| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/21/2006 12:14:11 PM · #1 |
I had decided to make the conversion to shooting RAW. Since I'm only using 6 MP and I would like to have the best chance possible of getting quality enlargements.
It's been a painful switch. I went out and shot a card's worth of pics. I have some questions:
1) I use either the converter in CS2 (which is new to me also) or RAW Shooter Essentials. Is there a quicker way for me to be able to preview and compare a number of shots? I usually take a dozen variations of a shot and in JPEG I'm used to being able to use "slide show" in Zoombrowser to narrow down my favorite shot (to be processed). It seems clumsy to do it in RAW and the previews are often not big enough to compare detail.
2) Is noise much more of an issue in RAW? I had a shot which was ISO 800. When shooting JPEG, there would be noise, but not a ton and it was easily handled by NI. Now the noise seems huge. NI couldn't even handle it with standard settings. If I'm going to have to use NI all the time, I'm probably losing any detail I was gaining by shooting RAW.
3) Do you like to do as must post processing in the converter, or do you just get a reasonable shot and then finish in CS2?
4) My images look off to me. Am I just super-used to the in-camera processing?
I'm wavering. This doesn't seem worth it at the moment. Anybody want to lend a hand? |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 12:18:15 PM · #2 |
1. I'm pretty sure you can change default on thumbnail size in RSE.
2. You probably have noise reduction enabled int he 300D for jpg. RAW won't recognize that.
3. I process to "reasonable (set w/b, exposure, contrast) and finish in PS (especially sharpening)
4. That's how I felt at first too. I got used to it. Everything's RAW for me now.
R. |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 12:20:35 PM · #3 |
Keep in mind I deal with Nikon RAW files.
1) Adobe Bridge, PSE4, and Picassa will allow you to preview your RAW files before conversion
2) RAW should not contain more noise, if anything it should have less because there is no artifacting
3) I personally only correct exposure and white balance in the converter and do the rest in photoshop
4) Your images are more likely to look "off" in RAW because they have no post production applied to them in camera. There is more information to work with though so you can ultimately make them look better than straight JPG shoots (you have more control over how the image will turn out) |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 12:40:22 PM · #4 |
In RSE, you can do a slide show, and then assign a rating to each shot, or flag it as "something you want to go back to right away. Then, you can go through the "1"s (or flags), for example, apply any settings you want (you can do a lot more in RSP, including both crop and free rotate, and curves adjustments). You can change the view to see just the file and the controls while editing--you don't need the thumbnails, and you can still go through your "1"s by pressing right and left arrow (as I recall).
In RSP, you also can compare a number of files enlarged at once.
You can set it to save conversions to a directory, or to load them directory into PS/CS.
Personally, I couldn't imagine going through as many RAW shots as I take using any other method. RSE/RSP, and Bibble, both have this very nice way of "editing" to settings files (stored as separate sidecar files), which works very nicely to do the conversions. You can also easily copy/paste settings across shots. In Bibble, you can actually apply settings to selected files just by selecting them all then changing the setting (though I've accidentally changed to many files with that GUI).
RSP also lets you save multiple "settings" for each picture, using the number tabs.
(Some of these features may also be in RSE, but I haven't used it for a while, so the line is blurring a bit)
|
|
|
|
01/21/2006 12:43:48 PM · #5 |
With regard to the noise, keep in mind that if you're processing in CS2 with Bridge/ACR, ACR will apply exposure correction that it thinks is appropriate. Look at the exposure slider when you first open the image for conversion and see if the auto exposure sets a positive number, particularly more than +0.5. If it does, and the pic looks good, the original was underexposed. That will bring up noise, big time. Also, as previously posted, the normal JPEG noise reduction is not in play, which may make noise more noticable. ACR does do some chrominance noise reduction by default, but it is pretty gentle compared to the in-camera JPEG noise reduction.
Proerly exposed RAW images (using an expose right philosophy) will have somewhat less noise in finished images than JPEGS, which must be more conservativley exposed (they cannot take advantage of the extra DR headroom of RAW).
|
|
|
|
01/21/2006 12:45:18 PM · #6 |
| Jason I highly recommend Real World Camera RAW for Adobe PS CS2. A must read book for anyone shooting RAW and using PS. |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 12:51:22 PM · #7 |
Yes, as Kirbic said, I always try to avoid underexposure. I keep the histogram to the right when shooting.
Note that I think RSE's agressive sharpening leads to more apparent noise. Even if you have the slider set to 0 (rather than negative), it is sharpening. One nice feature of RSE/RSP is though that you can set the default processing parameters by range of ISO. So you can turn down sharpening if you like and do it all in CS. You can also leave it on as you like, and turn it off with the checkbox during conversion. But then that's no sharpening.
Note that RSE/RSP does not apply any sharpening if you convert and reduce at the same time. Personally, I don't like that aspect of it, because with Bibble, I used to try and do everything in Bibble, reduce to 640, and submit an image without any PS to basic challenges.
Bibble, has one other advantage: it can apply the same types of corrections as sidecar files to JPEG as to RAW. So you can go through a mixed shoot and see all the pictures, and adjust curves (without actually affecting the masters). And Bibble has predefined and user defiend batch queues, so you can have a DPC queue, which lets you drop images on it to convert to 640 and DPC settings.
I liked Bibble a lot, but I find it crashes too much for me.
|
|
|
|
01/21/2006 12:55:35 PM · #8 |
| LOL My first thought when seeing thread title was vasoline... |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 01:03:10 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
LOL My first thought when seeing thread title was vasoline... |
Oh that is just sick! LOL.
Everything Neil said about RSP. I have used it and RSE since they came out and love them. Very easy to work with and should solve all you mentioned as problem areas. |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 01:19:54 PM · #10 |
| If you're a windows person. Download the microsoft RAW Image Viewer & Thumbnailer (that might no be the exact title, but it's something to that effect). It will make thumbnails just like the ones you'd get for jpegs in explorer folders and will allow you to open the images in a viewer that is nearly identical to Windows Picture & Fax Viewer. They take a few seconds longer to open, but it's a full quality preview. |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 01:53:20 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
RSE/RSP
Bibble |
Hey Nick, now that I have the same kind of camera as you, we're like blood-brothers, right?
I took a few shots in RAW last night. I used the RAW Image Task software that came with the camera to play with exposure etc, then convert.
Is there a reason you prefer not to use the Canon supplied software? (Nick or anyone else)
Oh ya, here's my pic. Taken in a fairly dark basement, zoomed, with flash. My first ever RAW converstion!
Message edited by author 2006-01-21 13:53:59.
|
|
|
|
01/21/2006 02:01:34 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Is there a reason you prefer not to use the Canon supplied software? (Nick or anyone else) |
I can't speak for Canon specifically, but supplied software tends to be subpar in my experience. The RAW converter in Photoshop CS is far superior to what came with both my Nikon and my Olympus. So many more options, better preview, etc. The Nikon & Olympus softwares are also designed to be file browsers/albums in addition to bare bones editing software, so you have to wade through a bunch of import and organize your photos junk in order to get to the editors you want. |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 02:12:42 PM · #13 |
[quote=nshapiro] Yes, as Kirbic said, I always try to avoid underexposure. I keep the histogram to the right when shooting. /quote]
How much over-exposing are you talking about? ACHOO I feel for you man. I've done the same thing. I thought it was me. After processing about 50 RAW images I thought "what is the point to this?" The photos were way worse than any I had ever taken. The lighting was crappy and I had done everything I could to try and get the shutter speed up without to much under exposure. I had to do extensive work to them and run them through NI. But then by the same token I've shot RAW before when there was ample light and loved the results.
Is RAW not a good low-light option?
Edit to say flash was not an option for me. I had to make the best of available light.
Message edited by author 2006-01-21 14:18:54.
|
|
|
|
01/21/2006 02:40:44 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
RSE/RSP
Bibble |
Hey Nick, now that I have the same kind of camera as you, we're like blood-brothers, right?
I took a few shots in RAW last night. I used the RAW Image Task software that came with the camera to play with exposure etc, then convert.
Is there a reason you prefer not to use the Canon supplied software? (Nick or anyone else)
Oh ya, here's my pic. Taken in a fairly dark basement, zoomed, with flash. My first ever RAW converstion!
|
If you're asking me (Neil), then the answer is that RSE/RSP/Bibble allow you to work with a whole directory of files without making changes to the original.
Say you shoot 20 pics of the same thing. If you just preview the files, and select the best unmodified, you might not choose the best file. Other than focus/blur problems, you may need to go through and apply some corrections to levels/curves etc. in order to see what the best choice is. They may turn out to be the same after adjustment, but usually, one will win for having the best information after adjustments.
Likewise, adjusting color balance on a group of shots is a cinch. RAW is the best way to shoot and do after the fact or manual adjustments of white balance.
|
|
|
|
01/21/2006 02:44:02 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
[quote=nshapiro] Yes, as Kirbic said, I always try to avoid underexposure. I keep the histogram to the right when shooting. /quote]
How much over-exposing are you talking about? ACHOO I feel for you man. I've done the same thing. I thought it was me. After processing about 50 RAW images I thought "what is the point to this?" The photos were way worse than any I had ever taken. The lighting was crappy and I had done everything I could to try and get the shutter speed up without to much under exposure. I had to do extensive work to them and run them through NI. But then by the same token I've shot RAW before when there was ample light and loved the results.
Is RAW not a good low-light option?
Edit to say flash was not an option for me. I had to make the best of available light. |
No, not overexposed, exposed on the high end of the histogram. Though some highlights could go slightly off since you are not seeing it by color. But I always check the histogram. I will set the exposure to make sure the hist is as far right as possible for the lightest tones.
As long as you haven't blown highlights completely, you can adjust the exposure down in RSP, have full detail in the shadow areas, and noise levels go down as you compensate down.
|
|
|
|
01/21/2006 03:02:06 PM · #16 |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 03:41:37 PM · #17 |
I 2nd and 3rd this comment! I'm halfway through the book now - one of the best CS2 books I have read! |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 03:55:19 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
If you're asking me (Neil)... |
Oops, sorry & thanks. I'm a name-spazz, among other things. Still camera-blood-brothers? ;-)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 08:44:28 AM EDT.
