RAW photo files

[Wakamula]

So you didn't look at the images in the link in post #35?

Have a look at those images and tell me how much higher the image quality could have been.

Zoom in and you’ll quickly see why I would shoot in jpeg. Any magazine worth its salt will not accept jpeg. Its a guessing game as how your colors will turn out. It’s ok for the net but not the best choice. . On the face of it those photos are fine, pretty easy subject, great lighting point and click. An iPhone would work well in sane conditions. It all depends what you need to do with your images. RAW for me comes into its own when the subject and/or lighting is difficult. Anyone can take a photo in ideal conditions. Noone is saying you can only shoot good images in RAW. You can however do so much more with a RAW image. Ask yourself why any pro tog only shoots in RAW.

 

[brett8883]

That's the impression that many new to photography get from forums.
They feel that they must shoot raw to get good images but it's just not correct.
I would suspect that the number of flyers that would get any benefit out of shooting raw is <10%.

Anyone who edits or prints their photos will benefit from shooting in RAW. Does shooting in RAW give you the power to go overboard? Absolutely.

 

[brett8883]

Zoom in and you’ll quickly see why I would shoot in jpeg. Any magazine worth its salt will not accept jpeg. Its a guessing game as how your colors will turn out. It’s ok for the net but not the best choice. . On the face of it those photos are fine, pretty easy subject, great lighting point and click. An iPhone would work well in sane conditions. It all depends what you need to do with your images. RAW for me comes into its own when the subject and/or lighting is difficult. Anyone can take a photo in ideal conditions. Noone is saying you can only shoot good images in RAW. You can however do so much more with a RAW image. Ask yourself why any pro tog only shoots in RAW.

If I sent a JPEG to my printer they’d call me and tell me I accidentally sent them an 8-bit image

 

[Meta4]

You can however do so much more with a RAW image.

I hear that all the time but for most people's images, most of the time, I'm not sure that matters.

 

[brett8883]

I hear that all the time but for most people's images, most of the time, I'm not sure that matters.

Then start a thread about how average people can make their photos better would you. Im sure it would be beneficial and appreciated. This is a thread about RAW images!

 

[Northern_Bob]

I have no problem with people shooting in jpg format if that’s what they are comfortable with. Given correct exposure and reasonable tonal contrast in the scene a jpg can offer a great image.

I also understand that many do not wish to invest much time in post processing their images. JPEG then becomes a reasonable format choice.

The JPEG-Raw debate is much like the Mac vs. PC one, never ending. Use whichever fits your circumstances and is most comfortable to you.

Two situations to be aware of though when working with the jpg format:

1) When saving a jpg, chose the least amount of compression (largest file size). Storage space is cheap. The days of 300 baud modems and $400 256 megabyte hard drives are long gone.

2) If you edit & save a JPEG more than once or twice, even at lowest compression settings, you are degrading your image. Each saving action introduces and amplifies compression artifacts (blockiness) in the file. This is most apparent in even toned areas such as skies.
Note that opening and closing a JPEG just to view it does not involve saving and re-compression and therefore does not degrade the image.
[/soapbox mode=off]

Bob M.
Professional Photography Faculty
Dawson College
Montreal, Quebec

<PHOTO DAWSON>

 

[macfawlty]

And that image isn't the one I actually used from this shoot it was this View attachment 64711

If we lived in a world where light quality was always perfect and subjects were perfectly lit, it would save a lot of effort. The reality is that most of the images you capture will need some corrective measures and modest color grading.

In Brett8883's excellent example you can see the RAW image has a lot of shadow, which is very challenging for even the larger sensor of the M2P (assuming you want to see some of the shadow detail). One would expect a lot of noise in the dark areas when viewing the 'unprocessed' RAW file. I'll assume the reason for shooting at this exposure is so the sun and highlights will not be completely blown out (overexposed). It's much easier to bring detail out of the shadows than to recover blown highlights. With a DSLR camera, I would typically bracket this image as a sequence so that I had multiple exposures to work with. Fortunately, the M2P has auto-exposure bracketing as well (AEB).

My workflow would be to bring the 3 images into Lightroom, probably select 2 of the 3, depending on the areas of the image that would work best. Then adjust each image's exposure, noise, sharpness, etc. Select the 2 edited images>Open as Layers in Photoshop. In Photoshop, do an Auto-Align Layers so the images are aligned with each other. Then add a mask on the top layer and use the paintbrush tool with black/dark grey to mask the parts where you want the layer below to show through. Then save the PSD file, return to Lightroom for more refinements to saturation, selective edits, cropping, etc.

Of course, the M2P also has an HDR (high dynamic range) setting to accomplish a similar result without all the steps. Frankly, the JPGs that come out of the M2P are quite good and I save both even though I never use a JPG except for expediency in the field. The in-camera processing of smartphones and other image capture devices has gotten quite good for general use. Until you really learn the Lightroom/Photoshop workflow, you may be happy distributing the JPGs right off the card, but ALWAYS save both RAW and JPG so you can return to the RAW files for professional processing at a later date.

When I'm shooting professionally or travel destinations, I use a 3-image auto-exposure bracket for nearly everything (except portraits or moving objects) as I'm shooting a lot of pics of the same subject, attempting to keep up with my non-photographer travel companions (aka family). There's comfort in knowing that between the 3 images, I've got all the exposures I need for a single-image or multi-image composite. I shoot ONLY RAW as a rule, but will shoot JPG if I need to send the images wirelessly to my phone for distribution.

I learned just about everything I know about Lightroom/Photoshop workflows from this guy's many, many tutorials. Serge Ramelli Photography

 

[macfawlty]

is there a free or cheap program that can process raw. I'm not a pro and just take pictures for fun but would like some of my shots to look better.

You'll be pretty happy with the JPGs in most cases, but you can get the Lightroom/Photoshop combo from Adobe Creative Cloud for $10/month, which is the best deal in software I've seen since I started using Photoshop nearly 25 years ago.

 

[brett8883]

You'll be pretty happy with the JPGs in most cases, but you can get the Lightroom/Photoshop combo from Adobe Creative Cloud for $10/month, which is the best deal in software I've seen since I started using Photoshop nearly 25 years ago.

I get photography CC from Adobe and love it.

But if I didn’t want to spend the money and you have a Mac computer a really under rated free program is Preview.

If you open a DNG in preview and click edit there’s a sysmbol that will appear that is a triangle and kinda looks like a mountain with a cloud running along it and it’s basically the first panel of Adobe camera RAW built right into every Mac! MacOS photo app isn’t terrible either.

 

[brett8883]

If we lived in a world where light quality was always perfect and subjects were perfectly lit, it would save a lot of effort. The reality is that most of the images you capture will need some corrective measures and modest color grading.

In Brett8883's excellent example you can see the RAW image has a lot of shadow, which is very challenging for even the larger sensor of the M2P (assuming you want to see some of the shadow detail). One would expect a lot of noise in the dark areas when viewing the 'unprocessed' RAW file. I'll assume the reason for shooting at this exposure is so the sun and highlights will not be completely blown out (overexposed). It's much easier to bring detail out of the shadows than to recover blown highlights. With a DSLR camera, I would typically bracket this image as a sequence so that I had multiple exposures to work with. Fortunately, the M2P has auto-exposure bracketing as well (AEB).

My workflow would be to bring the 3 images into Lightroom, probably select 2 of the 3, depending on the areas of the image that would work best. Then adjust each image's exposure, noise, sharpness, etc. Select the 2 edited images>Open as Layers in Photoshop. In Photoshop, do an Auto-Align Layers so the images are aligned with each other. Then add a mask on the top layer and use the paintbrush tool with black/dark grey to mask the parts where you want the layer below to show through. Then save the PSD file, return to Lightroom for more refinements to saturation, selective edits, cropping, etc.

Of course, the M2P also has an HDR (high dynamic range) setting to accomplish a similar result without all the steps. Frankly, the JPGs that come out of the M2P are quite good and I save both even though I never use a JPG except for expediency in the field. The in-camera processing of smartphones and other image capture devices has gotten quite good for general use. Until you really learn the Lightroom/Photoshop workflow, you may be happy distributing the JPGs right off the card, but ALWAYS save both RAW and JPG so you can return to the RAW files for professional processing at a later date.

When I'm shooting professionally or travel destinations, I use a 3-image auto-exposure bracket for nearly everything (except portraits or moving objects) as I'm shooting a lot of pics of the same subject, attempting to keep up with my non-photographer travel companions (aka family). There's comfort in knowing that between the 3 images, I've got all the exposures I need for a single-image or multi-image composite. I shoot ONLY RAW as a rule, but will shoot JPG if I need to send the images wirelessly to my phone for distribution.

I learned just about everything I know about Lightroom/Photoshop workflows from this guy's many, many tutorials. Serge Ramelli Photography

Yep, I do a lot of bracketed exposures with my Mavic too. It’s been hit or miss. With this one the brighter brackets completely blew out the sun and everything around it and ever HDR pro in photoshop didn’t know how to handle it.

I also find with the Mavic that it’s largest ABS size is 0.7 stops and so I find that it really takes at least 5 exposures at that small width to get enough Dynamic Range.

Love ABS

 

[ScubaBob]

I do not have a M2P yet, so I'm asking for RAW files here

I shoot photos both with camera and drone in Raw and process with Adobe Lightroom. I will gladly send you some raw photos but they are generally large--over 20 megs. I can give you a dropbox link, too. Send me your email address.

 

[ScubaBob]

Hello,
i'm searching for RAW photo files, I want to buy an M2P myself but I am curious about the RAW photos
Can anyone help me?
Regards Dion

A Jpeg file is a converted image whereas RAW is the unconverted image. What's the difference? Jpeg has 256 colors to work with; Raw has 64,000 colors. So if you shoot a photo that has a lot of colors (think of a Madras shirt) then the camera will look at the colors and in essence say, "I don't have that exact red in my 256 Jpeg colors but I have one that is pretty close so I will use that color." In Raw, the camera says, "I have that exact color." When you open a Raw File using software like Adobe's Lightroom, you will see exactly what you shot but because it is a RAW file you can adjust everything. So if the reds or blues got a bit washed out you can bring back just those colors. I have attached two versions of the same photo taken by me two weeks ago. I have my camera (Canon) set to take a Raw and Jpeg for every photo. One of the attached photos is the jpeg as it came from the camera. The second is after applying a few Lightroom enhancements to the same photo--only working with the RAW version. I think this will clearly show you the difference in shooting with Raw and Jpeg.

 

[Thomas B]

A Jpeg file is a converted image whereas RAW is the unconverted image. What's the difference? Jpeg has 256 colors to work with; Raw has 64,000 colors. So if you shoot a photo that has a lot of colors (think of a Madras shirt) then the camera will look at the colors and in essence say, "I don't have that exact red in my 256 Jpeg colors but I have one that is pretty close so I will use that color." In Raw, the camera says, "I have that exact color." When you open a Raw File using software like Adobe's Lightroom, you will see exactly what you shot but because it is a RAW file you can adjust everything. So if the reds or blues got a bit washed out you can bring back just those colors. I have attached two versions of the same photo taken by me two weeks ago. I have my camera (Canon) set to take a Raw and Jpeg for every photo. One of the attached photos is the jpeg as it came from the camera. The second is after applying a few Lightroom enhancements to the same photo--only working with the RAW version. I think this will clearly show you the difference in shooting with Raw and Jpeg.View attachment 65472View attachment 65473

Great illustration of the differences. While a little off-topic, I also use a magenta filter on my GoPro when snorkelling to cut down water attenuation of colors, but I still post process in RAW for the reasons well stated by ScubaBob.

 

[ScubaBob]

Great illustration of the differences. While a little off-topic, I also use a magenta filter on my GoPro when snorkelling to cut down water attenuation of colors, but I still post process in RAW for the reasons we’ll stated by ScubaBob.

Red filters are very useful for snorkeling and shallow water diving on reefs. As the attached file shows, water absorbs the red part of the spectrum first.

 

[RPSM]

So right there is not "noise" in the way you mean, that's fractal output sharpening. Its dynamic sharping based on the size of the screen or print and how far away the viewer will be from the image when viewing. If you go back to my original processed image, make it full screen and then step back so you are 3-4 feet from the screen you see the image comes into focus and the noise is indistinguishable, it makes it sharper than if it wasn't there and isn't meant to be viewed up close like that. Here's the new one and I've done just traditional sharpening.
View attachment 64710

This is an amazing picture. I’m switching to RAW after this. I feel a bit bad that a lot of shots I thought were “meh” could potentially have been saved. Very impressed.

 

[RPSM]

I'm well aware of that.
I'm also aware that people without experience in photography and image processing can get the idea that they must shoot raw if they want to get good results when that simply isn't the case.
You can get excellent results from jpg images and you can post-process jpg images.
I know I'm swimming against the current with this but jpg is probably all most drone flyers need, most of the time.

And if anyone wants to tell me that's not true, all of the images in this gallery were shot in jpg only: Shipping Photography Examples - Above & Beyond Photography

Beautiful images. I live in Singapore and love photographing the ships.

 

[brett8883]

This is an amazing picture. I’m switching to RAW after this. I feel a bit bad that a lot of shots I thought were “meh” could potentially have been saved. Very impressed.

Thanks! I’m glad we have a new convert! Lol

 

[BD0G]

Another reason to shoot RAW + JPEG is so that one can quickly open the JPEG file for a fast reference as to what the photo is. To open and edit a RAW photo takes a bit longer. JPEG pictures have native support by Windows and can be viewed in the file explorer. There is a program that allows one to quick preview a RAW file as well from Windows . https://www.fastpictureviewer.com/

 

[Meta4]

A Jpeg file is a converted image whereas RAW is the unconverted image. What's the difference? Jpeg has 256 colors to work with; Raw has 64,000 colors

That illustration is not at all true.
Jpg files have 8 bits each for the red, green, and blue values, giving 16 million possible colors.

When you open a Raw File using software like Adobe's Lightroom, you will see exactly what you shot but because it is a RAW file you can adjust everything. So if the reds or blues got a bit washed out you can bring back just those colors.

You can also manipulate jpg image files, just like you can raw image files.
All of the images in the link I gave in post #35 have been manipulated in Photoshop.

I think this will clearly show you the difference in shooting with Raw and Jpeg.

Not at all.

 

[Thomas B]

That illustration is not at all true.
Jpg files have 8 bits each for the red, green, and blue values, giving 16 million possible colors.

You can also manipulate jpg image files, just like you can raw image files.
All of the images in the link I gave in post #35 have been manipulated in Photoshop.

Not at all.

All true, no argument, but in my experience building computer games using captured images, flexibility in post processing is much increased over jpg files purely on color palate and ability to crop without discernable loss of image quality in final versions due to the massive increase in pixel number in RAW