RAW ?

[alsoverysideways]

My Nikon D70 offers me the option of shooting in RAW,
I understand I can store these large images, and produce better images in the future (with practise) using special software later on,

Q: while I learn the intricacies of RAW can I just produce 'normal' JPG images from these RAW files which I can E-mail to familly

&

Where can I sample some trial software for my MAC to make sure I like using RAW anyway


(typically My pictures are Landscape/people/racing)

[andy-xr]

1) Shoot jpeg and RAW
2) Lightroom trial, RPP, Raw Magick, RAW Therapy, Aperture, Photoshop Bridge, Capture One trial....there's loads

[McMacro]

Yes, you can produce jpeg (or other formats) from your raw. You normally just go to file, export (or equivalent).

iPhoto handles raw (for viewing), but aperture or lightroom will allow you to edit.

I only shoot raw, always. Can't see a need for shooting jpg to be honest.

[alsoverysideways]

Thanks I was hoping to learn a bit more about producing nice images
But keep taking pictures in the meantime so
I'll leave it set on RAW from now.

Is there an easy way to
Camera >
Download onto mac>
Produce JPG in meantime.

Will iphoto do this?

[andy-xr]

Bear in mind that if you produce a jpeg from the RAW file using export, you'll get a fairly flat uncontrasty image. If you shoot in camera joeg and RAW as well, you'll get a camera-processed jpeg and all your raw data as well

But, yes is the answer

[Fordo]

McMacro said:

Yes, you can produce jpeg (or other formats) from your raw. You normally just go to file, export (or equivalent).

iPhoto handles raw (for viewing), but aperture or lightroom will allow you to edit.

I only shoot raw, always. Can't see a need for shooting jpg to be honest.

iphoto allows you to edit a raw as well - its not too shabby a program, if all you need is to tweak white balance, straighten a wonky horizon and tweak contrast

I still use iphoto for my personal snaps, aperture for work, and photoshop for graphics and compositing

[JMT1]

Apple do a 30 day free trial of Aperture

http://www.apple.com/uk/aperture/trial/

They have some pretty good tutorials on the Apple site & you-tube has some good ones as well.

[markmullen]

Phase One do a free trial of their Capture One which you can activate into a full copy for free here http://www.dphotographer.co.uk/captureone/

[alsoverysideways]

Thanks for help everyone

I did download aperature last week on the trial 30 days,
I haven't opened it untill I have seen tutororials/taken some advice
But I'll keep these other links to look at as well.
Typically iphoto has been enough till now for my use

A little sharpen up and horizon usually improves most of mine.
But I read a lot of people prefer RAW
To further tweak their images

[mcflurry]

You can make jpgs out of raw, but not raw out of jpgs later

[DIW35]

All of your images start as RAW, it's what your camera sensor produces. What happens next is the important bit. If you have selected jpg as your shooting medium, your camera takes the RAW data, converts it to jpg using the picture style settings you have selected, and saves the image to your memory card in jpg format. If you have selected to shoot in RAW, the data just goes straight to the memory card with no in camera processing.

So what are the advantages of shooting RAW, I hear you ask? RAW data is captured in 12bit or 14bit, depending on your camera. When this data is converted to jpg in camera, it's reduced to 8bit, as this is the maximum the jpg format can be, so you are throwing away a lot of the information captured when you took the photo. This may not matter in a lot of cases, but to extract the best from each picture it is advantageous to make any adjustments to a 12/14 bit file as it gives you more leeway in respect of how far you can tweak things.

The disadvantages of RAW is that it is not a picture, as such, and needs processing to produce a picture. Don't believe me? Try sending a RAW file to the printers to have a photo printed and you will probably get a polite note in return saying that they only accept jpg or tiff files or similar. So the processing has to be done by yourself before being converted to a more acceptable format for sending to the printers or posting on a website etc. This makes the workflow with RAW files a little more long winded than working with jpgs, but most who shoot RAW will accept this tradeoff for the better quality images that can be produced from working in RAW.

[alsoverysideways]

I'd like to save my Aperture trial up for now, and the other link is asking me for an answer I can only find on page 101 of their magazine,

for now, Whats the easiest way I can reduce an image for mailing using iphoto
or seashore
(on seashore and image resized to 50% of its dimensions isn't transmitting well by mail) I think I'm doing something wrong.


Iphoto I'm sure can offer me an answer can someone outline the path


thanks

[Simpo Two]

When you're ready for the advantages that RAW offers you will probably know it. But if you jump in too early just because people tell you it's 'better' you may just get confused and wonder what all the fuss is about.

[RobDickinson]

Simpo Two said:

When you're ready for the advantages that RAW offers you will probably know it. But if you jump in too early just because people tell you it's 'better' you may just get confused and wonder what all the fuss is about.

But still have the RAW files you can polish up later.

With canon/DPP you can always generate the exact jpg the camera would have straight from the raw, unless you need the jpg for direct printing (see a useful button!) theres little point in it.

I'm sure picasa or iphoto etc are more than capable of adding a touch of contrast/colour/sharpening to produce a quick and dirty jpg.

[dblack1]

McMacro said:

I only shoot raw, always. Can't see a need for shooting jpg to be honest.

Most people won't ever have an advantage by shooting anything but raw. However, there are advantages to shooting jpeg only.
1. It takes less time time write to the card (for fast shooting over a period, ie. time lapse). In otherwords, it the camera doesn't fill its researve as easily.
2. It doesn't take up as much space on the card. The real solution to this is buy more (and larger) memory cards. But if you find yourself out and running low on space (if your prepared this should never happen), you might consider running jpeg only.

[markmullen]

dblack1 said:

McMacro said:

I only shoot raw, always. Can't see a need for shooting jpg to be honest.

Most people won't ever have an advantage by shooting anything but raw.

As I understand it most press and sports photographers shoot in jpeg for speed so the shots can be on the wires and out to the agencies as soon as they're shot.

[RobDickinson]

Theres a bunch of situations where jpg is more applicable than raw.

Anything you need fast turn around, anything you can set the in camera jpg to ideal settings for printing/uploading etc.

If your shooting product shots for websites with small sizes in a light tent set custom WB etc and go for it.

jpg isnt wrong but more often than not a raw will give you more not just now but in years to come.

[aizvara]

I always use raw mode. My camera has an increased dynamic range setting which uses two sets of sensors, one to capture normal data and the other highlight/lowlight data; this works at its best in raw mode.

[RobDickinson]

The s5 pro I assume? Its a shame Fuji got out of the slr game they make some very interesting cameras.

[aizvara]

RobDickinson said:

The s5 pro I assume? Its a shame Fuji got out of the slr game they make some very interesting cameras.

S3; I was/am tempted with the S5, but its just too old now and too minor an upgrade to justify, particularly compared to getting a modern SLR. I'll probably stick with my huge S3; its never let me down, and has survived in some seriously unpleasant conditions. Totally agreed about it being a shame; I really liked Fuji's approach to film simulation, colour and the dynamic range stuff.