Much point to using RAW with PSE 5.0?

[Richard Burt]

I'm a new user of PSE, and to date, almost all of my photos have been in .jpg format. In loading a raw file into the editor of PSE 5.0, a special window opens, and there are a few controls. Then to edit the picture further, it appears that you have to convert it from raw to .jpg. So is there much advantage to shooting in raw when using PSE 5.0? If the editing in PSE 5.0 is limited to a few controls that can be done anyway after converting to .jpg, why bother with raw?

[Hatter]

There are a lot of reasons to shoot in raw... and a few not to.
Have a look HERE (http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm).

Gareth

[Juergen D]

Thanks for the link, Gareth. A very interesting and informative article!

Juergen

[Chuck S.]

Gareth, I agree with Juergen: that article is a keeper - all 3 parts!

Richard, I started shooting RAW with my first digital camera (a Canon G2) even before the images could be processed in PSE (Canon supplied a rudimentary converter). The Adobe Camera Raw converter and PSE have continued to improve, and I've been able to go back to some of those images from 2002 and reprocess them with very satisfying results.

For the most part, I shoot RAW anytime I think I may wind up printing. If I decide I don't need the RAW images, I can convert them to JPEG's and ditch the RAW. Do I ever do that? Nah....

Chuck

[troush]

I just recently started shooting in RAW. I do my raw processing in 16/bit (lower left corner has a drop down for that). And then once I'm in PSE 5.0, I switch to 8/bit so I can play. I have really liked being able to tweak the white balance (especially taking pictures of the kids in the snow), and the exposure.

-Trish

[Chuck S.]

Trish, I agree. I usually set the exposure slider to keep all the highlights from clipping, then adjust the brightness and contrast sliders to get the near-optimum distribution of tones. Then it's on to the PSE Editor to take care of the rest of business!

The CS2 version of ACR has a few more things that can be tweaked, but as in almost every comparision between full PS and PSE, the Elements version has the most needed features.

Chuck

[troush]

Chuck,

Thanks for the tip on the brightness/contrast. I hadn't thought of that.

It's kind of funny, when I step through the white balance setting, I actually tend to prefer things a little cooler (bluer), or maybe even magenta, versus the warmer tones. Although, I've found using the eye-dropper to set a white point works pretty well (although, not always! depending on which white I choose in the photo).

-Trish

[Chuck S.]

Trish, re the white balance: I sometimes play with it in ACR, then decide I want it a little different after opening to PSE. At that point, my one of my other favorites - the Photo Filter Adjustment Layer - kicks in. What a great program!

:)

Chuck

[Richard Burt]

I read the three articles on raw posted on Ron Bigelow's site. Very informative (as are the other articles on his site--highly recommended). I note that the articles assume that the post-processing will be done with Photoshop, and not PSE.

I realize that I haven't provided enough information in my question. So let me take another stab at it.

1. If the pix being taken are not intended to be fine art and will be printed on 4 x 6 inch paper, will the benefits of raw be visible?

2. Do the limitations on processing raw in PSE 5 vs. processing raw in the full photoshop program affect the choice of shooting in raw? In another forum, I read some disparaging comments about PSE 5 and how limited it was in how it handles raw (relative to the full PS program) that it made me post this question. It's quite possible that although PSE is more limited in this respect, it still is worthwhile. I don't know, and that's why I ask.

[TonyW]

Interesting question re PSE5 vs full Photoshop. I've only recently started to shoot some RAW and I do have both PSE5 and CS3 which has an overwhelming number of RAW controls - 8 tabs vs 5 in CS2 and just 2 in PSE5. If I just use my normal RAW tweaks like the others said then is no detectable difference (not surprising since they all use the ACR 3.6 plug-in). If you want to do all your adjustments in RAW then CS3 would be the way to go but certainly for the way I use it I'm not getting any benefit from all the extra controls. Maybe if I ever became a serious raw pixel tweaker I'd change my mind :D

Tony

[LeeOtsubo]

Let's cut to the chase on this. If you're a snapshooter who just wants to print 6x4s of Grandma & Grandpa at the grandkid's birthday party, JPEG is for you. If, on the other hand, if you want to make great photos that can hang on walls, RAW is the choice.

To simplify it even further, RAW is to JPEG like a live cow is to ground chuck. A cow is messier, harder to process and takes more skill but you get exactly what you want. Ground chuck is convenient but you take what the butcher prepared. Use what makes sense in each situation.

[TonyW]

Lee: Interesting analogy but to go one step further back in the chain whether I like the taste of the end result largely goes back to the farmer who raised the cow. I have some great photos hanging on the walls - some are film, some digital JPEG, some digital RAW. Different photographers, different subjects, different cameras, different processes. The one I like best has very little to do with the camera or process - it's all about the subject and the photographer.

Tony

[LeeOtsubo]

Tony, I think your comments map nicely into the original analogy. A good rancher (photographer) who knows how to raise beef cattle (make photos) will do a better job than a bad rancher. Also, some people prefer beef (portraits) and others prefer landscapes (lamb). If you prefer landscapes, the best portrait photographer may leave you cold.

There's currently an Annie Leibovitz exhibit in San Diego. Doesn't do a thing for me but some people go ga-ga over her work. Horses for courses!

[TonyW]

Lee: Good one - and I agree with you about Annie Leibovitz - nothing of hers on my walls either ;)

Tony

[schellem]

I found that I was spending more time behind the computer than taking pictures when using camera RAW format. For the most part I have quit using RAW as I'd rather take pictures than sit behind the computer and twiddle with bits.

I discovered that once I got my camera set up properly and if I take the picture 'correctly' there is no advantage to RAW as seen in the printed pictures.

RAW will definetly allow you to easily correct pictures shot with the whitebalance not set correctly and is really nice for those mixed lighting photos as well. These are the only conditions I now use RAW for.

Here is are some direct RAW to JPEG comparisons http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

[Chuck S.]

Mike, it's hard to argue with either your logic or your results. It seems as if the answer to this question is "Either/or", depending on a whole host of personal preferences. Or, if you have a camera that will do RAW and JPEG simultaneously, the answer could be "Both"...!

:)

Chuck

[TonyW]

Chuck: I'm coming round to that view and it coincided with when it started snowing up here :) . Having a RAW file available when the JPEG was way off let me recover from some bad snow shots. Another perspective (which I rather liked) is here:

http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/o_RAW_workflow/_RAW_workflow.html

Also that site has some other good insights on such things as color management.

Tony

[Chuck S.]

Thanks for the link, Tony! I just bought a used older model Canon P&S (G6) because its alleged replacement (G7) didn't have RAW, even though it had a bunch of other nice features. I need all the help I can get...

Chuck

[troush]

Great link Tony.

I just finished reading Understanding Digital Photography by Bryan Peterson. (I guess I like his writing style and his books make sense to me. I know not everyone thinks his books are good, but so far, the 4 I've read have helped me a great deal.) Anyway, he really argues for shooting in RAW, just to be able to fix things so much easier in your RAW processor.

The thing is, I'm not a wildlife or landscape or portrait photographer. I'm mostly taking pictures of the kids for family (grandparents, uncles, aunts...) since no one lives near by (okay, my parents live 1.5 hours away, but we only see them about every 2 months). It is hard to justify RAW for those sometimes.

But I've found the counter on my NIKON over-estimates how many "RAW" pictures can fit on a card. I noticed today before I shot some pics that I had 52 pictures "left" on my card, and after taking 4 shots in RAW, I still had room for 50 more. But, I suspect it would be different if it was a very colorful landscape. Most of mine are of the kids on a solid background.

I have liked being able to tweak those RAWs, and it is MUCH easier than fixing the color balance in JPEG.

Great discussion.

-Trish

[Shari]

Oh all of you - this is so interesting. I have got to get up from this computer and make some dinner. When I started this photography hobby two years ago - I thought "wow - this is fun" and it is - but there is so so much to learn. I try and put in a few hours a day (often more) and I am not even breaking the surface of all there is to learn. Photography, cameras, software etc. etc. But thank you for some very interesting and helpful discussions.
Shari

[schellem]

Here is another interesting and more technical view of JPG versus RAW http://danheller.blogspot.com/2006/07/business-aspects-of-raw-vs-jpg-mode.html

[Codebreaker]

Image benefits aside, in the RAW v JPEG debate, the one issue that has to be addressed is whether or not you feel the overhead of processing RAW is just too great.

Elements in my opinion is not great at this. I started using RAW way back with PS CS and this was a little easier to use when processing multiple RAW images. Unfortunately Adobe didn't see fit to allow later versions of ACR work with CS and now my latest camera is no longer supported. Which means I only have Elements to play with as an upgrade to CS2 (CS3) was overkill and too expensive.

Coming back from a day out with a few hundred shoots to process in Elements was off putting but I stuck with it because I'm a control freak and like to process my own shots rather than rely on the cameras intepretation.

Canons own DPP is not great in my opinion either so I took a look at Bibble which had some great advantages. But then came along Lightroom and this just blew my mind with how easy it was to use and its capabilities. I've been playing with it for months and I'm so impressed I've pre-ordered the first released version.

If your really serious about RAW then I would suggest looking at a program that's designed to process RAW images specifically. This way you spend far less time in front of the screen and more time behind the viewfinder.

Colin

[Chuck S.]

Colin, thanks for the reminder on Lightroom. I believe it's still 'on sale' at pre-release pricing. Time to strike while the iron is hot!

Chuck

[Codebreaker]

Yup, get it while it's cheap. Gets released on Feb 19th.

Colin