Why you should shoot RAW

tummelv

tummelv

Suspended / Banned
Messages
85
Edit My Images
No
I was never that keen on RAW until I got some first hand experience on just how useful it can be for saving a bad photo, so I thought I would make this thread.

This is my example. I shot on the beach at night and I coulddn't keep the tripod straight and I didn't like the colours.

315xy0p.jpg


A little tweak in the RAW converter and a straighten up of the horizon in photoshop later:

3291487108_16f04311cb_o.png


Post your shots that were saved from the recycle bin because you could save them in RAW!
 
Honestly, I prefer the first one. :) I like the warmer colours and it's less noisy. I also like the dutch angle. The bridge seems to lead the eye into the picture better that way.
 
Lazlo Woodbine said:
Honestly, I prefer the first one. :) I like the warmer colours and it's less noisy. I also like the dutch angle. The bridge seems to lead the eye into the picture better that way.
Click to expand...

:razz:

It's a good thing you don't decide what I put on my wall!
 
Sorry, but I have to say I agree with Lazlo. I prefer the light in the first.
 
i like the first one better too ,,and you dont need to shoot in raw to adjust the horizon
 
Btw, it's raw...not RAW, it's not a file format, like JPEG, it's just the raw data rom the sensor....
 
I always shoot in RAW, I like RAW. But like the others, I prefer the first one, sorry dude. Maybe somthing in between the 2 pictures would be better. I think you have made the second picture appear too un-natural. I prefer the illuminations in the second picture, but not that sky.

Its all about RAW :D
 
Keeping it within the spirit of the OP, I agree :thumbs:, shooting in raw is the way to go for those of us who have the time to **** about with PPing :D.

Here's a pretty extreme example of one of mine, where I had to massively under-expose to avoid blowing out the lights in the window on the right and then had to mask it off and do ridiculous amounts of boosting the in shadows, to bring out the colours and the detail in the trees, sky and water.

Many will hate the final version, as it does look heavily processed, but it would certainly have looked a lot worse if I'd shot it in medium sized .jpeg and then carried out the same extreme "tweaks" on it :| ...

Original raw file:
AJH_3418csmall.jpg


Final processed .jpeg:
River_Leine_at_Night_06.jpg
 
I preffer shooting in RAW, but sorry mate, liked the first one

I think its a bad example to switch to RAW, if the output is this!!
 
Nice recovery Naboo

Heres my raw recovery
1. before
before.jpg

2. after
sunset-1.jpg
 
tummelv...First shot for me, sorry.

From Cambridge in Colour.

So which is better: raw or JPEG? There is no single answer, as this depends on the type of photography you are doing. In most cases, raw files will provide the best solution due to their technical advantages and the decreasing cost of large memory cards. raw files give the photographer far more control, but with this comes the trade-off of speed, storage space and ease of use. The raw trade-off is sometimes not worth it for sports and press photographers, although landscape and most fine art photographers often choose RAW in order to maximize the image quality potential of their digital camera.
Click to expand...

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...ile-format.htm

Personally I shot JPegs because I mainly shoot motorsport and aircraft, not printing massive images, happy with the A3 and A2 prints I get with JPegs.

I can see the advantages of shooting RAW, especially for city or landscapes, you just need to have a good work flow for processing your images and a more indepth understanding of what settings are required.

Peter
 
Naboo32 ~ Its amazing how much detail has been restored, but the outcome still looks horrendously processed. You could have achieved a better result with either a longer exposure and/or a wider aperture (and im sure you knew that!). The sky looks as if you went crazy with layers and the magic wand.

bsmotorsport ~ wow!
 
voodoochild said:
Naboo32 ~ Its amazing how much detail has been restored, but the outcome still looks horrendously processed. You could have achieved a better result with either a longer exposure and/or a wider aperture (and im sure you knew that!). The sky looks as if you went crazy with layers and the magic wand.

bsmotorsport ~ wow!
Click to expand...

With longer exposures, which I did try, that window with the strong white light coming from it, turned into a glowing white mass (which was almost circular in shape :(). You can't process something like that out, without resorting to HDR/layering.

Also, there are no layers in my image at all - it's all done in Nikon Capture NX2, by simply masking the highlights and just boosting the brightness on the rest of the image. So, that sets the record straight on the "how" ;). The fact that you don't like it is a perfectly normal reaction to it, so I'm really not upset about that BTW ;).

The main thing that I wanted to show was just how far you can push raw files, before the "damage" shows :lol:.

Bsmotorpsort, you're "save" is wonderful, IMO. Such a massive improvement :clap:!
 
To go back to the OP, of those two shots, I do prefer the first one, but I feel the ideal is somewhere between the original raw file and the final processed version. I think you just went a little bit too far with it, something we are all guilty of from time to time.
 
bsmotorsport said:
Nice recovery Naboo

Heres my raw recovery
1. before
before.jpg

2. after
sunset-1.jpg
Click to expand...

:eek:

Bloody hell, that is an amazing shot!!
All the examples posted here are just fab.

And this thread is GREAT!
I vote for it to be a sticky, and then when there's the old 'should I or why should I shoot in raw' threads, we can direct people straight to this thread!
 
foodpoison said:
If everyone keeps calling it RAW instead of raw then i think FITP's head will explode :p
Click to expand...

:suspect:.......I feel a plan coming together........;)
 
That is astounding bsmotorsport, please let us know how you did it!
 
I love raw - it's brilliant at making rubbish photos look good. Here's a recent example....

Grotesque-Woman.jpg





..... and it turned that into this:










235828_Kelly-Brook-Posters.jpg


I'm sold on it :)
 
specialman said:
I love raw - it's brilliant at making rubbish photos look good. Here's a recent example....

Grotesque-Woman.jpg





..... and it turned that into this:











235828_Kelly-Brook-Posters.jpg


I'm sold on it :)
Click to expand...

Lol, if that doesn't change people's minds nothing will! :thumbs:
 
foodpoison said:
If everyone keeps calling it RAW instead of raw then i think FITP's head will explode :p
Click to expand...
Says RAW in my camera manual, so apologies for any cranial disturbances.
scanners.gif


:D exploding heads FTW!
 
matt1 said:
That is astounding bsmotorsport, please let us know how you did it!
Click to expand...
As far as I remember it was all done in lightroom and then sent into photoshop where I put a blue overlay over it and blended it to suit. I was taken by back by how much it transformed the image in lightroom.
When I get my desktop working I'll be able to check the history to see what I did to it :thumbs:
 
specialman said:
I love raw - it's brilliant at making rubbish photos look good. Here's a recent example....

Grotesque-Woman.jpg





..... and it turned that into this:










235828_Kelly-Brook-Posters.jpg


I'm sold on it :)
Click to expand...
I recently started using raw, and having looked at Specialmans 2 pics, has convinced me to keep on trying. I took a picture of my wife, it looked like Specialmans first picture, but. I'll be darned if I can get it to look anything like Specialmans second. My question is: can we have a few tips on raw and if I can get it to work this good, it will become RAW for me. Trev.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top