RAW Photo Editor

[Duke]

Just curious what program people use for editing their RAW photos... Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop RAW editor, or other?

Me... I used to be a huge fan of Aperture - and still am because of it's interface, usability, tethering ability, & dual monitor support - until I realized that apertures RAW convertor does NOT apply any of the 'in-camera' effects that I do... such as... added saturation, forced white-balance change, exposure compensation, added sharpness, etc.

To back up a touch, I shoot with a Nikon D300 and shoot completely manual (no auto-ISO, no auto aperture, etc.). I like to do a lot my added effects right in the camera (it's a little more artistic that way), I crank up my saturations, I will change the white balance to really shift colours (ie. shoot with my W/B set to tungston lighting when shooting in broad daylight), increase my Dynamic Lighting control, etc.

Anyway, what I have found, is that when I import these RAW files into Aperture 2, NONE of these changes (or manipulations) have been appllied to the file, what I get is a very bland looking image with no life in it... until I re-do all of the adjustments again in Aperture.... which completely defeats the purpose of shooting RAW. If I import jpgs from my camera, completely different story, all of the effects are applied, but, I can't really edit them further because they are no longer RAW files.

I've had to start using Nikon's proprietary software called Capture NX, it actually imports the RAW files with the added effects which I can than further manipulate if I need. The only problem... I HATE EVERYTHING ABOUT THE PROGRAM... it's not user friendly, it's incredibly slow... well... I could go on.

SO... the question I guess is... what do the rest of you do? Does Canon have the same problem with RAW file interpretation? Do people just shoot in Standard mode on the camera & do the manipulating in the RAW program editor? OR.... am I completely missing something in Aperture when it comes to importing my files (if I did, than this whole thread is almost for nothing )

Look forward to hearing about people experiences

[zn016]

For simply converting my RAW files to JPEGS i use the View NX program that came with my camera, but for adjustments I use Adobe Camera RAW in Bridge.

[chadaw]

Duke, I use Adobe Photoshop CS3.

[Duke]

Well, I've done some more research online & have confirmed my suspisions. Most camera companies (especially Nikon) do not share their RAW data file conversion. This means that when opening RAW in Photoshop, Aperture, Lightroom, etc., the program will open the RAW file as best it can, but doesn't know how to apply the additional 'in-camera' adjustments... such as added saturation, added sharpness, manually controlled white balance, etc.

I've ended up shooting RAW+jpg... this way, if I need to edit a RAW further, I can use the cumbersome Nikon Capture NX program.

Chad - I've tried Photochop CS3, but the same thing... doesn't interpret the data correctly.

Here are 2 samples of what I mean, the dull images are the RAW file opened in photoshop, the vibrant image is a jpg direct from the camera with no editing done.





(there's gotta be a better way to set up a workflow)

[BobMarley]

There was a large headline on a photography magazine that said, always shoot in RAW.

I didn't have a chance to read it, but do you guys know why?

[lifeiswar]

Originally Posted by BobMarley

There was a large headline on a photography magazine that said, always shoot in RAW.

I didn't have a chance to read it, but do you guys know why?

Yes. Because RAW is a Lossless file type.
Jpeg is a Lossy file type.

Every time you open, close & save a Jpeg you are losing quality it compresses the picture each time
but when using raw it doesn't throw bits of your picture away.

Always convert to TIF because it's compression is better.

Another thing with RAW & Jpeg:

Shooting with Jpeg automatically adds white balance etc
where as RAW doesn't letting you set your white balance in Photoshop.

[Duke]

There are two sides the line of thinking between shooting RAW or jpeg & each with their advantages & disadvantages. When shooting RAW, you're correct, you have much more control white balance (+/- 3 stops at best), you are able to further manipulate your image in a RAW editor & make extensive corrections (colour, sharpness, hue, etc.) than you would in photoshop.

The problem is, when you use programs like Aperture, Lightroom, Adobe RAW editor, they don't transfer all of the data from the camera. For example, if you were shooting with your white balance set to "cloudy", the RAW editor won't read that info & will give you a much cooler photo to work with, you'll then have to re-adjust the white balance again. RAW editors really only work well when you don't make any adjustment settings on your camera (keep everything at default or zero), the downside is that once you've finished your photo shoot, you're going to spend almost twice as long in front of your computer editing every single photo. Most pro & amateur photographers don't have time for that.

Secondly, most good photographers do most of the tweaking 'in the camera' to get the shot they want (crank up saturation, make white balance adjustments, etc.) so that the shot is almost perfect if not perfect when you snap the shutter. The only programs that interpret those adjustments correctly are the proprietary RAW editors made by the camera company... & unfortunately they are not easy to work with or allow for a good workflow -- for example, when shooting RAW with a Nikon, only use Nikon Capture NX to edit your photos; only then will all of your minor camera adjustment settings get transfered with the photo (see my photo examples on the previous post with the sailboat & sunset)... unfortunately NX is a slow, crappy program to work in & I couldn't imagine editing every photo from a 200+ photo shoot.

The advantage of RAW (when editing in proprietary software) is that I can go & really make radical adjustments to some of the colours (change green water to blue, make an orange sunset purple, etc.) without hurting the rest of the image. I can also bring out a lot of detail in shadows without blowing out my highlights or completely losing my blacks. The other MAIN advantage to RAW is that any edits & changes you do are NOT permanent!! you can make 80 adjustments, save & close your file, re-open it, make more changes, then realize you don't like anything & start all over again, the RAW file never gets damaged. Unlike jpeg editing, unless you save a copy, any changes made, then saved are permanent.

Originally Posted by lifeiswar

Every time you open, close & save a Jpeg you are losing quality it compresses the picture each time

Untrue!! The only time that a jpeg gets compressed further is when you change the quality setting when "saving" the file (ie. from 12 down to 10). If you keep saving your jpeg at the highest quality possible it does not compress it any further. Also, just opening & closing the file do not affect the jpeg in any way.

Depending on the shoot I do dictates what format I shoot in. I mostly shoot jpeg because I know the shots done in my camera will be how I want them (colour, saturation, white balance). I know this because I can view the image on the camera right after I shot it (that's why they have lcd's on the camera... to see if you got the shot). If the colours are off, I adjust the white balance or change the saturation & contrast; if it's too dark, change your shutter speed or aperture. Any changes I need to do from here are very minor & don't require the complexity of a RAW editor, photoshop handles everything beautifully. i will shoot RAW if I'm doing a studio shoot with products or a model because sometimes a client may want a radical change that photoshop might not be able to handle, & as mentioned earlier, the RAW file never gets damaged, no matter how many changes I do.

So, in the end, 90% of my shots are in jpeg (because I already capture the photo as I'd like it) & therefore I can put more photos on a memory card (atleast 3 jpegs to every 1 RAW file), I can shoot more fps because the camera buffer can handle the jpeg info quicker than RAW, & quite honestly... I don't want to spend 4-6 more hours in front of the computer editing each image after spending 3 hours shooting.

A big problem is that most people with a DSLR don't really know how to use it, they take it out of the box & start shooting, they see that the image is a little dull & figure they'll enhance on the computer... DON'T... learn how to use your camera!!! Play with the settings, experiment, take 100 shots of the same item, but each time make an adjustment setting. It's amazing how quickly you'll become a better photographer & get better images. Don't be intimidated by adjusting settings, you can't hurt your camera, & there's always a "Reset to Default" button.

Hope that helps. Feel free to e-mail me if anyone has anymore questions about jpeg vs. RAW, or any other camera questions.