shooting raw

[angelschick6]

So I'm reading and researching shooting raw and am confused. Once your done editing - can you post it online? It is hard to send off to be printed? THANKS!!

[dj_paige]

You would have to convert your image to .jpg or .gif to post online. You would have to convert your image to .jpg for most printing establishments. PSE will do the conversion for you.

[angelschick6]

If you convert it - doesn't it compress and defeat the purpose of shooting raw? That's where I got confused. If JPEG uses less colors, do you loose some of what you did in raw when you convert it to JPEG after editing??

[dj_paige]

A jpg is never as high quality as the edited version of the raw photo. Nevertheless, for most purposes, it is virtually impossible for human eyes to detect the difference, and therefore the jpg just as usable.

The advantage to RAW over jpg is when you edit it; once you are done editing, there is virtually no discernible difference between an edited raw file and the corresponding high quality jpg.

[angelschick6]

Well now that I have that figured out I have to figure out how to even set my camera to take raw pics. LOL! This process is making my head hurt!!!

[dmrdm]

You need to think of the RAW photos as your "film negative"....and your print as your JPG. A RAW photo contains all of the details.

A couple of weeks ago, I read a great pdf article on RAW on the Adobe site. I didn't bookmark it, but found it to be very interesting.

[dj_paige]

Originally Posted by dmrdm

You need to think of the RAW photos as your "film negative"....and your print as your JPG.

I have a little trouble with this analogy.

Film negatives are negative ... that is, parts of the original scene that are black show up on the negative as white. When it is printed, black shows up as black. None of this applies to RAW photos upon conversion to .jpg.

In fact, I am having trouble even finding one part of the analogy that matches. The process of making a print from a negative is not at all similar to making a .jpg from a RAW.

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by dj_paige

I have a little trouble with this analogy.

Film negatives are negative ... that is, parts of the original scene that are black show up on the negative as white. When it is printed, black shows up as black. None of this applies to RAW photos upon conversion to .jpg.

In fact, I am having trouble even finding one part of the analogy that matches. The process of making a print from a negative is not at all similar to making a .jpg from a RAW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAW_image_format

Raw image files are sometimes called digital negatives, as they fulfill the same role as negatives in film photography: that is, the negative is not directly usable as an image, but has all of the information needed to create an image. Likewise, the process of converting a raw image file into a viewable format is sometimes called developing a raw image, by analogy with the film development process used to convert photographic film into viewable prints. The selection of the final choice of image rendering is part of the process of white balancing and color grading.

[dj_paige]

Okay, then I have trouble with Wikipedia's analogy.

As I said, raw is not a "negative".

And by the way, how is RAW "not directly usable as an image" but .jpg is "a viewable format"? I can see my RAW images right there on the screen, just like I can see my .jpg images right there on the screen.

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by dj_paige

Okay, then I have trouble with Wikipedia's analogy.

As I said, raw is not a "negative".

Well, I'm no pro by no means but my BIL is and that's the analogy he used for me too.

Basically, the RAW(Negative) is the base for the print(output image) and more info is included.

As with a negative, exposure can be increased or decreased for the output.

That was his(my BIL's) biggest argument, anyway. That you can over/under expose a RAW image and then still get the exposure right in RAW processing where if you just shoot jpg then you are actually lightening or darkening the actual pixels.....very different from exposure adjustments in RAW.

At the end of the day though, it may just be a Toe-May-Toe vs. To-Mah-toe issue, ya know?