Recent Photos

    hotSpringbrook National Park LookoutIMG_17742010 philly auto show: mercedes-bens sls amg2010 philly auto show: mercedes-benz sls amg
 

 

Editing in Camera Raw

Written by: Tiffany Joyce

I admit that I don’t fiddle around too much with images in RAW format. I’m on the fence when it comes to shooting in RAW – I don’t really have an opinion about it one way or another. I can see circumstances where it would be really useful; I can see other circumstances where it’s just a waste of memory card space. Pretty much all of my shooting is done in large-format JPG, and I really haven’t come across too many circumstances where I’d wished I’d shot in RAW.

With that said, I know a lot of people who are adamant about the necessity of shooting in RAW, and I do agree that it’s an extremely useful tool when you need that extra degree of flexibility during post-editing.

I edit all of my photos (well, the ones that need editing, anyway) in Adobe Photoshop CS3. I use Adobe Bridge when editing my photos – it’s an extremely useful tool that I will expound upon in a future entry. Adobe Bridge has the ability to open and edit an image in Camera Raw. This functionality can be used to edit both RAW file formats, and JPG file formats, with some essential differences in editing capability.

For the purposes of this article, I took two pictures of what was in front of me at the time that I had the idea for this entry – a nice tall frosty pint of beer. I took one picture in RAW format, and one in JPG format. Both were shot at 1/8s at f/5.0, ISO 1600, focal length 41mm. Either picture can be edited in Camera Raw by right-clicking on the image and selecting “Open in Camera Raw”.

adobebridge
(click on the photo for a larger image)

The first difference I noticed right away, was the file size. The JPG came in at 3.99MB, while the RAW came in at 9.29MB. So, that’s definitely something to consider if you only have a single memory card on you.

cameraraw_raw
(click on the photo for a larger image)

Next, there are expanded editing capabilities, as can be expected, when opening a RAW file in Camera Raw. Notice in this screen shot (above) that the user has a wide variety of white balance settings available with which to adjust the photo. This would come in extremely handy for incorrectly exposed photos. The theory here is, the end user should be able to completely redeem a sub-standard photo, to the quality that it would have achieved had the camera’s settings been adjusted to capture the correct exposure.

cameraraw_jpg
(click on the photo for a larger image)

In this screen shot of the opened JPG file (above), you can see that it does not have as many white balance adjustment options, though all of the rest of the settings remain available. The theory here is, the end user does not have as much of a capability to recover incorrectly exposed photos, when taken in JPG format. Some adjustment can be done, however, to correct fill light, brightness, contrast, etc.

For my circumstances, I would probably shoot in RAW, and edit in Camera Raw, if I were shooting in a venue where I knew it would be difficult to capture the correct exposure, with the equipment that I have available to me. I would love to hear other folks’ experiences, either shooting in RAW format, or editing in Camera Raw. Please feel free to describe your experiences in the comments!

Related posts:

  1. Establishing a Post-Processing Routine
  2. Developing Custom Metadata in Adobe Bridge
  3. Photo Editing – Process, Workflow and Balance
  4. Three Things I Wish I Knew Then
  5. Batch Renaming: Organizing Your Images with Adobe Bridge

Previous Post:

  • Jimmie Boyce
    Look how wonderful your column is today, I thank you very much.
  • Jimmie Boyce
    I only use RAW when I am shooting for something to frame as a present. Rarely do I edit such high end pictures. The rest of the time it is nearly point and shoot which is a total waste of my Nikon D70s. However as I learn from your column I am expanding past that, so keep up the good work and thanks for the black format. Perhaps in the near future I can send you something with all the info about the camera settings and the picture itself. Thanks again.
  • I think continuing to call it raw vs jpeg is confusing. All digital photos start out as raw data and must be processed into an image file like a jpeg. It's like saying exposed but undeveloped film vs slides and/or prints.

    A raw file is a data file as unprocessed and straight off the sensor is as possible to get. A raw file is only data, and cannot be viewed as a photograph until it is processed into an image file such as a tiff or jpeg. If my camera is set to jpeg the raw data processing is done by the manufacturer's in-camera software. If my camera is set to raw the (mostly) unprocessed data is recorded for processing with my choice of software. Rather than raw vs jpeg, in my case it's Canon processing software vs Adobe processing software.

    Right now I leave my cameras set to raw. I like Adobe Camera Raw much better than the in-camera Canon processing software. I think that in the future I will be able to upload my choice of processing software into my DSLRs. When I can use my own Adobe Camera Raw presets for in-camera processing I might be more inclined to set the camera to jpeg.
  • Wayne
    Fine. Now everything I understood as RAW vs jpeg is moot!
  • Jimmie Boyce
    Sorry Matt, but RAW includes all data points in the picture, from there the various formats including the several levels of JPEG do not include all data points, which cause fuzziness to the zooming in on a part of a picture. This rarely happens in a RAW file. I must admit that perhaps you are partly right but the camera does the processing of what kind of picture you will have from what the settings are when you take the picture. My Nikon has several settings and the quality of picture comes from the setting not from a RAW file that is somehow no longer a RAW file.
  • Jimmie Boyce
    Matt, I apologize, I don't know what I am talking about.
  • Rob
    Memory, and storage is so cheap these days that it doesn't really make any sense to take pictures in anything but RAW format.

    8 more GB on an SD card is $50

    You can get a Terabyte hard drive for $100

    Build yourself a home server with a couple terabytes for data redundancy for less than $500.

    Shot RAW and give yourself the option later.
  • shooting in RAW is almost always better in regards to the latitude of data in the capture. but if you would like to access the camera raw setting from within photoshop all you have to do is right click on a jpg in bridge and choose open via camera raw. of course this will not give you the maximum range of adjustment, but you still get the option of using tools like chromatic aberration correction.
  • RWL
    Simply stated...RAW rules!!!!!!
  • I shoot everything in RAW. Rob hit the nail on the head, storage is so cheap now there is really no reason not to. Why not leave yourself more options for post editing if you have space for it?
blog comments powered by Disqus