cooncat2

Tom - Photoshop is a perfectly acceptable program to process your RAW files. Have you gone out and shot something in RAW yet?

cary999

No Sharon, but I'm tempted
I mean, for all of the kicking and screaming I'm doing I could have it "mastered" already
regards -tom

tuckeg

I am not familiar with Nikon, but if this was a Canon setup, I would recommend a 1.4 telextender as there will be times when 210mm won't get it done. Does Nikon make something similar?

divewop

Tom-
You can do everything with a RAW file in Photoshop or Aperture, etc., that you can do with a jpeg file, including what you've listed and then some.

I also only shoot RAW, unless it's something I'm just playing around with and I know I won't need to save the photo for anything.

It does help to shoot in RAW and then practice refining the photos in your post-processing programs to work on learning different techniques with the programs.

Like Sharon suggested, get outside somewhere and shoot a couple of trial shots in the RAW mode and give it a try.

Kavey

Tom, I'm not sure you're understanding the process fully.

With a RAW file what happens is that you open it using a conversion programme and perform on it the adjustments I described above. These adjustments are applied to the data to produce a regular photo file in either TIFF or JPEG format. The TIFF or JPEG produced however is often superior to the JPEG produced straight out of camera, for the reasons I went into above.

Once one has converted the RAW data into a standard format, one continues the processing EXACTLY as one does for a JPEG file produced by a camera.

So one can do EVERYTHING one can do to a camera-produced JPEG to a RAW-converted JPEG or RAW-converted TIFF.

As for products, I happen to use the RAW convertor integral in Photoshop CS2 and also use Photoshop for my additional processing (including everything you describe and quite a lot more).

Some of my photographer friends use Lightroom or Aperture or RawShooter or one of a host of other programs to convert their RAW files into TIFFs or JPEGs.

And some use Photoshop with which to perform any further selective editing and others use GIMP and others use yet other programmes.

So, to summarise. The difference is at an earlier stage than you are discussing. It's how you come to that JPEG (or TIFF) that you then take and apply dodging, burning and all manner of other selective editing to.

You happen to start with a camera-produced JPEG and then do all those things.

I start with a RAW file. I take advantage of the extra data it includes and select adjustments to make use of those that are then applied by conversion software to produce a TIFF or JPEG file that is a better starting point than the camera-produced JPEG I used to use.

Some images need no further work. Others require all kinds of masking, adjustments, dodging, burning and so forth.

Kavey

Sorry, just to add, as I don't think I made one thing clear.

RAW conversion programmes themselves do not provide tools to apply selective processing (masking, dodging, burning and the rest).

They provide tools to take advantage of all that extra data I discussed above in order to produce a TIFF or JPEG that is usually of higher quality than the equivalent of a camera-produced one.

Once they have done that conversion the file is no longer a RAW file. It's simply a normal TIFF or JPEG.

From that point one treats it just as one does a camera-produced file.

cary999

Kavey, thanks, got it I think. So it all comes down to who can make a better JPG, the camera or me using RAW. Correct, yes? And, if I know what I'm doing, I can make a better JPG file than the camera. "Better" meaning a basic image that I will like more (better). Then I start working on it in Photoshop.

My thinking to date has been that the camera gives me a JPG file that is good enough to take into Photoshop. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I have CS2 and I'll try shooting both RAW and JPG, the camera will give me both files for the same image. Then compare the JPGs I get using RAW versus the camera. And see it that makes any difference for an 8x10 inch print. Or for a SmugMug posting of a 200KB jpg. Do you think I will see any difference?

regards - tom

nyama

Tom, ever spend a thought that maybe some day you want to make a poster of your favourite leopard shot and put it on your wall? Or give it as a gift to one of your friends or fellow travellers? Then you'll wish that you have the best quality and have used RAW.

cary999

you got in nyama, it all depends on what we are trying to accomplish.
regards - tom

Kavey

For an 8x10 print only or posting online, you won't see much of a difference UNLESS you are applying some HEFTY rather than fairly minimal adjustments to things like contrast and colour.

Those are the things that cause visible banding.

RAW isn't necessary for all photographers. A lot depends on what your final output is (small prints/ online use versus large blow ups), how accurate your original exposure was and hence how much or little adjustment to contrast is required, how accurate your in-camera white balance settings were and hence how much or little colour rebalancing is required and last, but absolutely not least, how much interest you have in adding more time/ steps into the post processing stage.

It's not for everyone and I would never for a moment suggest it is the best option for your current needs.

I just want to help ensure that when people make the decision they have a good understanding of the actualities of using both - what are the advantages and disadvantages to each (and there are disadvantages to each) - and which then suits them best.

afrigalah

tuckeg,

If I've understood your question and tracked its origin correctly through this murky RAW-storm ...yes, there are Nikon as well as third-party teleconverters for Nikkor lenses. I'd prefer a faster lens to marry a TC to, but the ISO flexibility of a digital camera probably makes that less important.

John

Momliz

Tom, my DH was curious if anyone in this discussion knows about .png. Here's something from Wikipedia: "PNG (Portable Network Graphics) is a bitmapped image format that employs lossless data compression. PNG was created to improve and replace the GIF format, as an image-file format not requiring a patent license. PNG is pronounced "ping" (/pɪŋ/ in IPA), but can be spoken "P-N-G".

PNG supports palette-based (palettes of 24-bit RGB colors) or greyscale or RGB images. PNG was designed for transferring images on the Internet, not professional graphics, and so does not support other color spaces (such as CMYK).

PNG files nearly always use file-extension "PNG" or "png" and are assigned MIME media type".

Although, and I didn't realize this, but according to the Wikipedia article, PNG files are not supported by most cameras, so you wouldn't need to know about it.

Kavey

Sorry, I'd meant to respond to your question on PNG but completely forgotten! I'm aware of the format but now that TIFF has a decent compression option (that is lossless) I tend to simply stick with that. I use LZW compression on my TIFFs.

tuckeg

Hi Tom,

You should work at one of the lodges as a tracker if you could follow my post in all the RAW bush.

I agree a faster lens would be better with a TC but it sounds like keen2travel has already got their lenses. If they have good light they should be ok with a TC, would you recommend they get one or don't you think it's worthwhile in this case?

George

cary999

tuckeg - In general I'm not a fan of TCs. May not be a good reason for it, probably goes way back to my days of shooting 35mm slides. I'm also an equipment "minimalist". For me cropping an original sharp image works the same as using a TC. I'm sure that if you have a clean sharp image you can crop to look like the lens used was twice its actual focal length. But again, it all comes down to how are you going to use that final picture as to how much cropping you can get away with.

regards - tom

afrigalah

George,

I think you meant me, but no matter, tom is right...if you have a good sharp lens, good support for your camera, technique to match, and therefore good digital images which can be cropped substantially, a TC may not be needed. I use a TC a lot, because I use slow film, fast lenses and dislike cropping.

keen2travel doesn't appear to have excess equipment, so could afford to take a quality TC (avoid third-party gear) and try both ways.

John

tuckeg

John,

You are right I did mean you. I guess I wouldn't make a good tracker, this thread left me lost. Thanks for the response.

George

sniktawk

Shoot in RAW but make sure that you can open whatever type of RAW file your camera takes in Photoshop. If is a newer camera you may need to upgrade to CS3 (this is not inexpensive). Take a back up the Jobo Pro Evolution is the best available. For cleaning nothing beats a rocket blower, clean every day even if nothing looks dirty, also be careful changing lenses on a vehicle. If you need to clean the sensor then Visible Dust products are the best.

eenusa

Kavey, if I read your post re: RAW correctly, you set your output file to 8 bit when you're saving to TIF, JPEG, etc.

Do you have a recommendation for the resolution setting for the output file? CS2 seems to default to 240 pixels, and I know in the Canon RAW processor you can go up to 2000 if you want to. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Kavey

If I'm going to do further ajdustment to contrast in Photoshop I output as 16 bit and save to 8 bit only once I've done that extra adjustment.

If I don't need to do that kind of adjustment in Photoshop I'll output from RAW at 8 bit.

I ignore the pixels per inch and focus only on the actual pixel dimensions.

For example 1000 x 1000 pixels is 1000 x 1000 pixels whether or not it's listed as
a)10 inches x 10 inches at 100 pixels per inch
or
b) 1 inch x 1 inch at 1000 pixels per inch