| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/20/2005 07:13:33 AM · #1 |
| I've just been playing around with some Camera Raw settings in PS-CS and have got some amazing results. Would this be considered legal under Basic rules? |
|
|
|
02/20/2005 07:18:40 AM · #2 |
RAW is legal, but it depends on what you do to the image for it to be basic legal or not
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 07:26:31 AM · #3 |
| Using Exposure, shadows, contrast & saturation to the max |
|
|
|
02/20/2005 07:27:36 AM · #4 |
I believe all the ps cs raw settings are all legal under the basic rules as they all effect the whole of the image at once.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 07:27:54 AM · #5 |
| I don't see anything wrong with that. Legal according to me. |
|
|
|
02/20/2005 07:53:56 AM · #6 |
Totally legal. It's philosophocally the same as tweaking your in-camera settings.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:06:35 AM · #7 |
| I just started shooting RAW for challenges and won't be shooting anything but RAW for challenges from now on. |
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:16:32 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by marbo:
I believe all the ps cs raw settings are all legal under the basic rules as they all effect the whole of the image at once. |
Setting the vignetting amount affects only the corners. Is that legal?
Post-shot Adjustments may be made to your image in a photo editing program, so long as the modification is applied to the whole image.
Message edited by author 2005-02-20 09:16:48.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:17:25 AM · #9 |
I almost never use RAW. Is the quality that much better? Or is it just the fact that you can make changes to the settings that makes it so appealing?
Jen
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:20:10 AM · #10 |
people will argue both ways. I think it clogs the workflow, takes up an enormous amount of space, and doesn't really give you that much of a benefit as long as you set the proper white balance and exposed properly in the first place.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:22:12 AM · #11 |
It's the extra flexibility you get for tweaking exposure, white balance and the rest after the picture is taken. Theoretically you can tweak these things in a jpg as well but doing it with the RAW file yields much better results.
I'm another RAW convert.
John
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:26:48 AM · #12 |
Another JPG advantage...
cross-platform readability. You put that JPG on a CD, and 10 years from now you can open it with whatever software you choose be it a 20 year old computer or a brand new state of the art one. RAW is not.
See: //www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=175924
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:27:15 AM · #13 |
RAW data is just that, no compression or any other camera manipulation that throws away captured information. This gives even levels and curves more data to work with.
RAW is 12 bits/channel rather than 8 so the extra information is discarded when capturing in jpeg. Data is thrown away even without considering camera manipulation.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:28:21 AM · #14 |
There's no subjectivity to it at all. A raw workflow gives the potential for a measurably better output than JPEG does. The variable is your skill with post processing.
As for clogging the workflow, you need to use a professional workflow tool to make shooting RAW efficient. I can process a batch of 80 raw images in a few minutes using Bibble. That's much faster than individual JPEG editing in GIMP or Picture Project.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:29:44 AM · #15 |
| if you send raw file, it is same as giving the picture !!!! |
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:31:10 AM · #16 |
Thanks guys. I'm pretty good with PS and have just found it easier to use JPEG. I might have to try some RAW shots and compare them with my JPEGs to see if I notice a difference.
Thanks again,
Jen
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:32:17 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by IceRock:
if you send raw file, it is same as giving the picture !!!! |
But if you rank in the top 10 of a challenge you have to send the full-size file anyway.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:33:44 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
RAW is 12 bits/channel rather than 8 so the extra information is discarded when capturing in jpeg. Data is thrown away even without considering camera manipulation. |
RAW is 12 bit linear and JPG is 8 bit log, gamma derived from the 12-bit linear. In the shadows where it matters, the two are the same.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:37:50 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
As for clogging the workflow, you need to use a professional workflow tool to make shooting RAW efficient. I can process a batch of 80 raw images in a few minutes using Bibble. That's much faster than individual JPEG editing in GIMP or Picture Project. |
If you're batch processing your files, and not tweaking each shot one by one, you're defeating the purpose of using RAW and all that memory anyway. The same processing that your RAW converter is doing, you could have saved the time and had the camera do for you! If you're exposing correctly, and if your white balance is correct there's really no need for RAW.
Not to mention, slight color casts are easily fixable from a JPG in PS. You can't really change exposure, although the RAW software makes it seem like you can. You can get the same effect in PS for the most part...the only difference there is that you might be able to restore some highlights in a RAW file that you couldn't in JPG.
Message edited by author 2005-02-20 09:38:38.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:38:47 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
RAW is 12 bits/channel rather than 8 so the extra information is discarded when capturing in jpeg. Data is thrown away even without considering camera manipulation. |
RAW is 12 bit linear and JPG is 8 bit log, gamma derived from the 12-bit linear. In the shadows where it matters, the two are the same. |
How can part of a picture be 12 bits and other parts 8? Do you have a reference for your statement?
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:40:39 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
How can part of a picture be 12 bits and other parts 8? Do you have a reference for your statement? |
Part of the picture is not 12 and part 8...12 bit linear only holds some extra data in the EXTREME highlights.
//www.poynton.com/notes/colour_and_gamma/GammaFAQ.html
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:44:37 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
How can part of a picture be 12 bits and other parts 8? Do you have a reference for your statement? |
Part of the picture is not 12 and part 8...12 bit linear only holds some extra data in the EXTREME highlights.
//www.poynton.com/notes/colour_and_gamma/GammaFAQ.html |
Thanks.
Isn't Gamma just for viewing on a screen? Does the same hold true for prints?
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:47:40 AM · #23 |
I believe it's true for the file itself. If something is stored linear then it's always linear, and if it's an 8-bit model derived from the 12-bit linear, then I would assume it's always that.
Read Ken Rockwell's thoughts on RAW vs JPG here...
//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:48:13 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by deapee:
If you're batch processing your files, and not tweaking each shot one by one, you're defeating the purpose of using RAW and all that memory anyway. The same processing that your RAW converter is doing, you could have saved the time and had the camera do for you! If you're exposing correctly, and if your white balance is correct there's really no need for RAW. |
I was sort of wondering about the batch processing myself. Even when I batch process my jpeg snapshots (kids' b-day parties, etc.) they don't always come out right. Each image is different and requires different tweaking. It's okay if they are just snapshots but otherwise I'd think working on them individually would be the way to go.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:50:22 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I believe it's true for the file itself. If something is stored linear then it's always linear, and if it's an 8-bit model derived from the 12-bit linear, then I would assume it's always that.
Read Ken Rockwell's thoughts on RAW vs JPG here...
//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm |
What about 12 bit stored as 16 bit?
|
|
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: 09/06/2025 12:54:28 PM EDT.
