In camera processing.

[JohnP]

In camera processing is something I've never done, am I missing out on anything? I fail to see how one can do much in the way of processing on such a small screen. I hardly ever shoot RAW as I find it a chore having to do much in the way of processing. I do as little editing as possible. Say I was to shoot some images RAW and then convert them to JPG in camera, would there be any point in doing this. Would I be better off doing what I usually do and shoot JPG in the first place.

[annie]

i have never delved into that either john....and i don't really think i would want to. i do prefer raw....when i remember to switch the camera over to it that is. i can see the benefit of raw.....i found it a chore at first. 

[bugmeister]

I don't think you can tell the camera to convert after recording the RAW.

Some cameras will allow you to record both but essentially a camera jpg is the camera converting the raw data that hits the sensor instead of just recording it to the card.

The amount and type/method of processing applied is very much down to what the camera maker thinks is right for the situation or according to the settings you have chosen before taking the shot.

 

If you are confident in the lighting and other conditions and know how your camera behaves or has been set up, then jpg can save a lot of time in post processing but I tend to use RAW about 95% of the time just for the latitude I get with respect to exposure pushing or recovery.

Also, any sharpening I apply is done in PP so I choose how much gets applied instead of the camera deciding which would mean I couldn't reduce it (for example)

[Guest]

John if you shoot in JPG the in camera processing is something you have done. the camera shoots in raw and processes the image into a jpg as it saves it if you have asked for jpg images. I dont know of any camera that allows optional in camera processing. I shoot in raw with the exception of when I shoot something like the town carnival parade as I cant be bothered to convert the 400 odd shots I normally take

[JohnP]

 I dont know of any camera that allows optional in camera processing.

Richard... Someone on here uses a Canon 60D... is it you?

 

If it is you check out in camera processing, it seems you can shoot in RAW and then adjust brightness & white balance, there are more options but I haven't really looked into it that much. You can then convert the image to JPG in camera. This seems a strange feature to have on a camera, surely it's better to shoot RAW and convert to JPG after processing on a computer.

[colinb]

quick edit...

 

after reading the above I had a look on the web found this about the 60D

 

 

The RAW processing allows a range of camera settings, such as Auto Lighting Optimizer, Noise Reduction, White Balance and Picture Style to be retrospectively applied to a RAW file. The size of the output JPEG can be altered and the brightness of the image pushed to optimize the exposure. Not only does it give a preview but also allows you to zoom this preview to check the exact effect of your changes.

The raw conversion doesn't offer the same level of white balance fine-tuning as you get when shooting: you can set the value in Kelvin (Blue/Amber axis), nut you can't adjust in the green compensation (green/magenta) axis. You can, however, choose to apply distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting corrections that used to require a visit to your PC and Digital Photo Professional.

 

 

Whilst I can't comment on the 60D I do agree with you john that the small camera screen might not be an advantage when editing.

Edited May 11, 2013 by colinb

[JohnP]

I can't remember hearing of a camera capable of letting you convert raw manually on camera. My Nikon carries two memory cards capable of storing jpeg on one and raw on the other, which I will use occasionally.

But most dslr will let you adjust colour/sharpness/D lighting/etc but even these I think are usually done pre-shooting.

 

Colin... until this evening I've not bothered to check out in camera processing on my Canon 60D, anyway I was playing about with the camera and I took a few shots in RAW and without actually doing any changes to the images I converted them to JPG in camera.

[JohnP]

I should have said you don't lose the original RAW image as the JPG is save as a copy.

[colinb]

John I think we posted two comments at the same time so I edited mine after reading yours about the 60D. I found a review on the net that briefly covers the in-camera raw editing.

[Guest]

Richard... Someone on here uses a Canon 60D... is it you?

 

If it is you check out in camera processing, it seems you can shoot in RAW and then adjust brightness & white balance, there are more options but I haven't really looked into it that much. You can then convert the image to JPG in camera. This seems a strange feature to have on a camera, surely it's better to shoot RAW and convert to JPG after processing on a computer.

 

lol yep me and her got 60D's at christmas, but after doing the project 365 last year we have not really used the cameras this year, guess I need to read the Manual lol.

 

Like you though I'm not sure I'd try processing on that small screen.

[JohnP]

Now I've recently retired I have more time to play about so maybe I'll give RAW a try again and maybe I will find processing less of a chore... but I wouldn't bank on it...   I hope this isn't a daft question... is there any point shooting an image RAW and just converting to JPG in camera and then doing any minor editing of the JPG image on my computer.

[Guest]

I don't see the point but then I didnt know my camera could do it

[JohnP]

lol yep me and her got 60D's at christmas, but after doing the project 365 last year we have not really used the cameras this year, guess I need to read the Manual lol.

 

Like you though I'm not sure I'd try processing on that small screen.

 

I bought my 60D just prior to going to Cuba in March 2012 and I love it, I like the articulating live view screen and the video is great.

[Guest]

I haven't tried the video yet but I do like the screen and the image quality is really good

[Black Pearl]

Just about all Nikon's for a few generation now have had in camera RAW processing, even my oldish D300s can do it. 

It could be useful if you needed to give someone an image that you've shot in RAW but you didn't have a computer handy. 

 

The Pentax K30 has a neat trick where even if you are shooting in jpeg the last shot is held in a buffer in its RAW state so you can alter the settings before taking another - for instance you could tweak the WB on the last jpeg you took.

[colinb]

I hope this isn't a daft question... is there any point shooting an image RAW and just converting to JPG in camera and then doing any minor editing of the JPG image on my computer.

 

John - I think you either really need to shoot in raw for the advantages it has or shoot jpeg. To me it sounds a little pointless shooting raw, converting to jpeg on camera then editing jpeg on your pc. Nothing wrong with editing a jpeg but it just seem pointless shooting raw and not gaining the benefits ?

[JohnP]

RAW is not something I've really used much and certainly not recently, it has always seemed like a lot of trouble having to do so much editing which I'm not fond of anyway. I was just playing about with in camera processing last evening as I was curious to find out what it could do. I took a few shots out of the window and had a play with those shots on my computer, obviously to view the RAW images I had to convert them to a usable file and I converted them to TIFF files. I had used in camera processing to convert the shots to JPG which are made as copies in camera leaving the original RAW untouched, then on my computer I was then able to view the images in both TIFF and JPG and to be honest I couldn't see any difference apart from the huge file size of the TIFF images. I could never imagine myself taking every shot in RAW as the processing seems to take far too long for my liking, as I've said previously I do little in the way of editing... just basic adjustments. I may shoot the odd shot in RAW from time to time, if I do am I correct in converting to TIFF in order to do any processing.

[colinb]

... just basic adjustments. I may shoot the odd shot in RAW from time to time, if I do am I correct in converting to TIFF in order to do any processing.

 

jpegs deteriorate each time you open and edited the file which is why tiffs are recommended, although I sometimes wonder how many times you need to edit a jpeg to see any deterioration, especially if you don't print large images ?

[Guest DaveW]

Think I only ever shot about half a dozen JPEG's in camera when I changed to digital before I shot exclusively RAW.  Possibly in camera JPEG's may be OK for some purposes, but if you load your images onto the computer anyway you might as well shoot RAW. You can get PP software to virtually auto process them for you anyway and then convert to JPEG's if you don't want to so a lot of fiddling with the image yourself. 

 

The main advantage of shooting RAW, apart from greater ability to fiddle with the image, is the processor chip and amount of memory in almost all computers is far larger and more powerful than that in cameras, therefore can use far more complex and better software processing algorithms to process the image.

 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/RAW-file-format.htm

 

http://thedigitalstory.com/2010/11/in-camera-raw-proces.html