[formobilagsw]

hi guys .. have a quick question, when i take raw images with high iso like 1600-5000 iso, images have too much noise etc. (naturaly) but when i take raw images they turn out much much much muuuuuuch better. (probably because of no compression). but i cant seem to open the raw image files except acdsee viewer. (which only lets me view file). i cant cut any part of the picture etc. what do you guys use to edit raw files ?

one option i have is save the file as jpeg then edit the file and save it one more time but then wont i lose some quality ??? cant i just edit it as it is then save it with a program ?


great now i found out i cant even do that because when i try to save it as jpg it says its 16bits per channel and version of acdsee i have supports only 8bit per channel bla bla bla if i continue and save the file back to square 1. image quality gets horrible.. quality difference between raw and jpg is HUGE especially with very high iso's 1600,3200 and 5000

[teergoBissono]

There will generally be software that comes with the camera to convert raw, Nikon's have CaptureNX or ViewNX. Photoshop can also convert as well for you if you get the latest Raw updates for it.

[drmarshallusa]

There will generally be software that comes with the camera to convert raw, Nikon's have CaptureNX or ViewNX. Photoshop can also convert as well for you if you get the latest Raw updates for it.

checked the box... yes there is a software disc for copying converting etc. (its olympus .orf file, i didn't know all brands had their own raw extensions different)


thanks for the help [yes]

[WaydayNef]

The biggest differences you will see with RAW vs. JPG isn't necessarily the quality loss of the actual shot, but its when you are editing RAW images in 16-Bit mode there is very very minimal loss of data, where editing JPGs you will see massive data loss and lots of interpolation, which never looks good.

As a rule, always shoot in RAW if you don't mind going through them, because shooting RAW does take a lot longer in the back-end of Photography. But JPGs are great for just snaps of whatever with no editing or conversions involved.

[stuntduood]

A shot taken in RAW and a shot taken in JPEG should not look any different quality or noise wise when they are both viewed straight from the camera with no adjustments at all. They will of course look different in terms of colour etc - but that is another story all together.

You must also be aware that many RAW converters have default settings that remove noise, sharpen and image, and adjust colours when you load the RAW file initially - that is probably why you are thinking that the image looks better. Knock all those settings to 0 (if possible), then try again to see what I mean.

Remember also that JPEGs are ALWAYS processed in some way by the camera. For example on Canon DSLR's, a setting of 0 on the JPEG image adjustment sliders does NOT mean that no processing is done, - as many people incorrectly think.

[gusunsuth]

A shot taken in RAW and a shot taken in JPEG should not look any different quality or noise wise when they are both viewed straight from the camera with no adjustments at all. They will of course look different in terms of colour etc - but that is another story all together.

You must also be aware that many RAW converters have default settings that remove noise, sharpen and image, and adjust colours when you load the RAW file initially - that is probably why you are thinking that the image looks better. Knock all those settings to 0 (if possible), then try again to see what I mean.

Remember also that JPEGs are ALWAYS processed in some way by the camera. For example on Canon DSLR's, a setting of 0 on the JPEG image adjustment sliders does NOT mean that no processing is done, - as many people incorrectly think.

mine does actually look quite a bit different, i have the option to save a jpg of the same shot as well when i take a raw picture, where in most cases raw has way more accurate colors, and jpg has a weird yellow/green tint to everything and lots of umm i dont know what its called (not noise) but like it has been applied a soften(ing) effect. the only time i cant see much of a difference is when i have good light and just for kicks set the iso to 1600+, then raw and jpeg saved with the raw turns out pretty similar. (of course the raw image is 10's of times larger in size)

[baritkello]

mine does actually look quite a bit different, i have the option to save a jpg of the same shot as well when i take a raw picture, where in most cases raw has way more accurate colors, and jpg has a weird yellow/green tint to everything and lots of umm i dont know what its called (not noise) but like it has been applied a soften(ing) effect. the only time i cant see much of a difference is when i have good light and just for kicks set the iso to 1600+, then raw and jpeg saved with the raw turns out pretty similar. (of course the raw image is 10's of times larger in size)

Again, its because of the software. The colour difference is because the white balance is set at the point of taking the shot for the JPEG, but can be adjusted afterwards in RAW.

When you elect to save a JPEG of the shot, its outputting the JPEG using the settings specified for JPEG on your camera - i.e you are getting the same JPEG out as if you shot natively in JPEG on your camera. The RAW is not adjusted by your camera's JPEG settings.

[diundasmink]

that makes sense so raw is pretty much nothing but what sensor sees with no alterations. thanks for the info guys. now all i gotta do is figure out a way how i can edit the raw images as the olympus software doesn't have editing options, and acdsee doesnt let me save it as dng for adobe at least without droping it to 8bit/channel (original raw images i have are 16bpc).
thanks again for all the info guys..

[Maribellin]

that makes sense so raw is pretty much nothing but what sensor sees with no alterations. thanks for the info guys. now all i gotta do is figure out a way how i can edit the raw images as the olympus software doesn't have editing options, and acdsee doesnt let me save it as dng for adobe at least without droping it to 8bit/channel (original raw images i have are 16bpc).
thanks again for all the info guys..

For processing RAW files I use CaptureOne LE for the initial conversion (setting white-balance, exposure etc), saving the file out as a 16bit TIFF. Then I load the TIFF into Photoshop CS to do everything else.

[VistaULTIMATEdownloadaPro]

For processing RAW files I use CaptureOne LE for the initial conversion (setting white-balance, exposure etc), saving the file out as a 16bit TIFF. Then I load the TIFF into Photoshop CS to do everything else.

Not sure if your camera has the option for 12bit and 14bit Raw files but was just wondering if there is any noticable difference at all between the two? With a 4gb compact flash card on a d300, 14bit nef with lossless compression, i can only get 150pictures. Might just get another 4gb card though.

[Fekliopas]

I import RAW images straight from my camera to Aperture. Such an incredible piece of software, unfortunately OS X only.