RAW abilities - Coming back from the DEAD!

10/19/2005 01:49:14 PM · #1

Everytime I shoot and edit in RAW, I see no difference in my outcome from when I use JPG and edit in PS. I am certainly no pro at raw, but I am good in PS using curves, levels, etc. I also have followed the workflow from several books to see if it would be worth my time but the end result always seems the same.

So... would someone please post a pic that was totally saved by fixing it in RAW. A before and after shot would be great. I'd really like to see some stuff "come back from the dead" using RAW.

Thanks!
Eric
www.eslayphotography.com

lawless

Canon EOS-1D X

10/19/2005 02:05:19 PM · #2

I will look at trying to find such a photo. My initial comment would be that, prints would certainly benifit from the Raw conversion. Check the histogram following levels and curves adjustment. When gaps appear, this means that there isn't a smooth transition between tones which can show up as posterization in prints. You can convert from raw without this effect, and if you contiue to edit the picture in the 16 bit mode, you can 'push' the adjustments much further without these gaps occuring. All the adjustments that are being done in the raw conversion are non destructive ways to make major adjustments to your pictures.

yido

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

10/19/2005 02:30:18 PM · #3

Which RAW processing program are you using?
They are not all equal. Have you tried the Rawshooter?
For me, I find the biggest advantage to RAW is getting details out of overblown or underexposed areas of a photo, which effectively expands the dynamic range of the camera.

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

10/19/2005 03:10:05 PM · #4

Well let's see some examples. I hear this, but I need to see what I'm missing! I do see that gaps that were mentioned and I didn't know that those gaps translated into non-smooth transitions. Very interesting.

So let's see 'em!

Canon EOS-60D

10/19/2005 03:17:46 PM · #5

I don't think it's so much that RAW brings dead photos back to life, as much as it allows you many more possibilities to correct flaws that you would otherwise be stuck with. Believe me, I used to inherently question, with my eyebrow raised high and my hands on my hips, those crazy RAW worshippers. Now I am one.

Even if you properly expose and have the right white balance, RAW still gives you more detail to work with and more creative leeway than jpg. Just my opinion. :)

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

10/19/2005 03:32:08 PM · #6

As far as I'm concerned, I find RAW easier to work with, in addition to it giving some latitude for adjustment. In Capture One, I can easily run through a batch, adjusting levels, curves and saturation and just add each file to the conversion queue after a bit of tinkering. It even auto-rotates. I prefer this approach, as with JPEG I find that I have to open each file individually in Photoshop, edit and then save under a different filename. Using RAW, the original cannot be overwritten by the final JPEG very easily. I can thoroughly recommend you to a decent RAW converter for that aspect alone.

Nuno

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/19/2005 03:32:19 PM · #7

I've been recently converted to raw. I used Nikon Capture a few months ago and didn't like it a lot. But know I've tried RSE and I'm really convinced. I went to shoot a FMX motocross international event for a magazine and I came here to ask for help. People said to me to shoot in raw because I would see the difference. And I did. The result was a cover article and a 4 pages article with my photos on it. 80% of the photos are iso1600. And yes its a bit more sharp if carefully converted. And the ability to correct exposure is worth the time to convert the files. In a nikon semminar a few days ago I've heard this: correcting the exposure with ps using levels or curves is always crompromising some quality because you compress the information (in levels) discharging some of the pixl iinformation thai is in the zone of the arrow that you've moved. Correcting the exposure using ev compensation in Nikon capture (and RSE also) is like reexposing the hole shoot. It gives you at least more 2ev to compensate withought any information lost.

when I work in raw I almost don't do work in ps. Because half the work is done! I simply correct exposure and saturation in rse and when concerted to jpeg or tiff is just cropping to desired proportion, or some "extra effects".

totaldis

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/19/2005 03:48:32 PM · #8

the thing about raw is to always underexpose shots thus having the ability to avoid blown highlights. atleast thats why i use it. but i have recovered a few photos lighting and colors using photoshops raw converter.

before:

after:

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/19/2005 04:08:49 PM · #9

Do most of you underexpose when you shoot in raw?

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

10/19/2005 04:16:10 PM · #10

Originally posted by eslaydog:

Do most of you underexpose when you shoot in raw?

I try to 'expose to the right' even when shooting RAW. It's better to tone down bright sections than to bring up dark sections excessively, as I found with my 20D. Noise seemed to appear quite rapidly and to a greater extent than with my 300D.

Nelzie

Canon EOS-30D

10/19/2005 04:16:23 PM · #11

I have been told that always underexposing isn't the best way to go about things. Even with shooting RAW.

Your best bet would be to take a test image or two, check out the info and inbetween each shot adjust settings to eliminate blown out highlights. Then, once you have the right setting for that shot, take your shot and either blow away the other images or leave them to glance through later.

To much underexposing could eliminate some things that you want to capture that are in shadow.

wkoffel

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

10/19/2005 04:59:00 PM · #12

Originally posted by totaldis:

Oof...I'm not sure I agree with that strategy. Certainly, blow-outs aren't any good, but intentionally underexposing may lead to a lot less control than you deserve from RAW shots. Check out
//luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml for a pretty good analysis of this with the inventor of Camera RAW.

tate

Apple iPhone 14 Pro

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

10/19/2005 05:34:43 PM · #13

in my opinion, the perfect photographer could use the highest JPG mode of TIF ... I'm far from perfect - RAW has turned me into a cyborg photographer - umm, yeah. The advantage of RAW is --as said before in this thread, is the ability to modify exposure, saturation, contrast, and even sharpness among others (I use PS CS2). For non-challenge images, you can convert from raw in 2 exposures and merge the 2 images as you like. This is non-purist stuff to be sure, but RAW is for non-purists and purists alike eh?!

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

10/19/2005 07:50:40 PM · #14

RAW is not a way to salvage poorly-exposed images. If you know what you're doing, you can, as previously posted, "expose to the right" and pull exposure back down in RAW conversion, reducing noise and gaining dynamic range, up to a stop or more depending on the camera. You also have potential gains in image quality because you can convert and edit in an uncompressed format, saving to JPEG only after all editing is done. The greater processing power of the PC (vs. the camera) also allows more sophisticated algorithms to be used in converting the image. Further, since the RAW data cannot be changed, you always have an unedited "negative" unless you actually delete the RAW file.
Finally, the RAW file provides all the benefits of an uncompressed format at a smaller file size than 8-bitTIFF, and with greater dynamic range.
While use of RAW format used to result in less-than-optimal workflows, that's not the case anymore with the advent of sophisticated RAW converters integrated in applications like Adobe Bridge, and stand-alone apps like RSE, Capture1 and Bibble.