RAW files
- This topic has 32 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated Jan 19, 2007 at 3:32 am by
.
-
Posts
-
Zach is correct, in that raw files are better-suited to getting the absolute maximum amount of information out of a file.
I wanted to chime in here with my .02 on the jpeg vs. raw debate. I shoot almost exculsively jpeg (lg/fine). My old camera is a original digital rebel, and i now have a 30d also. I have prints on the office wall right here that are 20×30, printed from the 6 mp digital rebel jpegs, AND THEY LOOK GREAT!! When i am printing photos, i use a minimum resolution of 150 dpi. This number came from years of printing large format presentations developed in photoshop for architectural presentaitons. Anything more, and we were wasting megabytes and time. If i can i certianly do print my photos at higher or native resolutions, but if i want to go big, i don’t hesitate for a second to upsize (going in 10% steps) till i hit the size i need at 150 dpi. This theory doesn’t hold true for magazines and the like, but for printed work on a wall, viewed from a couple feet away it works great.
Just to add to what Buzz is saying about highlights being blown:
Film was extremely good at having a “long shoulder,” or a slow curve down to the absolute white or absolute black that results from an image being either completely exposed or completely unexposed.
Personally, my solution was to find the most color-accurate camera for outdoor use I could find (the D200), and then use that.
ZachZach, a little off topic, but I have a question regarding color accuracy, where have your read/heard that the D200 was more accurate?
Please don’t take this as confrontational, it isn’t intended to be. I have written and rewritten this and couldn’t come up with anything that didn’t come across that way.
So are we saying that if I take a picture with my D40 in RAW format, I must use a Nikon program to process it?
My typical workflow includes adjusting Levels (with which I’ve been getting better results than pure saturation increases), Contrast, Color Balance, Selective Color, Saturation, Unsharp Mask, in that order.
The best thing about shooting RAW is it keeps your options open as far as any future use of a given image as long as important image values are recorded. 95% of my work is destine to be converted to a custom CMYK profile for printing. The color gamut of a press or most common output devices is very small in comparison to what the CCD or film actually records. Conversion of colors and tones for specific devices is controlled by colorsync profiles or the device will do a RIP conversion when the file is output.
The whole process of color monitoring has always been a bitch whether it was film or digital. On important files that you have a lot invested use non destructive editing techniques and save a master file. I have been using Aperture and you can save out versions without affecting your RAW file. I think is pretty cool!
I have started to think of RAW as more like a digital negative that I need to “develop and print”.There is a misconception about magazines accepting raw files. I have yet to deal with a magazine or publisher that wanted or needed the RAW file. Thats proposterous. Most wouldnt know what to do with it, plus that would be like sending in incomplete material!
When they say “raw” they mean the image right out of the camera or right out of the converter. This is in response to overediting, compression, etc. by photographers. They do not, I repeat DO NOT want RAW file formated files sent to them. Two different interpertations of the word “raw”.
Zach explained what the RAW information is and what it means – very well. I ONLY shoot in RAW file format for many many many reasons.
By the way, check out the new ACR in Photoshop CS3. Best converter yet.
My experience has been a bit different. I’ve had 2-3 magazines, after I respond to querys with the requested low-res jpegs, specifically ask for raw files. I asked if they really meant the NEF files and they said yes. At other times, the same magazines said jpegs were fine. Some were used double truck, some column width. Depends on what they’re doing, and the skills of the production folks, I reckon. At least one of them I deal with has an in-office printer that duplicates (so they tell me) what comes off the out-of-house production line, so that if they have any question about final quality, they can print hard copy to view how photo will appear in magazine.
One magazine, as recently as a couple of years ago, didn’t want to take digital, but wanted a couple of photos I had, so asked me to print them “large size”. I took them a 13×19 print (that from a D100, 6mp), and said great, and bought the photos. As far as I know, they now take digital regularly, as long as file size is large enough, and they don’t care whether it’s raw or jpeg.
Buzz
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.