RAW without Adobe

[maintenanceguy]

I know nothing about RAW images except a little bit I've read on the internet. I decided to take some RAW images and do some editing, compare them to JPEGs and see what the advantages really are.

I have owned Photoshop in the past. After completing a couple of projects, I wasn't using it anymore and let the subscription run out.

I now use GIMP to edit photos - although I'm doing only very basic stuff with GIMP. I just don't have a need to do anything more advanced so I haven't really done a lot with GIMP.

I attempted to open the RAW images in GIMP and found out I need to convert them to another format first. So much for playing with that image format.

If I don't have Adobe products, is there any advantage to RAW images?

 

[Cymru]

Just about every useful editing package on the planet supports RAW. Its the only sensible way to edit.
RAW is a manufacturer unique format and nothing to do with adobe.

You can probably convert to DNG using the free converter and edit that way if for some reason your editor wont read the manufacturer raw.

 

[Thomas B]

Just about every useful editing package on the planet supports RAW. Its the only sensible way to edit.
RAW is a manufacturer unique format and nothing to do with adobe.

You can probably convert to DNG using the free converter and edit that way if for some reason your editor wont read the manufacturer raw.

iMovie automatically opens RAW files as .DNG

 

[Kilrah]

Darktable is a common free program for processing RAW files. There's Rawtherapee as well.

 

[vindibona1]

While not free, I will suggest purchasing a program like On1 Raw. I think it's around $100. They're just coming out with a new version, but I have the 2020 version and it has some AI correction capability and does most of the things that Lightroom does. But it's a one time purchase rather than a continuous never ending payment to Adobe.

Here's a link to On1 Raw 2021 14 day free trial.
On1 Raw 2021 Free Trial

 

[JackL]

Good thread. Didn't know any of these other options existed. I use oldtime Photoshop CC from 2015 as it opens the .DNG from my MA2 no problem. I'm going to give Rawtherapee a try. Thanks for the tip!

 

[Dale D]

I know nothing about RAW images except a little bit I've read on the internet. I decided to take some RAW images and do some editing, compare them to JPEGs and see what the advantages really are.

I have owned Photoshop in the past. After completing a couple of projects, I wasn't using it anymore and let the subscription run out.

I now use GIMP to edit photos - although I'm doing only very basic stuff with GIMP. I just don't have a need to do anything more advanced so I haven't really done a lot with GIMP.

I attempted to open the RAW images in GIMP and found out I need to convert them to another format first. So much for playing with that image format.

If I don't have Adobe products, is there any advantage to RAW images?

A RAW image has millions of more pixels of information than a JPEG image. A JPG image is a compressed image, using far less percentage of the sensor information. You are missing out on the ability to enhance any photo. There is information in the file that is not obtainable from the restricted information a jpg file, especially in the ends of the histogram where you can recover details in shadows and highlights not possible with jpg. I'd recommend that you Google and do some research on this to fully appreciate what you are missing. Just Google the term, RAW versus JPEG and you should spend a few minutes familiarizing yourself with the benefits of RAW. Once you do, you will never go back to JPG. On my two Nikon D750 DSLRs I have both SD memory cards set to record in RAW. Never use JPG for years.

As noted, RAW files are not a product of Adobe! You can work in DNG (digital negative) and Adobe has a DNG converter (free) for every single camera out there on the market.

Dale
Miami

 

[Howard70]

As noted, RAW files are not a product of Adobe! You can work in DNG (digital negative) and Adobe has a DNG converter (free) for every single camera out there on the market

The history of the DNG version of “RAW” files is interesting. While the actual DNG format is patented by Adobe (who developed it) it is an “open” file format that can be used by anyone free of charge (according to the Wikipedia page linked above).

While my memory is hazy (mental version of cataracts?), I think Adobe was frustrated with trying to keep up with all of the proprietary versions of “RAW” file formats being produced by manufacturers of image recording devices that required constant updating of Adobe’s image editing software. Thus they developed an “open” format that they hoped manufacturers would use. A widely used single format would have saved Adobe a lot of time and effort in keeping their image editing software current. An added benefit to users would have been an archival format that would hopefully not lose relevance in the future - thus “RAW” files stored in the DNG format would always be accessible, even if the manufacturer of the recording device was out of business and no longer supported their proprietary format.

The acceptance of the open DNG format probably hasn’t been as wide as Adobe hoped, but many manufacturers do use it (DJI for example) and some photographers convert their ”RAW” negatives to DNG to insure future accessibility. Other photographers don’t convert to DNG because they aren’t completely confident that all of the information in their “RAW” images recorded in a proprietary format will be preserved in DNG.

I think Adobe pursued a parallel solution with Camera Raw - their subprogram that supports DNG along with as many proprietary formats as they can keep up with. Keeping Camera Raw updated could keep their image editing products current without requiring separate updates.

Way back when all this was beginning, there may have been desire by some manufacturers To keep the proprietary formats “secret” so that users would be restricted to the software developed by the manufacturer. That could have been for a couple of reasons - financial if a user had to buy the software from the manufacturer and/or apparent performance of their imaging products.

Howard

 

[Dale D]

The history of the DNG version of “RAW” files is interesting. While the actual DNG format is patented by Adobe (who developed it) it is an “open” file format that can be used by anyone free of charge (according to the Wikipedia page linked above).

While my memory is hazy (mental version of cataracts?), I think Adobe was frustrated with trying to keep up with all of the proprietary versions of “RAW” file formats being produced by manufacturers of image recording devices that required constant updating of Adobe’s image editing software. Thus they developed an “open” format that they hoped manufacturers would use. A widely used single format would have saved Adobe a lot of time and effort in keeping their image editing software current. An added benefit to users would have been an archival format that would hopefully not lose relevance in the future - thus “RAW” files stored in the DNG format would always be accessible, even if the manufacturer of the recording device was out of business and no longer supported their proprietary format.

The acceptance of the open DNG format probably hasn’t been as wide as Adobe hoped, but many manufacturers do use it (DJI for example) and some photographers convert their ”RAW” negatives to DNG to insure future accessibility. Other photographers don’t convert to DNG because they aren’t completely confident that all of the information in their “RAW” images recorded in a proprietary format will be preserved in DNG.

I think Adobe pursued a parallel solution with Camera Raw - their subprogram that supports DNG along with as many proprietary formats as they can keep up with. Keeping Camera Raw updated could keep their image editing products current without requiring separate updates.

Way back when all this was beginning, there may have been desire by some manufacturers To keep the proprietary formats “secret” so that users would be restricted to the software developed by the manufacturer. That could have been for a couple of reasons - financial if a user had to buy the software from the manufacturer and/or apparent performance of their imaging products.

Howard

Hey Howard:

Really enjoyed your historical summation of RAW and DNG. I go way back to Photoshop 3 and either bought a new disc every year or so or upgraded for a discounted fee. I still use DNG quite a lot since all of my timelapse studies are processed vis the software program LRTimelapse! Whenever I open LRTimelapse to process a study I am reminded to upgrade to the latest DNG since every single time a new camera comes out, they have to keep up with it. I never upgrade to the latest DNG since my camera is already included.

 

[MavicAir2Marc]

Hey Howard:

Really enjoyed your historical summation of RAW and DNG. I go way back to Photoshop 3 and either bought a new disc every year or so or upgraded for a discounted fee. I still use DNG quite a lot since all of my timelapse studies are processed vis the software program LRTimelapse! Whenever I open LRTimelapse to process a study I am reminded to upgrade to the latest DNG since every single time a new camera comes out, they have to keep up with it. I never upgrade to the latest DNG since my camera is already included.

I go back to Photoshop 2.5 before they had layers LOL. The problem with jpegs are that every time you save them, it gets recompressed...after a while, it starts looking like a jigsaw puzzle with artifacts and big blocky edges. It's gotten better over the years but it's unusable in my day job because of the amount of times we have to go in and color adjust, retouch, change colors for a different press profile etc.

 

[vindibona1]

I think Adobe pursued a parallel solution with Camera Raw - their subprogram that supports DNG along with as many proprietary formats as they can keep up with. Keeping Camera Raw updated could keep their image editing products current without requiring separate updates.

Way back when all this was beginning, there may have been desire by some manufacturers To keep the proprietary formats “secret” so that users would be restricted to the software developed by the manufacturer. That could have been for a couple of reasons - financial if a user had to buy the software from the manufacturer and/or apparent performance of their imaging products.

Howard

@Dale D "As noted, RAW files are not a product of Adobe! You can work in DNG (digital negative) and Adobe has a DNG converter (free) for every single camera out there on the market."

I think you guys did a pretty good summation. But I'm not sure that the assumed rationale with RAW is entirely accurate. I've been in digital imaging since 1996, with my studio becoming FULLY digital in 2000. In 2000 I bought my first "professional" dslr, a Nikon D1 costing $5000 each (body only) which was a huge price drop from Kodak's first digital entry costing $27,000. The Nikon D1 could produce jpgs but had HUGE problems. They also produced the first raw captures in "NEF" format. And yes, Nikon sold the processing software separately. I don't think Canon or Fuji were fully in the game at that point and . A year or two later Nikon came out with the D1x (I had two D1s, then two D1x's), an improvement over the the D1, still using the NEF, but some time after the D1x was out they started offering their processing software without charge. As mentioned earlier, a RAW image is simply the raw data captured prior to processing to a useable format, usually jpg. In the early days jpgs processed in-camera were mediocre at best, and largely unusable for professional purposes.

Not too long later, the first real 3rd party stand alone raw image processor was Phase One's Capture One Pro. Phase one was developing professional grade sensors/cameras/backs with larger, and ridicululously more costly sensors than the 35mm DSLRs. The program cost $500 at the time and I purchased it. Capture One Pro's real benefit was that, with slower computers, was designed to preview the corrected raw images with "proxies". One could then program the corrections extremely rapidly, then process the images into usable jpgs UNATTENDED. I could correct about 1000 images per hour! Then I could and would let the processing of them run overnight. My favorite version of Capture One Pro was V3.7. After that they started to get fancy with lots of additional features and for me slowed down the process. Capture One Pro preceded Adobe RAW by a number of years. If I recall, Adobe RAW was then added to Photoshop, but .DNG wasn't established until some years later. I'm not sure when Adobe came out with Lightroom, which I think was to sort of minic Capture One Pro, but initially wasn't well thought out. Some of the hangovers still exist with Lightroom today. IMO, while Adobe has been a leader in digital retouching and editing, it has been largely a follower in raw image processing (note current issues with some DJI images). And of course there are now several programs that serve to process raw images with varying strenghts and weaknesses. The latest addition to many of them is AI processing.

 

[vindibona1]

I go back to Photoshop 2.5 before they had layers LOL. The problem with jpegs are that every time you save them, it gets recompressed...after a while, it starts looking like a jigsaw puzzle with artifacts and big blocky edges. It's gotten better over the years but it's unusable in my day job because of the amount of times we have to go in and color adjust, retouch, change colors for a different press profile etc.

I feel ya. I got in there about v2... with only ONE undo! Before that I was working on a Quantel Paint Box, a giant console with huge tape reels to record the data which then was fed to early digital photo printers!

 

[MavicAir2Marc]

I feel ya. I got in there about v2... with only ONE undo! Before that I was working on a Quantel Paint Box, a giant console with huge tape reels to record the data which then was fed to early digital photo printers!

We used a multi million dollar Scitex system before Adobe pretty much put them out of business. 5.25" optical drives and mag tape for archiving and a couple of Hell drum scanners were state-of-the-art back then. We had a "Scitex pose" which was feet propped up and hands behind your head while waiting for the system to update something you did for 10 minutes. ?

 

[Dale D]

I feel ya. I got in there about v2... with only ONE undo! Before that I was working on a Quantel Paint Box, a giant console with huge tape reels to record the data which then was fed to early digital photo printers!

It sure looks a lot of us out there are wizened old denizens of the tyranny of digital upgrades. I have tried valiantly to keep up and follow along, and have, indeed, seen almost weekly , if not monthly, upgrades to my Adobe products. Since I pay the price (albeit discounted 40% on a special "deal"), I get upgrades to Photoshop 2021, 2020, and and I still maintain Photoshop 2019. Also I get upgrades to Premiere Pro and Lightroom. I subscribe to Colin Smith Photoshop Cafe which helps a lot to learn the new changes as Adobe never stops trying to achieve the "perfect."

 

[vindibona1]

We used a multi million dollar Scitex system before Adobe pretty much put them out of business. 5.25" optical drives and mag tape for archiving and a couple of Hell drum scanners were state-of-the-art back then. We had a "Scitex pose" which was feet propped up and hands behind your head while waiting for the system to update something you did for 10 minutes. ?

You guys brought back a lot of 20 year old memories. I gotta share this. I couldn't find the actual image file, but I created a coffee mug for a client to be given as gifts. This was done on one of the first Macs that had a separate monitor, with Photoshop 2.0. It took 60 second for the screen to refresh for every action. Layers? Probably had to. I think only one undo. It was the first composite I ever attempted outside of simple stuff on the Quantel. I don't remember which camera or year. D1? D1x? Maybe even an earlier Olympus digital camera that preceded the Nikons? This composite took over 8 hours to put together, not including the photography.

 

[Meta4]

A RAW image has millions of more pixels of information than a JPEG image.

What's in the pixels might be different, but your raw image has exactly the same number of pixels as the corresponding jpg image.

 

[Dale D]

You guys brought back a lot of 20 year old memories. I gotta share this. I couldn't find the actual image file, but I created a coffee mug for a client to be given as gifts. This was done on one of the first Macs that had a separate monitor, with Photoshop 2.0. It took 60 second for the screen to refresh for every action. Layers? Probably had to. I think only one undo. It was the first composite I ever attempted outside of simple stuff on the Quantel. I don't remember which camera or year. D1? D1x? Maybe even an earlier Olympus digital camera that preceded the Nikons? This composite took over 8 hours to put together, not including the photography.

View attachment 119844

Nice cup Stan-- don't break it! Or as they say on The Godfather....."you've got a nice cup there. It would be a shame to see something happen to it."
Dale
Miami