Raw files

Does anyone have a handle on shooting in raw file mode? I'm using a D200 and I shoot at all times using the option of the largest jpeg file and a raw file. The idea is that I've got the optimum quality file if ever I manage to take that jaw dropping pic. I usually save the jpegs and discard the raw files once I process the pics on my computer, unless it's a really decent shot, in which case I save both types of file.

The confusing thing is that the raw files always look ridiculously overcoloured and burnt out in the hilights. I know that I can redress this by adjusting the picture, but as I uderstand it a raw file is a reflection of what the camera actually sees pre-processing, so why is it seeing such a distorted view? Should I be concerned about my camera sensor?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Chris, I use a D200 and shoot RAW, but I don't have that problem with the files.

I would say it is the software you're using that needs configuring, but I don't know much about that. I'm using Photoshop CS3 for processing.

Also, rather than shoot RAW with the largest JPEG, I shoot RAW with the basic JPEG, process the shots I want to keep from the RAW files (Tiff images if I think they're the very best quality) and JPEGS for other shots and for web use.

The biggest advantage of shooting RAW is its 16 bit image which has 65,536 levels to work with. This is opposed to a JPEG image's 8 bit space with just 256 levels available.

A RAW file isn't the best image you can produce until the file is processed in RAW conversion software.

Thanks Graham,

I'm using Elements Five, so I'd be a bit surprised if that's the problem. The curious thing is that I didn't notice it when I first started using the camera. I'm wondering if I've inadvertently changed a setting somewhere?

Which colour space setting are you using? I'm shooting in Adobe, which from the little I understand of it is the choice if you're expecting to print from the files as opposed top web use.

I'm going to try a little comparison and see if it makes any difference.

The best way to look at a RAW file is its like a negative, its unprocessed but can be converted according to what you want to use it for, the JPEG however is becoming the new TIFF, and many indistries now JPEG as standard.

Chris,

Give me a call I think you have my number?
I have some more disks [tutorials] for you

Adobe should be fine, try saving a raw file, without processing it, as a tiff and see how it looks.

If you can't sort it out I'll give you a couple of hundred quid and take all your kit off your hands. That will sort the problem for you )

Colin

Chris, I use sRGBIEC61966-2.1 because that seems to work best for me, but I'm not pretending I know much about colour settings. In fact, if the Monk, or anyone more enlightened than me on this topic can make a recommendation I'd be grateful.

Graham the D200 uses the new JPEG format, it appears to be much higher quality than that the JPEG that the D100 produces, and its not just the pixel increase from 6.2 to 10.5 and many use the new JPEG as then indistry standard now, how large do you have to blow up the D200 JPEG before you notice a significant difference in quality against a TIFF?

I only save some images as TIFFs because a book publisher I've done some work for insists on that format. JPEGs are fine for everything else I do.

It's a good idea to save all the good stuff as RAW files though because then you can convert them to whatever format you want.

Thanks Colin,

but to be honest mate I've got several CD's/DVD's to work through now and don't look like doing so. (Lazy beggar. )

I'm thinking of attending an evening course in Photoshop at one of the local colleges once they begin again.

I'm pretty sure this problem is as a result of the settings you are using, but clearly there are too many options to explain how to recover the situation. I don't know Elements; does it have a 'Return to default settings' when you are running the relevant are of the programme?

I follow GM's example with my camera (D200) generally, shooting RAW and low-res jpeg. Like GM, I resave files for reproduction in LZW-compressed TIFF - the problem with JPEGs is that you do lose some subtlety, whereas the TIFF format and LZW are lossless translations of RAW.

That said, one magazine that uses my studio pics always wants high-res jpegs - again, I shoot RAW and convert them (using Raw Shooter Essentials, which is simple, effective and cheap)

The problem only appears to be with pictures taken in bright sunshine. The jpegs are fine, but the raw files are a little burnt out in the hilights and the colours are reminiscent of overexposed pics.

I'm pretty sure it has nothing to, do with the Adobe software Mark. and I've checked for any possible inadvertent settings on the camera. If need be it's easy enough to reset the cameras default settings.

On checking through my files it isn't quite as prevalent as I'd thought it was. The next time there's a major difference between a jpeg and raw file I'll put them up on my photobucket album and post a link.

In general terms the JPEG is a 'lossy' file which uses a compession algorithm to make it more compact when saved. In decompressing the file some detail is lost, but with the latest JPEG algorithms it is unlikely to cause any noticeable problems. The problems come when you open a JPEG, work on it and save it again. Each time you do this you lose some detail (hence lossy). TIFF (tagged image format files) are effectively uncompressed and are therefore lossless files (and unfrtunately much bigger!).

I gave up on RAW as I found it too much trouble and, in my opinion factors such as lens quality, CCD quality and image processing software are much bigger factors in image quality. But then I'm not a proffesional!

I can't spell professional either!! A raw file is exactly that - the raw data from your image chip (supposedly) untouched by the image processing software in your camera. It isn't necessarily any better than a good JPEG, but it offers you the ability to have total control of how your final image looks by processing it with proprietary software such as Photoshop.

Hi Hammy,i dont think anyone has thought of this ,or i got in before them,anyway firstly ,you might find you need to set up your white balance again as this can effect the overal appearance,secondly do you think you might have camera function set to vivid instead of neutral, and thirdly,because your shooting in raw, the effects might be more noticeble of over exposure in some areas ,might be worth spot metering or where applicable take a reflected light reading.

Hi william no the camera isn't in vivid mode, and I generally shoot with the White Balance set to Auto.

I think you're right about the spot metering though. Having looked at a few files I think the problem is with shots that stretch the exposure latitude, or at least they would have stretched the exposure latitude if being shot with film. I'm guessing the same issues apply to digi photography with the sensor?

Yes,same rules apply, another idea is to spot meter and use an nd grad to balance overal exposure either.3, .6 or.9 depending on how many stops different between highlights& shadows.

LOL Yes William, but it pays to remember to meter before adding the grey grad eh? And then of course it pays to remember you've moved the camera over to manual mode before taking the next shot (Always forgetting myself.)

And a Graduated ND filter only helps if the hilights are at one edge of the frame too.

I guess the key is that the shot is in raw, i.e you can adjust the exposure latitude relatively easily afterwards.

Chris, I've posed the question on one of our sister websites, ThinkCamera, and they've asked if they can see samples. Can you send a couple over to me?

Graham,

I've just looked through my picture files and unfortunately I haven't saved any of the offending Raw files. I'm a habitual deleter and mostly make a habit of tidying any unusable stuff up on the day of shooting. I must have decided toi free up the space those files were occupying.

I've got a feeling that William may have been on to something with the metering comments, and I seem to remember the trouble being most prevalent in pictures taken in bright sunshine.

As soon as I get a chance to get out with the camera I should be able to send you an example of the type of Raw file I'm talking about. I've actually bitten the bullet today and dropped my camera in at a local professional dealer in order to have the sensor cleaned. It's costing ?39 + VAT. The chap at the dealers all but admitted that there are cleaning kits on the market now that make cleaning the sensor a much less fraught operation now, but I'm not risking it until after the warranty period as it voids the guarantee.

I had a rather pleasing surprise this morning. The film camera I've been using for the last few years is a Nikon F100, and I purchased a rather sophisticated remote control to use for self take pics for the mags etc. The piece of kit is an ML3. When I made the decision to move over to digi the oik in Jessops informed me that there was no corresponding piece of kit to accompany the new digi camera, and that my ML3 wouldn't be compatible with it. To be honest I hadn't thought any more about it until browsing through my Magic Lantern guide to the D200 (A similar product to the Haynes car manuals) the other day where the author clearly lists the ML3 in the list of kit that remains compatible. I tried it this morning and it does work. A right result that will save me forking out in excess of ?350! Happy bunny! ;-)

Sorry, re the ML3 remote, that should have read ..."forking out in excess of ?150!"