An Example of What RAW Can Do...

[timned88]

This is a before and after photo of the Walt Disney World Dolphin used to illustrate what is possible when shooting in RAW. If your camera has the capability (very few point and shoots have it, all D/SLR's have it), this is what is possible. The top image is a shot of the Dolphin straight out of the camera with no processing other than opening the RAW file. The bottom image is the completed photo, taken from the RAW and processed with a workflow that I use on all my images. The purpose of this post is to illustrate what is possible when using the RAW format to it's capability.

For more information on processing RAW images or workflows, simply Google RAW workflow, Photoshop RAW, etc.

Be sure to visit THE MAGIC IN PIXELS.

 

[donaldduck1967]

Did you do anything besides lighten the image? I don't shoot raw,don't have enought memory cards for it yet, but what is your pp workflow.

 

[pyrxtc]

was it actually that dark out (like the first one) It looks like you kind of Blew out the sky in the second one. I liek to make it look as it really did that day, sometimes the camera can't capture what our eyes can.

 

[ukcatfan]

It looks like you kind of Blew out the sky in the second one

timned88

I have to agree that the sky is too bright for my taste. Have you considered layering the two images together and applying a mask in order to keep it darker?

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

I prefer the look of the first one entirely. The second pic looks a litle overexposed unfortunately - like turning the brightness level too high on your TV. I think a better example of RAW's benefits would be an example of the camera choosing the wrong white balance.

 

[Master Mason]

I prefer the look of the first one entirely. The second pic looks a litle overexposed unfortunately - like turning the brightness level too high on your TV. I think a better example of RAW's benefits would be an example of the camera choosing the wrong white balance.

Ok...

As the camera saw it

After 30 seconds in PS with the RAW image and then saved as a jpeg.

 

[donaldduck1967]

Ok...

As the camera saw it

After 30 seconds in PS with the RAW image and then saved as a jpeg.

Wow what a differnece. So is it safe to say if you are going to shoot exclusively in raw you will be spending a lot of time post processing?

 

[Furgus]

I would say no on the post. It takes all of 30 sec to change a picture like that. For me anyways. Problem is when you shoot 300 images in RAW and you post process them all

 

[donaldduck1967]

Thanks for the info

 

[Anewman]

I would say no on the post. It takes all of 30 sec to change a picture like that. For me anyways. Problem is when you shoot 300 images in RAW and you post process them all

So is it safe to say if you are going to shoot exclusively in raw you will be spending a lot of time post processing?

Really it would be a lot quiker to correct white balance with RAW images than it would be with jpeg, and the corrections would be much better(imo).

Say you took 100 pictures in that gym, convert one and then you apply those conversion settings to EVERY SHOT. Bamm done with all 100 shots in about 30 seconds.

 

[Groucho]

Wow what a differnece. So is it safe to say if you are going to shoot exclusively in raw you will be spending a lot of time post processing?

I don't think that's necessarily true. Ideally (and I think that this is the point that someone was trying to make in the other RAW thread), you shouldn't NEED to do much post-processing on your photos - the goal is to get them to look perfect out of the camera. However, RAW gives you more flexibility to correct things that the camera's automatic sensors got wrong. (Or you, if you were manually selecting the wrong white balance, etc.)

My plan is to more or less immediately convert all my RAW files to JPG, and I'll go back to the original RAW if some need some tweaking after the fact.

"Digital negative" is a good term because it also refers to how RAW files are generally used - on a day-to-day basis, people always look at their prints, ie JPGs, but the negatives are stored away somewhere, and taken out when the pictures needs some work in the photo lab, real or virtual.

 

[Furgus]

I have used lightroom to batch edit before. Did about 80 pics in 15 sec. Only issue with batch editing I have, is that if all the images are not shot very similar, then you run into some problems. But chances are those images can be edited very quickly.

 

[manning]

Basketball picture- With JPEG you would be tearing your hair out trying to get an improved shot.

 

[boBQuincy]

I won't post an example of this since I am in school and don't have time, but try this:

take a low contrast photo, maybe on a foggy day, in JPG and RAW;
expand the contrast to a more reasonable level;
look at the histograms;
the JPG one will show lots of holes where brightness values were skipped
the RAW will show a smooth histogram, due to it's 16x more values.

Can you see where the extra valuesmight be useful? Like a sky with very soft gradations that the expanded JPG can't reproduce?

It is sometimes difficult to see the "holes" until you make a good sized print, by then it is too late.

 

[0bli0]

although you can batch photos during your post processing workflow - one thing to be aware of when shooting in gyms and stadiums: some typrs of lights have a colour temp that changes many times every second. you may have 4 or 5 different colours so you may need to group them into smaller groups. but it's still very quick.

 

[rtphokie]

If you can get away with it, particularly in a high school gym with crappy lights, hide a couple of white index cards throughout where you'll be shooting. Lean them up against a wall or scorer's table or under a bottom bleacher. They'll be there as white references later.

This can also be handy when shooting hockey. Ice is not white and neither are players jersies.

 

[P00h]

If you can get away with it, particularly in a high school gym with crappy lights, hide a couple of white index cards throughout where you'll be shooting. Lean them up against a wall or scorer's table or under a bottom bleacher. They'll be there as white references later.

This can also be handy when shooting hockey. Ice is not white and neither are players jersies.

Probably the best solution for those without RAW option in camera since most allow you to set a custom white balance. I try to get the best results from the camera before I resort to post processing.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Ice is not white and neither are players jersies.

Nor are so called "white people." Way off.