- Jun 12, 2004
- 8,387
- 435
- 41
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Not sure? Anyone know if RAW is so much better. Is it compatible with Photoshop Elements 5? What makes it different. Sorry for my ignorance.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
RAW vs jpeg
- Thread starter Picture.Of.Obedience
- Start date
DanC922
Senior Member
RAW files are basically the digital version of film negatives. Experienced film photographers develop their own film because they have a lot more control over how the final image comes out. It's the same thing with RAW files.
When a camera takes a JPEG file, it does all of the image processing (exposure, white balance, sharpness, etc...) in the camera's software. That software doesn't always do the greatest job. RAW files preserve all of the data taken in by the sensor without fully processing it, which allows to control the outcome of the final image on your own in image editing software like Photoshop.
RAW images almost always end up giving you a better quality image in the end because you can edit all of the variables yourself. Also, if you do something wrong in a JPEG image, you can never fix it after it's taken, but if it's RAW, you may be able to. If you accidently underexpose a picture shot in JPEG, you're stuck with that result. If you shot the same image in RAW, you have a much better chance of saving the image.
As for Photoshop Elements 5, I'm really not sure. I use Photoshop CS2, and that has Adobe Camera Raw with it.
Personally, I shoot in RAW 99% of the time. Pretty much the only times I don't shoot in RAW are when I just need a quick snapshot of something that I wouldn't be doing any editing on anyway.
Upvote
0
sfs
Senior Member
- Jun 30, 2003
- 10,868
- 7,883
- 66
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
According to web accounts, PS Elements 5 does handle raw conversions.
To expand slightly on the differences between the formats . . . A file in raw format holds the output of the sensor's photosites, each of which is sensitive to one color (red, green or blue), stored digitally -- I think holding 12 bits of information for your camera. To convert that information into a jpeg, something (either your camera or your computer) has to combine neighboring photosite information (merging and interpolating) into individual pixels, each of which has information about all three colors. The three colors are converted to 8-bit numbers and then the whole set of numbers are compressed into jpeg format.
So what you lose in shooting jpegs is some details of the precise amount of light at each point (8 bits instead of 12), some fine details due to jpeg compression, and the ability to control the conversion into RGB values. Generally, the better your settings were when you took the picture, the smaller the difference you'll see between doing the conversion in the camera and doing it later on the computer. For a well-exposed photo with the correct white balance, the difference may well be invisible -- that's why some professionals are willing to shoot jpegs (especially ones with short turn-around time on large jobs). Most shoot raw, however, for the greater control. If you get the white balance really wrong (e.g. setting for incandescent when shooting with flash), you really can't salvage a good photo out of the jpeg, at least not if there are skin tones involved, while a raw file will be unharmed, since you can just pick a different white balance when doing the conversion.
Either way, you'll probably want to play with different settings in the conversion -- sharpness, color saturation, contrast -- and it's up to you whether you do it by playing with the camera's settings or in a program afterwards. One reasonable approach would be to start by shooting jpegs until you get to know your camera a little, and then try experimenting with raw.
With all of that said, I usually shoot jpegs, except when it looks like it might be a really rare, great photo or when the lighting is difficult (e.g. there are multiple light sources of different colors). I prefer the smaller file size and the easier work flow -- I already spend too much of my time at the computer as it is.
To expand slightly on the differences between the formats . . . A file in raw format holds the output of the sensor's photosites, each of which is sensitive to one color (red, green or blue), stored digitally -- I think holding 12 bits of information for your camera. To convert that information into a jpeg, something (either your camera or your computer) has to combine neighboring photosite information (merging and interpolating) into individual pixels, each of which has information about all three colors. The three colors are converted to 8-bit numbers and then the whole set of numbers are compressed into jpeg format.
So what you lose in shooting jpegs is some details of the precise amount of light at each point (8 bits instead of 12), some fine details due to jpeg compression, and the ability to control the conversion into RGB values. Generally, the better your settings were when you took the picture, the smaller the difference you'll see between doing the conversion in the camera and doing it later on the computer. For a well-exposed photo with the correct white balance, the difference may well be invisible -- that's why some professionals are willing to shoot jpegs (especially ones with short turn-around time on large jobs). Most shoot raw, however, for the greater control. If you get the white balance really wrong (e.g. setting for incandescent when shooting with flash), you really can't salvage a good photo out of the jpeg, at least not if there are skin tones involved, while a raw file will be unharmed, since you can just pick a different white balance when doing the conversion.
Either way, you'll probably want to play with different settings in the conversion -- sharpness, color saturation, contrast -- and it's up to you whether you do it by playing with the camera's settings or in a program afterwards. One reasonable approach would be to start by shooting jpegs until you get to know your camera a little, and then try experimenting with raw.
With all of that said, I usually shoot jpegs, except when it looks like it might be a really rare, great photo or when the lighting is difficult (e.g. there are multiple light sources of different colors). I prefer the smaller file size and the easier work flow -- I already spend too much of my time at the computer as it is.
Upvote
0
cyberlizard
the electric lizard returns
- Jul 5, 2007
- 6,268
- 569
- 57
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Married
i shoot both (but my camera takes both at the same time). Generally though my preference is to shoot RAW. My reason is that becuase JPEG is lossy, everytime you alter a photo and re-save it, it loses more detail (unless you work from the master each time).
With RAW i get the benefit of being able to tweak it too my hearts content, so in this respect it is great.
as for PE5, I use CS3 on my main system and PE5 on my laptop. I can say categorically that it does support RAW, but it depends on which camera (mines a nikon d40 - pretty rubbish but takes a good picture). If it does not support your RAW file out of the box, adobe are always upgrading raw plugins for it, but it does support most already.
hope this waffling post helps.
Steve
Upvote
0
utdbear
Catalina Wine Mixer....POW!
- Jul 6, 2004
- 2,993
- 281
- 47
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
If you are a student at any school(including NYIP), you can get educator discount on Adobe Products. When I was in school, I was able to pick up Lightroom for about 70 bucks.
Upvote
0
Now I only shoot RAW, I am amazed at how much more control I have in photoshop with RAW. I will never go back to JPEG.
Upvote
0
nickrak
Member
- Apr 15, 2008
- 6
- 3
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
I would use RAW all the time if it didn't take up so much space... I only have a 1gig card right now, so I can barely get 100 shots in before it's full... but CS3 Extended lets you reverse engineer the JPEG processing back to RAW (to an extent, certainly not perfect, but much better than working right off of the JPEG)... once I have a big enough card, I'll shoot RAW full-time.
Upvote
0
Boss_BlueAngels
Life is better when you're flying upside down.
- Jul 19, 2005
- 2,895
- 130
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Buffer, in JPEG mode you can get more photos off in burst than if you're in RAW. That's the main reason I shoot JPEG. The things I photograph go by incredibly fast and the scene changes in seconds. I need the ability to capture that "perfect" image.
Upvote
0
Boss_BlueAngels
Life is better when you're flying upside down.
- Jul 19, 2005
- 2,895
- 130
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Yeah, with the RebelXT that I have it's 14 vs 5. and then after that 5 RAW it takes another good 10-15 seconds for it to be ready to go again.
I may change my mind, however, when I upgrade to the Canon 40D which will be 75 JPEG and 17 RAW at up to 6.5 FPS
I may change my mind, however, when I upgrade to the Canon 40D which will be 75 JPEG and 17 RAW at up to 6.5 FPS
Upvote
0
Similar threads
