 |
 | 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 / September 2006RAW shooting - i would need some help
Some of you already know that i'm only a beginner in SLR, so i thought i might ask for some help from you experienced guys. If some of you have broadband connection, some time and skills, i would be very thankfull if you could download my example pics - raw is original, while jpg is the one created in camera (Canon 30D), since it was shot in mixed RAW + JPG fine. 1/5000 sec, F4, ISO500. RAW (7.5M) http://www.protoncek.com/misc/IMG_511.CR2 JPG (3.5M) http://www.protoncek.com/misc/IMG_511.jpg what i'd like to know is what should i do in photoshop that i'd get more or less same (or better, of course) pic (in jpg) as it is the one made in camera. Why is one, converted in PS with "as shot" settings very different, while logically it should be the about the same ? Especially it has more noise ? I guess that camera has some noise reduction function? I did try play with settings but i would appreciate some advice to move on. I noticed that most RAW shots, made in lower light have more noise on RAW type than same shots on JPG, so can anyone explain? Thanks a lot! > what i'd like to know is what should i do in photoshop that i'd get more > or less same (or better, of course) pic (in jpg) as it is the one made in > camera. Why is one, converted in PS with "as shot" settings very > different, while logically it should be the about the same ? Most of the time, "as shot" in Photoshop does a pretty good job of getting things the same as the in-camera JPG. Sometimes, however, it won't. In particular, it occasionally can't get the color right. Canon's import utility gets it right every time. I still use ACR, however, I'm not usually interested in making the same decisions that the camera would. In any event, it would seem that you are confusing the settings in ACR. "As shot" only appears (at least for me) for white balance - not for exposure, shadows, brightness, contrast, or saturation. The checkbox for those is "Auto", which is different from "As Shot". As for what changes to make to get a somewhat similar image, exposure/shadows/brightness/contrast values in ACR of 0/0/60/25 get you somewhere in the ballpark. steve >> what i'd like to know is what should i do in photoshop that i'd get more >> or less same (or better, of course) pic (in jpg) as it is the one made in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > steve i see that ACD still have more settings available for user than canon RAW feature, so i guess it is better thing to use... I'll try above settings and see. thanks - i guess putting trhough NEat Image would also be good... > ...I noticed > that most RAW shots, made in lower light have more noise on RAW type than > same shots on JPG, so can anyone explain? RAW does give more noise but also more detail and sharpness. The in-camera jpeg processing is actually quite good at noise reduction and making a clean sharp 'looking' image but you'll get a little more out of RAW and you'll have a little more noise to deal with. See this (ugly) experiment I did a couple years ago to prove that to myself: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=4>  SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com >> ...I noticed that most RAW shots, made in lower light have more noise on >> RAW type than same shots on JPG, so can anyone explain? > > RAW does give more noise but also more detail and sharpness. RAW does no such thing. You get no more and no less detail, sharpness, noise, or anything else. The difference is that the adjustment of those parameters is left to you and your raw converter, not done by the camera. You have the chance to shine or fall on your face. > See this (ugly) experiment I did a couple years ago to prove that to > myself: > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=4> That doesn't show anything about the raw data, only about your choice of converter, algorithms, and settings. steve >>> ...I noticed that most RAW shots, made in lower light have more noise on >>> RAW type than same shots on JPG, so can anyone explain? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > steve I did leave all other settigns in AUTO position. But, it seems that there's no Noise reduction on RAW plugins - neither in PS or Canon's one. When i worked with RAW plugiun, make some adjustments, went throughtNeat Image, result was, i admit, somewhat better (especially in colors and details) than original... SO, i guess it still best to shoot, say, ISO 100 or 200 if possible... > I did leave all other settigns in AUTO position. But, it seems that > there's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > than original... > SO, i guess it still best to shoot, say, ISO 100 or 200 if possible... By leaving them in "auto", you're letting PS make decisions which may not be the same as those made by the camera. In doing so, any differences in exposure, brightness, and contrast have the potential to increase noise. I don't use Canon's raw converter, but in PS, look under the "detail" tab for noise reduction. And why limit yourself to 100 or 200, when even at 800, the noise isn't a problem at realistic viewing sizes (on screen or in print)? It's like a friend of mine who wants a 5D to shoot at ISO 50, because even though noise is imperceptible at ISO 100, just the *thought* that he could have less drives him crazy. That's OCD, not photography. steve >> I did leave all other settigns in AUTO position. But, it seems that >> there's [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > steve aha...so that auto settings are auto in the sense of PS, not camera ones...good to know...that all makes sense now. Anyway, it's really good that a man can play indefinitely to learn, and free of charge (except my time, of course). Regarding noise, one of reasons for deciding for 30d was low noise, since i do intend to shoot at ISO1600 or even 3200 if really needed. From i've seen on various test photos, shot at 3200, after Neat image work they came out very goodif not excellent - in normal view, as you said. Thanks for all info! Steve Wolfe skrev: > RAW does no such thing. You get no more and no less detail, sharpness, > noise, or anything else. The difference is that the adjustment of those > parameters is left to you and your raw converter, not done by the camera. > You have the chance to shine or fall on your face. And imo most important: You have all the data to work with making it possible to use ajustments that would be "impossible" in jpegs SignatureMed venlig hilsen, Ole Larsen. New Images And Design, aug. 2006 http://Olelarsen.eu/ > Steve Wolfe skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And imo most important: You have all the data to work with making it > possible to use ajustments that would be "impossible" in jpegs yep, i already learned that part. As an example i tried to "save" underexposed shot.... way better to do with RAW, or should i say possible, while with JPG...naaaah....can't do it right... >> Steve Wolfe skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > underexposed shot.... way better to do with RAW, or should i say possible, > while with JPG...naaaah....can't do it right... For the JPEG the camera has made choices and done processing which has discard some information. Read Bruce Fraser books and he says flatly: the data was destroyed. One important note is ACR has great highlight recovery for over exposed photos. You could over expose by two full stops and still bring back a lot of detail assumed lost. I always shoot with AE + 2/3 and set ACR default for exposure to -.3 and this eliminates a lot of noise. Just don't underexpose for raw and boost exposure by too much - then you are more likely to see noise. >>> Steve Wolfe skrev: >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Just don't underexpose for raw and boost exposure by too much - then you > are more likely to see noise. yep. I've read some part of this book already...excellent piece of work. >>>...I noticed that most RAW shots, made in lower light have more noise on >>>RAW type than same shots on JPG, so can anyone explain? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > RAW does no such thing. You get no more and no less detail, sharpness, > noise, or anything else. It does so, a little bit. Pretty minor so I shoot jpeg+RAW. > The difference is that the adjustment of those > parameters is left to you and your raw converter, not done by the camera. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That doesn't show anything about the raw data, only about your choice of > converter, algorithms, and settings. Read the annotation below & study the image if you care. There is more noise and detail in the raw converted version than the jpeg original. I have found this to be true with a variety of settings and cameras, converters, etc. SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > Some of you already know that i'm only a beginner in SLR, so i thought i > might ask for some help from you experienced guys. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Thanks a lot! There isn't more noise in Raw it is just the RAW info with no noise reduction. The camera does a very good job of noise reduction when converting to jpg but if you are shooting something important and you don't have ideal conditions definitely shoot RAW + jpg. You have total control over everything, especially exposure and color balance. Get a noise reduction plugin for Photoshop to deal with the RAW noise. I have had great success with Noiseware Pro. >> Some of you already know that i'm only a beginner in SLR, so i thought i >> might ask for some help from you experienced guys. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Get a noise reduction plugin for Photoshop to deal with the RAW noise. > I have had great success with Noiseware Pro. OK, i'll find a plugin or two and do some testing. Thanks for info. |
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.