Working with RAW
I would like to shoot more in RAW. Windows doesnt recognize RAW, so what program do you use to scroll quickly through your RAW files?
What other things do i need to know about RAW? Sharpening? colours? no idea...
Post your reply
You have to sign in to be able to leave your reply to this topic
I use RAW exclusively. I find it to be much more "forgiving"; you will have more data to use for post-processing.28 November 2012
I don't know if my software choices will help you because I use Linux. I use Shotwell to manage my images. For editing I use GIMP, UFRaw, or Corel's Aftershot Pro (formerly Bibble). For RAW image clean-up I find myself using Aftershot Pro most often (I think there is a Windows version for this package). If you're handy with a PC you might want to search for "open source RAW editor" and see what you find.
As for "quickly scrolling" through images, I have found my hardware (RAM, video chip, hard drive speed, etc.) to be the most limiting factor with image display speed. My workflow goes something like this: display images on camera; select images for download; catalog and tag images; perform post-processing as required; save processed images to external drive. It takes a while to download the RAW files, and it takes a while to save the processed images to an external drive, but the processing speed improvements I get from having the images on the local drive is worth the trade-off.
I have used UFRaw when I didn't have lightroom, but now it converts it for me. I suppose it would depend on the program you use for editing. Regardless, I would highly recommend shooting in RAW because it adds so much versatility in your editing process.26 November 2012
I shoot in raw, i check it using Adobe Bridge13 November 2012
Oh yeah, the codec pack will also let Windows display your photos without being converted.19 June 2012
If you're looking for something free to convert, view and catalogue your RAWs then most manufacturers provide software for free to do it. If not Windows Live Photo Gallery will handle a lot of different RAW files if you download and install the codec pack from http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=2682919 June 2012
Otherwise Lightroom is fantastic! Makes tweeking your photos a piece of cake. I've saved quite a few photos that I thought were a loss, but because RAW contains so much extra data that you can't see, Lightroom has turned them in to photos that I love. And just getting started there are some great pre-sets built in. Single click and your picture is transformed!
Mac seams to support Raw in Finder but i use Aperture12 June 2012
Pretty much agree with everyone else here. I only shoot in RAW, and will never go back. I used to think I didn't need something like Lightroom... but then I tried it and fell in love. Couldn't operate without it now! It gives you exactly what you need for editing in RAW. And my favorite feature is the ability to copy ALL the edits I made on one photo, and cross-apply it to every other photo I choose. If you do a lot of pictures with the same lighting and settings (portraits, for example), only editing one photo and pasting the edits to all 50 can be a huge time saver (rather than what I used to do: go through all 50 and do the exact same edits on each).30 May 2012
Lightroom. My camera has a RAW+JPG mode so it records one of each for every image. I can scroll through jpg in Windows, or view the RAW files in LR. I always use the RAW file for processing and final image.26 May 2012
i know what you mean, it is irritating that you can't view RAW with windows. as the other have mentioned, programs like Lightroom is really cool, but you first have to import your pictures into LR before you can view them. Thats not a train smash, you just have to adjust your work flow a bit.27 January 2012
otherwise, you can use your camera software (Zoombrowser for my Canon) to view the photos immeidately. I really don't dig the software, but you can at least view your photos immediately.
shooting in RAW means you going to have spend a lot more time in PP. LR does apply a standard a standard 'develop' to all the photos you import, and really streamlines developing many photos quickly, but i recon i still spend more time doing PP than i do taking the photos (though you get quicker at it).
but, its definitely worth while, shooting raw is so much better!!
I just recently started shooting in RAW about 3 months ago and LOVE it. I use Lightroom for editing and rarely use a flash when I shoot.25 January 2012
If you want to be in full control of your post work and how the photo looks this is the way to go for the best image quality. When I shot in JPEG I would sometimes manipulate colors, etc. in PP and it would be very noticeable (grainy, hot spots, where file info was missing). With RAW, since it's a larger file, I find you can make more adjustments and not lose the information like you do with a JPEG.
You pretty much always have to do do some sort of edit with a RAW file because initially the colors and sharpness seem a bit flat. With a JPEG the camera processes for you, the reason for the smaller file as the camera pics how it thinks the image should look and compresses the file. RAW allows you the most editing room and control of your image.
I am definitely not a professional! Photography is just a hobby for the last 3 or 4 years and I'm learning every day. I like to have control over the way my image looks. I import into and use Lightroom 3 for 99% of my editing and have found that I get the best results by shooting in RAW.
I shoot RAW (once you start, you probably won't go back). I would check out Adobe Lightroom (http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/search/index.cfm?term=lightroom&loc=en_us&siteSection=home). The current version 3 but you can get a beta version of 4 for free at the moment (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom4/).24 January 2012
It is arguably a bit expensive, but incredibly important to my workflow. I 90% of my post production here, only going to Photoshop for heavy work if needed.
Is no one shooting in RAW?24 January 2012