RAW file format

[frzndaqiri]

When you converted it you should have saved it as a new file. You'll have to open that new file now in PS.

If you have just Photoshop CS unfortunately that's a bit old in software years now and does not support newer camera formats.

As suggested, you might need to upgrade to something else if possible.

I second the wonderful qualities of Lightroom. It's great as it not only supports RAW formats, but has tools for organizing your photos and has some nice editing abilities. Most of the time I don't even need to open Photoshop anymore!

 

[pyrxtc]

I have an older version of CS and have not had any problems opening up my images in it from any camera. Raw is raw

 

[photo_chick]

You should still be able to get the Camera Raw plug in free from Adobe's site. Even for an older version of Photoshop. And it's not as much converting a file to jpeg as it is saving a copy as a jpeg.

RAW is not RAW... it's not standardized. All manufacturers have their own formats, and it also varies form camera to camera.

 

[PixieDust32]

Thank you very much guys!! I got it My PS CS worked just fine. I also have elements.

 

[AlbertZeroK]

RAW is not RAW... it's not standardized. All manufacturers have their own formats, and it also varies form camera to camera.

Exactly. I actually had to upgrade to Lightroom 3.2 to read my Sony NEX3 raw files.

 

[Master Mason]

Personally I have taken to converting my raw files to .dng files when I upload them via Lightroom, it is a more standardized version. Yeah I'm sure there are a few changes made in the conversion, but I can make whatever changes I want in either Lightroom or PS.

 

[DJ Disney Kid]

Just getting involved in all this DSLR stuff and I've been noticing alot of these photos look almost unrealistic with colors and stuff. Should I be taking the photos in jpeg or are you guys making changes to brightness and stuff after the fact? Leaving in 10 days and want to know how I should set the camera. I do have the program photomatix pro.

 

[SrisonS]

I shoot in RAW... make the changes.... then convert them to JPEG. And although there's more information in the RAW files, you can still make some amazing changes to your jpegs. So it's up to you what you really want to shoot in.

 

[zackiedawg]

The photos with the 'unrealistic' look are a type of processing that is very popular right now, known as 'HDR' or high dynamic range. This is acheived by taking multiple images and stacking them together in software designed to do this, often boosting color and saturation along the way...or the look can be somewhat imitated with various software like Nik Effects, Topaz Adjust, and others where the photo is tone-mapped to adjust the contrast, saturation, and color. These tunings can be mild or wild. But really they have little to do with shooting RAW or JPEG...other than that RAW can allow a little more headroom for making adjustments than JPEGs can.

As for whether to shoot RAW or JPEG, I won't get into that battle, as it always becomes one...sufficeth to say, you should read up on both, decide which is favorable to you, and shoot that way. You will assuredly get a ton of comments on the superiority of RAW, and a few defenses that JPEG is just fine for most...but neither are right or wrong - it all depends on your needs, your likes, how much processing you want or don't want, how much correction you need or don't need, and in the end, just whatever you decide to do!

 

[disneyboy2003]

Just getting involved in all this DSLR stuff and I've been noticing alot of these photos look almost unrealistic with colors and stuff. Should I be taking the photos in jpeg or are you guys making changes to brightness and stuff after the fact? Leaving in 10 days and want to know how I should set the camera. I do have the program photomatix pro.

I think the most important consideration to answering your question is: do you currently shoot in RAW? or, are you comfortable processing RAW files?

If processing RAW files (ie. uploading, editing, and then converting to JPEG) is part of your current workflow, then I would continue shooting in RAW at Disney World.

I've also read stories of other photographers who used to shoot JPEG, JPEG, JPEG, who after a few years learned about RAW and how to work with RAW files, and then wished they had shot those early photos in RAW years ago. Actually, that story seems to hit pretty close to home for me.

I, personally, do shoot RAW at Disney World. However, I will switch to JPEG for certain situations where I know I'll be shooting TONS of photos that aren't necessarily "RAW-worthy" to me, but are "good enough" as JPEGs. For me, those situations are: parades, Fantasmic, shows, Indiana Jones, "Lights, Motors, Action Stunt Show", Kilimanjaro Safaris, etc. These are situations where I know I'll be firing off hundreds of photos, and I'm happy with them being JPEGs. It also saves me space on my memory cards...imagine hundreds of RAW files of just the High School Musical Pep Rally?

And just because I shot those events in JPEG, doesn't mean that I can't do post-processing on them. For me, the post-processing on JPEG photos still turn out quite well.


btw, as you probably already know, Photomatix Pro is a program for creating HDR (high dynamic range) images. This is where you'd take 3 or more photos of the same scene (ex. 1 underexposed, 1 properly exposed, 1 overexposed, etc), and Photomatix Pro combines them into a single HDR photo.

In terms of your question about RAW vs. JPEG, I'm not sure that Photomatix Pro is necessarily relevant in your decision for one vs the other. Photomatix Pro should be able to handle both (although you're supposed to convert your RAW files to TIFF before using Photomatix).

 

[chum]

My camera (LX3) allows you to shoot .jpg and RAW at the same time.
This is what I prefer.

 

[disneyboy2003]

I've been noticing alot of these photos look almost unrealistic with colors and stuff.

Oops, I overlooked your observation about "unrealistic" looking photos.

zackiedawg is right in that it could be bad HDR processing. Although you can use Photomatix to create realistic-looking HDR, some people do too much processing to create surrealistic-looking HDR. Some people would call it "art."

You can also create "unrealistic" looking photos, regardless of whether you shoot RAW or JPEG. Just open up your photo in Photoshop or Lightroom, and you can very easily apply unrealistic effects in just a few simple steps. It's very easy to over-do.

You can also create realistic photos with both RAW and JPEG, too. When viewing photos, people usually like to see nice, rich, vibrant colors and black areas that are truly black. By adding a little bit of saturation and contrast, you can really make your photos "pop". In fact, I find that doing so makes my photos *more* realistic.

It's very easy to make unrealistic-looking photos. The challenge is enhancing your photos and making them stand-out, without going over-the-top. You can do this, regardless of whether your photos are RAW or JPEG.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

I've recently gotten on the RAW bandwagon with my new Canon T2i. For the longest time, using the RAW hack for my Canon S3, I couldn't see any point to it; I could never make adjustments that looked any better than the in-camera JPEG to me.

I guess it just works different for the DSLR.

One of the many regulars, here, ukcatfan ... explained a point that's become pretty important to me; workflow!

I don't have time in my life to painstakingly process every RAW I take. What I've been doing is to review the photos and categorize them quickly into groups.

Some I just throw away because they just turned out crappy.

Most, especially the "snapshot" type, I just convert straight to JPEG with the "as taken" settings in my RAW software.

Only a few -- either because they're pictures which I think are significant/good enough to warrant the extra attention or photos that *can* be good with a little work -- get saved for more extensive RAW processing.

I generally delete the raw file for anything I converted straight to JPEG. I usually keep the ones I spend time on in case I ever want to revisit them....

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I shoot JPEG + Raw. It takes more memory and will fill my buffer quickly when shooting multiple images, but when I am on vacation, the family (and me) needs the instant gratification of seeing the photos. After vacation, I review the JPEG's and select which RAW files I will process. By having the RAW images, I can always go back and re-do the PP without any loss to the original image. Like others, I regret using only JPEG when I first started out.

 

[ukcatfan]

I've recently gotten on the RAW bandwagon with my new Canon T2i. For the longest time, using the RAW hack for my Canon S3, I couldn't see any point to it; I could never make adjustments that looked any better than the in-camera JPEG to me.

I guess it just works different for the DSLR.

One of the many regulars, here, ukcatfan ... explained a point that's become pretty important to me; workflow!

I don't have time in my life to painstakingly process every RAW I take. What I've been doing is to review the photos and categorize them quickly into groups.

Some I just throw away because they just turned out crappy.

Most, especially the "snapshot" type, I just convert straight to JPEG with the "as taken" settings in my RAW software.

Only a few -- either because they're pictures which I think are significant/good enough to warrant the extra attention or photos that *can* be good with a little work -- get saved for more extensive RAW processing.

I generally delete the raw file for anything I converted straight to JPEG. I usually keep the ones I spend time on in case I ever want to revisit them....

Thanks for the recognition. For those developing a workflow, it is important to remember that there is no right or wrong way to do it. It is the most important that you develop consistency. That is how you save time. When I started RAW, I was all over the place on shot to shot and it took forever. Here is a basic rundown of my flow:

Keep/delete?
straighten and crop
group like shots
WB/curves/color/saturation
NR and sharpening
individual layer adjustments if needed
keyword
export to JPG
move to permanent storage folder

 

[C&B Young]

I, personally, do shoot RAW at Disney World. However, I will switch to JPEG for certain situations where I know I'll be shooting TONS of photos that aren't necessarily "RAW-worthy" to me, but are "good enough" as JPEGs. For me, those situations are: parades, Fantasmic, shows, Indiana Jones, "Lights, Motors, Action Stunt Show", Kilimanjaro Safaris, etc. These are situations where I know I'll be firing off hundreds of photos, and I'm happy with them being JPEGs. It also saves me space on my memory cards...imagine hundreds of RAW files of just the High School Musical Pep Rally?

And just because I shot those events in JPEG, doesn't mean that I can't do post-processing on them. For me, the post-processing on JPEG photos still turn out quite well.

This is pretty much my approach also. If I'm shooting in questionable lighting, or photos that I want to be as technically perfect as possible I'll shoot RAW to give me some flexibility in post. If I'm shooting in bright daylight, sports, or things where I'm "spraying and praying" then I'll go with JPGs. For me the added processing time & hassle with RAW files isn't worth it for all pictures.

 

[photo_chick]

I shoot RAW and have since 2005.

Shooting RAW or jpeg is a personal choice. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. I look at it this way... Jpegs are like sending your film out to a lab, RAW is like processing film in your own darkroom. It's all about which way you want to go.

As far as editing... if you know how you can do just about anything with a jpeg that you can with a RAW file. But you will loose some image quality on some things if you are starting with a jpeg.

 

[NateNLogansDad]

I started shooting RAW a few months ago and it has saved my butt quite a few times. There's been a few shots where I totally either messed up on getting the settings right or I forgot to put them back after going outside when I was shooting indoors a while. Shooting in RAW let me save the photo and surprisingly, they came out really nice.

Hopefully, we'll be back to the parks in November and I'll probably be shooting RAW+Jpeg so we can view the JPEG's that night back at the rooms.

 

[Pineapple Whip]

The technical answer is if you plan to do a lot of post-processing, shoot in RAW. If not, shoot in JPEG for increased speed and capacity, and shoot correctly on the initial shoot.

On the initial shot, RAW and JPEG are about the same quality. After multiple edits and saves of a JPEG, the compression is compressing a compressed, compressed, compressed... image, which degrades slightly with each save, and adds more compression. Repeated edits and saves of a RAW file are not being compressed over and over while saving in a RAW (uncompressed) format. The same degradation effect happens to a RAW file you exported to JPEG and worked the above sequence on.

For post-processing, you'll shoot RAW, copy your RAW file and work on the copy in RAW, until you decide to export a "finalized" JPEG for posting or whatever. This minimizes the levels of compression with repeated saves.

You can of course do some light processing on JPEG and not lose a lot of quality, but you should still work on a copy of your original, or you'll just progressively degrade your original image until it is crappy.

Professional shops will want RAW because they intend to do a lot of image manipulation, like resizing or processing, and require the flexibility of working from a 100% quality "negative". For the average photographer, RAW just adds complexity, slows your rig, and takes up space. For the enthusiast, or photoshop junkie, RAW is the gold standard.

All that said, I shoot JPEG.

 

[ukcatfan]

For post-processing, you'll shoot RAW, copy your RAW file and work on the copy in RAW, until you decide to export a "finalized" JPEG for posting or whatever. This minimizes the levels of compression with repeated saves.

You do not need to copy the RAW file. It is a digital negative and the file never changes no matter what program you use and what you change in that program. The program either saves the edits in a database file or in sidecar file with the RAW. It never changes the actual RAW file.

I do make a backup of every file on an external drive, but that is in case I have a drive crash. I don't think that is what you were talking about.