Shooting in raw mode

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've done some testing and the processed raw shots look the best but a few
questions..

I know the in camera jpegs are processed in the camera i.e. the
sharpness/contrast/white balance etc is put on them and then stored.

When Raw files are shot, what on camera adjustments have an effect on these?
I assume the basic exposure does, but is anything else critical that can't
be adjusted/processed in software later with no ill effects? I'm assuming
the on camera exposure compensation is changing the actual shutter speed
rather than digitally doing this in software? I'm just wondering so I don't
waste time playing with setting that are doing nothing! Since I can get 72
RAW shots on a 1 gig card, I'm probably going to use this for everything as
it seems to give the most latitude for tweaking after the fact. TIA for any
explaination or links about this..
--

Stacey

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RAW mode is simply the lack of compression - jpeg files lose
information after they are compressed, RAW files are stored in the
memory "as is", no data loss, which is simply great for editing later.

This is the only difference between the formats, the camera should have
the same functions and operate in the same way with both types of files
(you might get additional options when using RAW, as it uses camera CPU
less - that is - the CPU is not used for compression - for example you
might be able to take more shots per second in RAW, as you would in
jpeg, but this is just a hunch on my side, and depends on the camera
model).

Good luck!

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<dkaloyanov@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104138937.203616.86290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> RAW mode is simply the lack of compression - jpeg files lose
> information after they are compressed, RAW files are stored in the
> memory "as is", no data loss, which is simply great for editing later.

Not exactly. No.
You are not describing RAW files, but rather some other uncompressed image
file formats such as .tif.
RAW files are not image files at all...yet.
Compression has nothing to do with RAW, though it does provide the
opportunity to save/create an uncompressed image file from it, using
appropriate software. It can also be processed into a compressed jpeg file,
however, as a direct interpretation from the RAW data.

A RAW file is simply the direct data off of the sensor itself without any
interpretation whatsoever. -No white balance is applied, or color profile,
etc.
It has not yet been processed into any particular image file format that can
be manipulated, compressed, or otherwise used except for viewing in software
specifically designed to decode it's 1's and 0's.

Once you process the RAW files on the computer, you then determine what type
of image file you wish to create from the sensor data contained in the RAW
file.

> This is the only difference between the formats, the camera should have
> the same functions and operate in the same way with both types of files
> (you might get additional options when using RAW, as it uses camera CPU
> less - that is - the CPU is not used for compression - for example you
> might be able to take more shots per second in RAW, as you would in
> jpeg, but this is just a hunch on my side, and depends on the camera
> model).
>
> Good luck!
>

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I stand corrected, I am sorry for posting nonsense Take a look here,
it is helpful:

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm
http://www.photo.net/learn/raw/

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33a01tF3tj4vpU1@individual.net...
> I've done some testing and the processed raw shots look the best but a few
> questions..
>
> I know the in camera jpegs are processed in the camera i.e. the
> sharpness/contrast/white balance etc is put on them and then stored.
>
> When Raw files are shot, what on camera adjustments have an effect on
these?
> I assume the basic exposure does, but is anything else critical that can't
> be adjusted/processed in software later with no ill effects? I'm assuming
> the on camera exposure compensation is changing the actual shutter speed
> rather than digitally doing this in software? I'm just wondering so I
don't
> waste time playing with setting that are doing nothing! Since I can get 72
> RAW shots on a 1 gig card, I'm probably going to use this for everything
as
> it seems to give the most latitude for tweaking after the fact. TIA for
any
> explaination or links about this..

Your assumption about exposure is correct.

One that is often still worth setting is proper white balance--**especially
in situations that need a **custom** white balance. While it is indeed
possible to change which white balance pre-set you want to use AFTER the
fact, you CANNOT create a custom balance as you would at time of exposure
(where you shoot a white or neutral grey paper or subject, then have your
camera base white balance on the rendition the white/grey paper gave under
the same light. That can only be done at the point of capture. There are
many tricky lighting situations where none of the preset W/B settings will
do the job well. In these situations, your creation and use of a custom WB
can save you real headaches because otherwise you'll be met with the
challenge of trying to color balance entirely "by hand." This applies to
RAW and jpeg images similarly.

-Mark

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dkaloyanov@gmail.com wrote:
>
> might be able to take more shots per second in RAW, as you would in
> jpeg, but this is just a hunch on my side, and depends on the camera
> model).

For my D70 in RAW mode it takes three shots super quick then bogs down
in the buffer. In JPG fine it's not quite as fast but can keep going
almost indefinitely. You would have to be shooting something very
special to need that speed difference in the first three frames.

As for later editing it seems a minimal benefit to me. The link you gave
pretty much agrees RAW is only subtly better:
http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm
Really only needed for extremely picky high end work.

They do confuse the other image adjustements with JPG format though.
It's possible to turn off sharpening, contrast enhancement & saturation
increase is off by default. I always heard sharpening shouldn't be done
till last and personally I don't like the unenhanced blah color that
comes out of the D70 so I've turned that on.

White balance is the only thing that's easier to adjust with a RAW image
but do you really want to have to do that for every image? Also, I don't
know what the damage is but color balance can be adjusted with reusable
curves in photoshop if you really need to correct something later which
probably isn't often.

File size and the extra step of converting are the real buggers with
RAW. You have to convert with a separate program to use the files & it's
going to be real slow to download or view & eat up memory card & hard
drive space like crazy. Here's file sizes for a typical D70 image in
different formats:

..75MB JPEG (if resized to 1200x1600 & re-saved at 95% quality)
1MB JPEG (if re-saved at 70% quality)
2MB JPEG (if re-saved at 92% quality)
-3MB JPEG FINE (equivalent to 95% quality if re-saved)
4MB JPEG (if re-saved at 100% quality)
-9MB RAW (estimated)
18MB TIFF (no compression)

I use JPEG FINE because there is almost no compression loss & the files
are small enough to load up in any image viewer quickly right out of the
camera. I adjust about 1/3 of my final pictures in PS with curves,
cropping & such then flatten & save back at the same 95% quality so
everything is the same format (of course saving the original). TIFF is
supposed to be better but really at six times the file size it's not
worth it. If I intend to print poster size I've still got the original
to work from. I shoot too many pics & don't have an unlimited hard drive
budget. For someone shooting professionally for a single perfect studio
shot for top dollar RAW might make sense.

I have decided to try turning off sharpening & contrast enhancement
though so it might be good to figure out a standard routine for adding
those back using irfanview batch processing. At the same time I might
reduce them to screen size, then I get into a whole complicated workflow
& could just as well convert from RAW if I wasn't in a rush & had
endless storage funds. In fact, the in-camera sharpening or contrast
adjustment at least is somewhat custom for each shot so probably could
not be reproduced with a simple batch run so maybe it's better to let
the camera do that. The advantage to turning them off is for the 1/3 of
my final pics that I chose to process further in some custom way, they
are closer to RAW. I'll see how things look with these settings turned
off & decide.

Reply to Paul

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33a01tF3tj4vpU1@individual.net...
>
> When Raw files are shot, what on camera adjustments have an effect on
these?

It depends on the camera. Some cameras have RAW files that are more raw than
others. Your instruction manual should tell you what RAW really means in
your particular camera. Typical adjustments that cameras make to RAW files
include exposure, white balance, noise reduction and sharpening, with some
of these features that can be turned on or off individually. Some cameras do
not actually do much processing of the RAW data, but store the information
that the camera would have used in a separate file. Others store that
information in a header in the picture file and it can be changed in
Photoshop or the editing software included with the camera.

There are other differences, too. Some cameras store RAW files as a higher
quality image. JPG files are limited to 8 bit depth, but RAW files can be 12
bits or more, allowing much greater color gradation. I have noticed that
cameras that offer a 12 bit RAW file but a 16 bit TIF file get a lot of
noise in their TIF files.

Neither are RAW files uncompressed. The camera typically does some
compression of a RAW file. Contrary to what some people claim, there is no
such thing as "lossless" compression, but some forms of compression are
"virtually lossless." What they are really saying is that compression
algorithm is stable: the lost data remains the same no matter how the image
is manipulated and is beyond the ability of the human eye to detect or for
printers to print. This lost data is usually represented by gaps in the
tonal range. The camera manufacturer decides where these gaps will occur.
Remember, it is being stored already at a higher resolution than the eye can
see and printers are basically limited to 8 bits of color depth anyway, so
the loss is inconsequential. But don't believe anyone who tells you that the
compression is "lossless."

If you examine RAW photos of an identical subject taken by different cameras
using identical conditions you can see how different manufacturers process
and compress their data, just as different brands of film will show similar
variation. RAW files from two different cameras will not look the same, even
if they are using the same CCD. Granted, you have a far greater degree of
control than you ever could have had with film, but consider the
'processing' that occurs in film cameras, even a simple box camera: pictures
are adjusted for focus, lens coatings, filters, aperture, speed, etc. Maybe
you did the adjustments yourself, but you cannot undo them.

The bottom line is that RAW is not really raw, and there is an awful lot of
processing, both manual and digital, going on before the file is stored.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<dkaloyanov@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104138937.203616.86290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> RAW mode is simply the lack of compression - jpeg files lose
> information after they are compressed, RAW files are stored in the
> memory "as is", no data loss, which is simply great for editing later.
>
> This is the only difference between the formats, the camera should have
> the same functions and operate in the same way with both types of files
> (you might get additional options when using RAW, as it uses camera CPU
> less - that is - the CPU is not used for compression - for example you
> might be able to take more shots per second in RAW, as you would in
> jpeg, but this is just a hunch on my side, and depends on the camera
> model).

It takes less time to process and compress the photo in the CPU than it does
to write it to memory. Shooting in RAW will invariably be slower than other
formats.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C J Cambell:
"It takes less time to process and compress the photo in the CPU than
it does
to write it to memory. Shooting in RAW will invariably be slower than
other
formats."

Point taken. What about shooting more photos in RAW, using the camera
buffer with less CPU load, compared to one shot in jpeg, using the CPU
to compress it (unable to shoot more photos on account of high CPU
usage)? Doesn't anyone have a camera that makes continuous RAW shots
but no continuous jpeg shots?

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C J Campbell wrote:

>
> Neither are RAW files uncompressed. The camera typically does some
> compression of a RAW file.

I figured something like this was going on. The raw files are about 1/2 the
size of the uncompressed Tiff files but about 2X the size of the "SHQ"
jpeg. Seems like a good compromize to me. Given I can get 72 images on this
card and I'm used to shooting 4X5 and medium format where shots are
limited, never use "burst" modes etc, see no reason to go with the
compressed formats. Once I get the file adjusted the way I like, I can then
save it as a fine jpeg and delete the raw file from the hard drive.

--

Stacey

Reply to Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:33a01tF3tj4vpU1@individual.net...
>> I've done some testing and the processed raw shots look the best but a
>> few questions..
>>
>> I know the in camera jpegs are processed in the camera i.e. the
>> sharpness/contrast/white balance etc is put on them and then stored.
>>
>> When Raw files are shot, what on camera adjustments have an effect on
> these?
>> I assume the basic exposure does,
>
> Your assumption about exposure is correct.
>
> One that is often still worth setting is proper white
> balance--**especially
> in situations that need a **custom** white balance.

Yea I noticed it saved the white balance I set. I've been manually setting
white balance (not custom but using the "guess preset" for the shooting
conditions) and it's real close most of the time. Maybe I should be custom
setting it instead? Given what I'm shooting is landscapes, that I'm used to
shooting slowly using medium format and 4X5, I want the best quality the
camera can deliver. So far I'm pretty impressed with the quality this E300
can produce.

It does seem the camera applies some sort of noise filter by default to the
in camera jpegs as they can't seem to be made as sharp as the raw files
without making them look weird. Maybe it's sharpening the compression
artifacts? Since it's only a 2X larger file size shooting raw, this looks
like the best mode to use for me. I normally only shoot maybe 2 dozen
images on an outing (if that) so I won't have hundreds of images to deal
with in the slower workflow. I'd rather edit in the viewfinder than on the
computer! :-) Guess that comes from doing my own color and B&W darkroom
work in the past?

Thanx everyone for your help.

--

Stacey

Reply to Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Mark² wrote:

>>One that is often still worth setting is proper white
>>balance--**especially
>>in situations that need a **custom** white balance.
>
>
> Yea I noticed it saved the white balance I set. I've been manually setting
> white balance (not custom but using the "guess preset" for the shooting
> conditions) and it's real close most of the time. Maybe I should be custom
> setting it instead? Given what I'm shooting is landscapes, that I'm used to
> shooting slowly using medium format and 4X5, I want the best quality the
> camera can deliver. So far I'm pretty impressed with the quality this E300
> can produce.
>
Your method sounds fine. It's easy to fine tune the color balance in RAW
and apply those settings to the rest of the images done in the same
conditions if necessary.

In fact, shooting RAW makes it unnecessary to do a custom white balance
at all, as you can set the white point in the first image, and apply it
to the rest. While unnecessary, I still think it's a good idea to shoot
as if there were no Photoshop, with all settings as good as you can
get'em. Now, if only I were able to do that meself!

--
John McWilliams

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darin Kaloyanov wrote:

>I stand corrected, I am sorry for posting nonsense

No problem -- we all do it.

By the way, your conjecture about being able
to take more pictures in a short time frame is
not correct, either. RAW and TIFF files take
longer to write to card because of their size.
JPEGs take less time because they're smaller,
and the compression routines make a negligible
impact on write time.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John McWilliams wrote:

>
> In fact, shooting RAW makes it unnecessary to do a custom white balance
> at all, as you can set the white point in the first image, and apply it
> to the rest. While unnecessary, I still think it's a good idea to shoot
> as if there were no Photoshop, with all settings as good as you can
> get'em. Now, if only I were able to do that meself!
>

That's what I was thinking. I guess from my B&W darkroom days I always tried
to make a "perfect" negative in the camera as it made making prints later
much easier... If all I have to do is some minor contrast, sharpness and
"exposure" adjustments in post, makes life much easier!

--

Stacey

Reply to Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I guess, I learned quite a lot too Thanks, guys!

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 27 Dec 2004 01:15:37 -0800, dkaloyanov@gmail.com wrote:

>RAW mode is simply the lack of compression

Sorry, you lose! Who's our next contestant...

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C J Campbell wrote:

> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:33a01tF3tj4vpU1@individual.net...
> <snip>
> Contrary to what some people claim, there is no
> such thing as "lossless" compression . . .

If you are meaning in-camera, you may be right, though I doubt it with high-end
dslr's. Generally, there are lossless compression algorithms, like .zip, .rar,
lzw tif etc which can recreate exactly the original file - which is why they are
used for compressed lossless data transmission.

Colin.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sorry, you lose! Who's our next contestant..."
Secheese, read carefully the development of the topic, before posting
useless offensive remarks. Thanks!

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darin Kaloyanov wrote:

> "Sorry, you lose! Who's our next contestant..."
> Secheese, read carefully the development of the topic, before posting
> useless offensive remarks. Thanks!

I was suprized there was a thread here with information and no rude
insults. Oh well, should have known someone would step up to the plate and
take a swip at somebody...
--

Stacey

Reply to Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I know what you mean - I even apologized for making that false
statement at the beginning of the thread, but there is always someone
who needs to feel better by insulting others.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darin Kaloyanov wrote:

> I know what you mean - I even apologized for making that false
> statement at the beginning of the thread, but there is always someone
> who needs to feel better by insulting others.

Best to just realize these types of coments say WAY more about them than
what they are -trying- to say about you! :-)
--

Stacey

Reply to Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <1Y-dnXCXL5URwE3cRVn-rA@comcast.com>,
"Don Lathrop" <dl682@concrete.not> wrote:

>Darin Kaloyanov wrote:
>
>>I stand corrected, I am sorry for posting nonsense
>
>No problem -- we all do it.
>
>By the way, your conjecture about being able
>to take more pictures in a short time frame is
>not correct, either. RAW and TIFF files take
>longer to write to card because of their size.
>JPEGs take less time because they're smaller,
>and the compression routines make a negligible
>impact on write time.

That is true for some cameras, but not for others. It may also vary
with memory card speed. If you can move data very fast, but processing
is slow, RAWs will write faster. If the opposite is true, JPEGs may
write faster.

It's the same compromise you have with file compression on computers;
data can be written faster to a compressed drive if the balance of power
leans towards the CPU; it may be slower if the balance of power leans
towards disk write speed.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <l4qdnS958qdzsU3cRVn-tw@wavecable.com>,
"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Contrary to what some people claim, there is no
>such thing as "lossless" compression, but some forms of compression are
>"virtually lossless."

Gee, no wonder all those executables that I unzipped are crashing like
mad!

Seriously, lossless compress is quite real, and highly depended on.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <1Y-dnXCXL5URwE3cRVn-rA@comcast.com>,
> "Don Lathrop" <dl682@concrete.not> wrote:
>
>>Darin Kaloyanov wrote:
>>
>>>I stand corrected, I am sorry for posting nonsense
>>
>>No problem -- we all do it.
>>
>>By the way, your conjecture about being able
>>to take more pictures in a short time frame is
>>not correct, either. RAW and TIFF files take
>>longer to write to card because of their size.
>>JPEGs take less time because they're smaller,
>>and the compression routines make a negligible
>>impact on write time.
>
> That is true for some cameras, but not for others. It may also vary
> with memory card speed. If you can move data very fast, but processing
> is slow, RAWs will write faster. If the opposite is true, JPEGs may
> write faster.
>

Was out today shooting today for the first -real- time with the camera. At
least on this Olympus E300, in raw mode it writes the files almost
instantly. Or at least there is a buffer so in single shot mode there is no
waiting for the next shot so this isn't an issue. Might be the "extream" 1G
Sandisk CF card? Anywhy this write speed doesn't seem to even be an issue
with this camera.

--

Stacey

Reply to Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 27 Dec 2004 22:59:43 -0800, "Darin Kaloyanov"
<dkaloyanov@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Sorry, you lose! Who's our next contestant..."
>Secheese, read carefully the development of the topic, before posting
>useless offensive remarks. Thanks!

Sorry... I did it again. I gotta start using smilies more... this
text-only medium is just too difficult.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I read most of these remarks on "RAW". I found them confusing and
contradictory. I bought a D70 in August and followed the "wise" advice
to just shoot with the top level JPEG. Thank heavens I didn't do this
for long! Now I use the combined JPEG + RAW mode. The jpegs are quite
good enough for sorting out the junk. I use PhotoShop CS but was
stymied when initially the fact that I had installed some other Nikon
software made the excellent Camera Raw interface of PhotoShop CS
inaccessible. To fix this I renamed a couple of the Nikon files so they
still exist but don't activate and now PhotoShop CS works fine on D70
RAW images. There is an excellent book that tells all about PhotoShop
CS and processing of RAW images [Camera Raw with Adobe PhotoShop CS by
Bruce Fraser - it was 33 percent off the $34.99 price at Borders].

In short, forget all the verbiage and conflicting technicalities and
use RAW + JPEG if you have a D70. It ensures you get the most of what
you paid for and if I can use PhotoShop CS - anybody can!!

Soon I will take a course in PhotoShop CS at a nearby community
college. Then I may even attempt "layers", something I have assiduoulsy
avoided as being unnecessary. The older you get the more you want
action and less complications. This can be a big mistake, or a big
blessing. Depends.

Tom Roach

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kodakfilm@gmail.com wrote:

> ...Thank heavens I didn't do this
> for long! Now I use the combined JPEG + RAW mode.

What made the difference for you, noticeable compression artifacts?

So the workflow is to sort out the favorites & junk by previewing the
jpeg basics with renaming or deleting, then manually delete all but the
best raw images & batch process those into TIFF?

I take as many as 300 pics in a day's shooting so it'd be a lot of work
for me. I suppose I could this but I would only want to keep the raw for
a few of the absolute winning pics & convert the rest to fine jpeg,
abandoning the raws. Otherwise I'd have to take the additional step of
burning raw to CD. I already have a lot of work sorting through my
pictures, I'll typically shoot 50 or 100 pics & chose 10 or 20 favorites
to present as a slide show & web gallery then maybe 1 of those will be
worthy of printing if I'm lucky so that's where I might want the
ultimate quality... or maybe it'd be nice to be able to crop closely
also. If I saved as TIFF, I'd also want jpeg fine because tiff loads too
slow when viewing a slide show. I'd probably archive the raws & still
keep jpeg except for the occasional winning printworthy shot.

Reply to Paul

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul:

I was really impressed with the tools PhotoShop CS gives you for
"pre-fixing" the NEF image for normal processing. You can always do it
different later and always have the original unmodified NEF. I rarely
shoot more than a couple of hundred [RAW and jpeg combined] images. I
am learning to press myself to get rid of the "inferior pictures". I
may take 20 pictures of a sparrow and keep only the very sharpest and
best, artistically speaking. Another joy of digital - you needn't
worry about wasting money on film and you just shoot away. I can't
stress too much how wise it is to use a tripod, something I almost
never did before I went digital.

You are so right. Different circumstances and end goals cause you to
modify your approach to what works best for you. I suppose once you are
SURE - jettison all the jpegs and keep only the best NEFs. It is a good
idea to back the NEFS up on CD-ROM - something I never seem to have the
time to do and something I better MAKE time to do if I am wise.
Tom Roach

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Attempt Layers??

You avoid them??

You seriously should get a book on Photoshop. If you are not using layers,
than you are actually making things more difficult, and ignoring about 90%
of what PS can do.

A book I STRONGLY recommend is "the Photoshop CS book for digital
photographers" by Scott Kelby. This book is awesome in that EVERYTHING in
it is done by example with step by step instructions saying EXACTLY how to
do stuff. None of this, "now open a new layer" stuff without telling you
HOW to do that.

Dont' wait around to learn how to us PS, just get in there and do it. What
do you have to loose other than some time, and you have a LOT to gain cause
getting better in PS will SAVE time and frustration in the long run....

Ron

> Soon I will take a course in PhotoShop CS at a nearby community
> college. Then I may even attempt "layers", something I have assiduoulsy
> avoided as being unnecessary. The older you get the more you want
> action and less complications. This can be a big mistake, or a big
> blessing. Depends.
>
> Tom Roach
>

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron:

Too late! I signed up for the PS CS course at the local community
college and it begins 24 January. Best of all, I also now can use their
great library research facilities when I am not using layers. I do know
how to work with my photos using PhotoShop CS and you may be right that
learning layers will make me even more pleased. I'm not sure, but will
wait and see. I believe I am doing about as much as a "purist" wants to
do to their photos since I manipulate it first in RAW mode and then
further sharpen, change "levels", or adjust colors as required. Of
course I then convert the product for printing at Costco or for email
purposes. I used PhotoShop to create the CD-ROM I sell on Cold War
Japan [see www.tbroach.com].

Tom

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kodakfilm@gmail.com wrote:

> Ron:
>
> Too late! I signed up for the PS CS course at the local community
> college and it begins 24 January. Best of all, I also now can use their
> great library research facilities when I am not using layers...

The neat thing about layers is creating an adjustment layer or sharpened
duplicate of the original then erasing out the areas that are overdone.
Otherwise adjustment layers just give you the ability to go back &
readjust. Also you can set the mode to overlay, screen etc & do some
bizzare & sometimes useful tricks.

Reply to Paul

Forum Digital Camera : Digital Camera General - Shooting in raw mode

Please mind

Focus On

Shooting in raw mode

Forum Digital Camera : Digital Camera General - Shooting in raw mode

Please mind