Help! Newbie with Mac OS 10.4, trying to use RAW from Canon EOS Rebel SL1

[Willie77]

Hi all - my subject line basically says it all, but I am new to photography with a 'real' camera (so to speak) and I've just tried using RAW format starting today, basically so I can practice post-processing with it.

I have a Mac with OS 10.4, iPhoto v6 and GIMP v2.6.11. I have opened my pics with GIMP in RAW format but it's got that purple look to it and I don't know what steps are necessary to 'convert' it from RAW-looking format to how it looked on the camera after I took it.

Any and all suggestions would be very much appreciated! Thanks -
-Willie

[Manfred M]

Hi all - my subject line basically says it all, but I am new to photography with a 'real' camera (so to speak) and I've just tried using RAW format starting today, basically so I can practice post-processing with it.

I have a Mac with OS 10.4, iPhoto v6 and GIMP v2.6.11. I have opened my pics with GIMP in RAW format but it's got that purple look to it and I don't know what steps are necessary to 'convert' it from RAW-looking format to how it looked on the camera after I took it.

Any and all suggestions would be very much appreciated! Thanks -
-Willie

Hi Willie - Welcome to CiC.

A RAW file essentially has NO in-camera manipulation done to it; no white balance, colour correction, sharpening, contrast, exposure adjustment, etc. You get a RAW file and import using a RAW converter (your camera should have come with one). You have to do you colour temperature adjustments here and "bake" that value into your output file.

Output a losssless format (usually 16-bit TIFF) file from the RAW converter and inport that into your photo editing software. This is where you have to make all the adjustments to make the image look the way you want to.

I don't have any experience with iPhoto, and have very limited experince with GIMP; other than the RAW converter; I do 100% of my work in one of the Adobe products.

All this is easier said than done and will take many hours of practice to get a work flow that works for you.

[Willie77]

Thank you much, this is very helpful.

If anybody has my particular setup and has suggestions (e.g., I don't think the Canon software is compatible with my older Mac OS) I'm all ears. I'm going to be upgrading my computer soon anyway but in the interim I'm hoping to find a solution that works on my existing setup. GIMP seems like it's a powerful app but it's not exactly user-friendly for someone who's new to this. I've barely scratched the surface with it...

Thanks again and glad to be on CiC
-w

[TonyW]

Your camera should have come with an EOS Utilities disk, which would have included Digital Photo Professional. If that works with your old version of the operating system, it will convert the raw file to lots of other formats including TIFF.

[chauncey]

The Canon Utilities Disk software does require a Windows OS.

it's not exactly user-friendly for someone who's new to this.

Oxymoron is a word that I would use to describe "user-friendly" PP software of any kind...they all require a lengthy learning curve.

[Willie77]

Thanks Tony - I have that disc but it isn't compatible with my older OS. Boooooo...

[Willie77]

HA I am fast learning this

[Willie77]

Is it fair to say that if I'm shooting in RAW, I'm committed to that learning curve? i.e. there is no 'simple' way to convert RAW to 'normal' e.g. jpeg format?

Thanks all for the help, much appreciated -

[Manfred M]

Is it fair to say that if I'm shooting in RAW, I'm committed to that learning curve? i.e. there is no 'simple' way to convert RAW to 'normal' e.g. jpeg format?

Thanks all for the help, much appreciated -

Before I give you my view on why I shoot RAW (I actually usually shoot RAW + jpeg); perhaps I should ask you why you are shooting RAW.

In my view, if you are planning to go that route, you should also be prepared to get a decent wide gamut screen for your computer and calibrate and profile it; otherwise you will be wasting your time.

[chauncey]

Yep...before ya know what happened, you'll have two grand wrapped up in a PP system.

[Willie77]

Frankly, I shot RAW today to start learning how to post-process it. Which was clearly not the best idea, considering the system incompatibility issues I'm having. I am going to stick to RAW+jpeg for now until I get my system issues worked out and / or learn what the heck I'm doing with RAW pp.

Also worth noting that I've shot about 1,500 pics since getting the camera, so well short of the first 10k that Henri Cartier-Bresson says will be my worst. I take some small measure of solace in that

I have two friends who are pro photographers of fairly different backgrounds; both have suggested shooting in RAW in case I want to print and submit photos, although at this stage I think large-file jpegs will do the trick fine while I'm still learning something (or things) every time I shoot.

[Willie77]

Yep...before ya know what happened, you'll have two grand wrapped up in a PP system.

I'm trying very hard to delay that inevitable truth

[TonyW]

The Canon Utilities Disk software does require a Windows OS.

Hi Chauncey,

that's actually not correct. I have been using it on the Mac.

Cheers, Tony

[Manfred M]

Willie when you shoot RAW, you have to make 100% of the decisions as to the final look of the image in post processing. This means you need a good fundamental understanding of what RAW data is (and is not) as well as having a very good understanding of how your RAW processer works and what the various controls do. Creating an image from RAW data is always a 2-step process; the first one is to turn that data into something that your post-processing software can manipulate during the RAW conversion process and then the actual steps in post-processing to create the final output.

Because you are on your own when making all of these decisions, you also need the right equipment that has been properly set up (hence my comments about the right screen and having it calibrated and profiles). As you are effectively making all of your decisions when you manipulate RAW data, by eye, you need to be reasonably certain that your work is being displayed in a way that shows colours accurately.

That can only be done if you have a computer screen that:

(a) can display the colours accurately; and

(b) has been set up so that it actually does display them accurately.

When people write and talk about colour-managed workflow, this is a key componenent of this process.

Your camera records data using 14-bits for each of the colour channels and the RAW data contains all of this information. This is normally packed with leading zeros to create a 16-bit file; and quite frankly there is a lot more colour information than the human eye / brain can differentiate here. TIFF and some other formats retain this full 16-bit data quantity. The jpeg format is usually 8-bit, so you have thrown a lot of data that the camera has recorded away when you go jpeg. Your low end computer screen (NT technology) is natively 6-bit (although the manufacturers use a technique called dithering (i.e. they use propriety routines that turn adjacent display elements on and off rapidly to "emulae" 8-bit colour). It's impossible to say how well this works, as there is very limited technical information available on this. Higher end (some form of IPS technology) screens are marketed as wide-gamut, and these are natively 8-bit colour (and are dithered to emulated 10-bit or more colour). So in reality, you do need a wide gamut screen to give you more accurate colour represenation.

The second issue is that each screen will display colours a bit differently, and a colour profile is required to ensure the the colours are corrected for each individual screen / computer video card combination. To do this you need an external calibration device (Spyder and Colormunki are two current devices) to ensure that you are getting accurate colours. Some screen manufacturers claim that they are colour corrected out of the factory, but frankly, my experiece shows me that this is not necssarily true, at least to the level required for photo post-processing work.

[Black Pearl]

Hi all - my subject line basically says it all, but I am new to photography with a 'real' camera (so to speak) and I've just tried using RAW format starting today, basically so I can practice post-processing with it.

I have a Mac with OS 10.4, iPhoto v6 and GIMP v2.6.11. I have opened my pics with GIMP in RAW format but it's got that purple look to it and I don't know what steps are necessary to 'convert' it from RAW-looking format to how it looked on the camera after I took it.

Any and all suggestions would be very much appreciated! Thanks -
-Willie

1. You don't need to shoot raw to practice post processing your images. Yes it gives you more flexibility but you can do 90% the same with a JPEG file. If you wish to produce very large and very high quality prints for your own wall then an itioal raw file may help but otherwise its not needed.

2. You won't get the same result as you saw on the back of the camera by default - nor would you want to. The whole point of shooting in a raw format is you can apply your own 'look' to the image and make it unique to you. Forget about how it looked on your camera screen and instead concentrate on getting it the way you envisioned it when you saw the scene and pointed your camera at it.

[Dave Humphries]

This is an old thread re-surfaced by a new member with a slightly different question Robin.

I have now moved the new query to its own thread.

Newbie with Mac/Windows OS and RAW file problems

Cheers, Dave