Help me shoot in raw format

[matthewlrigdon]

Originally Posted by Max@Home

OK: IMO you gain close-to-nothing if you open a RAW file in -any- converter, leave all settings 'as-shot' (or in case of 3rd party converter 'as deemed 'standard' for that body') and then just press 'convert'.

You could gain a little IQ if the resulting file is larger (less compression = better quality) than the Camera-produced JPG, but it is basically the same file...

you give up a lot just doing a straight conversion, but I still think even a straight conversion to JPEG using software is a better option than using JPEGs straight from the camera. Each third-party RAW utility has its own particular look, so if you locate a software package that clicks with you, you'll be more pleased with the results. Plus, software is upgraded far more often to take advantage of new image processing techniques, whereas firmware is rarely changed.

And not to knock the Canon engineers, who are very good, you have to consider that a company like Adobe has the clout to hire some of the best imaging professionals in the world. While the Canon software guys have a direct line to the hardware engineers, there's still a lot to be said for Adobe's advantages even if they have to reverse-engineer the sensors.

Which isn't to say that I'm pushing Adobe as I personally use Aperture for the majority of my work (I find the image quality to be competitive and I feel Aperture's UI is far superior to Lightroom.)

[aam1234]

Max, I see what you meant earlier. It makes sense now.

Thanks for the clarification.

[aam1234]

Originally Posted by Inked Photography

it takes so freakin long.

Maybe because you started with a "freakin" badly taken photo that needs a "freakin" long time to correct

I would think starting from a normal photo is a better way to make a fair comparison.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by aam1234

Maybe because you started with a "freakin" badly taken photo that needs a "freakin" long time to correct

I would think starting from a normal photo is a better way to make a fair comparison.

... that is *NOT* a nice thing to say to a fellow photographer trying to understand RAW...

...U R warned, tone down!



Max@Home

[aam1234]

Excuse me

You are kidding, right? I certainly hope you are.

Edit: Both mine and your first languages are not English, so I suppose something was lost in the translation. It will surely be nice if you explain what you meant above.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by aam1234

Excuse me

You are kidding, right? I certainly hope you are.

Edit: Both mine and your first languages are not English, so I suppose something was lost in the translation. It will surely be nice if you explain what you meant above.

...no I ain't... your first sentence -even with the smiley added- is way out of line - IMO - not a way to address a fellow Camel - in writing. This can hurt feelings.

And I weighted in the -non-native speaking element, that is why I -only- warned.



Max@Home

[aam1234]

Then you are a little off, Max.

What I said was meant in a light-spirited way to somebody I feel comfortable being frank with; hence the quotation of the "freakin" word. IP is a very cool guy.

Btw, dangling your "authority" for such a minor issue (imo, but subject to IP's approval) is not very appetizing. And I mean it in the friendliest of ways.

Best regards, from a friend to a friend.

Edit: I admit, "badly taken" is not a nice thing say. "badly exposed" is better.

[matthewlrigdon]

Originally Posted by aam1234

Maybe because you started with a "freakin" badly taken photo that needs a "freakin" long time to correct

I would think starting from a normal photo is a better way to make a fair comparison.

Actually, the "worse" your photo is, the more you can benefit from a RAW workflow. A RAW image is literally the data straight from the camera sensor with no modification. it's basically a black-and-white image at 12 to 14 bits of resolution (yes, Canon dSLRs only capture levels of luminance, shot through a Bayer filter) If you pull a JPEG image from the camera, you're already throwing out a number of bits (JPEGs are 8-bit creations) as well as baking in color information (there's no white balance in a RAW image, it's something you set and then make a conversion from).

If you shoot under controlled lighting and you set your exposure with impeccable precision, JPEGs straight from the camera will rival the results from a straight RAW-to-JPEG conversion (if you're well-trained with your software, you can still pull just that-much-more out of your RAW image).

If you're dealing with rapidly changing situations or you find that the one-in-a-million shot came while your exposure was just one stop too low or too high, then there's a phenomenal amount of data in that RAW data that you can get to, if you know how to get it out of RAW image.

So the worse the image is, the better a result you can get from the RAW image.

I took a photo of the setting sun while on a cruise and if you rollover this image, you can see the difference between Aperture's default rendering (somewhere in the ballpark of a JPEG from the camera) and my own rendering with just a few minutes of work.

Sunset

[aam1234]

Since Matthew linked to a photo, I will raise him and post a photo (if it's OK with Max).

Straight into the sun. Raw certainly helped here.

[Inked Photography]

Ok, So I did a test run in shooting raw. Here is a pic of my kids. I don't want to say don't critique cause I mainly took this to try raw and see the results of my poor editing skills. lol...Ok, I don't really think I am that bad. But I know I can always continue to learn. But here is my attempt.

[Inked Photography]

Oh, it's ok to critique. But be nice to my kids please....

[Latinbob]

Ernie, that's one of the best shots I've seen from you. I like the tonal range you got, which is a big benefit of shooting RAW (to me). There is more to RAW than just white balance.

The kids are awful cute, too!

Bob

[Inked Photography]

lol.....Thanks Bob. I was irrate with the kids cause they were not cooperative. They didn't want to take a pic at all. I must admit. I can see the difference in shooting in raw. But I am confused about the whit balance. When I moved it I could tell no difference. What is it for> To control color and things of that sort? Once I transfered it to Jpeg. The only thing I did in photoshop is use the clone stamp and the action tool for the frame.

[Latinbob]

I have a hard time getting mine to pose too. Smiling normally is just impossible for them!

Adjusting white balance in raw should make a big difference. It will control the overall color balance. Lower numbers make it look bluer, and higher numbers make it look redder. Daylight is about 6500K.

Bob

[Inked Photography]

I just kept putting it up higher try to see a difference. from 100k to 50