Reality check...

[Blue_In_AK]

Okay, so I've been reading my manual on this RAW thingy and I played around with my EOS viewer utility last night with some test shots. Am I correct then that the purpose of RAW is to make all your basic adjustments, brightness, contrast, saturation, white balance, etc. before you put the picture into JPEG format, then you can use PSP X for the fine-tuning, cropping, straightening and so forth, and you don't lose any little pixel things? That's the reason for doing it, right? While the light is flashing on the front of the camera after you've taking the shot, do you have to still hold the camera still or is something going on inside that doesn't care if the camera is moving? What happens with motion shots?

:shrug:

[GOPFighter]

1. I've only used RAW once...

...but I think you are correct. When you work with RAW files you don't degrade the image at all. Of course, the files are HUGE and they really limit the number of photographs you can get on a memory card. Now that I can work with RAW files in PSP X I'm going to start experimenting with RAW to see if it's worth the trade off to shoot in that format.

As for moving the camera while the red light is blinking, the picture has already been taken so it's okay to move the camera. The camera is just writing thre file to your memory card.

[priller]

2. The thing with Raw

It's basically a dump of the image your camera took, with no processing at all.

If you don't shoot raw, then the camera takes the raw image and does the JPEG conversion and compression itself.

So, with raw, you're basically saying, "Let me do the processing." This can have many advantages, in that you can do all the white balance, contrast, exposure, and other adjustments yourself. And if you don't want to compress it as a JPEG file, you can save it as an uncompressed TIFF (although those files are enormous).

Another really big advantage is the raw image has a higher "dynamic range" than the resulting JPEG; that is, each pixel is capable of displaying a greater range of colors. On my camera, the raw image is 12 bits per color, whereas the "super HQ" jpeg is only 5 bits per color. Having that wider color range makes it possible to recover detail from overexposed or "blown" areas, and to get detail from darker shadows. If the camera makes the JPEG, that extra bit of detail is mostly gone. Also, having more color range lets you adjust the "exposure" of the raw image quite a bit before making the jpeg.

Now personally, I don't use raw much because it's so slow on my camera (it takes about 7 seconds to write to the card), and most of the time the difference is not that great. However, occasionally I'll use it when the extra dynamic range will come in handy.

[lakemonster11]

4. It takes seven seconds?

Wow, that would be pretty discouraging.

I hardly notice a difference, unless I try to just hold down the shutter and take ten pictures at once. :shrug:

[priller]

11. I don't have a DSLR

It's an Olympus C7070 "wide zoom" camera. It takes very nice pictures, but it is fairly slow in some ways. I'm just happy is has raw support at all.

[lakemonster11]

12. Oh, okay.

My old point-and-shoot Olympus digital definitely didn't support RAW. Of course, it was also a 1.3 megapixel...

[GOPFighter]

6. Would you recommend raw for night shots?

It sounds like that increased dynamic range would benefit night shots where there is usually a lot of detail in the darker shadows.

[lakemonster11]

3. The camera works exactly the same way.

You won't notice a difference (except that the files will take up more space on your card). If your light is flashing, it might mean that something is going on in the camera, but if the shutter has already opened and closed, then the picture has been taken.

You're right about all the adjustments you make in the RAW editor, but it doesn't put the picture in JPEG format when it takes you to PSP X. It won't become a JPEG unless you save it as one when you're done fine-tuning the photo in PSP X. If you're planning on printing the picture at some point, you should really save it as a TIFF or PSP file (these are lossless, uncompressed formats, unlike JPEG). Then you can save a working copy in JPEG. If it's an "unimportant" shot, one that you're just going to post and/or email, but never going to print, then you can just save it as a high-quality JPEG. You should keep the original RAW file---it will remember your adjustments, but you can reset them whenever you want to.

Just try to go through the whole process with one of your test shots. After the first few times, it all becomes second nature. Shooting in RAW is definitely worth it. I was never happy with my color pictures until I switched to RAW---I would get frustrated and convert the best ones to black & white. Now I love taking color shots.

[Blue_In_AK]

5. A couple of other questions then...

The original RAW file can be saved to a CD for later use? And with the additional space that RAW files take up on the memory card, if one were out on a road trip, for example, only had two memory cards (albeit 1 gigabyte cards) and weren't going to be near a computer to download for a few days (this is a hypothetical person -- ha ha -- who REALLY likes to take pictures), then it would be wise for said hypothetical person to only take the RAW shots on photos that (s)he would think are going to be pretty spectacular and use a smaller format for the ones that are just good (or maybe not) but not anything special.

[GOPFighter]

7. Also I suspect raw files discharge batteries faster

if it takes 7 seconds to write the file to the memory card vs. about 2 sec for a jpeg?

[Blue_In_AK]

8. I'm not as worried about the batteries

because I have a charger in the car. The memory card, though, that's a real issue. Maybe I'll just have to be more selective. :(

[CC]

9. Yes the original RAW

file can be saved to CD. and soon as possible is best, whether you shoot in RAW or jpg. And check that the cd actually has the files before deleting anything.
On the shooting if away from the computer for a while----if you think you will use both cards then yes shoot in jpg and switch to RAW for the shots you think you will want to print, specially big. The problem there can be that you find you really wish you had shot that one jpg that wows you in RAW for a big print. I have seen some beautiful 24x36 prints from a D20. Now granted it was a Floyd Dean gallery show and he can confuse the average person when he talks printing method, dynamics etc. but that is a big print and they were beautiful.
It took a long while for people to talk me into shooting RAW, mainly because I worried about running out of space on the card and wanting to take more pictures. But cards have really come down in price so I have 3 1 gig cards now plus my old 512MBs and even the really old 128's. I don't worry about running out of room so much now, that is a lot of pics.
The ability to adjust the files before they are actually in PSP more than makes up for the cost of extra cards. And with your talent and location I can see you having lots of photos that would make gorgeous big prints that would sell.

[lakemonster11]

10. That's what I do (save the RAW files on CDs).

They take up too much room on my computer otherwise. I would invest in a nice big CD wallet, though. I misplaced a couple a few months ago and I haven't found them yet. It's somewhat distressing, even though I know they're around here somewhere.

Sure, on a road trip, you could shoot some RAW and mostly JPEG if you wanted to. I probably wouldn't do that unless I really had to---I would probably weed out the "junk" photos at the end of the day instead. But yeah, if space were an issue, and if I were just taking pictures of silly road signs or something then I might switch the camera over to JPEG.

One other thing to keep in mind:
My camera (a Nikon D70) claims that I can only get about 85 RAW pictures onto my 1 gig card, but if I just take pictures until it says the card is full, I usually have almost twice that many. I don't know why, and I don't know if that happens with other cameras, but that might be something to keep an eye on.

[regnaD kciN]

13. To answer your most basic question...

While the light is flashing on the front of the camera after you've taking the shot, do you have to still hold the camera still or is something going on inside that doesn't care if the camera is moving?

No. Once the image is taken (at whatever shutter speed you take it), it's recorded to the CCD. The remaining delay is merely the camera circutry transferring that already-recorded image to your memory card. It's a little like the frame advance on film cameras -- you don't need to hold the camera steady while cranking to the next frame, because the photo has already been taken.

What I don't understand, though, is why it takes so long to record a RAW image to the memory card. Granted, it's somewhat bigger (around 7MP on my camera instead of 3-5MP for JPEG), but it's just a straight data dump. By contrast, JPEG has to do a lot of processing on the sensor data, then compress the image before writing it. I guess camera manufacturers expect people to shoot JPEG, and have optimized that process, while not doing the same with RAW.

[F.Gordon]

15. It doesn't

"What I don't understand, though, is why it takes so long to record a RAW image to the memory card."

Blues' camera will shoot 5 frames per second in RAW up to (I think) 25 frames before it starts to "fail". I've followed birds flying in wild blue yonder and I just hold the shutter down and follow the birdie. Have snapped other moving thingees shooting in RAW. Very fast. Just keep snappin' ..... have never gone past 10-15 in one pan but it never slows down. Oh.... I don't use expensive drive cards... just basic flash cards.

[bvar22]

14. Invest in DVD Writer for saving RAW files.

DVD Read/Write cost as little as $50.
A DVD can hold over 4 Gigs of data (dual layers over 8 Gigs)
CDs are limited to about 650-750 megs.

Mostly pulling these numbers out my a**.
I recently upgraded to a new system that has DVD Read/Write.
I've written "ONE" DVD that held 4 Gigs of data, so I know that can be done.
My old CD Writer maxed out at about 700Megs.
DVD would certailny be the way to go for RAW file storage.

[Blue_In_AK]

17. I don't know anything about DVD writers

but this sounds like a good idea. My computer looks like it's got two more empty slots -- I have the CD-ROM drive in one and the CD rewriter in another. The DVD writer would go under those two?

P.S. When I look in "My Computer" Drive D says "DVD/CD-RW drive." Does that mean I could also do DVDs in there, or is that just some kind of generic talk, either/or? Sorry -- for someone who's been working on computers for so long, I really don't know much.

[bvar22]

19. Exactly like CD Writing.

Impossible to tell the difference without reading the labels on the disk or the writer. They look and work exactly the same.
You need to use blank DVD disks, and use DVD Write software (which will come with the DVD Writer).
Some DVD Writers can write up to 16-20 GIGS per disk, using double layered, double sided disks.

Most (probably all) DVD Writers are "back engineered" to handle CD R/W.

The label in "my computer" is probably a generic label.
The front of your CD Player/Writer should have a label that will define what it can do.

Will it play a DVD?

[Blue_In_AK]

20. Yes, it will play a DVD

And it says DVD Rom on it. The other one says PleXWriter 16/10/40A. Will the one that says DVD Rom record to the DVD discs, do you suppose? That would be too easy.

[bvar22]

21. ROM means "Read Only Memory"

so I doubt that it will write to DVD.
If your unit is a "writer", there will usually be somwthing like a "DVD RW" on the front.

If you want to replace it with a DVD RW, I can walk you through it.
It would be simpler to replace one of your drives than to add a 3rd.
It is MUCH simpler than your camera.

[Blue_In_AK]

22. If I replaced the CD writer with a DVD writer

would it do CDs, too? Or would it make more sense to replace the DVD ROM?

[bvar22]

23. AFAIK, ALL DVD Writers will also write CDs.

but that would be something to check when buying the replacement.
I did a quick Google, and DVD R/Ware mostly between $60-$120.

I would replace whichever one was the slowest or oldest.

[ConsAreLiars]

24. Two writers would give two options for storage if one fails.

The old one would only do CD, the new one both CD and DVD. However, if you think you might want to play DVDs while archiving to the new device, then keep the DVD player.

I vaguely recall that Plextor and (cheaper) A-Open drives were favored by those who had experience, and that discs made in Japan were highly preferred, but ID-ing the manufacturer of any particular lot was a bit esoteric. Maybe someone else has more accurate and current info.

[F.Gordon]

16. An example. A "trash" snapshot

This is a "junk" snap. Started the day awhile back with the camera set at ISO 1600 (from the night before). Snapped a dozen or so snaps before I discovered my mistake. First snap is the original over exposed snaparoo. Second is the "recovered" snap that I processed in RAW.

Adjust exposure bias to -1.2 Set white balance to 5500K Used a preset color setting that duplicated a certain type of film. Reduced noise. RAW processor I use has presets or you can go super fine tune... in CONTRAST alone I can; 1) set contrast tone, 2) set contrast center point, 3) set gamma level, and 4) set contrast black level.

This is a snap I trashed but it will give you kind of an idea how RAW can be an advantage to you. I went a little "too much" but I just wanted to show ya' the far side of RAW processing. If this was something I wanted to keep I wouldn't have gone as extreme and crazy with some of the settings.

[Blue_In_AK]

18. I see where this is very useful...

...although I usually have the opposite problem, underexposing, especially at this time of year. But it would work the same, I assume. I will definitely be trying this RAW thing on my next excursion out, which may be today because the sun is shining (at the moment), and I don't have any work to do.