Raw Workflow Articles

[ronbigelow]

I recently completed a series of articles on raw workflow. The links are below. Let me know what you think.

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/raw2/raw2.htm

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/raw3/raw3.htm

Ron Bigelow
http://ronbigelow.com

[Patzt]

Ron, those are fantastic articles. I'm going back to read some more.

Had a peek at your gallery on your website too. What fantastic images!

[ohenry]

Look good. I bookmarked it for later reading.

Got a chuckle out of your closing line. All too true!

[DigitalPhotography]

Those are excellent articles. I have been post-processing more and more in Raw and at times felt lost. Your articles have cleared many of the mysteries for me. Thanks!

[timjon]

These are really fantastic articles. You've managed to cover everything involved in the RAW vs JPEG process clearly and concisely, but without over simplifying. Compared to the typical photography magazine article on this topic, these aren't just better, they're an order of magnitude better.

I've bookmarked these, so that when people ask me about RAW I can direct them to your site. Now I'm going to have to read all the other articles you've written!

Cheers,

Tim.

[hartcons]

One challenge I've found with raw is that sometimes I have trouble with color fidelity, especially if I'm using a raw converter not provided by the vendor. For example with adobe camera raw by itself I often can't match the color of the in-camera JPEG. So if you like the colors of your in-camera JPEGs then you might be happiest with the manufacturer's raw converter (but these don't tend to be as pleasant to use at least with my cameras). Some raw converters give you more control over color than others.

I imagine this has to do with the particular debayer algorithm in use? This third-party tool specifically mentions that it uses Nikon's debayer algorithm:
http://www.oxfordeye.co.uk/Toneup.aspx

If your final output is going to be JPEG then at some point you are going to suffer from some of the problems associated with JPEG even if you shoot raw.

To me the most compelling arguments from raw would come from side-by-side jpegs at screen resolution at 100% (not blown up to 400%) that show a marked improvement with raw. But apparently sometimes the differences are only striking when you do large prints. If the average person can't see an improvement at normal screen resolution then what's the big deal if you aren't doing large prints?

I think raw can slow down your workflow somewhat when it comes to previewing a large number of images. The preview program either has to use an embedded jpeg preview (but that's only so big?) or has to do an on-the-fly conversion of the raw file? I know that iPhoto makes a JPEG when you upload your RAW files so uploading takes longer but then previewing proceeds normally. I definitely struggle to get through hundreds of images quickly in order to make my selections and raw doesn't seem to help with that part.

I like the way my e-300 lets me shoot high-quality JPEG plus RAW so I have the best of both worlds (given enough card and disk space). But then when previewing I have to sort by file type to avoid seeing each picture twice. It would be nice if the camera would put the RAWS in a separate folder where they'd be available if for some reason I didn't like the in-camera JPEG but wouldn't interfere with previewing (or maybe there are uploaders that are smart enough to do this for you?)

[dmacgee]

Great articles.

[Paul Shields]

Ron, these are great articles - congratulations on completing them.