 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / May 2006I 'm learning to love raw
My wife and I have just returned from a cruise to Alaska, where we both took a lot of photos. On this trip we shot all raw, I found to my delight that it was almost impossible to over expose an image when shooting raw. Here are two photos that were saved because I was shooting raw, both would have been way over exposed if I was shooting jpeg. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045238 http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61044980 In both cases I show what the camera jpeg would have looked like next to what I recovered using the raw file. Once we got home I decided to do a test to see just how much over exposed a photo can be and still be saved with the raw file. For this test I shot in the raw+jpeg mode so I could get the jpeg exactly as the camera produces it. In the test I shot at the normal meter setting and then two stops over exposed. In this image there are three photos, the top one is the jpeg from the camera at normal exposure, the middle one is the camera jpeg two stops over exposed, the bottom is from the raw file that was captured at the same time, converted using Photoshop Elements 3. Note I adjusted the color balance as well as the jpeg images looked a little on the cool side to me. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045031 In the past when shooting jpegs I would spend a lot of time looking at histograms to make sure I was not blowing out the highlights. On this trip I pretty much just took photos and had to worry about the histograms far less. There is a perception by some that shooting raw is more work then shooting jpegs. The more I shoot raw the more I realize that it is far easier to shoot in raw then jpeg. I simply don't have to take the time on every shot to see if I have blown the highlights. BTW here is a small sampling of the photo I took on the trip. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/alaska Scott It seems to me that your camera may simply not be metering properly. > My wife and I have just returned from a cruise to Alaska, where we both > took a lot of photos. On this trip we shot all raw, I found to my [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Scott > It seems to me that your camera may simply not be metering properly. Mostly it does pretty good, what will fool it is small bright areas in an over all dark scene. The images that I showed are crops from much larger images where the rest of the image is far darker. It is not too hard to use the histogram to get a "proper" exposure, but what I have found is I don't need to take this step when shooting raw. Scott With most cameras you can push a RAW image from 1/3 to a full stop over and not blow the highlights (it varies from camera to camera) - 2 stops of true over exposure CAN be recovered sometimes, but it depends on whether all 3 channels are gone, or just 1 or 2 - I certainly wouldn't want to rely on it. When looking at histograms "in camera" - even when shooting RAW, the histogram is based on a JPG file anyway as RAW by definition is linear gamma - and the histogram of a linear gamma shot is a weird looking beast - so the camera converts it into the more familiar for you anyway - so even when shooting RAW, the histogram can be out a stop (or more). > > It seems to me that your camera may simply not be metering properly. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Scott >With most cameras you can push a RAW image from 1/3 to a full stop over and >not blow the highlights (it varies from camera to camera) - 2 stops of true >over exposure CAN be recovered sometimes, but it depends on whether all 3 >channels are gone, or just 1 or 2 - I certainly wouldn't want to rely on it. Another factor is scene contrast, and how much of its DR lies above and below "average metered grey". You can't get away with any positive exposure compensation in the camera at all, with a white bird or shirt against a predominant dark background; even with RAW you usually need to dial in at least -2/3 EC. On the other hand, if you were shooting a wall that was bright white with small, darker things on it, +3 EC would probably not blow the RAW in any channel.  Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > My wife and I have just returned from a cruise to Alaska, where we both > took a lot of photos. On this trip we shot all raw, I found to my [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > In both cases I show what the camera jpeg would have looked like next > to what I recovered using the raw file. What RAW converter are you using? I'm having a tough time making significant adjustments with RSE other than just EC but maybye I'm just not used to their highlight/shadow contrast & fill. I don't get such dramatic results with recovering blown highlights but yes, it certainly can help. > Once we got home I decided to do a test to see just how much over > exposed a photo can be and still be saved with the raw file. For this [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > BTW here is a small sampling of the photo I took on the trip. > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/alaska > What RAW converter are you using? I'm having a tough time making > significant adjustments with RSE other than just EC but maybye I'm just > not used to their highlight/shadow contrast & fill. I don't get such > dramatic results with recovering blown highlights but yes, it certainly > can help. My understanding is that "good old" ACR is one of the best in the business when it comes to highlight recovery - I've personally recovered one (white) image that was blown by about 3 stops (serves me right for shooting a white aeroplane on a bright day with metering set to 'normal'). >> What RAW converter are you using? I'm having a tough time making >> significant adjustments with RSE other than just EC but maybye I'm just [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >image that was blown by about 3 stops (serves me right for shooting a white >aeroplane on a bright day with metering set to 'normal'). It does have some issues - the exposure compensation is not very linear with -2 EC or below; it leaves some extreme RAW highlights white at -4 with my Canons, which is technically impossible, as there is only about 3.2 - 3.5 stops above middle grey in the green RAW channel; that means a white with a green RAW value of 4095 should render as a midtone with -4 EC, but it may actuall render as a clipped 255 in the output. Even with version 3.3, it still had a green cast to one of the marginal highlight zones where one channel was clipping. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > > My wife and I have just returned from a cruise to Alaska, where we both > > took a lot of photos. On this trip we shot all raw, I found to my [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > dramatic results with recovering blown highlights but yes, it certainly > can help. RSE works for most of my images but when the highlights are really blown I use Photoshop Elements 3, which is the same plugin as Photoshop. It is pretty amazing how much more of the highlights I can get using PPE 2 then RSE. Canons converter does OK but still not as good as Photoshop. Scott >It is pretty amazing how much more of the highlights I can get using >PPE 2 then RSE. I find that to be an odd comment; RSE has its issues, but I believe it has one of the best highlight recoveries - the highlight contrast slider compresses or expands highlights while barely affecting the midtones and shadows. With most other converters, you have to render dark, and then apply curves to get the midtones back where they belong. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >It is pretty amazing how much more of the highlights I can get using > >PPE 2 then RSE. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > midtones and shadows. With most other converters, you have to render > dark, and then apply curves to get the midtones back where they belong. It may depend on the file but I have a number of images where Photoshop seems to produce a better looking image then RSE. I have loaded a raw file and what I could do with both Photoshop and RSE, feel free to play with the image and see what you can do with it. All the raw converters can get a fair bit of the highlights back but I seem to have the best luck with Photoshop. http://www.sewcon.com/temp/raw/ Scott I have to agree with Pete D. The camera may not be metering correctly. There is a way to check this. If I remember correctly, you shoot a gray card (18%) and check you histogram for exposure balance. If I have this wrong or if there is more too it, someone please add or correct me. Your final images are really nice. > My wife and I have just returned from a cruise to Alaska, where we both > took a lot of photos. On this trip we shot all raw, I found to my [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Scott |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.