 Lorraine Oates |
how do I use photo shop in RAW format Please can someone enlighten me? I have just bought a Canon EOS-1 Mark 11,( I am pulling my hair out) How do I use PS when ive taken the pictures in Raw. I can tranfere a picture to PS, but I dont seem to be able to use most of the settings. I HAVE MY FIRST WEDDING ON THE 2ND DECEMBER. Please help
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Surprised you've spent the money for that kind of camera and you're not used to getting that info from the manual. You convert them to tiff files before using photoshop to do anything to them. While still RAW format, you can do some things with the canon software that came with the camera, but all that things that photoshop is made to do, they need to be converted from RAW to tiff files with the RAW image converter software that came with the camera.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Lorraine Oates |
Many thanks for your reply. I know I must come across as a bit of an idiot! I bought the camera as I want to start wedding photography. I have had a Nikon D100 for a couple of years and all my software is related to that. I have the canon manual which I am finding difficult to understand.( im more of a hands on sort of person). I just wanted to print off a contact sheet of the practice pictures I took with the canon and couldnt figure out how to do it, so converted all pictures to tiff. What I found was I am still unable to use most of the setting in PS,....ie any of the layer. Can you advise?
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
First - do you have a manual and software for the Canon? Load that software to your camera - simply to transfer the images [but it can be used for adjusting RAW files. What version of Photoshop are you using. You may have to download the appropriate version of Adobe Camera RAW from the Adobe website. It's free. [As purchased, neither my Elements 4.0 nor my Photoshop 7.0 will process the RAW files from my Canon 30D.] If all of these things have been completed correctly, you're ready to go. Let the camera download to the computer. If you've loaded the Canon software, your can adjust your RAW files directly. Then, convert them. Once converted, you'll be able to save them as either TIF or PSD files. Save as TIFF files. Here's the rub, however. Check the image title line at the top of the screen. If you've have made one adjustment I'll discuss later, it should read imagename.tif@XX%(RGB/16) The number 16 refers to the 16 bit mode in which the file has been saved. In my Elements 4.0 and Photoshop 7.0, all of the tools won't work with 16 bit imgae files. Do all the Photoshop editing you can of an image - DO NOT SHARPEN; then save it as a "masterfile." Then, make that change I mentioned. In Elements go to Image>Mode and select 8 bit. This will change the file to one that allows use of all the Photoshop tools; however, it will NOT be as great an image as the 16-bit file you saved. Finish editing and sharpen [last action.] Note, you might want to make a separate file for each print size yo plan and sharpen each of those separately. Save as TIFFs. In Photoshop 7.0, the title line doesn't identify the fact that the image is 16 bit. You have to go to Image?Mode - and, in the window you'll see 16-bit [mode] checked. AFter you done the editing in the 16-bit mode that you cna save that masterfile. Then change the mode to 8-bit for additional editing you might want to do. Then, save and print. I don't have either Photoshop CS or CS2 - I'm almost certain CS doesn't not handle RAW files from my 30D directly. CS2 does. You indicated you bought the EOS 1, Mark II. I'm not sure which RAW converter work for that camera - check the Adobe site.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Lorraine Oates |
Many thanks John.... That has been a great help.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
"how do I use photo shop in RAW format?" I haven't a clue how you do that, because I use it the other way around....
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Hello Lorraine, Your questions comes under a category known as "workflow." Simply put, how to do "what", "when" and in what order? While there are some basic rules to follow, few agree as to the total use of RAW processing. One thing is for sure; it IS time consuming. RAW processing is not intended for some of the manipulations you find unable to do in PS edit mode. It's primary use is (color balance, sharpening, contrast and exposure.) I can only offer what works for me and why I sometimes work in the RAW format. While some save from RAW to a TIFF format, be advised, the file sizes are gigantic! For me, when I shoot something critical where I know I will need the sharpest possible image with the least amount of degradation, I will shoot RAW and save the file as RAW. Nikon has coined the words "Digital Negative", (DNG) a good choice of words. This "Digital Negative" is put away in a light tight shoebox (your hard drive and/or DVD) Now you always have a virgin image to use when you want. The less critical manipulations are done in JPEG anyway With that said, unless you are going after really big enlargements, RAW is a waste of time!..and that is a quote from someone who seeks excellent final image quality...Me! You can find a ton of information on the net by doing a search on "RAW image processing." There are many reasons to shoot RAW mode, there are probably more reasons NOT to do it. LOL All the best, Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
What Pete said is true for some, not so for others. In his book RAW 101, Jon Canfield argues that there is no reason to shoot in JPEG at all, along with his recommendation to save files, after editing, in TIFF not PSD format. . If you ever want to show you images from camera to TV, you MUST have JPEGs at highest resolution to have3 a chance at viewing your pictures in reasonably sharp focus. I shoot JPEGs when I'm pretty sure I'll be taking snapshots [like my granddaughter's bitythday party. When I went to Acadia National Park, I shot hi-res JPEG plus RAW. The JPEGs give a quick view of what the picture might look like and "suggestions" for editing. The RAWs are the negatives that let me be creative. One other thing about the JPEGs - they are very easy to shrink in size for easy e-mailing.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Another misconception is that raw is for exposure fixing. You have the ability to adjust for off exposures with either file types. The use for raw is to retain the most digital information the camera can give you. You lack exposure accuracy, you're not getting your best or most out of your picture regardless of file type. And raw is intended for photoshop, but it's as mentioned before. When converted to tiff files, they must be in 8 bit form for all functions of photoshop to work.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
"Another misconception is that raw is for exposure fixing. You have the ability to adjust for off exposures with either file types." While your statement is true, it is a half truth. http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:nk3mrvmu93IJ:www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf+RAW+%2Bexposure&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2
I DO agree that exposure should be done correctly when the image is recorded, that however does not change the fact that RAW will correct poorly exposed shots with less image degradation than JPEG.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
I already knew that. The constant portrayal of raw files being there for people to change color inaccurate color balance and such was my point. That's secondary, not a primary use.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Ahh, okey dokey Greg, I didn't want ppl to think RAW was never used to correct exposure; or should not be. I will stick to my earlier assertion, while RAW does have it's place, 99% of the time it's time consumption component far outweighs it's benefits unless the shot is of a critical nature. There's been a lot of misconception about misconception. ;)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Lorraine Oates |
Many thanks..Great help. Thankyou
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Pete - You're are just plain wromg. Raw gives us all a chance; JPEG removes data and, therfore, the chance for a prize-winning image just might be lost. OK. I realize pros like you need to preserve your preservation. But, you just shouldn't give advice that leads an amature in the wrong direction. RAW IS the way to shoot, coupled with hi-res JPEG, if that's the way someone wants to go. Urrrggh. This is the problem with this web's dialogue. Arguments from pros transcend reality. Who are you, Pete, to suggest what's right or wrong; correct or incorrect for beginner or experienced person!!!! I've watched your responses - some beimg OK some being off the wall. I know what works for me!!! What works for you ISN'T best for everyomne and should be so stated.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Hmmmm?, Sorry John, but I just don't see where in my postings I issued ANY cut & dry edicts for amateurs or pros? "I can only offer what works for me and why I sometimes work in the RAW format." THAT, is what I said. Lemme' see if I can find any other instances where I am "just plain wrong." Maybe this was what set you off? "I will stick to my earlier assertion, while RAW does have it's place, 99% of the time it's time consumption component far outweighs it's benefits unless the shot is of a critical nature." Was that it John? If so, I stand by my (opinion.) Perhaps you can tell me where I am wrong? "JPEG removes data and, therfore, the chance for a prize-winning image just might be lost." John, if one is depending on RAW to pull out that last inkling of data for a "prize winning photo", then I submit that I doubt it was prize winning to begin with. 1) RAW is time consuming, moreso than processing a JPEG. If you can disprove any of those statements, I'm listening. If you desire to post ALL the benefits of working with RAW, I assure you, the list of reasons why RAW is unnecessary are at least twice as many. If ANYONE wants to shoot RAW all the time, hey, I won't stop ya'.
Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Ooops...almost forgot to answer one of your questions John, sorry. "...Who are you, Pete, to suggest what's right or wrong; correct or incorrect for beginner or experienced person!!!!" Well John; I've shot for over 30 years, all formats except 8x10. I was there when digital imaging came into being and began using it. I use it almost exclusivly now for the last 6 yrs. For the past 21 yrs I have earned my living with photography. I shoot on average 300 images per week professionally for four major stock agencies. (Not microstock) Oh, although I (archive) all my images in the RAW format; out of 400 per week, I process about 390 in JPEG. Didn't want to sound like an "I" doctor, but you did ask. So, I have been down the road with RAW, I love it's ability and capability..but I DO NOT recommend it to most for day to day shooting, primarily because of the time consupmtion aspect and the ACTUAL value in the "average" finished product. It all comes down to diminishing returns.
|
|
|
|
||
|
KV Day |
Alot are using RAW as bragging rights(eyeroll) It's way over rated, time consuming. Same goes for metering and tripod for the typical weekend shooter on this this site. Give me a break. I have the similar opinion about GQ fly fisherman lol all dressed up and pretty but still can't float a fly to save their lives.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Pete - We could go on all day. Things might parallel the argument over whether Nikon is better than Canon. But - "Who are you to . . ." A rhetoricl question since, whether you've been shooting for 30 years, earning your living in photogrpahy, you're just one person - with one person's opinion. No better, no worse than anyone else's. As to your 30 years of taking pictures, since I took my first picture in the middle 1940's with my Baby Brownie [guess I'm showing my years] I might have you beat "in age," although not as a professional photographer. As to whether RAW is difficult and time-consuming, gee, with my version of Canon's Digital Photo Pro 2.1, I can adjust a picture with as few as one or two slider adjustments and print directly from the program. No time at all, really. If I use Elements 4.0, it might take a bit longer but, really, not hours and hours. Of course, in my non-professional world, I don't take 300 pictures a week. When I first got my 30D and used the "Transfer to Photoshop" tool, I compared [but there really is NO comparison] the high-res JPEG with the "transferred image" using no editing whatsoever. As I noted, the "transferred" image was significantly better on screen. The results was astounding better on 13X19 prints. No one is saying JPEGs don't have their place. But, too many of your professional colleagues are writing books - extolling RAW as the better way to shoot - to accept, in this case, primary use of JPEGs as gospel. The amateur top advanced amateur will do much better with RAW, assuming s/he uses an editing program correctly. As I indicated, when I shot JPEGs only, I recognize an intent for snapshots. If I get a winner, great; and I bemoan the fact that I might have gotten more to work with if I had the RAW file. If I'm out to try for that great image to hang on my wall, give a a gift or, zounds, even sell - then I shoot RAW plus high-res JPEG. It just makes the most sense. We should return to original question posed, however. It was about how to use all the tools in Photoshop. I hope my earlier response answer that question; her response suggested it did. She also indicated that her upcoming shoot is her "first" wedding. That doesn't, necessarily, sound like she's an experienced pro shooting 300 images a week. So, why not let her shoot in RAW, develop her skills and, ultimately, decide for herself whether to shoot only JPEGs, only RAW or both? Oh, one last thing - referring to your response to Greg: Wouldn't a group of images from her first wedding be considered "critical shots?" I kind of think they would. Regards,
|
|
|
|
||
|
Lorraine Oates |
Firstly thankyou both for your very different answers. A very interesting argument... and one which I will spend a little time thinking about. I have figured out how to use the PS when shooting in RAW. I have to say you both have very valid points. Thankyou again
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Not a problem Lorraine; and thanks for your question. I think I'll let this one rest with you rather than get into a spitting war; I try to avoid those. LOL As far as Canon Vs Nikon John, the answer is obvious! LOL (Just kidding) Suffice it to say concerning RAW and it's useage.."your mileage may vary." All the best, Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||