Stop "Cooking" Your
Photos; Shoot Raw!
Background
In
July
2006, I wrote a brief article
about how shooting in raw capture mode could change your outlook on
photography. While the benefits of shooting in raw capture mode
are as clear today as they were two years ago, still, a lot has changed
in two years. Have you changed, or are you still
shooting in JPEG capture mode with your camera? Let's take a
look at raw shooting, how it can benefit you, and discover some of the
tools used today to help you in your "raw workflow".
Raw versus JPEG
Many recent cameras offer the ability to shoot in raw capture mode as
well as JPEG capture mode. While JPEG capture modes are often
labelled "Large", "Fine", or "Basic", the "Raw" menu selection gives you
access to a shooting mode that is entirely different. When
shooting in raw capture mode, the raw data (basically the data straight
from the sensor) is stored in a (usually proprietary format) file on
your flash card. While you can review your shots on the camera,
you'll need to "develop" the raw data once you download the raw files
from your flash card before you can view or print them using your
computer.
So what's the benefit of shooting in
raw capture mode? In a word: quality! When you shoot in JPEG
capture mode, you're looking at a processed image. Basically, your
camera has taken the raw data and "cooked" it in order to create a JPEG
image from that data. If your white balance, exposure, and
lighting are perfect, JPEG shooting might be OK. Problems arise,
however, when you need to rescue an underexposed or overexposed shot
because the JPEG data has already been "truncated" to the exposure used
by the camera. Your JPEG has 256 steps or gradations for each
color and in an underexposed shot, only the first 64 steps may be used.
When you brighten the photo, you see banding, noise, and other artifacts
because you've truncated a 16.7 million color image down to about only
260,000 possible colors!
Unlike a JPEG, the raw data contains
a much finer version of the data: one that has (usually) anywhere from
4096 steps to as many as 16,384 steps for each color. Even with a
12 bit raw file that has 4096 steps or "shades" for each (red, green,
and blue) color, instead of having only 64 steps to work with as with
your JPEG, you now have over 1000 steps even on your underexposed image.
Now you can brighten the photo by adding exposure compensation without
the ugly stepping patterns produced by the JPEG.
In addition to having more
"granularity", raw photos also contain something called "headroom".
Headroom is an area of beyond-white steps that allow you to pull back
exposure to recover blown highlights. If you shoot a yellow flower
only to find that a large portion of the flower is blown out (bright
yellow with no detail), there's no way to recover the lost data with a
JPEG. If the same shot had been taken in raw capture mode, some if
not all of the blown out highlights could be recovered because there's
enough data in the raw file for it to capture steps (brightness values)
beyond what would appear at maximum (255) in your JPEG's.
Simply put, shooting in JPEG capture
mode is equivalent to being on a construction job, quickly measuring
once, and cutting a board based on that one quick-and-dirty measurement.
After cutting, if you find out that you cut your board too short,
there's no way to go back and make it longer. The bottom line here
is that JPEG files throw away data. Don't cut your data based on
the assumption that your camera (or you) will always meter and set up
the scene properly! Shoot in raw capture mode so you can make the
most of your photos. I've seen many photos that were destined for
the recycle bin using the JPEG version but are easily rescued by using
the raw photo.
Handling and developing
your raw photos
The down side (if you can call it
that) of shooting in raw capture mode is that you may not be able to
just open them in your favorite photo printing tool and click the print
button like you may have done with your JPEG's. Two years ago, the
process wasn't so simple. You needed software to develop the raw
photos first, and not all cameras came with such software, so you had to
buy third party software costing from $100 to $200 just to be able to do
anything with your raw photos. To make matters worse, every
manufacturer had their own proprietary format for the raw photos and
even within one manufacturer, the raw format usually differed from model
to model. This made it difficult for any one software package to
support all cameras, making you have to search to find a solution that
would work with your particular camera.
Fast forward to August 2008 and
things have changed considerably. There are now open source
solutions that cover almost every camera that can shoot in raw capture
mode and while manufacturers still haven't made any headway into coming
to an agreement on one international standard for raw photos, at least
there are a wide variety of applications now that can handle almost any
raw photos from any camera.
Even more interesting is the fact
that some tools are now allowing you to treat raw photos like any other
type of photo such as JPEG's. The Studio Edition of my own
Qimage software, for
example, allows you to view, convert, print, and tweak raw photos just
like any other supported image format while applying automatic exposure
and noise reduction, thereby minimizing the amount of tweaking needed to
get the best from your raw photos. With more and more tools
supporting raw photos in different ways, it's a lot easier to find the
right tools to make raw shooting agree with your own preferred workflow.
Some people like to fiddle with each photo, trying different settings,
while others just want to be able to get the best automatic rendition
possible in order to minimize extra work. Whichever boat you find
yourself in, there are many raw tools to choose from. Here's a
quick list of some of the more popular "high end" third party solutions
and their strengths. Note that manufacturer solutions (that come
with your camera or can be ordered separately) are not included.
Note also that the solutions below are, in my opinion, solutions that
are acceptable tools to use to view, publish, or print final
versions of your raw photos. There are many more tools that
"support" raw formats that I didn't list because while you can get an
"image" from them, they lack essentials for final output like color
management or proper color transforms to allow for accurate color.
So if you use a particular raw tool that is not listed, it's most likely
because I didn't consider that tool a major player in the field of
quality raw tools.
Raw Tool |
Price range* |
Strength(s) |
Adobe Camera Raw |
Free
(must have PhotoShop) |
Integrates w/PhotoShop
Lots of aftermarket "add-ons" |
Adobe
Lightroom |
$299 |
Emphasis on image
management and cataloging |
Bibble |
$70 - $130 |
Excellent quality
Unprecedented control |
Capture One
4 |
$129 |
Excellent color
Profiles for many cameras |
Qimage Studio |
$90 |
Minimizes need to tweak each
photo. Color accuracy. |
Silkypix |
Free - $149 |
Emphasis on color accuracy
and noise control |
* as of July 2008
Summary
Shooting in raw capture mode can be a
major advantage if you are interested in squeezing the most quality from
your photos. With some of the latest raw-capable tools on the
market, shooting raw and being able to find an acceptable workflow for
actually using the raw files has become much easier in the last year or
so. Not convinced? Try shooting some photos in raw format
before you make up your mind. If your camera offers a JPEG+Raw
shooting mode where you can actually capture both, try that and compare
what you can get from the raw versus the JPEG images. I did that
at first, and now I've dumped JPEG shooting altogether as I can always
get better quality from the raw photos and the added JPEG version just
takes up space on my flash cards!
At the end of the day, taking the
time to learn which raw tool(s) are best for you and working out your
own personal raw workflow will pay dividends and can help you get better
photos than ever. So if you looked into raw shooting before and it
seemed that the extra effort wasn't worth it, it may be time to give it
another try.
Mike Chaney