For once I'm pleased I used RAW

dod

dod

TPer Emeritus
Suspended / Banned
Messages
16,680
Name
Ebenezer McScrooge III
Edit My Images
Yes
I don't normally but today I'm pleased I did, mainly because I wanted to try out lightroom. Knocked the compensation down 2 2/3 stops by accident and didn't notice for about 30 shots, just wondered why I was getting such a good shutterspeed in such crap light :lol:

First right from the camera, second the recovery, noisy but usable :)

ML1W4727.jpg


ML1W4727saved.jpg
 
Using photoshop with the original try this.....

Duplicate the layer (ctrl J) and change the blending mode to screen. Now dulpicate the top layer again and again (if needed).

Play around with opacity of final layer.

I too prefer RAW but you can edit jpgs in a similar way.
 
Didn't know that, thanks for the tip :thumbs:
 
No worries Dod.
 
RAW is helpful, but you can recover Jpegs as well using the right techniques...

Here is your original RAW (converted to jpg):

ML1W4727.jpg


Here is your RAW recovery pic:

ML1W4727saved.jpg


Here is the same Jpeg, with exposure and white balance corrected, levels tweaked, and noise removal algorythm applied, editied from your original under exposed converted RAW capture.

horse2yt4.jpg
 
TomB said:
Just wondering why you don't usually like RAW? I've only had a dSLR for a month, but after a year with a bridge camera my favourite thing about it is shooting in RAW!

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Processing time, pure and simple. For example, from sunday I have about 2000 shots to process, opening and processing that number of RAW shots just isn't viable. Using jpeg I've got a simple batch process which resizes, autolevels and dumps into the appropriate folder for processing to the gallery.

Anything where I've messed up or the metering's been fooled just gets deleted.

On this particular day I knew I'd only have 200-300 and for some reason just deecided to use RAW (remembered why, wanted to try lightroom). Normally even at those numbers I'd still have used jpeg.

To be honest though processing the saved jpeg here gives a result pretty much the same as the processed RAW image i.e. it's still recoverable for a print. Might just be me but I think there's an element of elitism about using RAW and,to be controversial ;) in some cases laziness as there's a general belief that you can recover more or less anything from sloppy exposure. I don't buy into all the alleged advantages, but wouldn't suggest anyone stop using RAW because of my thoughts. :shrug: To use a dodgy pun I suppose it's horses for courses :p
 
OK, that makes sense to me!

As something of a novice, I find the flexibility that raw gives really useful, and with the number of shots I deal with I think it actually saves me time, as its taken over most of the PP is used to do in PS.
 
I use RAW as much for retaining the integrity and quality of the file as much as for tweaking later. Any compression algorithm inevitably loses data each time it un/compresses a file......
 
The EOS seminar I went to at the weekend said RAW was a waste of memory space. Instead of shooting in RAW so you can correct your mistakes later (which is why I use it ;) ), you should be aiming to get it right in camera, first time....... which is all very well once you have learned, but having the RAW to fall back on as a beginner, is a great advantage IMHO. I'd also say that if it's a "ONCE IN A LIFETIME" shot, then RAW is a great safety net.
 
photostar_1 said:
The EOS seminar I went to at the weekend said RAW was a waste of memory space. Instead of shooting in RAW so you can correct your mistakes later (which is why I use it ;) ), you should be aiming to get it right in camera, first time....... which is all very well once you have learned, but having the RAW to fall back on as a beginner, is a great advantage IMHO. I'd also say that if it's a "ONCE IN A LIFETIME" shot, then RAW is a great safety net.
Click to expand...


I agree. I was bought up using 35mm, where there was very little you could do to rescue a bad exposure. I still always try to get the exposure right 'in camera', using old fashioned exposure techniques.

I can understand why RAW is such an important tool to professional photographers, who have to deliver well balanced and exposed captures time after time, and the importance of being able to rescue that 'important' shot that has gone wrong.

Me, if the shot is that important, I bracket 1/2 stop either side, and know that short of a disaster, I can get a well exposed shot from at least one of the 3 captures.
 
photostar_1 said:
The EOS seminar I went to at the weekend said RAW was a waste of memory space. Instead of shooting in RAW so you can correct your mistakes later (which is why I use it ;) ), you should be aiming to get it right in camera, first time....... which is all very well once you have learned, but having the RAW to fall back on as a beginner, is a great advantage IMHO. I'd also say that if it's a "ONCE IN A LIFETIME" shot, then RAW is a great safety net.
Click to expand...

TSK TSK - they didn't address jpeg degradation then? Naughty elitist seminar!
 
Although I always shoot RAW + JPG I should chime in and say with a jpg off the camera you'll not really notice the degradation. For safety, save the jpg as a tif and all will be well. Output to jpg for printing again.

Using RAW I believe is easier than editing jpgs but it's amazing what PShop will do.

Cheers
Jim
 
photostar_1 said:
What's jpeg degredation?
Click to expand...

jpegs are compressed to save space - this means an algorithm calculates what superfluous digital data can be discarded when a photo is compressed. When the photo is decompressed (or opened in a browser) the extra 1's and 0's of digital data are guessed at by the algorithm to reconstruct the photo. Each time you open a jpeg, work on it and save it again, a little more detail is lost.

Keeping your files as RAW, TIFF or DNG will keep it in as close as possible its original quality. You use a heck of a lot of space, but i believe its worth it.

Its the same process that converts a musical track to mp3 - less space but less quality. We only ever 'play' mp3's rather than re-record them to the degradation is less / negligible
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top