Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RAW for Nat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    RAW for Nat

    Nat, I know you have some reservations about shooting RAW especially the amount of time you'd spend at the computer.

    For vast majority of time I have little or nothing to do to most images because as like you I try to get as much right at time of taking.

    For those I got wrong RAW does give more scope for recovery than JPEG. As an example see below and this isn't a perfect example as the image was so bad in the first place its hard not to end up with noise in the shadows.

    As shot (yes its bad and I don't know what happened to end up with this).
    RAW 1 by tblake2007, on Flickr

    After a bit of rough tweaking
    RAW 2 by tblake2007, on Flickr

    Got to say if I was doing any critical work I'd definitely shot RAW or RAW and JPEG.
    Canon 5D3, 7D2, 60D, Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS II, Canon 300 f4L IS, Canon 16-35 f4 L, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, Canon 1.4 MkIII extender, Sigma AF 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM, Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, Tamron SP AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD, Canon EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/16830751@N03/

    #2
    Re: RAW for Nat

    Not a bad recovery though to be fair one wouldn't normally pull back that much underexposure unless there was a 'must have' reason...
    Nigel

    You may know me from Another Place....

    The new ElSid Photogallery...

    Equipment: Far too much to list - including lots of Nikon...

    Comment


      #3
      Re: RAW for Nat

      Originally posted by El Sid View Post
      Not a bad recovery though to be fair one wouldn't normally pull back that much underexposure unless there was a 'must have' reason...
      Yep, this amount of adjustment wouldn't normally be considered but if the image was of something really important then there is a chance of recovering something.
      Canon 5D3, 7D2, 60D, Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS II, Canon 300 f4L IS, Canon 16-35 f4 L, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, Canon 1.4 MkIII extender, Sigma AF 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM, Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, Tamron SP AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD, Canon EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS
      https://www.flickr.com/photos/16830751@N03/

      Comment


        #4
        Re: RAW for Nat

        excellent example and reasons to shoot Raw...

        I think the other consideration and I know something Nat is saying all the time is the processing side of the Raw file. I assume Nat once you've download your images and decided on the one you like you tweak your Jpeg, adjusting highlights/shadows & I know sharpening as its pointed out a few times by Stan & Jeff that the image is oversharpened

        So whats the difference with a Raw process, you adjust WB...nothing else all the other processing is the same as your jpeg but you'll have much more data to recover blown highlights or in the example pull data from the shadows - Plus as I've said before once you have processed one image you could batch process everything else just doing minor tweaks, in just the same way as a Jpeg
        :- Ian

        5D Mk III, 24-105 / 70-200 f2.8 L / 100-400 Mk II / 100 macro / 16-35 L / 11-24 L / 1.4 & 2x converters and a bad back carrying it all ;o)

        :- https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotosespana/

        Comment


          #5
          Re: RAW for Nat

          Originally posted by Tigger View Post

          So whats the difference with a Raw process, you adjust WB...nothing else all the other processing is the same as your jpeg but you'll have much more data to recover blown highlights or in the example pull data from the shadows - Plus as I've said before once you have processed one image you could batch process everything else just doing minor tweaks, in just the same way as a Jpeg
          Alternatively if you have DPP installed and want a quick JPEG as per the camera settings just open the CR2 in DPP and convert straight to jpeg without even having to manually change anything. If the camera settings are optimised for direct printing you get a straight from camera JPEG even form a raw file.
          Nigel

          You may know me from Another Place....

          The new ElSid Photogallery...

          Equipment: Far too much to list - including lots of Nikon...

          Comment


            #6
            Re: RAW for Nat

            I not a fan of DPP so not used it, but thats handy
            :- Ian

            5D Mk III, 24-105 / 70-200 f2.8 L / 100-400 Mk II / 100 macro / 16-35 L / 11-24 L / 1.4 & 2x converters and a bad back carrying it all ;o)

            :- https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotosespana/

            Comment


              #7
              Re: RAW for Nat

              Thanks folks. Very good examples & points to ponder. Most grateful. I have got DPP installed anyway. Re sharpening, I need not do this at all in PP as on my picture style I have already set sharpening at +2 (from 0).
              Last edited by Nathaniel; 19-05-2016, 20:15.
              Canon 6D; Canon 760D;Canon G15;Canon 40mm f2.8(Pancake);Canon 50mm f1.8(ii); Canon 17mm-40mm f4L;Canon EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM;Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 STM lens;Canon 24mm-105mmf4L IS;Canon 70-300mm f4-f5.6 L IS USM;Kenko 1.4x HD TC;Canon 430EX ii flash;Giottos tripod;Manfretto monopod;Cokin P filters + bits and pieces!

              www.flickr.com/photos/nathaniel3390

              North Wales where music and the sea give a great concert!

              Comment


                #8
                Re: RAW for Nat

                I'm reluctant to set jpeg only....although it would make me more cautious to get it right in camera so that would be a good thing, but I'm not brave enough to deny the additional opportunity to recover blown highlights from RAW files.
                I did a pre wedding shoot at the weekend and made some duff images with too much fill in flash......LCD was blinking like crazy but everything was recovered in Lightroom and no shots were missed. Of course I shouldn't have got the fill in flash wrong in the first place but I'm only human.
                Brian Vickers LRPS

                brianvickersphotography.com

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: RAW for Nat

                  Re sharpening, I need not do this at all in PP as on my picture style I have already set sharpening at +2 (from 0).
                  you can see from your recent images that is too much and as I have said before often and more usually for wildlife images, sharpening needs to be applied to the subject only and you cant do that by relying on a picture style
                  Stan - LRPS, CPAGB, BPE2*

                  http://neptuno-photography.foliopic.com/
                  flickr

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: RAW for Nat

                    Originally posted by Stan View Post
                    you can see from your recent images that is too much and as I have said before often and more usually for wildlife images, sharpening needs to be applied to the subject only and you cant do that by relying on a picture style
                    I've never used picture style's but I presume this process applies to all the image? - also it can't be removed during PP?
                    :- Ian

                    5D Mk III, 24-105 / 70-200 f2.8 L / 100-400 Mk II / 100 macro / 16-35 L / 11-24 L / 1.4 & 2x converters and a bad back carrying it all ;o)

                    :- https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotosespana/

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: RAW for Nat

                      It would be interesting to see a comparison of an under and over exposed jpeg and an under and over exposed raw file to see how much you can recover from the jpeg compared with raw files. Logic says much less can be recovered but it might be better than we think in practice.
                      JPEG offers a leaner efficient process so I understand the attraction. I might experiment at the weekend...might result in more dog shots being posted though so I apologise in advance.
                      Brian Vickers LRPS

                      brianvickersphotography.com

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: RAW for Nat

                        Originally posted by brianvickers View Post
                        JPEG offers a leaner efficient process so I understand the attraction. .
                        true, but how much extra processing effort are you looking at? a couple of seconds? but you could save an image or improve on it, where as a jpeg limited by what you could do
                        :- Ian

                        5D Mk III, 24-105 / 70-200 f2.8 L / 100-400 Mk II / 100 macro / 16-35 L / 11-24 L / 1.4 & 2x converters and a bad back carrying it all ;o)

                        :- https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotosespana/

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Re: RAW for Nat

                          Originally posted by Tigger View Post
                          I've never used picture style's but I presume this process applies to all the image? - also it can't be removed during PP?
                          That's an interesting point Ian. I would assume if a picture style is set in camera, and only jpeg is selected, then the style is part of the image, and can't be changed.
                          Garry Macdonald on Flickr
                          Garry Macdonald on Facebook

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re: RAW for Nat

                            Originally posted by digiman View Post
                            That's an interesting point Ian. I would assume if a picture style is set in camera, and only jpeg is selected, then the style is part of the image, and can't be changed.
                            well thats crazy to use it, what if you take an image and its looking too sharp, does that mean you have to make it softer - and if so surely thats got the make the image even worse, all so you have a little sharpening applied by the camera that in PP could be done in a second
                            :- Ian

                            5D Mk III, 24-105 / 70-200 f2.8 L / 100-400 Mk II / 100 macro / 16-35 L / 11-24 L / 1.4 & 2x converters and a bad back carrying it all ;o)

                            :- https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotosespana/

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Re: RAW for Nat

                              Originally posted by Stan View Post
                              you can see from your recent images that is too much and as I have said before often and more usually for wildlife images, sharpening needs to be applied to the subject only and you cant do that by relying on a picture style
                              Actually on picture style I have set +2 from 0 and it can be set to +7. So I have only set a small amount of sharpening. Taking all the good advice given, I am setting my camera to RAW/Jpeg for my wildlife shots and will see how I go along. I have always said that I have nothing against RAW but the time aspect in front of the computer.
                              Last edited by Nathaniel; 20-05-2016, 09:01.
                              Canon 6D; Canon 760D;Canon G15;Canon 40mm f2.8(Pancake);Canon 50mm f1.8(ii); Canon 17mm-40mm f4L;Canon EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM;Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 STM lens;Canon 24mm-105mmf4L IS;Canon 70-300mm f4-f5.6 L IS USM;Kenko 1.4x HD TC;Canon 430EX ii flash;Giottos tripod;Manfretto monopod;Cokin P filters + bits and pieces!

                              www.flickr.com/photos/nathaniel3390

                              North Wales where music and the sea give a great concert!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X