Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Just started shooting in RAW. Some basic help please?

8

88888888

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
May 28, 2008
506
0
Ok So, I just started shooting in raw and I'm trying to edit it in iphoto.
There's some things that I don't quite understand.

1) When I import it into iPhoto, it says RAW. Next, I attempt to edit it by adjusting the sharpness, levels, saturation, temperature, etc... After I'm done editing, I click done, what am I suppose to do next? Do I export in JPEG? then reimport it to iPhoto and delete the raw file?

2) Also I noticed the RAW images aren't better quality (unedited) compared to jpeg. It's just not as sharp and sometimes it seems like focus is not right. So am is it correct that unedited RAW images are worse quality than jpeg?
In addition, it seems like after I try to edit it in iphoto the pictures still don't come out as nice as jpegs.

3) When I edit the RAW's in iPhoto, I find it a little laggy at times. For example, when I use the scroll bar to adjust the temperature, it isn't instant, the rainbow beach bow shows up and it's slow.

4) I'm looking into getting either Aperture or Lightroom. If my laptop is lagging now... will it even be more laggier when I use the more advance programs? Also will those better photo editing software improve my picture quality?
I'm currently using a 15' macbook pro early 2008, I wonder why I'm lagging. I'm thinking it's because I run like 8 programs. (skype, oovoo, msn, yahoo, ichat, itunes, ical mail, safari and a couple others.)

Thanks for your help :confused::apple::)
 
RAW images have the same artifacts as JPEG pictures, as far as I have gathered.

A RAW just stores so much more information than a JPEG, which can be edited later without destroying information, like exposure, temperature, vibrance, saturation, which allows more freedom in post processing.

iPhoto is not really meant for RAW pictures, that's what Lightroom and Aperture are for.

And if you edited an image and want to save the results as an JPEG, don't delete the RAW file, as that will give you one less option of ever creating a new edited version of that photo and you're stuck with just the one or two JPEG version(s) you created.

Also have a look at Activity monitor to see what program might hog up your CPU.

I edited fine with a white MacBook and a Intel GMA GPU and 12MP RAW footage in Lightroom and then Photoshop.

MRoogle for some already existing topics about that: http://mroogle.*************/

And some information about RAW and JPEG: http://photo.net/learn/raw/
 
the difference between RAW and Jpeg is that RAW is completely unprocessed data. Jpegs are processed in-camera, and the excess data is thrown away. in RAW, all the data is gathered, and it is "interpreted" by your RAW converter, and then you have the freedom to alter the photo almost as much as you'd like. so now, you have to do what you had the camera do for you before - process your photos: color, contrast, sharpening, etc.

just to comment on sharpening: you basically have to do at least a little on every image because of the anti-aliasing filter (to combat moiré). so far, only the Leica M8, Sigma DP, and medium format digital have implemented sensors that don't use AA filters. your RAW converter should apply some sharpening on its own, though. output sharpening is another topic.

RAW allows you two things: 1) extract every bit of detail from the image - boost shadows, recover blown highlights, and Jpeg processing often loses detail (see various DPReview comparisons), and 2) near-infinite creative freedom. however, if you don't want to bother processing everything on your own, or you don't have the time, it's probably better for you to shoot in Jpg.
 
It is correct that a jpeg is compressed and a Raw is not. That is not the biggest difference. A Raw file is bianary (0011010) and a jpeg is pixel based. When a raw file is edited the code is rewritten, and will stay the same unless edited again. A jpeg, when it is saved, evaluates the surrounding pixels and discards them. when reopened it will fill the space with the average taken upon saving. This means every time you save a jpeg you are degrading the image.

As far as programs, you are better off using the editing software that came with your camera than iphoto. Aperture and Lightroom are fair studio programs, but lacking when it comes to design. Photoshop or Gimp offer more versatility. The prior shouldn't slow you down much more than iphoto the latter two will. I would max out your RAM capacity either way.

Sharpness should not be an issue. If you need to sharpen an image...working from RAW is better. You can sharpen a)in camera, with custom picture styles, b)in raw processing advanced options, c)in PP, a program like photoshop has better capabilities (unsharp mask, smart sharpen, etc)

anyway, hope some of this is helpful.
 
iPhoto creates a jpg from the edits you've made. So, if you sharpen, adjust the contrast, etc., iPhoto generates thumbnails and a full-resolution jpg from that. There is no additional step. If you want a jpg version of that photo, drag its thumbnail to the desktop.

Also, you can use Export from the file menu.

I'm going to move up to Aperture at some point too (when version 3 eventually comes out), and hopefully it's not as slow at handling RAW images as iPhoto. That said, iPhoto does almost everything I need with an image editor.
 
telecomm said:
iPhoto creates a jpg from the edits you've made. So, if you sharpen, adjust the contrast, etc., iPhoto generates thumbnails and a full-resolution jpg from that. There is no additional step. If you want a jpg version of that photo, drag its thumbnail to the desktop.

Also, you can use Export from the file menu.

I'm going to move up to Aperture at some point too (when version 3 eventually comes out), and hopefully it's not as slow at handling RAW images as iPhoto. That said, iPhoto does almost everything I need with an image editor.
Click to expand...

What do you mean iPhoto generates thumbnail and full-res jpg. After I finish editing, I click done. the file is still RAW. I drag the file out. it's .tif
 
88888888 said:
What do you mean iPhoto generates thumbnail and full-res jpg. After I finish editing, I click done. the file is still RAW. I drag the file out. it's .tif
Click to expand...

If you're dragging the photo out and getting a .tif, either you've started with a tif instead of a raw file, or you've checked this option:
 

Attachments

  • Picture 1.png
    Picture 1.png
    40 KB · Views: 101
88888888 said:
2) Also I noticed the RAW images aren't better quality (unedited) compared to jpeg. It's just not as sharp and sometimes it seems like focus is not right. So am is it correct that unedited RAW images are worse quality than jpeg?
Click to expand...
JPEG images are subjected to in-camera sharpening, while RAW images are not. RAW is essentially the image as captured by the sensor, so JPEG has no advantage.

Any sharpening differences can be dealt with in post.

Any focus problems will apply equally to both formats (although you might have more latitude in RAW to correct minor errors).
 
Truffy said:
JPEG images are subjected to in-camera sharpening, while RAW images are not. RAW is essentially the image as captured by the sensor, so JPEG has no advantage.

Any sharpening differences can be dealt with in post.

Any focus problems will apply equally to both formats (although you might have more latitude in RAW to correct minor errors).
Click to expand...

I wonder if the OP still has the same problem, or whether he/she has figured it out in the last three years...?

;)
 
canonguy said:
A Raw file is bianary (0011010) and a jpeg is pixel based.
Click to expand...

Huh??

(this is a bit off-topic, but I dislike seeing incorrect information out and about)

At the lowest-level, ALL files are stored in binary on the hard drive/memory stick/etc.

And all bitmap images (i.e., non-vector) store the pixel value in someway.

JPG compression is destructive (aka, lossy), whereas RAW compression is basically non-destructive (aka, lossless or near-lossless)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_file_formats

The only image format that I know of which does not use compression is .BMP (aka Windows Bitmap).

Hope that helps!

j-man
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back