# dumb question



## edition_25 (Oct 7, 2007)

having just bought my d60, i have noticed that i can have the pictures taken in raw mode...whats that?

:thumb:


----------



## 1000lakes (May 12, 2007)

Like a mode that creates digital negatives.

For free software to manipulate these you can look atleast at www.rawtherapee.com


----------



## singlespeed (Sep 12, 2007)

RAW is the image before any corrections have been made. This lets you adjust white balance, exposure and contrast after the picture has been taken. This lets you salvage a pic more easily from a duff exposure. If you had chosen JPEG, the preset white balance and exposure compensation etc is processed into the file before it's saved. This limits the chances of salvaging a picture.

I have started using rawhide, which works with the D60 raw(NEF) files and converts them to a TIFF which can then be used in Photoshop etc.


----------



## JasonRS (Aug 8, 2006)

Think of it like this

RAW = Digital Negative
JPEG = Digital Polaroid

It's quite an over simplified view, but it's a start 

From another post, we know you've got Photoshop, so you can use that to manage your RAW files (in Bridge) and convert them to jpeg when you want to. Personally I use Adobe Lightroom, but it ain't cheap.


----------



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

Didn't you get a copy of the cut down Nikon NX software with your D60? This allows manipulation of your NEF images.
Photoshop has a plug in available, or as above, 3rd party software is available.
I always shoot in RAW (and basic Jpeg for a quick viewer).


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

Also just to add that raw photos have no in camera processing at all.
Most jpegs will have in camera sharpening and colour boosting etc depending on the mode the pic was taken in.
Therefore when the raw image is opened up on the 'puter it can look quite dull and lifeless compared to a jpeg taken at the same time.
Also, when processing a raw file you can save as a 16bit TIFF which will end up as a MASSIVE file. All good if you want to print at A3 plus but overkill really for most amateur applications.
For a beginner to photography I would stick just to taking jpegs and learning from that,or if the camera has the function, and you have the memory, taking each photo as both a raw file and a jpeg. Then you have the nice simple ready to use jpeg files but the raw backup in case you take that really special image:thumb:


----------



## edition_25 (Oct 7, 2007)

Thanks guys. I did get some basic software with the camera but i have yet to install it as im playing around with photoshop to much. I bought a 4gb memory card so i suppose i could use the raw and jpeg mode for taking pictures as i wont realy burn up to much space. I think i am probably best keeping to jpeg for the time being untill i get a basic understanding of how to use photoshop and the camera properly. 

cheers


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

Note that although RAW files are referred to a digital negatives, they aren't actually negative (reversed colours).

As a size guide, a RAW file is the same size roughly as the number of megapixels of your camera. My 400D is 10.1Mpx so the RAW files are ~10MB which means I can get ~400 on a 4GB card.


----------



## edition_25 (Oct 7, 2007)

I see, not as much space as i thought then. maybe i should just leave raw well alone till i know what it is im doing. Im still making a complete dogs dinner of photoshop so I think I will focus all my energy to that.

Oh, what version should i download on www.rawtherapee.com? just so I can have a little play around when im bored.

cheers


----------



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

What you must remember is that a photograph will always be more natural when you get it right at the shoot, photoshop can enhance and falsify, be careful 

Gary


----------



## edition_25 (Oct 7, 2007)

Ill keep that in mind, dont want to go over the top with it....just a little touch up here and there.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

Gary makes a good point, however, shooting in RAW means you can fix the photo without falsifying it - and without losing quality. Effectively, it allows you to re-take the photo.

For example, you take a quick shot without having time to check the camera settings (that candid shot of your child) and you then find that the WB was set to Daylight but you were shooting indoors in tungsten lighting. The JPEG will have a heavy orange colour-cast. You can fix this in PS but, because JPEG is lossy, you will reduce the quality of the pic because some picture information is missing. If you shoot RAW you can simply change the WB to tungsten and the photo is fixed without any loss of quality - just as if you'd taken it with the WB set correctly.

You should be able to set your camera to save both RAW *and* JPEG so, if the photo is good, use the JPEG and delete the RAW; if the photo is poor, use the RAW image to fix it then save as JPEG.

On my 400D a JPEG, using Fine (the highest quality), is ~3MB so shooting both RAw and JPEG still gives ~300 shots on a 4GB card.


----------



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

I tend to create a full size jpeg from the RAW and delete the basic jpeg; I would never delete a master RAW file.

One thing though, RAW can only go so far. ie: seriously under/over exposed images will be unusable, period. No amount of PP work can bring this back without inducing shedloads of noise.

Gary


----------



## edition_25 (Oct 7, 2007)

I have to admit, some of this information is abit above me at the moment...altho I am taking it on board as sometime in the near future all this info wil become relevent and i can say...oh yea...get it now.

cheers for your help guys


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

Gary-360 said:


> I tend to create a full size jpeg from the RAW and delete the basic jpeg; I would never delete a master RAW file.


I guess it depends on what you want the photo for, but I take your point.



Gary-360 said:


> One thing though, RAW can only go so far. ie: seriously under/over exposed images will be unusable, period. No amount of PP work can bring this back without inducing shedloads of noise.


Oh indeed, I wasn't suggesting to the OP that you could go that far - maybe my comment 'Effectively, it allows you to re-take the photo.' suggested it was? That wasn't my intention. However, you will have more success recovering a badly over/under-exposed pic to a reasonable quality from RAW than from JPEG. As you say though, there's no substitute for getting it right in the first place


----------

