RAW for Nat

[Tigger]

Re: RAW for Nat

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.

I'm sure you will see a huge increase in quality and your PP will take no longer - But one thing you may find, is you'll be spending more time tweaking just because you can and will offer you a vast improvement on your images

[Stan]

Re: RAW for Nat

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

apart from the level of sharpening it still sharpens the WHOLE image when all you need to sharpen is your subject

[the black fox]

Re: RAW for Nat

nat you need to have some form of p/p where you can layer your image .i.e separate the subject and the background layers .then noise reduce the background layer ,then sharpen the subject and then join them back together again,as a finished j.peg for posting to the net .
it depends on skill levels and what you actually have in the way of software to play with .you can always pop along for a lesson or two if needed .i,m sure we can find a level that you can work at happily between us .
p.s i don't even understand what i'm now using but it works as you know

[Nathaniel]

Re: RAW for Nat

Thanks Jeff. Will do so. Will PM when I have got a few RAW wildlife pics to work on. Agree with Stan.

[Robert Scott]

Re: RAW for Nat

I realise that some on this forum will find it difficult to comprehend, but not every EOS camera user has the time/skills/software/inclination to undertake post-processing. And yet they still take good photographs and enjoy their hobby. Isn't that amazing!

[Tigger]

Re: RAW for Nat

Thanks Jeff. Will do so. Will PM when I have got a few RAW wildlife pics to work on. Agree with Stan.

looking forward to seeing what you get Nat

If I remember your a Elements user? if so layers will be an option and I'm sure Jeff will soon get you up to speed

[Nathaniel]

Re: RAW for Nat

I realise that some on this forum will find it difficult to comprehend, but not every EOS camera user has the time/skills/software/inclination to undertake post-processing. And yet they still take good photographs and enjoy their hobby. Isn't that amazing!

I am one of those "lazy" members!!!!!

[Nathaniel]

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.

I would like to see this suggestion/experiment carried out which is sure to help a lot of members including myself.

[Tigger]

Re: RAW for Nat

I am one of those "lazy" members!!!!!

not anymore Nat I'd say with local friends like Jeff he will soon show you what you've been missing out on

[El Sid]

Re: RAW for Nat

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

Picture styles are indeed a fixed part of the JPEG if that is your output choice - it's part of the Direct Printing concept - and yes if the sharpening setting is to high then to some extent you are stuck with it.

If you output to JPEG but don't print directly from camera/card then it's better to set the sharpening setting to 0 or even a bit under - a few trial shots at home should give an idea of the best setting - which allows rather more flexibility in PP.

Of course with RAW files Picture Style is adjustable in PP. With DPP you can change it to another preset style and adjust the settings as you would in camera and to the same degree while the RAW side allows you to go much further away from the preset style than you ever can in-camera. In 3rd party converters such as LR/ACR the Canon styles are largely ignored or approximated by any inbuilt defaults related to the file format.

JPEGs are effectively the digital equivalent of slides - slides were usually processed in a predetermined chemistry and whatever came out was fixed by the processing method with little leeway. RAW files are more akin to negatives where the end result could be manipulated by use of alternative developers, temperatures and times plus any amount of dodging and burning etc.

[Tigger]

Re: RAW for Nat

Its the way I've always viewed Jpeg v Raw Nigel with Raw offering more control and NOT that it means you can shoot 1000s of photo and not care about the exposure, more so with the Raw file you can control the output better than Jpeg

I've never liked DPP and whilst that will go against the die hard Canon fans I find other processors do a far better job

[antoeknee]

Re: RAW for Nat

I am one of those "lazy" members!!!!!

Think you're being a bit harsh on yourself Nat. You're obviously very comfortable with the workflow you have.

Changing to a different workflow will require you to learn some new skills but hopefully with the help of Jeff it should be a bit easier. Maybe you'll decide sticking with JPEG is OK for you and there is nothing wrong with that.

Thinking of your recent shoot involving Alex Jones if that was me I'd definitely be shooting RAW or RAW and JPEG as it would have given scope to recover images had something had gone wrong.

[El Sid]

Re: RAW for Nat

I've never liked DPP and whilst that will go against the die hard Canon fans I find other processors do a far better job

It's not my favourite either - not since the heady days of Raw Shooter Essentials and latterly ACR. The version I currently have is better than the one I started with but it does have some major flaws - that horrible colour pie chart of a tint control being the worst as it's impossible to achieve any sort of fine control over it.

I do find it quite good at batch processing large numbers of JPEGs though, pasting recipes from one image to the next is far simpler than ACR AND you can save recipes for use again if need be.

[AndyMulhearn]

Re: RAW for Nat

I do find it quite good at batch processing large numbers of JPEGs though, pasting recipes from one image to the next is far simpler than ACR AND you can save recipes for use again if need be.

Pasting settings in LR is way more easy. I tend to use it where I have a set of shots close together that would benefit from similar settings. Simply adjust one shot to your liking then select the others and sync the settings.

[Tigger]

Re: RAW for Nat

It's not my favourite either - not since the heady days of Raw Shooter Essentials and latterly ACR. The version I currently have is better than the one I started with but it does have some major flaws - that horrible colour pie chart of a tint control being the worst as it's impossible to achieve any sort of fine control over it.

I do find it quite good at batch processing large numbers of JPEGs though, pasting recipes from one image to the next is far simpler than ACR AND you can save recipes for use again if need be.

Having removed DPP from my system a while ago its something I don't miss - All my processing is via LR and offers batch processing, or indeed batch processing on import if you like although its something I've never done.. My personal view is if you invest money into the hardware then you need to look at the software your using so that you can get as much from the images as possible..

Its a like HiFi - why spend 1000's on decent speakers and use bell cable to power them !!! but some do, odd