While DSLR cameras are getting more and more affordable, it seems that less and less people are taking the time to actually learn how to use their shiny new toy to it’s full potential. Just buying a nice camera will not improve your photos that much. Which is why, over the course of the next little while at least, I’m going to be writing some short and sweet tips on how to improve your photos with very little effort, simply by taking full advantage of your camera’s capabilities. I’ll be calling (and tagging) these articles “Back to Basics” for future reference.
Shooting in Camera RAW
The "Camera RAW" editing window.
Your camera should have several quality settings, whether they’re called “good, better, best” or “small, medium, large” or whatever, and are usually in some form of compressed image, like a JPEG. Find the setting to change it, and crank it all the way to the maximum, which SHOULD be “RAW”. (NOTE: Some cameras have multiple RAW options, always use the one that leaves you with the least amount of availible photos, and thus the largest file size per photo, for the best results)
This is basically telling the camera to save all the information regarding what it is doing when you take a photo and saving it all, rather than guessing at how you want to deal with it and doing the compression into a JPEG for you…losing potientially valuable information in the process. This extra information is what makes the RAW format so useful, as I will demonstrate with an old photo from a poorly lit New Year’s Eve party.
When you open up a photo in RAW format(I would suggest using Adobe Bridge, but that’s just a personal preference), you have a lot of options to modify and potentially enhance the quality of an image that you wouldn’t have with the usual JPEG formats.
Notice how dark the photo is? Typical party lighting is a serious pain to deal with accurately (especially without blinding everyone with the flash, which I wouldn’t suggest if you want to be invited back). With camera RAW though, we get all sorts of tools to help this photo crawl out of the dark and into much better condition (among other things, like white balance correction and more complex things that will come later). Simply play with the “Exposure”, “Brightness”, and in this case “Vibrance” a little, and you’ll see just how drastically a few simple sliders can improve the quality of the photo far beyond what you could do to a JPEG…without also drastically reducing the general quality of the photo at least. A few tweaks and a click on the “SAVE” button later, and we end up with something more like the photo below.
The enhanced photo. Aprox 5 seconds of work.
The brightness is fixed, the colours stand out more, and there was absolutely no more work put into the taking of the photo. The biggest advantage of shooting in the “RAW” format is the flexibly. You don’t have to get every shot perfect, and can get great results much more easily. The goal of course is to improve enough that you don’t often need to do much (or any) tweaking to most of your photos, but a safety net never hurt anyone. You don’t have to use it every time, but if you aren’t shooting in “RAW”, you won’t have the option when you really need it.
6 Comments
I prefer to just shoot JPEG, and light it right in the first place. I want to be shooting, not tweaking
I agree but RAW is a nice safety net for beginners
@Jim – I agree that it’s always better to get the photo you want in the first place…be it lighting, or other issues. I see the RAW format as sorta the selt belt of the digital photography world. Most of the time you shouldn’t need it, but if you don’t make a habit of wearing it, then the rare time you would have needed it may result in a seriously bad day. I’ve shot 1000’s and 1000’s of photos in RAW, and I could count the times I’ve REALLY needed it on one hand, but those few photos could have cost me my job and/or a lot of money. It’s just my personal opinion of course, but basically my philosophy is “if it can’t hurt, and might help…might as well use it”
Here are my 2cents on shooting in RAW. There is a time and place for it. I’ve found (I work in the photo industry, not just a photographer) that far too many people will shoot in RAW with the mentality of I’ll fix it in post and the reality is you are hurting yourself and your images. Let me explain.
If you have the oppertunity to do a custom white balance in camera you will get better color representation in your computer than trying to adjust for it later. Say you are a wedding photographer doing formal shots outside and the bride is wearing a cream colored dress. Later that day, or the next day when you edit you will have zero point of reference for what the true color of the dress is and you could give her prints back that look more like egg shell white than cream. It takes a minute to do it, if you can make a custom white balance, do it, save yourself the time and headache from doing it in post.
Second, I’m a photographer, not a post production artist. I know how to process my photos but I get paid to take them. Each hour I sit post processing images is one hour wasted making money shooting the next client’s work, effectivly loosing money on my bottom line. Even if I’m not shooting, I should be marketing, meeting with clients, etc. I want to shoot, so I do as much as I can to get the best shots right into my camera as possible.
RAW isn’t for all the time either. I shoot stock photography as well, some of it is product shots on white. With controlled studio lighting I can easily get my setup to look great in JPG format, making almost no post production needed other than cropping, sharpening (if even needed) and dust removal. I get paid for the end result, not the amount of time spent on each image, so again, the better going in, the less time wasted on the way out.
I’ve found most people who shoot in RAW don’t even use a properly calibrated, quality monitor. You might as well edit with your eyes closed, but that’s a whole nother article for you to write about.
Shoot RAW or JPG based on what your output will be + how much in camera you can accomplish. Don’t rely on shooting RAW to fix your consistently under-exposed photos, learn how to shoot better.
@Mike – Great points. Definitely better to get it right (or as close as possible) in-camera then relying on the safety net of “RAW”. I much prefer to be able to skip any post production (at least for correction), whenever I can, and would hope that people would take more time to get it right the first time around. I’m not sure how often that happens…but it would be nice heh.
RAW is better, full stop. JPEG is a compressed format and compression kills detail and depth and adds artifacts. The fact that RAW allows for better post shoot manipulation is just one factor; RAW offers better highlight and shadow detail and as a professional, it is my duty to give my clients the best images.
There is almost no camera, lens or photographer who can get everything perfect at the moment the photograph is taken. Since the earliest days the true birth of a photograph has been – and still is – when it is in processing. Photography is never an accurate record of a fleeting moment. It is an interpretation and all the photography greats became greats because of their ability to manipulate all of the factors that combine to make a photograph. RAW gives us that power today. JPEG does not.
One Trackback
[...] Today has been a good day. Not only did the Vinecast receive some donations that will allow it to continus (and expand!) for at least the next couple months, but I landed a blogging gig on one of Chris Garrett’s smaller sites, DSLRBlog.com. So I’ll be writting on there hopefully for a while. It’s giving me a great incentive to get back into photography…been a while since I’ve dealt with photography at all. Time to dust off the old Nikon and pack the camera bag again! My first post went up earlier today, and can be found right over here. [...]