Any newbies wondering why RAW?

D

Doog

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,812
Name
Dougie
Edit My Images
Yes
Considering what came out of the Camera as a Raw image, I'm quite pleased with what I've managed to transform it into. I'm learning PP minute by minute and I get as much enjoyment from it as I do taking it. The original image was dull, flat and the sky was just a white mass as tends to happen on dull,cloudy days. I don't always revisit images on a regular basis but I do this one. I encourage all new photographers to shoot in RAW as soon as they get to know the functions of their camera. PP really does make such a difference.:)

 
Last edited:
That's the thing about digital images - no matter how bad the original photo is the right information is still in there somewhere, it's just a matter of getting to it ;)
 
A nice enough image, but without the original straight out of the camera version it is hard to see the benefit of RAW capture or your PP skills. :shrug:
 
redhed17 said:
A nice enough image, but without the original straight out of the camera version it is hard to see the benefit of RAW capture or your PP skills. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I knew someone would bring that up.:) OK, give me a few minutes and I'll see what I can do.;)
 
Thanks for that. ;)

I had a quick edit with your original in ACR, and while a low res image to play with, got pretty close to what you got, though I had trouble getting the colour and contrast in the sky that you did. It was much harder working on the Jpeg rather than the RAW file. The changing WB option is gone for a start. :bonk:

It is a very good edit though, and shows what can be made of a 'plain', flat image when you have all the recorded info to work with.
 
Exactly, whereas you can do work on Jpegs, it's just so much better in Raw as there is so much extra information to work with. I'm using Nx2 Capture for now which is probably nowhere near as good as photoshop in the amount of tools it has, but it has been good for learning. In the hands of someone skilled in Photoshop, I'm sure they could produce even better. I've seen a few people on here asking about the advantages of shooting RAW so thought I'd post this as an example of what can be produced by a relative newbie to PP.
 
The changing WB option is gone for a start.
Click to expand...
Maybe maybe not! Open the jpeg up in ACR and adjust the WB.
 
NigelPaul said:
Maybe maybe not! Open the jpeg up in ACR and adjust the WB.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have made it clear, the preset WBs have gone, you can of course still adjust the WB using the sliders or the WB Tool, but it is a slow and tricky thing. if like me, you're trying for a Cloudy/Shade WB to warm it up rather than an accurate WB. ;)
 
Yeah I agree RAW is ace! I do wonder sometimes however if all the post processing and editing is actually dumbing me down as a photographer. I can take a 'reject' photo and turn it into something good however surely what's betting is taking a great photo with good composition and lighting in the first place!
 
jojo90 said:
Yeah I agree RAW is ace! I do wonder sometimes however if all the post processing and editing is actually dumbing me down as a photographer. I can take a 'reject' photo and turn it into something good however surely what's betting is taking a great photo with good composition and lighting in the first place!
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know how many "photographers" would be happy to have their photographs shown without any digital manipulation.

I think the line between "photographer" and "digital artist" is becoming very blurry.
 
jojo90 said:
Yeah I agree RAW is ace! I do wonder sometimes however if all the post processing and editing is actually dumbing me down as a photographer. I can take a 'reject' photo and turn it into something good however surely what's betting is taking a great photo with good composition and lighting in the first place!
Click to expand...

johnnypanic said:
It would be interesting to know how many "photographers" would be happy to have their photographs shown without any digital manipulation.

I think the line between "photographer" and "digital artist" is becoming very blurry.
Click to expand...


You can also go into a darkroom and recover a rejected negative.
 
johnnypanic said:
It would be interesting to know how many "photographers" would be happy to have their photographs shown without any digital manipulation.

I think the line between "photographer" and "digital artist" is becoming very blurry.
Click to expand...

It always has to a certain extent, different developers and papers to affect the contrast and colour, burning and dodging and masking.
Photoshop makes it much easier, but I still have Bromiles I made 10+ years ago, they took 2 days work to produce, one whole evening with a brush, cotton wool and ink, they looked nothing like the original when finished.
 
jojo90 said:
Yeah I agree RAW is ace! I do wonder sometimes however if all the post processing and editing is actually dumbing me down as a photographer. I can take a 'reject' photo and turn it into something good however surely what's betting is taking a great photo with good composition and lighting in the first place!
Click to expand...

You have taken this post in a different direction from what I set it out to be. ie. Showing those new to RAW what can be achieved. The photographer always has a choice in whether to shoot RAW or not. If he shoots RAW he has decided to do some of the work that those shooting Jpegs would/could leave to the camera. I have the satisfaction of creating an image that I'm pleased with by doing it myself.

Look at it another way. I could have waited years to get the conditions right for the above picture. Instead it took me a half hour walk in the park and 10 minutes on the computer with the result that I now have a picture that I could add to an album or hang on the wall. It would be great if we could control the weather to allow us to take exactly the image we set out to take, but we can't. Photoshoping is the only way to get round this. Wether in the dark room or on the computer photography has always been about manipulation from 2 1/4 square to what choice of lens and the enhanced resolution of slides to B&W ilford paper. I see no valid reason why there is always this question about the attributes of RAW. :shrug:

I hope that the above pictures show, those new to shooting RAW or wondering why they should, the advantages of doing so. It is then up to them to decide how they develop (excuse the pun) their hobby.
 
Last edited:
Shooting RAW is no excuse for being lazy when taking the shot imho, but editing an image after capture has always happened, unless you were a person who put you pics in the shop (like me), and got them back 'as is'. Although even then, the shop machines altered things like exposure to try and produce a perfectly exposed print, so you may not have been getting the exposure as absolutely correct as often as you thought. ;)

Professionals in the darkroom have always 'played around' with their images to a small or large degree, it is just that digital has opened that ability to almost everyone. It has also made it quite easy to do, relatively speaking to to pre digital film/darkroom days. :thumbs:

I think it is up to the individual how much they want to leave till post pro, or indeed to edit the image in general, but you will probably get a better image if you get most of the elements in the image correct at capture, same as in the film days. :shrug: :)
 
redhed17 said:
Shooting RAW is no excuse for being lazy when taking the shot imho, but editing an image after capture has always happened, unless you were a person who put you pics in the shop (like me), and got them back 'as is'. Although even then, the shop machines altered things like exposure to try and produce a perfectly exposed print, so you may not have been getting the exposure as absolutely correct as often as you thought. ;)

Professionals in the darkroom have always 'played around' with their images to a small or large degree, it is just that digital has opened that ability to almost everyone. It has also made it quite easy to do, relatively speaking to to pre digital film/darkroom days. :thumbs:

I think it is up to the individual how much they want to leave till post pro, or indeed to edit the image in general, but you will probably get a better image if you get most of the elements in the image correct at capture, same as in the film days. :shrug: :)
Click to expand...

I think that has always been the case, I don't recall anyone in this or other 'why raw' posts suggesting shooting raw to avoid having to get things right in camera.
A raw file, unless it has the 'in camera, settings applied by your software, will always appear 'flat' and lacking 'punch'. It doesn't mean the exposure settings are wrong, what are you comparing it to anyway? an OOC JPG that HAS had lot's of processing applied? Not! I think, a fair comparison.....

An earlier post suggested 'open up the JPG in ACR and adjust the WB', while the option to adjust WB might be there, it doesn't mean it will work very well in practice.
If you don't believe me, try it for yourself, shoot raw + jpg with the wrong WB (e.g tungsten(WB) in daylight), now adjust the raw WB and produce a JPG, now try to get the OOC jpg to look the same as the one you created from the raw, you won't even get close, just because all the adjustments and sliders are there, doesn't mean they will have the same effect on a JPG file as on a raw file.
 
Howi said:
I think that has always been the case, I don't recall anyone in this or other 'why raw' posts suggesting shooting raw to avoid having to get things right in camera.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that people shoot RAW to avoid getting things correct at capture, but they can become a bit lax with some settings, I've seen threads saying that people don't bother with the correct WB for example.
 
Doog said:
Considering what came out of the Camera as a Raw image, I'm quite pleased with what I've managed to transform it into. I'm learning PP minute by minute and I get as much enjoyment from it as I do taking it. The original image was dull, flat and the sky was just a white mass as tends to happen on dull,cloudy days. I don't always revisit images on a regular basis but I do this one. I encourage all new photographers to shoot in RAW as soon as they get to know the functions of their camera. PP really does make such a difference.:)
Click to expand...

I'm flabbergasted.

That is incredible! I never knew this sort of thing is possible! Thanks for sharing that. ...But I'm wondering what sort of raw lab you have? I have a raw lab with my photo editing software, (Corel Paint Shop Pro x3), but it has sliders for only white balance, dark/lightness, and saturation.
Am I just not using it effectively, or is my program not good enough?

Did you adjust these basic things in raw, then convert to jpeg to sharpen and punch it up a bit? ...Or was it all in raw with a great raw lab?
 
Last edited:
redhed17 said:
I didn't mean that people shoot RAW to avoid getting things correct at capture, but they can become a bit lax with some settings, I've seen threads saying that people don't bother with the correct WB for example.
Click to expand...

No Problem, true! some don't bother with WB - I suppose it it being lazy.
I wouldn't do that myself as I use Lightroom and it applies the in camera WB setting so would have to correct everything manually ) I like PP ing but not THAT much :naughty:
 
inHisimage said:
I'm flabbergasted.

That is incredible! I never knew this sort of thing is possible! Thanks for sharing that. ...But I'm wondering what sort of raw lab you have? I have a raw lab with my photo editing software, (Corel Paint Shop Pro x3), but it has sliders for only white balance, dark/lightness, and saturation.
Am I just not using it effectively, or is my program not good enough?

Did you adjust these basic things in raw, then convert to jpeg to sharpen and punch it up a bit? ...Or was it all in raw with a great raw lab?
Click to expand...

I have used PSPx3 and it is a very good program, is there not an advanced settings menu, can't quite recall, i am sure you can alter more that you have quoted, perhaps some one can help me/us out here....
One of the best programs is lightRoom V3, I know it is not cheap, but is VERY capable and has superb noise handling to boot.
This prog has basic settings like you have quoted, on the library tab, the more advanced settings are under the developer tab. I'm almost certain PSPx3 is like this also....
 
inHisimage said:
I'm flabbergasted.

That is incredible! I never knew this sort of thing is possible! Thanks for sharing that. ...But I'm wondering what sort of raw lab you have? I have a raw lab with my photo editing software, (Corel Paint Shop Pro x3), but it has sliders for only white balance, dark/lightness, and saturation.
Am I just not using it effectively, or is my program not good enough?

Did you adjust these basic things in raw, then convert to jpeg to sharpen and punch it up a bit? ...Or was it all in raw with a great raw lab?
Click to expand...

All the editing I do at the moment is done in NX2 Capture which is Nikons own. It doesn't have as many features as Photoshop and the like but it does everything I need it to at the moment. You can download a free trial from the Nikon website. If I get round to mastering it I'll probably move on to Photoshop.
 
Howi said:
This prog has basic settings like you have quoted, on the library tab, the more advanced settings are under the developer tab. I'm almost certain PSPx3 is like this also....
Click to expand...

I'll be sure to check. I'm very new to raw, so I probably just didn't notice. Thanks! :)
 
wow. It can do all the advanced settings I use on jpegs on raw files :)
This has been an eye-opener for sure! I never knew I had so much available to me!
 
Gorgeous photo. As soon as I seen it I got a pang of 'OH I MISS GLASGOW'.
Though the original photo is much more what Glasgow actually looks like ;)
 
Raw is the best thing out there in digital photography only just used it today from having a long long break from photography and was on film before... so all this is new but well impressed ......
 
love photoshop, very rarely do i get a pic thats good enough on its own
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top