Photoshop 7 may be kind of iffy. It seems that the newer RAW formats are not backwards compatible with all version of Photoshop. I recently bought a Canon 5D Mark ii and I use Adobe Photoshop/Bridge CS3. Getting the RAW plugin for Bridge CS3 has been a real hassel. So, it would depend on the camera you are using and the support/plugins offered by Photoshop 7. I hope that helps.
@JGMOproductions You can try the Adobe website. When I bought the Canon 5D Mark II, I noticed that there was not a lot of RAW support either. Even when I tried to find a compatible plug-in from Adobe it seemed that they were more geared for the newer versions of Photoshop/Bridge CS4 or higher. I haven't checked in a while, but that may have changed. I never have problems opening RAW file in Apple's Aperture program though (which is a really great program BTW). So, try the Adobe website.
@cuddietv You can't edit RAW files directly in photoshop. Camera RAW is the way to go. But I'm pretty sure it wont work with photoshop 7. You'll need photoshop CS2 or greater.
@Richydudeman if you shoot very many images better use photoshop lightroom, because it's an easier and faster method to tweak a whole lot of raw files
Yes, since you would process RAW images outside of Photoshop anyway. I do not use lightroom, I use Adobe Bridge (which is similar in some respects) and I also use Aperture. Portraits taken indoors, under controlled lighting, do not need to be shot in RAW. If you are shooting outdoor scenes, a lot of people like to shoot in RAW to give much more control. It does involve more post production, but I find it easier to alter a RAW image than using trial and error with JPGs by comparison.
If I only use lightroom, not full adobe photoshop, is it worth shooting in RAW? Most of my photos are of scenery, cars, bikes, (rarely do I shoot motion shots but sometimes I do as well), and I'm newly getting into potrait.
@zoltan522 I can not really be bothered by what you think. How can I be mis-informed by something I see happen in real life on a fairly professional level ?
What you demonstrate in the video, be it blue or not, has not a lot to do with quality differences between raw and lossy, but more with an eye for light, workflow quality and overall skill.
80% of RAW is psychological. Pro photographers are SELLING subjective gut feelings when selling RAW.
@zoltan522 Funny sometimes, how people try to communicate, oblivious of linguistic differences that separates them, whilst both languages are, seemingly, so similar in pronunciation, grammar and syntax, turn out to be two distinct, and equally incompatible Tongues. .. sigh....
It's argument, be argumentative. There is much to be won there.
@retepvosnul You are still wrong. If RAW was just as good as JPG, then why would high-end camera manufacturers make cameras with RAW? It depends on the application and the circumstances--I'll agree with you there, but if you are running in and out of a building, during the day, and you only have one flash and not much time to capture a moment in time, shoot in RAW if you can. If you have time to set up your shot and have a few flashes to light up your scene properly, then shoot in JPG.
I never, you can check, claimed both are equal. You might find, after checking wikipedia for what percentages mean, that earlier on I made a comment on how 80% of RAW is between the ears. This means that 20% is actually of "some" use, trivial as it is.
You could in such scenario's gain an advantage quality wise, marginal and unnoticeable as such are in an end product(especially with sensors 12MP and higher). But is this worth it ? Not to the customer !.
I've found that people who criticize RAW generally have not used it. This applies particularly to people keen on HDR ... mainly lots of jgp users who haven't seen what is possible with RAWs.
you can get it using layers and layer mask using channel mixer but it would take alot more time I use olympus e-3 and always take raw just pack lots of flash cards.
I am doing a wedding the weekend and I think it would pay to shoot RAW what can go wrong ?????? I use Photoshop I have a Canon 1ds so although Jpeg would be quicker but I want some punchy images what are your thoughts I have converted from film now this my first digital wedding !
I used to shoot film, and knock on wood, I always had good luck with weddings. That being said, we can now achieve a perfection that we never could before, and shooting RAW is really the best insurance. People are paying for a pro job so you should give them a pro result. It's worth it, trust me. Good luck on your wedding!
I used to shoot film, and knock on wood, I always had good luck with weddings. That being said, we can now achieve a perfection that we never could before, and shooting RAW is really the best insurance. People are paying for a pro job so you should give them a pro result. It's worth it, trust me. Good luck on your wedding!
I used to shoot film, and knock on wood, I always had good luck with weddings. That being said, we can now achieve a perfection that we never could before, and shooting RAW is really the best insurance. People are paying for a pro job so you should give them a pro result. It's worth it, trust me. Good luck on your wedding!
I've found that people who criticize RAW generally have not used it. This applies particularly to people keen on HDR ... mainly lots of jgp users who haven't seen what is possible with RAWs.
Your example is a good case in point ... many would turn to HDR instead of RAWs. I have never seen as good a result from HDR as a RAW, for a reasonably exposed scene.
Yes that's actually the best way to do it. It's very easy to use and gives you many options for bringing out RAW data. Once processed you can save them to JPGs to work with in photoshop.
A TIFF file is higher quality, but they are HUGE files which require a lot of space and RAM to work with (in Photoshop for example). I recommend JPG--it's great quality and more manageable.
@zoltan522 thanks man, but i have a couple of question, if i fixed up a picture as a raw file, then i convert it to a jpeg (after editing) will it look has great? and when you said "RAW is not a final format for publishing, editing etc. " does that mean, a raw file is not a file you should edit with? or is that a typo?
You "develop" a RAW image, as opposed to "editing" it. You can crop a RAW image, in Adobe Bridge for example, but when you are working with a raw image, you are adjusting it--fine tuning exposure, removing blown out whites, adjusting the color temperature etc. So, you aren't "editing" the image itself, you are developing it. You then convert it to JPEG so you can "edit" by means of airbrushing, cloning, filters, etc. Hope this helps!
1st good video to explain the difference of raw vs jpeg... Thanks..
sdc3221 8 months ago
Photoshop 7 may be kind of iffy. It seems that the newer RAW formats are not backwards compatible with all version of Photoshop. I recently bought a Canon 5D Mark ii and I use Adobe Photoshop/Bridge CS3. Getting the RAW plugin for Bridge CS3 has been a real hassel. So, it would depend on the camera you are using and the support/plugins offered by Photoshop 7. I hope that helps.
zoltan522 1 year ago
@zoltan522 I have the T3i and cant find the right plug in to open the raw (cr2) file in CS3) any tips?
JGMOproductions 9 months ago
@JGMOproductions You can try the Adobe website. When I bought the Canon 5D Mark II, I noticed that there was not a lot of RAW support either. Even when I tried to find a compatible plug-in from Adobe it seemed that they were more geared for the newer versions of Photoshop/Bridge CS4 or higher. I haven't checked in a while, but that may have changed. I never have problems opening RAW file in Apple's Aperture program though (which is a really great program BTW). So, try the Adobe website.
zoltan522 9 months ago
i really want to start shootin RAW, can i convert raws or how can i get them on to my photoshop 7??
cuddietv 1 year ago
@cuddietv You can't edit RAW files directly in photoshop. Camera RAW is the way to go. But I'm pretty sure it wont work with photoshop 7. You'll need photoshop CS2 or greater.
Richydudeman 1 year ago
@Richydudeman thanx anyways... well i have tha new Canon 60D but still workin on old ps 7.0
cuddietv 1 year ago
@cuddietv Ok. Well, thats why it's not working.
Richydudeman 1 year ago
@cuddietv just get lightroom its much more cheaper then photoshop. if u do some research u can get one for free :)
goga56 1 year ago
@Richydudeman if you shoot very many images better use photoshop lightroom, because it's an easier and faster method to tweak a whole lot of raw files
idrive12 11 months ago
@cuddietv get lightroom (free at tpb), also if u cant open then shoot RAW+jpeg so you can edit them later...
aleksandersandstrom 11 months ago
Yes, since you would process RAW images outside of Photoshop anyway. I do not use lightroom, I use Adobe Bridge (which is similar in some respects) and I also use Aperture. Portraits taken indoors, under controlled lighting, do not need to be shot in RAW. If you are shooting outdoor scenes, a lot of people like to shoot in RAW to give much more control. It does involve more post production, but I find it easier to alter a RAW image than using trial and error with JPGs by comparison.
zoltan522 1 year ago
If I only use lightroom, not full adobe photoshop, is it worth shooting in RAW? Most of my photos are of scenery, cars, bikes, (rarely do I shoot motion shots but sometimes I do as well), and I'm newly getting into potrait.
Thank you in advance!
TofuProductionCinema 1 year ago
I'm not really talking about the blues as much as the exposure. I think you are misinformed.
zoltan522 1 year ago
@zoltan522 I can not really be bothered by what you think. How can I be mis-informed by something I see happen in real life on a fairly professional level ?
What you demonstrate in the video, be it blue or not, has not a lot to do with quality differences between raw and lossy, but more with an eye for light, workflow quality and overall skill.
80% of RAW is psychological. Pro photographers are SELLING subjective gut feelings when selling RAW.
retepvosnul 1 year ago
@retepvosnul I respect your opinion, and I think you were complimenting me. So, thank you! Best wishes!
zoltan522 1 year ago
@zoltan522 Funny sometimes, how people try to communicate, oblivious of linguistic differences that separates them, whilst both languages are, seemingly, so similar in pronunciation, grammar and syntax, turn out to be two distinct, and equally incompatible Tongues. .. sigh....
It's argument, be argumentative. There is much to be won there.
retepvosnul 1 year ago
@retepvosnul You are still wrong. If RAW was just as good as JPG, then why would high-end camera manufacturers make cameras with RAW? It depends on the application and the circumstances--I'll agree with you there, but if you are running in and out of a building, during the day, and you only have one flash and not much time to capture a moment in time, shoot in RAW if you can. If you have time to set up your shot and have a few flashes to light up your scene properly, then shoot in JPG.
zoltan522 1 year ago
@zoltan522 Finally !!.
I never, you can check, claimed both are equal. You might find, after checking wikipedia for what percentages mean, that earlier on I made a comment on how 80% of RAW is between the ears. This means that 20% is actually of "some" use, trivial as it is.
You could in such scenario's gain an advantage quality wise, marginal and unnoticeable as such are in an end product(especially with sensors 12MP and higher). But is this worth it ? Not to the customer !.
retepvosnul 1 year ago
I've found that people who criticize RAW generally have not used it. This applies particularly to people keen on HDR ... mainly lots of jgp users who haven't seen what is possible with RAWs.
sydneydoc 1 year ago
@sydneydoc Exactly!
zoltan522 1 year ago
you can get it using layers and layer mask using channel mixer but it would take alot more time I use olympus e-3 and always take raw just pack lots of flash cards.
jason3197 1 year ago
Fab good tuition
I am doing a wedding the weekend and I think it would pay to shoot RAW what can go wrong ?????? I use Photoshop I have a Canon 1ds so although Jpeg would be quicker but I want some punchy images what are your thoughts I have converted from film now this my first digital wedding !
Grant
enzoferrari1cat 1 year ago
I used to shoot film, and knock on wood, I always had good luck with weddings. That being said, we can now achieve a perfection that we never could before, and shooting RAW is really the best insurance. People are paying for a pro job so you should give them a pro result. It's worth it, trust me. Good luck on your wedding!
zoltan522 1 year ago
I used to shoot film, and knock on wood, I always had good luck with weddings. That being said, we can now achieve a perfection that we never could before, and shooting RAW is really the best insurance. People are paying for a pro job so you should give them a pro result. It's worth it, trust me. Good luck on your wedding!
zoltan522 1 year ago
I used to shoot film, and knock on wood, I always had good luck with weddings. That being said, we can now achieve a perfection that we never could before, and shooting RAW is really the best insurance. People are paying for a pro job so you should give them a pro result. It's worth it, trust me. Good luck on your wedding!
zoltan522 1 year ago
I've found that people who criticize RAW generally have not used it. This applies particularly to people keen on HDR ... mainly lots of jgp users who haven't seen what is possible with RAWs.
Your example is a good case in point ... many would turn to HDR instead of RAWs. I have never seen as good a result from HDR as a RAW, for a reasonably exposed scene.
sydneydoc 1 year ago
Yes that's actually the best way to do it. It's very easy to use and gives you many options for bringing out RAW data. Once processed you can save them to JPGs to work with in photoshop.
zoltan522 1 year ago
can u use adobe bridge to process RAW files?
russvien08 1 year ago
@russvien08 Yes you can--as long as you have the proper RAW plugins.
zoltan522 1 year ago
Do people still shoot jpeg?
newcoyote 2 years ago
I think most people do actually. It's easier.
zoltan522 2 years ago
Thanks for the information, it is great. My question is: Which's better after raw developing to save the image on jpeg or tiff? Thanks
en101com 2 years ago
A TIFF file is higher quality, but they are HUGE files which require a lot of space and RAM to work with (in Photoshop for example). I recommend JPG--it's great quality and more manageable.
zoltan522 2 years ago
Thanks again and great work!
en101com 2 years ago
so RAW, is much better than JPEG?
KickinSam808 2 years ago
Shooting in RAW is better than shooting in JPEG yes. RAW is not a final format for publishing, editing etc.
zoltan522 2 years ago
KickinSam808 2 years ago
You "develop" a RAW image, as opposed to "editing" it. You can crop a RAW image, in Adobe Bridge for example, but when you are working with a raw image, you are adjusting it--fine tuning exposure, removing blown out whites, adjusting the color temperature etc. So, you aren't "editing" the image itself, you are developing it. You then convert it to JPEG so you can "edit" by means of airbrushing, cloning, filters, etc. Hope this helps!
zoltan522 2 years ago