I have just gotten a Nikon D60, which is my first DSLR. Up until now, I was using a Kodak P880 which is a point and shoot. In the literature that came with the D60, they talk about a format called RAW, in addition to JPEG. If I understand it right, the RAW image is used to make the JPEG within the home computer by the software that came with the camera. I have also read bits and pieces about the RAW format in one of the photo magazines. Has anyone used this method for train pictures, and, if you have, what kind of results did you get? How much trouble is it?
You are correct that RAW files are the “raw camera data” used to create the jpeg images on the camera. There are many railroad photographers who successfully shoot RAW files, and some publishers actually prefer to be sent RAW files. RAW allows for much more flexibility in post-processing photos in that it contains more data on the photo than a JPEG does. You can actually adjust the exposure with a RAW file just liking changing the shutter speed or F stop on your camera, except it’s done after the photo has been taken. However, each photo with RAW does require more work to make a “finished” photo in photoshop than shooting JPEG, but it’s not too bad. RAW photos also have a much larger file size, and so they take up a little more storage space. In post processing program like photoshop you’ll also need to download a plug in to allow your software to process RAW files, but usually it’s free from the software company’s website if they offer it. Sometimes the camera comes with software to convert RAW files as well, and then you can take the file into a photoshop program for final corrections and converion to a JPEG.
I bought a DSLR a little over two years ago, and up until now I shot large format JPEG almost exclusively. However, I’ve been experimenting with RAW lately, and I like it a lot. If you aren’t sure, see if your camera has a setting called “RAW + Large JPEG” and use that to take a few test shots. That way you will get a RAW file you can experiement with but also the JPEG in case you don’t like RAW. This was one of my most recent RAW experiments, converted to a JPEG after processing:
It all comes down to what you plan on doing with your pictures.
Large JPEG will suffice for a significant portion of your shooting, particularly if it’s for your own enjoyment and for sharing.
As Noah points out, RAW comes into play if you are going to be doing any significant post processing. I don’t know what software came with your camera, but if you’re going to be doing any serious post processing, you’ll want to invest in Photoshop (pricey), Photoshop Elements (affordable), Paint Shop Pro, or a similar image handling program.
One thing to keep in mind about RAW (or RAW+JPEG) is that RAW images take up a lot of space. I can get over 250 large JPEGs on a 1 Gig card in my Rebel. Shift over to RAW+JPEG and that number is 60. Not a problem if you have plenty of memory (I carry an extra 1 Gig card), but a heartbreaker when the shot of the day shows up and you don’t have any space left on the card.
That said - one nice thing about digital is that you can shoot to your heart’s content, download, and keep right on going. With the cards and batteries I have on hand, I can capture over 500 images at the get-go. If I can charge a battery while I’m shooting, and have my laptop to download to, the sky is the limit.
I shoot everything in RAW and then convert finished works to JPEG so I can upload them. But I keep the RAW that way if something happens or the JPEG degrades too much (which hasnt happened yet) I cna open the RAW file back up and I can re process it again if I need to.
I shoot mostly RAW and use Adobe’s Lightroom for the editing and organizing. As some of the others have posted, RAW provides the opportunity for post shooting editing of the color balance, color and such. If you are picky about your shots, that is the way to go. If however you want photos for your own use and are not as demanding on your output, JPEG is great. You can put a lot more JPEG on a card than RAW.
Also, there is a difference between Photoshop and Lightroom. Lightroom is designed to work with RAW and will also organize your shots. It does this very well. Photoshop is much more about modifying your pictures by physically changing them, such as removing a shadow from the picture.
My own thoughts (distillation of these) are that if you just want to look at the images you take, and store and print them, then JPEG is all you need; RAW is only needed if you know why you need it, i.e. that you are going to put the time, effort and skill into doing substantial editing of your images (you want UP E units on your pictures of Obama’s inaugural train? and scenery to match? - that’s the sort of edit I mean).
I have had a Nikon D 50 (perhaps now suoerceded by the D 40?) and it has provisions for shooting both the RAW and the JPEG formats simultaneously so there is no RAW vs JPEG. (Nikon calls its RAW format Nikon Electronic Format or NEF). The RAW format is like a negative in that its files have all of the data while JPEG is compressed so some data are lost; the amount of data loss depends on whether you are shooting in basic JPEG, which has a high degree of compression, or high level JPEG which has lower degree of compression.
If you shoot in the RAW plus basic JPEG format you will get both formats when you download the photos into the computer The basic JPEG format is usually sufficient for sending photographic images over the internet or even for digital projection, however, if you want to submit photos for publication a high level JPEG format or a TIFF are needed. I noticed that the basic software that comes with digital cameras will not open the RAW format you need the camera maker’s advanced software or a third party software such as Photoshop Elements for that.
I have found going directly from film based SLR’s to digital SLR’s is a learning curve. For example I lost some photos in my organizer because I never realized how they are linked to the photos that are stored in the computer’s hard drive.
If all you are going to do is point, shoot, and view your photos, then using JPG will be fine. If you are an excellent photographer who never over-or-under exposes any images, has rock-steady hands, and never needs to crop any of his photos, then JPG-Fine is the way to go.
On the other hand, I’ve always believed in using the highest resolution available that I can afford. Why spend the $$ for a nice camera and then use it like a point-and-shoot? I say shoot in RAW (NEF), you can always save the image later as a JPG (of course making sure you keep the original RAW someplace safe.
Additionally, memory cards are getting cheaper every day. With your D60, capable of 10MP images, each RAW image will take about 9MB of disk space. That will still give you 100+ images per GB of card memory. B&H has a Lexar 4GB Professional high-speed memory card for sale for only $35 (see link), so there is no reason to use memory capacity as an excuse to shoot in JPG. FWIW, my comments are based on personal experience. A few years ago I purchased the D70, and shot in JPG for my first year or so.
As an example of the type of editing typically done in a program light LightRoom with RAW format, last night I started in on the 145 Grand Canyon pictures (no trains in that group) from a recent trip. I changed the white balance on all from automatic to daylight as I liked the color better. I also thought most were overexposed so I cut back on the exposure and on some I lightened the shadows. LightRoom stores both the original and revised versions. I also deleted the really bad ones. Later I will review to decide on the keepers and will do some additional editing where I forgot about the rule of thirds. I will then create a slide show with the keepers.
The white balance, exposure and other adjustments could have been done with the camera if I had been more attentive to the camera or shot multiples with different exposures of the same shot. RAW format and programs like LightRoom take more time and are not for everyone nor for every situation.
