daveleo
what?
Where to start?
I am using a "consumer" grade computer on an uncalibrated "consumer" grade monitor. I have experimented with processing RAW files and never once made a better image (as seen on my 19" SAMSUNG) than I could get by tweaking the camera JPG file a little in my computer.
My "artistic" struggles up to date were not with processing images, but with making images worth printing in the first place. I am thinking now (my images are so wonderful
) that I need to process and print my images better, starting with RAW files. But I am being realistic.
It seems to me (having read the discussions) that, although any monkey can process a RAW file and hit "PRINT", it takes quite a lot of skill and calibrated "non-consumer" computer-printer hardware to benefit from doing this and getting excellent prints.
This makes me think that the jump up to serious RAW-to-print processing is much more than running a file through software and shipping off to a lab for printing or hitting "PRINT". This, I'm thinking, needs pro-level hardware and skill, which is a big step from where I'm standing at the moment.
So . . . how wrong am I ?
I am using a "consumer" grade computer on an uncalibrated "consumer" grade monitor. I have experimented with processing RAW files and never once made a better image (as seen on my 19" SAMSUNG) than I could get by tweaking the camera JPG file a little in my computer.
My "artistic" struggles up to date were not with processing images, but with making images worth printing in the first place. I am thinking now (my images are so wonderful
) that I need to process and print my images better, starting with RAW files. But I am being realistic.It seems to me (having read the discussions) that, although any monkey can process a RAW file and hit "PRINT", it takes quite a lot of skill and calibrated "non-consumer" computer-printer hardware to benefit from doing this and getting excellent prints.
This makes me think that the jump up to serious RAW-to-print processing is much more than running a file through software and shipping off to a lab for printing or hitting "PRINT". This, I'm thinking, needs pro-level hardware and skill, which is a big step from where I'm standing at the moment.
So . . . how wrong am I ?
dasuess
Nikon Freak
While I would like to have a perfectly calibrated display on my Macbook, I don't and am not ready to spend the $$$ for the right tool to do the calibration.
That said, I think I have been able to produce prints that match what I see on my laptop screen. The key is to become familiar with your PP software (I use Aperture), narrow your paper choice (I do 99% of my printing with a single paper), and then become familiar with how your PP software, computer monitor, paper and printer produce the print.
As always, practice makes perfect...
That said, I think I have been able to produce prints that match what I see on my laptop screen. The key is to become familiar with your PP software (I use Aperture), narrow your paper choice (I do 99% of my printing with a single paper), and then become familiar with how your PP software, computer monitor, paper and printer produce the print.
As always, practice makes perfect...
jarski
Veteran
know what colorspace the printer uses, and use the same through your workflow.
Shac
Well-known
Dave - I'd add - what colour space were the jpg images and what space was in the RAW images
Last - what were the differences you saw in the prints? That will help feedback.
larmarv916
Well-known
You can use "Pantone" numerical color matching which give you an exact number for every color and grey scale values. That is a form of calibration that you have a constant level of accuracy. Also now there are so many downloadable printer supports for different papers. As sources of help. This is like the old days of being in the color wet lab printing with Kodak color papers...the pain never ends.
daveleo
what?
Answering an unspecific question . . .
Answering an unspecific question . . .
You guys will have to realize that you're talking to the village idiot here when it comes to colorspaces, printing and RAW. My normal "workflow' is that I PP camera jpg's to my liking (on my screen) and then upload the files to a lab and they mail me prints and I mount & matte them. I make only 8X10's, and the prints look fine.
I don't actually have a "problem" with how the prints are looking. The anxiety is that I want to move upwards from "the prints look fine" towards "these prints are fabulous".
I have used a variety of digital cameras, all sRGB space for the jpg's and (here comes the idiot now) I don't have a clue what color space the RAW's were in.
My dilemma is that I want to migrate into the raw-to-print process, but . . . I have never seen any difference on my monitor between the postprocessed jpg's and the postprocessed RAW files . . according to my monitor they look the same.
I have never printed a file that I created from a RAW original, simply because they don't look any different on my screen from the jpg's.
I am stumbling over what my next few steps should be. Buy better hardware ?
I THINK? the correct answer is . . . calibrate my monitor (buy a great monitor?), buy a real photo printer (make the prints myself), calibrated the printer to my computer (???) and experiment to find a paper that I like. But I am not the kind of guy who believes that simply throwing money at something makes you better at doing things, you know!
I appreciate your patience as I don't know exactly what the problem is and yet I am asking people to give me an answer.
Answering an unspecific question . . .
You guys will have to realize that you're talking to the village idiot here when it comes to colorspaces, printing and RAW. My normal "workflow' is that I PP camera jpg's to my liking (on my screen) and then upload the files to a lab and they mail me prints and I mount & matte them. I make only 8X10's, and the prints look fine.
I don't actually have a "problem" with how the prints are looking. The anxiety is that I want to move upwards from "the prints look fine" towards "these prints are fabulous".
I have used a variety of digital cameras, all sRGB space for the jpg's and (here comes the idiot now) I don't have a clue what color space the RAW's were in.
My dilemma is that I want to migrate into the raw-to-print process, but . . . I have never seen any difference on my monitor between the postprocessed jpg's and the postprocessed RAW files . . according to my monitor they look the same.
I have never printed a file that I created from a RAW original, simply because they don't look any different on my screen from the jpg's.
I am stumbling over what my next few steps should be. Buy better hardware ?
I THINK? the correct answer is . . . calibrate my monitor (buy a great monitor?), buy a real photo printer (make the prints myself), calibrated the printer to my computer (???) and experiment to find a paper that I like. But I am not the kind of guy who believes that simply throwing money at something makes you better at doing things, you know!
I appreciate your patience as I don't know exactly what the problem is and yet I am asking people to give me an answer.
aad
Not so new now.
I am thinking that you will eventually realize that raw will not make your prints better-only more difficult.
Michalm
Well-known
I will try to give you some simple advise if i can. I have looked through your gallery and pictures are not lacking that much in terms of the output you have received from your editing software. I can't see any apparent color cast etc. The issue for me personally would be perhaps some lost highlights which camera clipped and you could have saved using RAW mode in camera. Other benefits on print would be smoother color and contrast gradations and less artifacts when editing image. Jpg is compressed file not designed with editing in mind while Raw is exactly opposite.
I would recommend if anything some easy to use fast and efficient software like Lightroom. You open raw file with the settings camera has pre-set , tick the box ,,show clipping'' to see easier if highlights or shadows are clipped , tweak the color balance and from there go to print section if you are happy with the picture so far. Lightroom will allow you to resize image and sharpening (low ) works very well for paper chosen (mat or gloss) for me. This isn't any more complicated than using any other software you are using at the moment i presume.This way using only one program you can edit your photos with little hassle already getting very acceptable results .
I would then buy Epson A4 6 ink printer plus epson glossy paper / original ink and here where you start getting consistent results which i barely was ever getting from most high street labs. Upgrading monitor may be good idea to see color and contrast better if you are using laptop or simple TN screen at the moment .
I would recommend if anything some easy to use fast and efficient software like Lightroom. You open raw file with the settings camera has pre-set , tick the box ,,show clipping'' to see easier if highlights or shadows are clipped , tweak the color balance and from there go to print section if you are happy with the picture so far. Lightroom will allow you to resize image and sharpening (low ) works very well for paper chosen (mat or gloss) for me. This isn't any more complicated than using any other software you are using at the moment i presume.This way using only one program you can edit your photos with little hassle already getting very acceptable results .
I would then buy Epson A4 6 ink printer plus epson glossy paper / original ink and here where you start getting consistent results which i barely was ever getting from most high street labs. Upgrading monitor may be good idea to see color and contrast better if you are using laptop or simple TN screen at the moment .
Lachie C
Member
RAW will absolutely make your prints better. No Doubt. You're going from 8-bit JPEGs to at least 10-bits in RAW, thats FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT OF COLOURS. That is HUGE.
If you're having trouble processing and you're uncalibrated you can easily 'paint-by-numbers'. Here is what I do to all my RAW files before any 'art' takes place.
Using Lightroom 4:
Import all RAW from card / select worthwhile images
open first image of a given sequence in 'develop' mode
click and hold the exposure slider while holding down the alt/option key. The image will go all black, and only show colour where you have clipped/blown the highlights. Adjust exposure as far as possible without introducing too much clipping.
Now, same thing with the 'blacks' slider, but this time hold alt/option and move LEFT.
What you've done now is set the black and white points; you now have a very good basis for a print. You can do all of this on a monitor that doesn't even display colour and you'll still get a good result.
As for colour spaces etc. it all depends how far down the rabbit-hole you want to go. I'd suggest a Dell U2711 or some such with an xRite i1 Display Pro. The only skill you need to achieve a good calibration is literacy, as in, if you can read english you can do it.
The colour space of a JPEG is determined by the image processor in the camera; with RAW you are not running through the image processor in the camera. You dictate which colour space you export to.
Feel free to ask me any questions, this is a topic I'm very familiar with.
-LachieC
If you're having trouble processing and you're uncalibrated you can easily 'paint-by-numbers'. Here is what I do to all my RAW files before any 'art' takes place.
Using Lightroom 4:
Import all RAW from card / select worthwhile images
open first image of a given sequence in 'develop' mode
click and hold the exposure slider while holding down the alt/option key. The image will go all black, and only show colour where you have clipped/blown the highlights. Adjust exposure as far as possible without introducing too much clipping.
Now, same thing with the 'blacks' slider, but this time hold alt/option and move LEFT.
What you've done now is set the black and white points; you now have a very good basis for a print. You can do all of this on a monitor that doesn't even display colour and you'll still get a good result.
As for colour spaces etc. it all depends how far down the rabbit-hole you want to go. I'd suggest a Dell U2711 or some such with an xRite i1 Display Pro. The only skill you need to achieve a good calibration is literacy, as in, if you can read english you can do it.
The colour space of a JPEG is determined by the image processor in the camera; with RAW you are not running through the image processor in the camera. You dictate which colour space you export to.
Feel free to ask me any questions, this is a topic I'm very familiar with.
-LachieC
Pablito
coco frío
You are confusing the benefits of shooing in RAW with the very different issue of making a great print, or matching what you see on screen to what you see on paper.
These are two very separate things.
If you want to learn how to make better files, you need to buy nothing (assuming you have software that processes raw files). Just shoot in raw, read up on the benefits of raw, and process the files accordingly. You will get more dynamic range, and greater bit depth. Also more room for adjustment without banding or artifacts.
If you want to learn how to print, get a photo printer, choose one paper, and print from files that look good on screen. Start by calibrating your monitor according to the manufacturer's directions. For instance, Apple walks you through a basic calibration with no extra hardware needed. Keep the brightness of the monitor to about half.
These are two very separate things.
If you want to learn how to make better files, you need to buy nothing (assuming you have software that processes raw files). Just shoot in raw, read up on the benefits of raw, and process the files accordingly. You will get more dynamic range, and greater bit depth. Also more room for adjustment without banding or artifacts.
If you want to learn how to print, get a photo printer, choose one paper, and print from files that look good on screen. Start by calibrating your monitor according to the manufacturer's directions. For instance, Apple walks you through a basic calibration with no extra hardware needed. Keep the brightness of the monitor to about half.
aad
Not so new now.
So good luck, Dave. Remember to trust your own eyes.
daveleo
what?
Thanks everyone for the replies. (And thank you Pablito for separating those two issues for me.)
I am going to take small steps.
The first step being to process a few RAW files (using "camera settings" options in the software for exposure, color balance, etc) and have them printed 8X10 along with their camera JPG counterparts.
(I suspect for most images, there will be no difference in the prints, and that RAW really comes to the party when "saving" a badly recorded file. But that is only a suspicion at this point.)
Also going to get a book on the topic of RAW file processing (there's a concept, huh! ). I think the topic of making better prints is very complicated and expensive to face, and will probably always use a lab to do that.
Thank you all again.
I am going to take small steps.
The first step being to process a few RAW files (using "camera settings" options in the software for exposure, color balance, etc) and have them printed 8X10 along with their camera JPG counterparts.
(I suspect for most images, there will be no difference in the prints, and that RAW really comes to the party when "saving" a badly recorded file. But that is only a suspicion at this point.)
Also going to get a book on the topic of RAW file processing (there's a concept, huh! ). I think the topic of making better prints is very complicated and expensive to face, and will probably always use a lab to do that.
Thank you all again.
Steve_F
Well-known
Dave,
I've always shot RAW, simply because it gives YOU the choices and not the camera. (Its a 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card). White balance, exposure, sharpening, hue, saturation etc can all be changed without affecting the file quality, unlike modifying a JPEG would.
As a Nikon (.NEF) RAW user I import in to Lightroom or Nikon Capture NX2.
I always use sRGB for images that will be printed and Adobe RGB for those going to stock libraries (as thats what they prefer - appear flatter but more colours). Remember to change your monitor to Adobe RGB setting if using that profile and back when using sRGB.
I've always printed using a lab, even for 6"x4" of my children. They use sRGB for their wet-prints (real photos) and as for the cost, most labs can be as little as 5p (7.5 cents) per print when ordering a large quantity.
Processing a lot of RAW can be a nuisance but its worth it, even for small prints.
My iMac is what I use for the work, the monitor set to sRGB is close enough, but it can be corrected. I haven't used these very expensive colour set-ups as I feel correcting batches of paint (up to 5000 litres) by the naked eye for 7 years was pretty good training. Trust your instincts, not the marketing departments.
The printing at home philosophy is ridiculously expensive and a pain in the **** due to paper profiling etc.
Good luck, any other questions, feel free to ask.
I've always shot RAW, simply because it gives YOU the choices and not the camera. (Its a 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card). White balance, exposure, sharpening, hue, saturation etc can all be changed without affecting the file quality, unlike modifying a JPEG would.
As a Nikon (.NEF) RAW user I import in to Lightroom or Nikon Capture NX2.
I always use sRGB for images that will be printed and Adobe RGB for those going to stock libraries (as thats what they prefer - appear flatter but more colours). Remember to change your monitor to Adobe RGB setting if using that profile and back when using sRGB.
I've always printed using a lab, even for 6"x4" of my children. They use sRGB for their wet-prints (real photos) and as for the cost, most labs can be as little as 5p (7.5 cents) per print when ordering a large quantity.
Processing a lot of RAW can be a nuisance but its worth it, even for small prints.
My iMac is what I use for the work, the monitor set to sRGB is close enough, but it can be corrected. I haven't used these very expensive colour set-ups as I feel correcting batches of paint (up to 5000 litres) by the naked eye for 7 years was pretty good training. Trust your instincts, not the marketing departments.
The printing at home philosophy is ridiculously expensive and a pain in the **** due to paper profiling etc.
Good luck, any other questions, feel free to ask.
marcr1230
Well-known
I've peen working thru pictures I took this fall on a trip to the western United States. I shot with a D800 using RAW+JPEG mode. using Aperture to process them.
I have to say that I was gobsmacked (love that word) by the differences in the unprocessed RAW displayed vs the JPEG. the RAW typically has much better color saturation and resembles the scene I remember, the JPEG's seem flat by comparison.
now, I'm not sure what conversion of the RAW is actually displayed on screen, is it a tiff version, or a jpeg or otherwise.
This is all without any PP at all.
My understanding is that the in camera conversion to JPEG is CPU intensive and is not done to the finest level possible due to time considerations. The conversion to JPEG using Aperture or akin, is not limited and tends to do a deeper dive than the in camera process.
seeing this, I will always use RAW in the future for any critical application
I have to say that I was gobsmacked (love that word) by the differences in the unprocessed RAW displayed vs the JPEG. the RAW typically has much better color saturation and resembles the scene I remember, the JPEG's seem flat by comparison.
now, I'm not sure what conversion of the RAW is actually displayed on screen, is it a tiff version, or a jpeg or otherwise.
This is all without any PP at all.
My understanding is that the in camera conversion to JPEG is CPU intensive and is not done to the finest level possible due to time considerations. The conversion to JPEG using Aperture or akin, is not limited and tends to do a deeper dive than the in camera process.
seeing this, I will always use RAW in the future for any critical application
jarski
Veteran
good intro for color profiles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvSOYvyRAt4
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
I shoot RAW+JPG all the time. Process in Lightroom.
Where does RAW help? Shadows and highlights. If you ever reduce contrast, bright up the shadows, recover (bring down) highlights, that's where I see the difference. That's where the extra bits help.
bigeye
Well-known
There is a lot of free LR4 training on youtube; this is a good starting point.
If you can shoot jpeg + raw, I found it instructive to compare the camera's jpeg manipulation as a baseline to beat with my own munging. You'll soon get to where you can easily better the camera.
-Charlie
If you can shoot jpeg + raw, I found it instructive to compare the camera's jpeg manipulation as a baseline to beat with my own munging. You'll soon get to where you can easily better the camera.
-Charlie