And this ladies and gentlemen, is why you shoot in raw.
- Thread starter GoingUp
- Start date
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
Can I see a larger version of the 'corrected' raw?
BTW... you aren't really telling us what is being shown. Is that an original raw and correct raw in the image? Or correct jpeg and corrected raw?
but I want to be picky about the correcting. It seems too.... I dunno. I'm a critic of the digital darkroom because it offers techniques not available in the film world.
I'm sticking to my guns in the film vs digital rift, at least in the art sense. If not trying to create art, then I guess digital is fine and I'll probably get into digital for the mere documentation aspect. But I'll probably already have a film body on hand too, so I can try and shoot what could be coined as 'art'. Probably be something I really only get into when I'm retired. Which is going to suck if darkroom supplies are impossible to come by at that point. Hopefully the entire photographic art movement doesn't switch to digital.
:laugh:
+
BTW... you aren't really telling us what is being shown. Is that an original raw and correct raw in the image? Or correct jpeg and corrected raw?
but I want to be picky about the correcting. It seems too.... I dunno. I'm a critic of the digital darkroom because it offers techniques not available in the film world.
I'm sticking to my guns in the film vs digital rift, at least in the art sense. If not trying to create art, then I guess digital is fine and I'll probably get into digital for the mere documentation aspect. But I'll probably already have a film body on hand too, so I can try and shoot what could be coined as 'art'. Probably be something I really only get into when I'm retired. Which is going to suck if darkroom supplies are impossible to come by at that point. Hopefully the entire photographic art movement doesn't switch to digital.
:laugh:+
i was going to ask the same thing. we need a corrected jpeg and a corrected raw for a fair comparison
i think it may be possible, though, that the raw file give you a more convenient starting point.
soydios
Platinum Member
- Mar 12, 2006
- 2,708
- 0
- 0
RAW is so much easier in the workflow, too. In Adobe Photoshop Lightroom with JPEGs you need to tweak each one. With RAW files you can set an absolute color temperature and tint, and then copy/paste that setting to all your files. The additional file size is completely worth it, IMO.
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
Originally posted by: ObiDon
i was going to ask the same thing. we need a corrected jpeg and a corrected raw for a fair comparison
i think it may be possible, though, that the raw file give you a more convenient starting point.
I definitely don't doubt the capacity for RAW files to provide better tweaking ability, because they carry full image data and no compression. That compression could seriously disturb values at the pixel level, which might hamper post processing.
that, and who really wants to do post processing to jpegs? Maybe as a starting point just because you can work on them faster, but the file quality is definitely going to prevent doing much with the jpeg beyond putting it on the web. Editing the raw allows you to then duplicate in print form without loss of quality.
+
Fardringle
Diamond Member
- Oct 23, 2000
- 9,200
- 765
- 126
There are three main advantages for me (there may be more or different ones for other people, but these are the ones that affect me) to shoot in RAW on my Fuji S6000fd in most situations:
1) RAW files save more data at the upper and lower "ends" of the histogram so I can recover some highlights and shadows in Lightroom that would have been completely lost in a JPEG created by the camera.
2) This camera does a really bad job of noise reduction at times (or perhaps too good of a job?) and it can result in some smeared and lost detail, particularly in shadows.
3) Even on "Soft", the camera sharpens some photos way too much. Editing the RAW files in Lightroom allows me to choose how much sharpening each photo gets.
The biggest disadavantages, and the reasons why I sometimes use JPEG instead of RAW are:
1) The camera is fairly slow when shooting RAW (about 4-5 seconds between shots) so it's not useful in action situations.
2) Every shot has to be processed, even if it's just a converstion from RAW to JPG using the automatic/default settings. This can be tedious, particularly when they are just snapshots that normally wouldn't get any post processing.
1) RAW files save more data at the upper and lower "ends" of the histogram so I can recover some highlights and shadows in Lightroom that would have been completely lost in a JPEG created by the camera.
2) This camera does a really bad job of noise reduction at times (or perhaps too good of a job?) and it can result in some smeared and lost detail, particularly in shadows.
3) Even on "Soft", the camera sharpens some photos way too much. Editing the RAW files in Lightroom allows me to choose how much sharpening each photo gets.
The biggest disadavantages, and the reasons why I sometimes use JPEG instead of RAW are:
1) The camera is fairly slow when shooting RAW (about 4-5 seconds between shots) so it's not useful in action situations.
2) Every shot has to be processed, even if it's just a converstion from RAW to JPG using the automatic/default settings. This can be tedious, particularly when they are just snapshots that normally wouldn't get any post processing.
Good improvements in general, but your layer mask technique needs some work, and I don't see anything that seems impossible starting from a JPEG image, barring blown highlights or blocked-up shadows.
Originally posted by: destrekor
Can I see a larger version of the 'corrected' raw?
BTW... you aren't really telling us what is being shown. Is that an original raw and correct raw in the image? Or correct jpeg and corrected raw?
but I want to be picky about the correcting. It seems too.... I dunno. I'm a critic of the digital darkroom because it offers techniques not available in the film world.
I'm sticking to my guns in the film vs digital rift, at least in the art sense. If not trying to create art, then I guess digital is fine and I'll probably get into digital for the mere documentation aspect. But I'll probably already have a film body on hand too, so I can try and shoot what could be coined as 'art'. Probably be something I really only get into when I'm retired. Which is going to suck if darkroom supplies are impossible to come by at that point. Hopefully the entire photographic art movement doesn't switch to digital.
+
raw certainly makes fixing photos much easier
however most jpgs can be proccessed the same and will look just as good
i only shoot jpg+raw when i'm in situations with tricky exposures or shots that i KNOW i'm going to be printing or selling
for most shots (that go in a gallery or a scrapbook) i shoot jpg
processing a batch of 50 jpgs is a lot faster than processing a batch of 50 RAW files
however most jpgs can be proccessed the same and will look just as good
i only shoot jpg+raw when i'm in situations with tricky exposures or shots that i KNOW i'm going to be printing or selling
for most shots (that go in a gallery or a scrapbook) i shoot jpg
processing a batch of 50 jpgs is a lot faster than processing a batch of 50 RAW files
soydios
Platinum Member
- Mar 12, 2006
- 2,708
- 0
- 0
Lightroom does remove that discrepancy. It doesn't take as few mouse clicks as Copy-->Paste, but it's close. And if you set up your defaults right, or create profiles (which can be applied via Ctrl-A and two mouse clicks), then the resulting images will be better than most JPEGs straight out of camera. If you can deal with the extra disk space and processing cycles required, it's worth it to shoot all RAW.
troytime, how do get money for your photographs? I'm hobby but want to make some changes to afford my stuffs.
i make it more about marketing and less about photography.
because i'm not a great photographer (yet).
i take pics that are unique, or at least a unique perspective.
photos that can function as art are great sellers.
photos that can connect with people and their past are also great sellers.
as far as actually selling stuff, here's where i've had my luck
- stock images (not going to point you to any specific sites, google it) - i've sold 4 images. i didn't think those 4 were great, and honestly, i didn't get much for them
- prints. take your good artsy photos and print them to a canvas or size worthy of hanging.
hang it somewhere local with a price tag on it. art houses and coffee shops are great places to sell art. my last sale costs 37 bucks to have a shot printed on a semi large canvas and i sold it for 100. the coffee shop got 10 bucks
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 33
- 81
One pic shot in RAW and color corrected in Bridge/Photoshop CS3.
All one layer, never did multiple layers or anything.
that's how it works with pretty much everything. someone else could be producing crap and, with proper marketing, could still make more sales more than you.
you'd have a difficult time making any sales without proper exposure
Originally posted by: ObiDon
that's how it works with pretty much everything. someone else could be producing crap and, with proper marketing, could still make more sales more than you.
you'd have a difficult time making any sales without proper exposure
yep. thats how AOL landed so many customers
Originally posted by: troytime
Originally posted by: ObiDon
that's how it works with pretty much everything. someone else could be producing crap and, with proper marketing, could still make more sales more than you.
you'd have a difficult time making any sales without proper exposure
yep. thats how AOL landed so many customers
Among other companies... BOSE comes to mind...
Originally posted by: destrekor
but I want to be picky about the correcting. It seems too.... I dunno. I'm a critic of the digital darkroom because it offers techniques not available in the film world.
I'm sticking to my guns in the film vs digital rift, at least in the art sense. If not trying to create art, then I guess digital is fine and I'll probably get into digital for the mere documentation aspect. But I'll probably already have a film body on hand too, so I can try and shoot what could be coined as 'art'. Probably be something I really only get into when I'm retired. Which is going to suck if darkroom supplies are impossible to come by at that point. Hopefully the entire photographic art movement doesn't switch to digital.
+
Not having been a film developer myself, I am not terribly familiar with the processes available, but I understand that there were various techniques that could be used in the traditional darkroom to improve photos -- dodging and burning are two that I have heard. Yes, digital manipulation offers various other techniques to modify images, but that is why the majority of photographers have switched to digital from what I've seen and read. The composition is what's important along with the proper use of the available light -- Photoshop does not improve the first and maximizes the second. To me, Photoshop, et al., improve upon the foundations of the image instead of making a bad photograph into something good.
Good photography still requires the skill of capturing a quality image. Photoshop just makes it look as good as it can.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: destrekor
but I want to be picky about the correcting. It seems too.... I dunno. I'm a critic of the digital darkroom because it offers techniques not available in the film world.
I'm sticking to my guns in the film vs digital rift, at least in the art sense. If not trying to create art, then I guess digital is fine and I'll probably get into digital for the mere documentation aspect. But I'll probably already have a film body on hand too, so I can try and shoot what could be coined as 'art'. Probably be something I really only get into when I'm retired. Which is going to suck if darkroom supplies are impossible to come by at that point. Hopefully the entire photographic art movement doesn't switch to digital.
+
Not having been a film developer myself, I am not terribly familiar with the processes available, but I understand that there were various techniques that could be used in the traditional darkroom to improve photos -- dodging and burning are two that I have heard. Yes, digital manipulation offers various other techniques to modify images, but that is why the majority of photographers have switched to digital from what I've seen and read. The composition is what's important along with the proper use of the available light -- Photoshop does not improve the first and maximizes the second. To me, Photoshop, et al., improve upon the foundations of the image instead of making a bad photograph into something good.
Good photography still requires the skill of capturing a quality image. Photoshop just makes it look as good as it can.
Personally, I don't see moderate manipulation to be much different from changing the type of film. If I'm shooting landscapes with film, I'm using Velvia 50. With digital though, I can create end products that look for all the world like Velvia 50 from images taken at ISO 1600. That's a wonderful advantage to have. If I want to mimic low contrast films when I need to preserve a lot of shadow and highlight I can mimic FujiPro 160S at just about any ISO on my digital.
Nothing terribly different there.
ZV
soydios
Platinum Member
- Mar 12, 2006
- 2,708
- 0
- 0
In my mind, there are two types of photography: Capturing, Creating, and Illustrating.
In "Capture" photography, as long as the photo is a true representation of what the eye saw, it's fair game in digital post-processing. My college's newspaper has the guidelines of no reversing images, and no cloning or otherwise manipulating the content of the image. Crops, color, brightness, white balance, noise reduction, and gradients are all fair game. That's about all that the editors have time for anyway, as it's a small yet dedicated staff pushing out a paper five days a week.
In "Creative" photography, the photo is supposed to creatively capture a scene in a way not normally seen by our eyes. The content is not altered extensively; only minor cleanup is allowed (remove a rogue tree from a landscape's horizon, or heal away blemishes in a portrait).
In "Illustrative" photography, content is flat-out created. Sometimes the images are straight-up renders, and/or Photoshop can be used to excessive amounts. I still respect this art though, because in this category it's the final image that gets judged.
Photographers and graphic artists that are still complaining about digital darkroom-replacement techniques today need to play catch-up. Nevertheless, I appreciate mastery of film, as producing an equivalent output to digital can be much more difficult because it requires more skill and forethought.
In "Capture" photography, as long as the photo is a true representation of what the eye saw, it's fair game in digital post-processing. My college's newspaper has the guidelines of no reversing images, and no cloning or otherwise manipulating the content of the image. Crops, color, brightness, white balance, noise reduction, and gradients are all fair game. That's about all that the editors have time for anyway, as it's a small yet dedicated staff pushing out a paper five days a week.
In "Creative" photography, the photo is supposed to creatively capture a scene in a way not normally seen by our eyes. The content is not altered extensively; only minor cleanup is allowed (remove a rogue tree from a landscape's horizon, or heal away blemishes in a portrait).
In "Illustrative" photography, content is flat-out created. Sometimes the images are straight-up renders, and/or Photoshop can be used to excessive amounts. I still respect this art though, because in this category it's the final image that gets judged.
Photographers and graphic artists that are still complaining about digital darkroom-replacement techniques today need to play catch-up. Nevertheless, I appreciate mastery of film, as producing an equivalent output to digital can be much more difficult because it requires more skill and forethought.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter