Camera stuff - RAW mode

[Dave2002]

I have a couple of cameras which have RAW mode recording. One is a Canon, the other a Fuji. Until now I've never really tried or used RAW mode, but on a recent trip I decided to set the cameras to do some shots in RAW and some in RAW and JPEG. This seemed to slow both cameras down quite a bit.

Besides that, I've never really managed to figure out how to do much with RAW, so it seemed a bit pointless.

However .... I just uploaded some photos to my iMac, and to my surprise discovered that Apple Preview will load in RAW images. The difference in quality is amazing on seemingly identical shots, with much more vibrant colours. It may be possible to tweak some JPEGS to give images which are closer to what I see on the screen from the RAW images - I'm really not an expert (yet), but this is definitely worth pursuing.

I suspect that most people aren't too aware of this feature of Apple Preview.

[Beef Oven!]

I have a couple of cameras which have RAW mode recording. One is a Canon, the other a Fuji. Until now I've never really tried or used RAW mode, but on a recent trip I decided to set the cameras to do some shots in RAW and some in RAW and JPEG. This seemed to slow both cameras down quite a bit.

Besides that, I've never really managed to figure out how to do much with RAW, so it seemed a bit pointless.

However .... I just uploaded some photos to my iMac, and to my surprise discovered that Apple Preview will load in RAW images. The difference in quality is amazing on seemingly identical shots, with much more vibrant colours. It may be possible to tweak some JPEGS to give images which are closer to what I see on the screen from the RAW images - I'm really not an expert (yet), but this is definitely worth pursuing.

I suspect that most people aren't too aware of this feature of Apple Preview.

I have a reasonable camera, a Nikon D60 and it shoots in RAW. I agree, the quality is much higher, but the files are much bigger. Jpeg is so much more convenient.

Sadly, on getting an iPhone 2/3 years ago, I have virtually abandoned my Nikon. Some of the shots I've taken with my smartphone are fine when there's plenty of light, but terrible indoors when natural light is low and there's only EU friendly energy saving bulbs (two selfies that I've posted on here this week are of appalling quality).

Your thread has prompted me to get my Nikon out. I am going to task myself with setting it up and taking it out with me. I will get back to shooting in RAW. I used to have some great photos (even if I say so myself), but my smartphone has made me lazy and my photo collection these days is of medium to low quality

[DublinJimbo]

For 'serious' work, I always shoot RAW+JPEG. I agree, though, that camera performance suffers, with write speeds much slower. This leads me to revert to (highest-quality) JPEGs when shooting casually. As Beef Oven points out, file size is often a real consideration in social situations (holiday photography, for instance)

RAW is quite remarkable in terms of capturing information. JPEGs tend to limit dynamic range, whereas RAW enables retrieval of shadow detail and control of highlights in ways which often appear magical. I subscribe to Adobe Creative Cloud for my keep-me-occupied-in-retirement work. This provides access to all their software for an ongoing monthly payment. This makes Camera Raw available as a plugin within Photoshop and also allows me to use Adobe Lightroom for processing my RAW files.

I wasn't aware that Preview could open RAW files. That's a very interesting find, though opening is one thing and processing is quite another.

[johnb]

I guess that the difference between RAW and jpeg is analogous to that between PCM/FLAC and mp3 in the audio world. If you intend to edit the images then it makes sense to use RAW in order to avoid further degrading the image quality with cycles of open-edit-save to jpeg.

I a moment of foolishness (?) I bought a second hand Fuji X100 last year. It is a lovely camera and I prefer its design to the bulky SLR cameras. Sadly, I have hardly used it - though it has come in very useful from time to time.

[Dave2002]

I wasn't aware that Preview could open RAW files. That's a very interesting find, though opening is one thing and processing is quite another.

I wasn't aware of that either. I meant to look for editing tools for RAW. Actually seeing the improvements in quality in Preview makes me interested in looking into this further - as the quality improvement is really significant. There are occasions where even just seeing the images without using any editing tools can itself be useful, even if then other tools are needed to take things further.

I am somewhat saddened that Adobe has joined Microsoft with a subscription model for revenue. A year or so back I was prepared to pay a reasonable amount to get several of the Adobe tools, but now with monthly subscriptions some of these firms are going to get a tidy sum even within a few months, and over years substantially more than for one off software purchases.

[johnb]

Adobe Lightroom, which many think of as the "go to" editor, is still available to purchase in the usual way, though not from the Adobe website. It can also be downloaded as a one month trial.

[DublinJimbo]

I[n] a moment of foolishness (?) I bought a second hand Fuji X100 last year. It is a lovely camera and I prefer its design to the bulky SLR cameras. Sadly, I have hardly used it - though it has come in very useful from time to time.

A terrific camera. Sadly, mine suffered from a spillage which made several of its controls inoperative. It would have cost more to repair than to get a replacement, so until then I've gone back to my X20. Still a fine camera, but not in the same league. I feel a feeling coming over me that Santa needs to bring me an X100-T for Christmas.

[Dave2002]

Adobe Lightroom, which many think of as the "go to" editor, is still available to purchase in the usual way, though not from the Adobe website. It can also be downloaded as a one month trial.

Is Photoshop not a runner nowadays? I'll look out for Lightroom. Seems that Apple gave up on Aperture.

[johnb]

From memory - Photoshop is the big brother of Lightroom and it covers a wide range of image editing (not only photographs) but Lightroom is designed for photographers and has very good photo editing tools. It also supports a wide range of cameras.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Is Photoshop not a runner nowadays?

I have CS6, and it's superb, though I'm yet to use many of its features.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I a moment of foolishness (?) I bought a second hand Fuji X100 last year. It is a lovely camera and I prefer its design to the bulky SLR cameras. Sadly, I have hardly used it - though it has come in very useful from time to time.

I had intended to break the bank and buy a Nikon D800, but then discovered the Fuji XPro1, which I bought instead. Much lighter, and far less expensive, yet the features and image quality are staggering. Many professionals now use this or the XT1.

[Dave2002]

I have CS6, and it's superb, though I'm yet to use many of its features.

I'm sure it is, but I think Adobe's pricing and marketing strategy has changed over the last two or three years. I'm not intending to go down the subscription route if I can possibly avoid it, either for Adobe or Microsoft, or any other company that wants to jump on that particular band wagon. A subscription would have to be very cheap for me to consider it at all and I don't want to get hooked into software which mostly works with a live network connection either.

[johnb]

Dave, I tend to agree with you about subscription plans. Having said that, as I understand it you can forget about the "cloud" aspects of the Adobe "Creative Cloud Photography" and run the programs on your computer in the same way as normal. I understand it does check in via the internet but only once a month, not continuously. The monthly premium of £8.57 pcm is expensive if someone mainly uses Lightroom but isn't too bad for Lightroom + Photoshop. (It looks positively cheap if you compare it to Adobe Audition which normally costs £17.15 pcm, though is currently on "offer" at £13.72.)

[Dave2002]

Dave, I tend to agree with you about subscription plans. Having said that, as I understand it you can forget about the "cloud" aspects of the Adobe "Creative Cloud Photography" and run the programs on your computer in the same way as normal. I understand it does check in via the internet but only once a month, not continuously. The monthly premium of £8.57 pcm is expensive if someone mainly uses Lightroom but isn't too bad for Lightroom + Photoshop. (It looks positively cheap if you compare it to Adobe Audition which normally costs £17.15 pcm, though is currently on "offer" at £13.72.)

I suspect that Adobe Audition is better than Audacity, but for most practical purposes for some of us at least Audacity is very capable and good enough.

Re photo editing, I am involved with a photographic group. At a meeting not too long ago one member was recommending a particular camera - can't remember what it was - probably about £200. His suggestion was to buy the camera, and then install the software bundle - which included some really good stuff. Then throw the camera away! [or at least give it away as a present, or find some other use for it....]
The point being that the software was valued at more than the camera.