DO all raw images need editing

derekG

derekG

Suspended / Banned
Messages
361
Name
derek
Edit My Images
Yes
Since switching to digital from film I have always shot in raw,but recently I have thought that some pics I have taken wouldnt benefit from any editing at all , is this normal practice for some raw images or am I fooling myself?
 
If you're happy then you're happy... but I'd be a surprised if a little sharpening would help just a little.

Personally I always apply some sharpening and a touch of noise reduction and other than that I find that most of my shots need a silght boost to contrast, saturation and vibrance.
 
Every RAW file you want to make into an image needs processing, if just to save as a Jpeg. How much processing you do is up to you. If you think the Raw file looks good as is, then just save as a Jpeg or Tiff. Most digital files need a bit of sharpening at least though, unless you have a camera without an Anti Alias filter. (the AA filter softens most images)
 
derekG said:
Since switching to digital from film I have always shot in raw,but recently I have thought that some pics I have taken wouldnt benefit from any editing at all , is this normal practice for some raw images or am I fooling myself?
Click to expand...

No, you're not fooling yourself. Pre-digital, I, and indeed millions of others, shot on E6 slide film. It was developed, and you had your image. The end. We relied on lighting and film choice to get the results needed. In fact, I often still do.
 
I only ever shoot RAW. AT times I load the images into LR, and think some may not really need much tweaking. But I'll mess about with them anyhow. I happen to love processing, it's therapeutic :D

I don't need to give them much treatment, I just do it to see how it looks. Mostly, a simple tweak of blacks, highlights, vibrance and contrast [you'll find RAWS very 'washy' and flat at the best of times] does the job. Since I started using the D800 I rarely do sharpening, a little here and there with masking.

Anything beyond that is just to put my own personal touch, or feel to an image.
 
I find the same, very little adjustment has to be made to a raw file. I actually think that people make too big a deal out of the whole raw file thing and suggesting that a raw file will need lots of expertise in adjustment.
I don't really adjust them any more than a JPG but when I do I find the same types of adjustments are better which is why I use raw (i.e. bringing some detail back into a white sky)
 
Pookeyhead said:
No, you're not fooling yourself. Pre-digital, I, and indeed millions of others, shot on E6 slide film. It was developed, and you had your image. The end. We relied on lighting and film choice to get the results needed. In fact, I often still do.
Click to expand...

and if you needed to make a print from the slide ?

this 'in the old days there was no post processing' argument is so tired it needs a pillow and duvet

In answer to the OP - all raw files need to go through the browser if you are going to do anything with them , even if its only to save as tiff or .jpeg - however in most cases unless you have something like a D800E (without an AA filter) they'll benefit from a tad of sharpening
 
There seems to be a definite recent "trend" of removing AA filters from cameras as quite a few have started going without the filter, even point & shoot cameras like the Nikon Coolpix A and Ricoh GR
 
Just an add-on query, doesn't the program that you use to open the raw file apply default changes anyway?
If so, then the amount of editing required by the photographer will depend on what has been applied already which could vary depending on the program used.
 
boliston said:
There seems to be a definite recent "trend" of removing AA filters from cameras as quite a few have started going without the filter, even point & shoot cameras like the Nikon Coolpix A and Ricoh GR
Click to expand...

I bet you find similar with the Ricoh, that you don't need to sharpen as much?
 
Suvv said:
Just an add-on query, doesn't the program that you use to open the raw file apply default changes anyway?
If so, then the amount of editing required by the photographer will depend on what has been applied already which could vary depending on the program used.
Click to expand...

Yup. When I open a RAW in CS5 not every single value is set to zero. Most are, but not all.
 
Suvv said:
Just an add-on query, doesn't the program that you use to open the raw file apply default changes anyway?
If so, then the amount of editing required by the photographer will depend on what has been applied already which could vary depending on the program used.
Click to expand...

In Adobe Camera Raw, it will apply a Camera Calibration Profile, Adobe Standard by default I think. This can be customised with some presets or to something you input yourself to get it looking how you want it to on opening.

There may also be some settings applied by default too. It's so long since I used a new, untouched, version of the software. ;)

You can save some of your own settings to apply on opening if you always make the same changes on opening. By default I have my ACR to apply the Camera Standard v4 Camera Calibration, Lens Corrections, a bit of Sharpening and a bit of Noise Reduction. Then I do anything else that I think needs to be done. :)
 
Suvv said:
Just an add-on query, doesn't the program that you use to open the raw file apply default changes anyway?
If so, then the amount of editing required by the photographer will depend on what has been applied already which could vary depending on the program used.
Click to expand...
Yes. Different software will default to a style of processing chosen by the software manufacturer. Usually some attempt to apply an algorithm that gives inoffensive results in a wide range of situations.

Sort of the same as when you give a lab film to process they process it using a method that they find gives acceptable results most of the time.

So it's really never true to say that any image, digital or film, is unprocessed. Only that you didn't process it yourself. In which case you have handed over control of that part of your creativity to a team of software engineers or, in the case of film, whoever created the lab's processing protocols.
 
ghoti said:
Sort of the same as when you give a lab film to process they process it using a method that they find gives acceptable results most of the time.

So it's really never true to say that any image, digital or film, is unprocessed. Only that you didn't process it yourself. In which case you have handed over control of that part of your creativity to a team of software engineers or, in the case of film, whoever created the lab's processing protocols.
Click to expand...

In the case of printing that is somewhat true with film, but with colour developing the C-41 (colour negative) and E-6 (slide) processes are as per to the standardised times for the processes as defined by Kodak, Fuji etc unless your request a push/pull, clip test etc where they will be shortened/lengthened to compensate again as per the standardised protocol.
 
s162216 said:
In the case of printing that is somewhat true with film, but with colour developing the C-41 (colour negative) and E-6 (slide) processes are as per to the standardised times for the processes as defined by Kodak, Fuji etc unless your request a push/pull, clip test etc where they will be shortened/lengthened to compensate again as per the standardised protocol.
Click to expand...
The standardised protocols aren't the only protocols that work. There are variables to play with - chemical ratios, times, temperatures - that affect your final image. The standardised protocols are just what somebody has decided are "best fit" for a wide range of scenarios.
 
big soft moose said:
and if you needed to make a print from the slide ?
Click to expand...

I'd get a print made.

big soft moose said:
this 'in the old days there was no post processing' argument is so tired it needs a pillow and duvet
Click to expand...

Well... you have a choice of papers... you can dodge... burn... you can composite.. sure... all the stuff that's been around for nigh on 200 years... yeah, but you've not got a big list of sliders to massively change saturation, no clarity, vibrancy, no D-Lighting on your cameras, no HDR, no anything really. Photographers still managed to make stunning images, so I think it's fair actually.. to say, no.. you don't need to process your RAW files beyond the obvious need to convert them to a bitmapped file of some format or another.

big soft moose said:
In answer to the OP - all raw files need to go through the browser if you are going to do anything with them , even if its only to save as tiff or .jpeg - however in most cases unless you have something like a D800E (without an AA filter) they'll benefit from a tad of sharpening
Click to expand...

Over sharpened images is the most common flaw I see these days.
 
I edit everything. If I nail the shot its the same type of edit (LR), brightness down to 5-25, dash of exposure and 5-10 of sat and lum.
 
So do I to some extent.

Not all images need editing though. Some are just right straight out of the camera. It depends on the image, lighting, contrast etc.
 
Suvv said:
Just an add-on query, doesn't the program that you use to open the raw file apply default changes anyway?
If so, then the amount of editing required by the photographer will depend on what has been applied already which could vary depending on the program used.
Click to expand...

True, but I have zeroed everything in LR except for the pre-sharpening which I usually leave at the default 25
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top