Scott, you don't say what camera you're using, but many (like Canon) come with proprietary software that you can use to convert RAW files to other image formats, like JPEG or TIFF. If you don't have Photoshop or other editing software, that's really your only option. But, I thought the latest version of Windows photo viewer would open RAW files (assuming you're on a PC)?

The camera should come with some RAW conversion software (as stated.) Plus, there are a number of good RAW programs for a lot less than Photoshop.... I use Bibble. Unless there is a newer version of Win Pic Viewer in XP, it doesn't do all RAWs yet (at least mine doesn't.) I would be very interested if it did.

"Unless there is a newer version of Win Pic Viewer in XP, it doesn't do all RAWs yet (at least mine doesn't.) I would be very interested if it did."

You're right, it doesn't. No idea why I thought that.....

Bill,

It seems strange to me that anyone who can afford both a digital camera that has Raw save capability (cheaper P&S cameras do not offer Raw usually) and also a computer cannot at least afford the under $100 Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0. It does provide a lot of value in many capabilities and just as good Raw conversion quality as the full CS3 version, just a simpler set of adjustment tools in Camera Raw.

David, I think when you consider that most people who purchase their first digital cameras, even DSLRs, will probably be shooting JPEGs in full auto mode and have no idea what RAW is, or what is contained in the software that came in the box, ignorance of third-party solutions is not so surprising. How many questions have you seen posted on this forum and others which showed that the person has not even read the owner's manual?

Scott, if you're still around, don't take this personally. You're in a lot of good company out there! Just the fact that you're starting us use RAW and asking questions about it shows that you're starting to move ahead of the herd.....

Don't worry, I can't be offended...I work retail!

I've read the user manual front to back twice(never said I was a genius)...And I'll probably read it again to tell you the truth.

As you stated, I started with the camera pretty running in full Auto mode, but it's a learning thing. As time goes by, and I get a little more use to setting things(quicker)..I'll advance. First thing I actually bought was a tri-pod(no not one of those cheap things from WalMart either), and it set me back a few pennies!(Remember I work retail and have bills to pay-no unlimited income here!)

I've been using the free download type programs to work some easier stuff, and I'm saving up for the Adobe PhotoShop program(and if the 6.0 works with what I need-it'll probably be the one put in this computer).

Photography will never be anything more then a hobby...I know that and I'm happy with it. And my ignorance of what to use as far as programs to work RAW picture formats comes from being a little on the older side(remember when you actually needed to stand up to change the TV channel-I do!)
So anything that I can learn here is just a "bonus"!

Scott (my skin is thick....don't worry) B

Bill,

Well at least between my usual gadfly stirring the pot and your response, our friend from Arkansas seems to be steered in the right direction. Jumping into something like Raw unprepared is a bit like going in deep water without something to keep you afloat if you don't swim. And sadly instead of useless filters to pad sales I would think if someone is buying a dSLR and the question of whether they have a computer is asked, should be an opportunity to sell a deal on an application like Elements. But with outfits like Best Buy selling cameras to have any rational expectation the person behind the counter knows more than the person in front is idle speculation. Trouble with getting old and having been there, you do know they were "good old days". In my first year in photography I recall I learned a lot of crucial information from a couple of camera stores I did business with. Where I live now every camera store that was in business 10 years ago has gone belly up several years ago, but there are other stores that sell cameras and everything else you can imagine as well.

Camera makers would probably bundle products like Photoshop Elements with their new equipment (like scanner makers do) if such products didn't compete with their own proprietary software, such as Canon's Digital Photo Professional. I guess a lot of it depends on where and how far someone wants to take their photography after starting as an amateur. Having a good mentor early on probably makes a big difference, and I agree that places like Ritz Camera are not where you would seek a Yoda or Obi-Wan Kenobi. There are exceptions, such as Photomark Camera in Phoenix where the sales people are very knowledgeable. Sadly, places like that are few and far between (and in my neck of the woods, non-existent.) And, as far as being old enough to remember the good old days, I count that as a blessing. The generations behind us will have to look back on these as "the good old days". Scary, ain't it?

By the way, regarding using Windows picture viewer to access RAW files: I wasn't quite as wrong as I thought. The Canon website has a download called "CODEC" which will allow Windows to open RAW files - their proprietary .CR2 files, of course. I've never used it, myself......

Bill,

There is a parallel between scanner and dSLR cameras as far as software is concerned. But as far as I know only Nikon charges extra for the equivalent of Canon's free download DPP application for color correcting and editing Raw format files.

However, camera companies are also like scanner manufacturers, the editing software they provide is pretty crude and user unfriendly, like Photoshop back in 1995.

And the industry really does a poor job, maybe intentionally, not really helping new photographers understand the difference between saving in JPEG or Raw. The corollary, going back to film days, is saving in JPEG is like shooting color negative film and taking it to a mini-lab for processing and prints. In a mini-lab the automated printer image adjustment (with a little or no help from the operator) has been put into computer chips in the digital camera to adjust image files automatically to what the camera company engineers think is good image quality when saved as JPEG files.

And no one is candid about the fact JPEG files are not much better image quality than mini-lab machine prints, because the lossy compression of JPEG throws out what it thinks is redundant data, the color data depth is reduced from usually 14-bits to 8-bits throwing out more data the camera sensor chip collected, and the final insult is JPEG is often accompanied by the sRGB colorspace profile that reduces the color gamut by about 30% from the color range the camera's sensor's actually captures.

Raw save captures and stores all of the camera's sensor data collected in the full bit-depth, leaves it unadjusted and provides the opportunity to save in Adobe RGB colorspace that preserves the full color gamut of the capture.

Raw format preserves every dimension of image information a dSLR camera can capture, and gives the photographer the opportunity to make ones own choices of how the image is color corrected and adjusted, which of course demands an effective computer application with the tools to color correct and edit effectively and efficiently.

I don't see the full difference, advantages and disadvantages of the Raw/JPEG choice made clear and evident by the camera companies, nor does the photo press really do much better. Novices are attracted by digital cameras being easy to use outputting JPEG, and that sells cameras, but little is revealed and explained by almost anyone how little of a digital camera's potential is actually realized when it saves in JPEG - I guess everyone is supposed to be satisfied it's easy even though the image quality is mediocre at best.

Well, for my two cents. I was never a good photographer, but took a lot of film shots in the 80s. Kind of quit (turned to music) for 20 years. With the advent of digital (making it cheaper to take shots and do post-processing--both big with non-pros like me) I got back into it with some P&S cameras. After a couple of years, I started to enjoy it again and got a digital SLR. I agree, there are few places to get good info locally and nobody I've found to be a "mentor." In music, I found a great piano teacher who put up with me for about 12 years. He even co-produced my first CD. Helped me a lot. However, I kind of doubt that I'll find that in photography. I rarely see "photography lessons" advertised!! But, because of helpful boards like this one and others, not to mention generic information available on the net, plus a lot of reading, I feel like I am making progress. Plus, I have found a few guys who enjoy taking pics and share their insights with me. That equals a lot more info than was available back in the 80s. While it isn't perfect, there is a lot of info out there. I am eligible for retirement in another 11 months and think I may take a photography course at the local community college....but until then, info on the net and in books has been pretty helpful. (all that being said, I'm not disagreeing with you, I would like to have a guru who helps.)

I have been trying to answer the small, simple questions photographers have about the digital darkroom in Shutterbug's Digital Help column for almost 10 years now. But the more complex problems and questions have been difficult to answer and resolve or teach in any way similar to your music lessons. However today computer to computer video conferencing now supported by Adobe's Acrobat Connect Pro is in beta, and is a platform that will support hands-on teaching between myself and anyone in the country (or the world) with a computer and a broadband internet connection and telephone. This would make it possible for the "student" to see what I am doing on my computer on their screen and vice versa while we discussed what was going on over the phone.

Why do I believe I could provide this kind of one on one teaching? Because about when you took up music, in 1989 I made a full-time commitment to digital photography based on a 40 year career as a pro photographer and writer even though my friends and colleagues thought I was crazy, that digital was still way off in some unimagined future. Now the question is do any photographers really want and need intensive help to solve complex digital photo problems like setting up a color managed camera to computer, to printer workflow; and are they willing to pay the necessary fees that would be required to support one-on-one video conferencing lessons????????

Someone just getting into digital photography doesn't have to be located anywhere close to those few of us who have been doing digital photography full-time for the last 20 years, to access what we know from a long experience of doing digital to help solve problems setting up and running a digital darkroom. The technology that made this Shutterbug forum possible has been developed and extended now to a new level of communication potential to span space and time to put personal lessons just like having your own teacher sitting right next to you at your computer at home, but is really a thousand or more miles away. Is that hard to imagine? Well your imagination and what you can invest in it is all that stands in the way.

If there is any real interest, I would be pleased to answer any e-mail questions at: goofotografx@gmal.com

David, well based on my limited interaction, this forum and others have been very helpful and I'm sure that individualized lessons would also be useful. Even within music, there are complex questions difficult to answer, both from an artistic and a technical standpoint. However, you hit the rub.... would anyone pay? In many ways, the advent of processes which let you "do it at home" has hurt big chunks of the recording industry. "Everyone" today acts as their own engineer, mixer and mastering engineer. There are fewer "big time" commercial studios because everyone has the equipment to record at home (with better sound quality, albeit without the talent, of the Beatles...for example.) So, your wisdom and offers to help are much appreciated. Personally, I would love to walk around with a good photographer and have him/her show me shots "through their eyes" or take a look at my work and offer helpful criticism. Hope that happens someday! I wish you success with your teaching and just may contact you after next August!!

I use Capture NX to work with my Nikon NEF RAW files but if you're just getting started with RAW format there is one free alternative I would suggest while you ponder where to go next. Google's Picasa program opens most RAW files and allows you to edit and save them. You can also export them to jpg's. The program is fairly simple to use and provides a wide range of adjustments and cropping. You can download it from Googles site.

Dennis

I was using Picasa3, without success I must say. So I finally had some 'expendable' cash yesterday and purchased the PhotoShop Element No#6 by Adobe!
Been reading the tutorials most of the night....this may take awhile to learn? But I'm finally on the way to taking better images! Now if I could only point the camera at the best angle everytime......

Thanks for all the responses!
Scott (can't find the trees, coz the forest is in the way) B