Welcome to Motorhomefacts, we are a thriving motorhome community (Largest in Europe). Why Not JOIN NOW and get instant access to more of the website. It costs nothing to join and only takes a few minutes. We have 200,000 different people visiting our site monthly and this amount of motorhomers in one place guarantees a fast response to any questions you may have. We also have unique facilities not found elsewhere such as our Online Logbook, stopover tracker, Motorhome directory with Ebay type feedback and the largest repository of motorhome campsites reviews found anywhere
I have an Olympus E-510 and I have taken some shots as "RAW"
What is the best way to process these shots?
Should I use the Olympus software which came with the camera?
Would Photoshop CS3 provide better results? - I have access to this program
I have downloaded a trial version of Photoshop Elements 7 which I am considering purchasing as it has specific Slideshow software built in. This handles the RAW files, but with less options than CS3, which is probably better for me
When I have processed the RAW file (an .ORF extension), then saved it as a JPEG, a third file is generated with an .xmp extension. Is this normal?
Generally Raw comes into its own when you really need detail such as portraits. I take thousands of Motor Sport photos and stopped trying to use Raw because it slowed the workflow too much and the photos were mainly going to end up as Jpegs as they were going on the Web. If I take portraits I always use raw but save them as Tiffs so not losing any detail, Jpegs lose detail because of their compression. Photoshop is a daunting program. Wife Sue has used it since it first appeared and teaches it here in Spain. I would think that Olympus have a more than adequate Raw convertor. Possibly in Camedia their photo editor. Also you can convert Raw with Picassa free from Google downloads. Have you looked at Adobe lightroom? you can download a trial version. This is what I use mainly and transfer back and forth to Photoshop if I want further features. If I were you I would look at Picassa and the Olymus photo editor before spending out. If they dont appear sophisticated enough try lightroom then if you are getting serious photoshop with lightroom. Stew (Artona) takes lots of portraits and I expect will offer good advice soon. See http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopic-49346-0-days0-orderasc-.html
RAW files are the nearest you will get to a piece of film or transparency. It's essentially what's captured by the camera's CCD, ie, what's coming through the lens. It's the unprocessed information (though I believe even Nikon tweak the RAW file a tad).
I set my camera to take a RAW and high quality JPEG simultaneously. If the picture is of really good quality, I save the RAW file and play around with the JPEG, depending on what I'm going to do with the picture. However, many pics aren't good enough to justify the storage requirements of RAW files. So, after examining what I've taken, if the shot is only so-so, I'll keep the JPEG (still of a very large file size, but compressed at 2:1) and bin the RAW file.
There's all manner of software which allows the user to manipulate the RAW file. The important factor is that these days, anything of real quality or value should be taken in the first instance as a RAW file. The reason is that each and every camera applies its own processing to all but RAWs.
Incidentally, I read a very logical argument against using TIFFs, in that despite their file sizes being on a par with RAWs, they also reflect in-camera processing which can't be undone.
I forgot to point out that Lightroom is working on the photo info and treats Raw Jpeg etc as if they are the same but without altering the original image. Since using this program things have speeded up considerably and infact I could shoot all the motorsport photos in Raw now and not be taking a lot of time sorting . On any Sunday I can easily take 1500 shots and only want to use maybe 50 so sorting them fast is very important. I cannot see any reason for not saving photos as Tiffs if they are to be printed and Jpegs for the web. After all the manipulation has been done of course
Raw files will provide you with the potential to acheive the very best quality images. Of course this comes with the overhead that you now need to process your images yourself which in turn means more time in front of the computer.
If you are going down the RAW path and expect to shoot largish batches of files then you need a tool that will give you an efficient workflow. Photoshop Elements will handle RAW images but its very much a one at a time workflow. It also features a very good Organiser to keep track of your growing collection.
On the other hand my preference is for Adobe Photoshop Lightroom since its targeted primarily for RAW image processing and Image Management. Its a little more expensive than Elements but the payback is short in my opinion.
As previously stated RAW files are just the raw data from your sensor without any in camera processing. You get to decide how the final image looks. All processing changes you make are non-destructive. These are kept in the database and/or a file that accompanies the RAW image file - known as a Sidecar file - this is the XMP file. The orginal file never gets altered.
Being non-destructive has two advantages. All processing changes can be applied in any order and don't interact with each other - but more importantly you can go right back to the beginning and start again. You can't do this if you overwrite a JPEG file.
Final word on RAW processing and particularly Lightroom. There is a learning curve associated with reading an image to assess what needs doing and processing it. Also Lightroom is, in my opinion, not the most intuitive piece of SW I've come across. If you download the 30 day free trial - you really need to work at it for as along as possible before saying Yes or No.
CS3 has a great RAW editor built in, "Adobe Camera Raw". You should play about with White Balance (Warm / Cool effects etc), and also contrast, selective colouring, vignetting and other image altering tricks.
You can EASIILY take things to far with your editing, and it gets to the point at times when a photo is no longer a photo, and instead should be considered I guess "Digital Art".
The one thing I love about RAW more than anythng, it allows YOUR take on a photo, and not the Cameras. A Jpeg is merely a raw file, processed by your camera to a set of built in instructions. Most of them can be tweaked by you, but they may not look good on all photos. With RAW, you can create a collection of hand built presets, or you can start from scratch with each new photo. Its very powerful indeed.
Here is a photo I pushed quite far in terms of manipulation, it would have been much trickier and taken a lot longer without RAW.
The following photo took around 3 minutes to process
The above photo was processed TWICE in raw. Once to emphasise the Light Pollution, and once to emphasise the dark of night. I then "blended" the two exposures, to create one final image. Its a common trick of photographers, and the landscape guys might use this technique to recover a blown sky, whilst keepng the foreground happy.
And here is a second photo whch again I feel, would not have happened without RAW (or would have been a lot harder). Very little manipulation, I basically increased contrast, saturation and tweaked white balance a little. It took around 15 seconds.
My adice, shoot JPEG and RAW at the same time if your camera allows, and then play with your raw files, once your hooked though, there is no going back
Perhaps surprisingly, the RAW files from my new Nikon D90 can't be read by the supplied Nikon software. Internet forums are agog that Nikon could release a new camera which produces files, which were unreadable. Of course, it's only a matter of time, but these things do beggar belief.
I think a further point to RAW is that it's unwise to trust the camera to make decisions over possible irreplaceable pictures, especially as technology moves so quickly, that the parameters set by a given camera, will alter.
It is indeed convenient to set the camera to take a RAW pic plus a high quality JPEG, simultaneously, for general use.
Perhaps surprisingly, the RAW files from my new Nikon D90 can't be read by the supplied Nikon software. Internet forums are agog that Nikon could release a new camera which produces files, which were unreadable. Of course, it's only a matter of time, but these things do beggar belief.
I think a further point to RAW is that it's unwise to trust the camera to make decisions over possible irreplaceable pictures, especially as technology moves so quickly, that the parameters set by a given camera, will alter.
It is indeed convenient to set the camera to take a RAW pic plus a high quality JPEG, simultaneously, for general use.
I've never been convinced about shooting both RAW and JPEG. If you shoot RAW because you want your own interpretation, its but another click of a button to export a JPEG from the processed RAW file.
I've never been convinced about shooting both RAW and JPEG. If you shoot RAW because you want your own interpretation, its but another click of a button to export a JPEG from the processed RAW file.
Colin
The benefit is though, you can have a PRESET setup in the camera, for example, "punchy and colourful", which I tent to try and achieve with the JPEGS, and then the RAW will be there if you want a completely different take, OR if you need to rescue some element of the shot.
Its easy to delete after a shoot, but impossible to have the functionality if you did not capture it in raw in the first place.
Its obviously down to your shooting styles and requirements. I for one, would hate to be stuck with Jpegs, and for the last several months, I have been RAW only in camera.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 1 Hour Page 1 of 3Goto page 1, 2, 3Next
France
