mode. Some lower-end models can’t record raw files at all.

Reasons to Shoot Raw

– A raw file is comparable to the latent image contained in an exposed but undeveloped piece of film. It holds exactly what the imaging chip recorded. Nothing more. Nothing less. This means that the photographer is able to extract the maximum possible image quality, whether now or in the future. A good analogy with the traditional world of film is that you have the opportunity to use a different type of developer or development time at any point in the future if one comes along that you think might do a better job of processing the image.

– Raw files have not had while balance set. They are tagged with whatever the camera’s setting was, (either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance), but the actual data has not been changed. This allows one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes after the fact with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied (such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.

– File linearization and colour filter array (Bayer) conversion is done on a computer with a fast and powerful microprocessor. This allows much more sophisticated algorithms to be used than those done in a camera with its slower and less powerful processor and with less space for complex conversion programs.

– The raw file is tagged with contrast and saturation information as set in the camera by the user, but the actual image data has not been changed. The user is free to set these based on a per-image evaluation rather than use one or two generalized settings for all images taken.

– Possibly the biggest advantage of shooting raw is that one has a 16 bit image (post raw conversion) to work with. This means that the file has 65,536 levels to work with. This is opposed to a JPG file’s 8 bit space with just 256 brightness levels available. This is important when editing an image, particularly if one is trying to open up shadows or alter brightness in any significant way.

On 2011-10-11 04:10:25 -0700, "Ulysses" said:

today we all use digital cameras. then use photoshop for editing one feature is to use raw files
i personally don’t care for it. here is why

You are free to shoot whatever suits your needs.

Pros and Cons
A raw file is essentially the data that the camera’s chip recorded along with some additional information tagged on. A JPG file is one that has had
the camera apply linear conversion, matrix conversion, white balance, contrast, and saturation, and then has had some level of potentially destructive compression applied.

So?

Reasons to Shoot JPG

– Files are smaller and therefore more of them fit on a card.

Irrelevant in this age of inexpensive memory.

– For many applications image quality is more than sufficient (family snapshots, news images).

Agreed.

– Small files are more easily transmitted wirelessly and online. This is important to newspaper photographers.

So? Shoot RAW + JPEG and get the best of both Worlds. Memory is cheap.

– Many photographers don’t have the time or inclination to post-process their files.

You left out ability, and knowledge of the technical aspects of dealing with RAW processing. Otherwise that is a fair assessment.

– Many cameras (especially digicams) can not shoot quickly when working in
raw mode. Some lower-end models can’t record raw files at all.

That might have been true in the past, With decent DSLRs today there is little perceptible read/write lag. I certainly notice differences between my pld D70 and my D300s.

Reasons to Shoot Raw

– A raw file is comparable to the latent image contained in an exposed but
undeveloped piece of film. It holds exactly what the imaging chip recorded.
Nothing more. Nothing less. This means that the photographer is able to extract the maximum possible image quality, whether now or in the future. A
good analogy with the traditional world of film is that you have the opportunity to use a different type of developer or development time at any
point in the future if one comes along that you think might do a better job
of processing the image.

…and you do not care to have this benefit?

– Raw files have not had while balance set. They are tagged with whatever the camera’s setting was, (either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance), but the actual data has not been changed. This allows
one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes after the fact with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file
has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied
(such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.

Shooting and processing RAW also allows you to make a custom WB calibration by using a WB card in your shooting protocol.

– File linearization and colour filter array (Bayer) conversion is done on a
computer with a fast and powerful microprocessor. This allows much more sophisticated algorithms to be used than those done in a camera with its slower and less powerful processor and with less space for complex conversion programs.

Over explained, but mostly true.

– The raw file is tagged with contrast and saturation information as set in
the camera by the user, but the actual image data has not been changed. The
user is free to set these based on a per-image evaluation rather than use one or two generalized settings for all images taken.

– Possibly the biggest advantage of shooting raw is that one has a 16 bit image (post raw conversion) to work with. This means that the file has 65,536 levels to work with. This is opposed to a JPG file’s 8 bit space with
just 256 brightness levels available. This is important when editing an image, particularly if one is trying to open up shadows or alter brightness
in any significant way.

All good reasons to shoot RAW and enjoy the flexibility of ACR or LR, or any of the other RAW processing programs.

I see you have given plenty of reasons to shoot RAW, or RAW+JPEG and a statement that regardless of all the advantages of shooting and processing RAW image files your preference is to shoot JPEG only, mostly for the dubious economy of memory space.

Get more memory, and shoot RAW+JPEG, then you can return to the RAW file if you need to, while dealing with the JPEG as you currently do. The advantages of shooting RAW outweigh shooting JPEG only.

—
Regards,

Savageduck

Like so much it depends on the person and what works best for them.

today we all use digital cameras. then use photoshop for editing

one feature is to use raw files
i personally don’t care for it. here is why

Pros and Cons
A raw file is essentially the data that the camera’s chip recorded along with some additional information tagged on. A JPG file is one that has had the camera apply linear conversion, matrix conversion, white balance, contrast, and saturation, and then has had some level of potentially destructive compression applied.

Reasons to Shoot JPG

– Files are smaller and therefore more of them fit on a card.

– For many applications image quality is more than sufficient (family snapshots, news images).

– Small files are more easily transmitted wirelessly and online. This is important to newspaper photographers.

– Many photographers don’t have the time or inclination to post-process their files.

– Many cameras (especially digicams) can not shoot quickly when working in raw mode. Some lower-end models can’t record raw files at all.

Reasons to Shoot Raw

– A raw file is comparable to the latent image contained in an exposed but undeveloped piece of film. It holds exactly what the imaging chip recorded. Nothing more. Nothing less. This means that the photographer is able to extract the maximum possible image quality, whether now or in the future. A good analogy with the traditional world of film is that you have the opportunity to use a different type of developer or development time at any point in the future if one comes along that you think might do a better job of processing the image.

– Raw files have not had while balance set. They are tagged with whatever the camera’s setting was, (either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance), but the actual data has not been changed. This allows one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes after the fact with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied (such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.
– File linearization and colour filter array (Bayer) conversion is done on a computer with a fast and powerful microprocessor. This allows much more sophisticated algorithms to be used than those done in a camera with its slower and less powerful processor and with less space for complex conversion programs.

– The raw file is tagged with contrast and saturation information as set in the camera by the user, but the actual image data has not been changed. The user is free to set these based on a per-image evaluation rather than use one or two generalized settings for all images taken.

– Possibly the biggest advantage of shooting raw is that one has a 16 bit image (post raw conversion) to work with. This means that the file has 65,536 levels to work with. This is opposed to a JPG file’s 8 bit space with just 256 brightness levels available. This is important when editing an image, particularly if one is trying to open up shadows or alter brightness in any significant way.

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message

On 2011-10-11 04:10:25 -0700, "Ulysses" said:

today we all use digital cameras. then use photoshop for editing one feature is to use raw files
i personally don’t care for it. here is why

You are free to shoot whatever suits your needs.

Pros and Cons
A raw file is essentially the data that the camera’s chip recorded along with some additional information tagged on. A JPG file is one that has had
the camera apply linear conversion, matrix conversion, white balance, contrast, and saturation, and then has had some level of potentially destructive compression applied.

So?

Reasons to Shoot JPG

– Files are smaller and therefore more of them fit on a card.

Irrelevant in this age of inexpensive memory.

– For many applications image quality is more than sufficient (family snapshots, news images).

Agreed.

– Small files are more easily transmitted wirelessly and online. This is important to newspaper photographers.

So? Shoot RAW + JPEG and get the best of both Worlds. Memory is cheap.

– Many photographers don’t have the time or inclination to post-process their files.

You left out ability, and knowledge of the technical aspects of dealing with RAW processing. Otherwise that is a fair assessment.

– Many cameras (especially digicams) can not shoot quickly when working in
raw mode. Some lower-end models can’t record raw files at all.

That might have been true in the past, With decent DSLRs today there is little perceptible read/write lag. I certainly notice differences between my pld D70 and my D300s.

Reasons to Shoot Raw

– A raw file is comparable to the latent image contained in an exposed but
undeveloped piece of film. It holds exactly what the imaging chip recorded.
Nothing more. Nothing less. This means that the photographer is able to extract the maximum possible image quality, whether now or in the future. A
good analogy with the traditional world of film is that you have the opportunity to use a different type of developer or development time at any
point in the future if one comes along that you think might do a better job
of processing the image.

…and you do not care to have this benefit?

– Raw files have not had while balance set. They are tagged with whatever the camera’s setting was, (either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance), but the actual data has not been changed. This allows
one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes after the fact with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file
has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied
(such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.

Shooting and processing RAW also allows you to make a custom WB calibration by using a WB card in your shooting protocol.

– File linearization and colour filter array (Bayer) conversion is done on a
computer with a fast and powerful microprocessor. This allows much more sophisticated algorithms to be used than those done in a camera with its slower and less powerful processor and with less space for complex conversion programs.

Over explained, but mostly true.

– The raw file is tagged with contrast and saturation information as set in
the camera by the user, but the actual image data has not been changed. The
user is free to set these based on a per-image evaluation rather than use one or two generalized settings for all images taken.

– Possibly the biggest advantage of shooting raw is that one has a 16 bit image (post raw conversion) to work with. This means that the file has 65,536 levels to work with. This is opposed to a JPG file’s 8 bit space with
just 256 brightness levels available. This is important when editing an image, particularly if one is trying to open up shadows or alter brightness
in any significant way.

All good reasons to shoot RAW and enjoy the flexibility of ACR or LR, or any of the other RAW processing programs.

I see you have given plenty of reasons to shoot RAW, or RAW+JPEG and a statement that regardless of all the advantages of shooting and processing RAW image files your preference is to shoot JPEG only, mostly for the dubious economy of memory space.

Get more memory, and shoot RAW+JPEG, then you can return to the RAW file if you need to, while dealing with the JPEG as you currently do. The advantages of shooting RAW outweigh shooting JPEG only.

—
Regards,

Savageduck

I’ve tried shootin RAW (and both) but usually end up not doing anything much with the RAW ones. jpegs can be openned in Camera Raw anyway and bascially the same things can be done to fix a picture in regular Photoshop. Probably depends on what you want to do with the pictuers after and how much time you have to do it (after)
Like so much it depends on the person and what works best for them.

Get more memory, and shoot RAW+JPEG, then you can return to the RAW file if you need to, while dealing with the JPEG as you currently do. The advantages of shooting RAW outweigh shooting JPEG only.

On 2011-10-11 06:09:16 -0700, "Carrie" said:

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message

On 2011-10-11 04:10:25 -0700, "Ulysses" said:

today we all use digital cameras. then use photoshop for editing one feature is to use raw files
i personally don’t care for it. here is why

You are free to shoot whatever suits your needs.

Pros and Cons
A raw file is essentially the data that the camera’s chip recorded along
with some additional information tagged on. A JPG file is one that has had
the camera apply linear conversion, matrix conversion, white balance, contrast, and saturation, and then has had some level of potentially destructive compression applied.

So?

Reasons to Shoot JPG

– Files are smaller and therefore more of them fit on a card.

Irrelevant in this age of inexpensive memory.

– For many applications image quality is more than sufficient (family snapshots, news images).

Agreed.

– Small files are more easily transmitted wirelessly and online. This is
important to newspaper photographers.

So? Shoot RAW + JPEG and get the best of both Worlds. Memory is cheap.

– Many photographers don’t have the time or inclination to post-process their files.

You left out ability, and knowledge of the technical aspects of dealing with RAW processing. Otherwise that is a fair assessment.

– Many cameras (especially digicams) can not shoot quickly when working in
raw mode. Some lower-end models can’t record raw files at all.

That might have been true in the past, With decent DSLRs today there is little perceptible read/write lag. I certainly notice differences between
my pld D70 and my D300s.

Reasons to Shoot Raw

– A raw file is comparable to the latent image contained in an exposed but
undeveloped piece of film. It holds exactly what the imaging chip recorded.
Nothing more. Nothing less. This means that the photographer is able to extract the maximum possible image quality, whether now or in the future.
A
good analogy with the traditional world of film is that you have the opportunity to use a different type of developer or development time at any
point in the future if one comes along that you think might do a better job
of processing the image.

…and you do not care to have this benefit?

– Raw files have not had while balance set. They are tagged with whatever
the camera’s setting was, (either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance), but the actual data has not been changed. This allows
one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes after the
fact with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file
has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied
(such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.

Shooting and processing RAW also allows you to make a custom WB calibration by using a WB card in your shooting protocol.

– File linearization and colour filter array (Bayer) conversion is done on a
computer with a fast and powerful microprocessor. This allows much more sophisticated algorithms to be used than those done in a camera with its
slower and less powerful processor and with less space for complex conversion programs.

Over explained, but mostly true.

– The raw file is tagged with contrast and saturation information as set
in
the camera by the user, but the actual image data has not been changed. The
user is free to set these based on a per-image evaluation rather than use
one or two generalized settings for all images taken.

– Possibly the biggest advantage of shooting raw is that one has a 16 bit
image (post raw conversion) to work with. This means that the file has 65,536 levels to work with. This is opposed to a JPG file’s 8 bit space with
just 256 brightness levels available. This is important when editing an image, particularly if one is trying to open up shadows or alter brightness
in any significant way.

All good reasons to shoot RAW and enjoy the flexibility of ACR or LR, or any of the other RAW processing programs.

I see you have given plenty of reasons to shoot RAW, or RAW+JPEG and a statement that regardless of all the advantages of shooting and processing
RAW image files your preference is to shoot JPEG only, mostly for the dubious economy of memory space.

Get more memory, and shoot RAW+JPEG, then you can return to the RAW file if you need to, while dealing with the JPEG as you currently do. The advantages of shooting RAW outweigh shooting JPEG only.

—
Regards,

Savageduck

I’ve tried shootin RAW (and both) but usually end up not doing anything much with the RAW ones. jpegs can be openned in Camera Raw anyway and bascially the same things can be done to fix a picture in regular Photoshop.
Probably depends on what you want to do with the pictuers after and how much
time you have to do it (after)
Like so much it depends on the person and what works best for them.

In most cases the JPEGS out of the camera will do just fine. While you can certainly open JPEGS in ACR you will find that what you can do with that file in ACR is limited and not as effective as adjusting the RAW file.
Once you take the ACR processed RAW file or JPEG to Photoshop all bets are off and both file types are subject to the same adjustments. The exception being exposure adjustments which can only be made in 32 bit mode.
If you are going to extract the best from your image file in terms of potential, RAW is always the best option. Hence giving yourself the option of shooting RAW+JPEG will always give you the option of returning to the RAW file if the JPEG has issues which cannot be solved.

…and that is the beauty of choice.

—
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 05:33:52 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

Get more memory, and shoot RAW+JPEG, then you can return to the RAW file if you need to, while dealing with the JPEG as you currently do. The advantages of shooting RAW outweigh shooting JPEG only.

My two grandsons (ages 7 and 8) are in a Pop Warner football league. I shoot about 100 shots every Saturday morning at the games. The reason for the high number of shots is that in "action" shots it is extremely difficult to find one of the boys in the shot and then focus in. All those little kids look alike if you can’t spot the number. So, I just click away and hope one of the boys is in the shot. (They both play on the same team)

I’ve been averaging about 8 "keepers" per weekend of "action" shots. That’s the right number for me because I try to keep the game total to about 15 shots including side-line and close-up shots. With nine games in the season, that’s enough shots to document the activity.
I started out shooting RAW, then went to RAW+.jpg, but now shoot .jpg only. Saturday morning outdoor shots like this rarely need any post-processing steps other than cropping. The shots can be reviewed, thinned out, and processed quicker with just .jpgs.

Of course, one great thing about digital is the ability to change from .jpg to RAW, and from one ISO to another, and back again in any series of shots. There’s no commitment like there was in film when you chose the type of film and got stuck with it for 24 or 36 shots.
Playing around in post-processing, I came up with this:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/i- ZZt4JK5/0/X2/2011-10-07-1-X2.jpg

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

– A raw file is comparable to the latent image contained in an exposed but undeveloped piece of film. It holds exactly what the imaging chip recorded. Nothing more. Nothing less.

– A raw file is comparable to the latent image contained in an exposed but undeveloped piece of film. It holds exactly what the imaging chip recorded. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Not quite true. Each manufacturer applies adjustments to the RAW data to compliment their brand.

In article ,
John J Stafford wrote:

– A raw file is comparable to the latent image contained in an exposed but
undeveloped piece of film. It holds exactly what the imaging chip recorded.
Nothing more. Nothing less.

Not quite true. Each manufacturer applies adjustments to the RAW data to compliment their brand.

Like "Buy Sony, the best hardware in the world!"