How to open a RAW file?
- Thread starter loc01
- Start date
What camera are you using? I'm pretty sure all of the cameras that shoot in RAW come with at least basic software to read and convert them.
If you've got Photoshop, you can most likely open it with that. There are numerous other third part packages that can also open them.
If you've got Photoshop, you can most likely open it with that. There are numerous other third part packages that can also open them.
smalltime
New member
With Photoshop you need CS or CS2. To shoot RAW you really need a program to work with the file. My wife is a photographer who perfers JPEG. The only time she shoot RAW is when she knows her color(can't remember how she described it) is off and needs to be fixed in photoshop.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
well put your wife on here! A good JPG vs RAW opinion is always welcome (at least with me).
Bean
Bean
smalltime
New member
I just read an article on the RAW vs JPEG vs TIFF. TIFF is obsolete. JPEG is continually upgrading. Soon JPEG will be better than RAW acording to this article. The way the article descibed the difference is RAW shoots with so many million colors but JPEG shoots with a box of 256 color crayons. Color is better with RAW on a big potrait. On a 5 x 7 it does not matter. Also if your shooting a jounalistic style or sports event JPEG is right for you since RAW files take to long to process. I can't join the argument to much since I use my video camera for all my pic's. It's an argument that will never be decided untill they discontinue one or the other. It's like Beta vs VHS. As a consumer we have a choice for now untill the "man" decides what is best for us.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
A few points on that.
1)Many of our cameras (DSLRS) process RAW files fast enough to to cause a problem in many situations.
2)TIFF and RAW do not have any loss associated with them, however JPG does. On smaller prints this may not be a problem, but it does pose a problem with enlargements.
3)I think it has a lot to do with the editing (post processing) preferences. RAW is def not point, shoot, print whereas JPG can be.
I am still interested in a good point of view from both sides as to what either is better in certain situations, regarding picture quality and/or work flow.
Bean
1)Many of our cameras (DSLRS) process RAW files fast enough to to cause a problem in many situations.
2)TIFF and RAW do not have any loss associated with them, however JPG does. On smaller prints this may not be a problem, but it does pose a problem with enlargements.
3)I think it has a lot to do with the editing (post processing) preferences. RAW is def not point, shoot, print whereas JPG can be.
I am still interested in a good point of view from both sides as to what either is better in certain situations, regarding picture quality and/or work flow.
Bean
It sounds like the writer of the article doesn't understand the process. Your camera, no matter what kind, shoots RAW; period.
If you choose to use JPG as your final output, the camera takes that RAW shot, compresses it, discards information that it determines that it doesn't need and then outputs a JPG file. Folks that choose to leave the file in RAW mode do it so that they can control the final processing, not the camera.
If you dont edit your pictures, then jpegs will generally serve you well. I only shoot RAW, even though I used to only shoot jpeg. I have CS2 (which comes with Camera RAW--a plug-in designed exclusively for RAW pictures). Here's the deal. When you make basic changes (white balance, exposure, shadows, etc.) to a JPEG it will degenerate overtime. A RAW picture is often called a digital negative--the reason being that you can make these same general edits to a RAW image and it will never effect the quality of the original image. I think the important distinction between RAW and jpeg, which no one has mentioned yet, is that a RAW picture only captures data about the shot the you took with your camera, whereas a jpeg actually creates a picture. For example, if you have a RAW image, all it knows, for instance, is that a certain pixel has the color characteristics of 255, 240, 210 (I'm making these numbers up, put in the camera world those three number would give you a very specific color). JPEGs capture the same information, but they actually translate the numbers into a color BASED UPON THE SETTING OF YOUR CAMERA WHEN YOU SHOT THE PICTURE. That is where RAWs differ. With a RAW file you can make changes to the actual camera settings (everything except the aperature and f-stop) and the numbers corrolating to the color will change to account for the post exposure edits. With a JPEG the numbers dont change, but rather the color itself changes (remember that JPEG creates the color, whereas RAW captures the data necessary to create a color, and that data can be changed in post-picture processing). Some of you can't open your RAW pictures because they only capture data, not pictures, and they require software to read to data and create a picture (this is what Adobe's Camera RAW does)
The short of it is this:
If you're going to make edits, use RAW
If you think you're going to make prints larger than 5x7, use RAW
If you want quick plug and print type processing use JPEG (a typically RAW files is many times larger than a JPEG and takes up MUCH more space on your computer.)
If you think that you cameras autosettings might not be accurate (i.e., auto WB, or exposure etc) then use RAW and make post-processing changes without any degeneration. And remember that even the very best DSLRs can often make very poor autosetting selections (I have a Canon 5D and 20D and they frequently choose settings that are "incorrect.")
That's my story but I am relatively new to the RAW game (about 2 yrs) so please correct me where I am wrong.
One last thing, I think someone said only photoshop cs2 can open a RAW image, but I think that might not be right (I use CS2 but I hear that elements 3.0 now uses the camera RAW plug-in as well). I havent read the article you guys looked at, but from what I know there is no way (NONE) that JPEGs will overtake RAW images, at least not in the prosumer / professional realm. They just function differently, and there are core limitations to a JPEG that I dont think could ever be compensated for.
The short of it is this:
If you're going to make edits, use RAW
If you think you're going to make prints larger than 5x7, use RAW
If you want quick plug and print type processing use JPEG (a typically RAW files is many times larger than a JPEG and takes up MUCH more space on your computer.)
If you think that you cameras autosettings might not be accurate (i.e., auto WB, or exposure etc) then use RAW and make post-processing changes without any degeneration. And remember that even the very best DSLRs can often make very poor autosetting selections (I have a Canon 5D and 20D and they frequently choose settings that are "incorrect.")
That's my story but I am relatively new to the RAW game (about 2 yrs) so please correct me where I am wrong.
One last thing, I think someone said only photoshop cs2 can open a RAW image, but I think that might not be right (I use CS2 but I hear that elements 3.0 now uses the camera RAW plug-in as well). I havent read the article you guys looked at, but from what I know there is no way (NONE) that JPEGs will overtake RAW images, at least not in the prosumer / professional realm. They just function differently, and there are core limitations to a JPEG that I dont think could ever be compensated for.
jasutton
New member
You are pretty much right...
Simply stated: Raw is the negetive, like you said.
JPEG is compressed, meaning that the software identifies what it deems as repeat or useless info and discards it (this is a simple explanation keep in mind). So, you are loosing some info, supposedly redundant info, from that file. However, this makes it faster and takes up less room.
Raw is the most "pure" form of the shot and it makes sense that its the mode you would want if you know you are going to be post processing. If you dont know...still shoot raw just in case, or some cameras use JPEG+RAW where it takes a RAW shot compresses it and makes a seperate JPEG shot. So you have one of each. Clearly you need a larger media card for many shots of this.
I dont agree with size of photos being a determinant of whether you shoot JPEG or RAW, rather the post processing portion should be your determinant...JPEG has and always will make wonderful 8X10 shots. That being said, i only shoot RAW.
As for opening the files: there are tons of free RAW converters out there...i personally use CS2 but lots of people will use Nikons software, etc... find whats best for you. (check www.dpreview.com you will find tons and can choose what you like best)
For now you may just want to shoot JPEG and learn photography and your camera without getting all bogged down by the post processing part...because lets be honest, its the shot that really matters. That way you can "plug and PLay and take more shots than you would be able to in RAW. Composition is everything, you cant post process what isnt there.
I second the statement that JPEG will never overtake RAW. JPEG's whole being of existence wouldnt allow it.
Hope this helped,
Jamie
Simply stated: Raw is the negetive, like you said.
JPEG is compressed, meaning that the software identifies what it deems as repeat or useless info and discards it (this is a simple explanation keep in mind). So, you are loosing some info, supposedly redundant info, from that file. However, this makes it faster and takes up less room.
Raw is the most "pure" form of the shot and it makes sense that its the mode you would want if you know you are going to be post processing. If you dont know...still shoot raw just in case, or some cameras use JPEG+RAW where it takes a RAW shot compresses it and makes a seperate JPEG shot. So you have one of each. Clearly you need a larger media card for many shots of this.
I dont agree with size of photos being a determinant of whether you shoot JPEG or RAW, rather the post processing portion should be your determinant...JPEG has and always will make wonderful 8X10 shots. That being said, i only shoot RAW.
As for opening the files: there are tons of free RAW converters out there...i personally use CS2 but lots of people will use Nikons software, etc... find whats best for you. (check www.dpreview.com you will find tons and can choose what you like best)
For now you may just want to shoot JPEG and learn photography and your camera without getting all bogged down by the post processing part...because lets be honest, its the shot that really matters. That way you can "plug and PLay and take more shots than you would be able to in RAW. Composition is everything, you cant post process what isnt there.
I second the statement that JPEG will never overtake RAW. JPEG's whole being of existence wouldnt allow it.
Hope this helped,
Jamie
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
JPEGS may make decent 8x10s, but not after a 5x7 is cropped several times then enalrged to 8x10. Its kind of like shooting photos of a group of people with a Kodak DISC camera then enlarging just one person out of the phot to 8x10. The original negative wasnt so bad for the 8x10 but the cropped enlargment will have grains the size of BBs.
Also if disk space or media space is a consideration, then you may need to re-evaluate your entire methodology. Storage is cheap, dirt cheap, compared to the size of the largest raw images. Media cards are fairly cheap also. A HDD that can hold thousands upon thousands of RAW images is less than $50 on sale. Media cards that can hold a 100 or so pictures are in the same price range.
Bean
Also if disk space or media space is a consideration, then you may need to re-evaluate your entire methodology. Storage is cheap, dirt cheap, compared to the size of the largest raw images. Media cards are fairly cheap also. A HDD that can hold thousands upon thousands of RAW images is less than $50 on sale. Media cards that can hold a 100 or so pictures are in the same price range.
Bean
jasutton
New member
grain and cropping is determined by megapizels and recording ability. Having raw does not allow you to be able to crop more, the amount of pixels you have does and raw/jpeg does not affect that
and i am sorry for some people, media storage size is a factor, and when it is JPEG is the way to go, thats all i was saying
and i am sorry for some people, media storage size is a factor, and when it is JPEG is the way to go, thats all i was saying
I completely agree--try and run photoshop with a RAW file versus a JPEG. You will quickly see the difference. BTW, I use a 2Gb CF Card, and the difference in the ability to hold picures is about 250 RAW v. 800 JPEG. For the current price of a good, quick CF card (not cheap), it certainly makes a very big difference. I usually shoot between 300-500 pictures when I use my camera for a full day, and that equates to about 5 gigs. Make some copies for editing, and save different versions, etc., and you will quickly see that your 100Gb external aint worth diddly.
I think file size is a very important factor
I think file size is a very important factor
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
jasutton, it does [RAW] increase the amount of INFORMATION available though. The jpeg has already discarded the information..... that is why the RAW file makes better enlargements. Thats all I was saying.
I am sorry I do disagree about file size. Storage is cheap. With the price of lenses and camera equipment, the storage is the least expensive part of the deal. If your serious about digital photography , then you need to prepared to store and backup large amounts of data. This goes back to the demographics of folks who would use RAW or JPG based upon their inclination to edit the photos (post process). If your a point and shoot person with a point and shoot camera, then most of this does not apply anyway.
HDD storage and Flash media are cheaper than film. It is an investment that is part of the rig. If your goal is to store as much info as possible for future manipulation, then RAW is the only choice.
This harkens to the MP3 vs WAV debate. an MP3 is about 5megs and a WAV of the sme track is about 20megs. Big difference, but then again storage is cheap. You can fit 8,000 or more songs on a 160GB hdd for about $70 bucks. If your storing in WAV it is becuase you want the best possible version for archival, and again the storage is cheap and not part of the equation. It would be different if this were 1992 and a 4G drive was $700.
Bean
I am sorry I do disagree about file size. Storage is cheap. With the price of lenses and camera equipment, the storage is the least expensive part of the deal. If your serious about digital photography , then you need to prepared to store and backup large amounts of data. This goes back to the demographics of folks who would use RAW or JPG based upon their inclination to edit the photos (post process). If your a point and shoot person with a point and shoot camera, then most of this does not apply anyway.
HDD storage and Flash media are cheaper than film. It is an investment that is part of the rig. If your goal is to store as much info as possible for future manipulation, then RAW is the only choice.
This harkens to the MP3 vs WAV debate. an MP3 is about 5megs and a WAV of the sme track is about 20megs. Big difference, but then again storage is cheap. You can fit 8,000 or more songs on a 160GB hdd for about $70 bucks. If your storing in WAV it is becuase you want the best possible version for archival, and again the storage is cheap and not part of the equation. It would be different if this were 1992 and a 4G drive was $700.
Bean
Ben Wilson
New member
Sorry if someone mentioned it, but if you have windows xp, you can go to microsoft and download their new raw viewer. It won't let you edit, but the origional post said open.
_____________
Ben
Canon 1D Mark II N
Canon 20D
_____________
Ben
Canon 1D Mark II N
Canon 20D
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Thats one I will pass on.... most of the things Microsoft does, they do with the consumer in mind, leaving quality and reliability out of the equation. With our luck they will get most of the populus using it and the rest of us will be doomed with a new defacto standard that is severely flawed on some way. Gotta love it... did I mention I was a MS partner? If ya cant beat em join em 
Ben Wilson
New member
I didn't say that it was a raw converter. For that I would suggest either Adobe CS2 or Bible. I said you could view the file using microsoft software.
______
Ben
______
Ben
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
...yet
