RAW help, please (Page 2): You asked for it 200 ISO DX40 Download and compare. LOL Wolf .. taking a photo of your monitor doesn't prove anything to me ... it's funny though ...I don't...

Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum

Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰

Photo Analysis

RAW help, please

Page <prev 2 of 3 next>

Mar 22, 2012 23:36:11 #

photogrl57 Loc: Tennessee

English_Wolf wrote:

photogrl57 wrote:

Yeah I wasn't real impressed with that ... it didn't do the same experiment at a lower ISO .... show me one that proves that with an ISO of 100 .. :)

You asked for it
200 ISO DX40 Download and compare.

LOL Wolf .. taking a photo of your monitor doesn't prove anything to me ... it's funny though ...I don't see a real difference

Mar 22, 2012 23:40:57 #

English_Wolf Loc: Near Pensacola, FL

Of course not, read the comment as I had to reload them.
As to being funny, sorry, but I am not about to create a special cession because you ask. Be happy I even make the effort to offer a visual clue. DOWNLOAD.

Mar 22, 2012 23:50:00 #

photogrl57 Loc: Tennessee

No problem .. you offered more sources ... I just took you up on it ... I'm good
I did download them ... no need to be like that ...

Mar 22, 2012 23:57:40 #

English_Wolf Loc: Near Pensacola, FL

Just short fused due to an idiotic ending of a topic. Sorry.

I did download them The new ones?

I always do research when something does not compute, almost to the point of becoming possessive. I want to know WHY. Just 'because' is not answer other than ignorance. So I search and read conflicting advices then, when called out, post a 'clue'.

Mar 23, 2012 00:05:07 #

photogrl57 Loc: Tennessee

English_Wolf wrote:

Just short fused due to an idiotic ending of a topic. Sorry.

I always do research when something does not compute, almost to the point of becoming possessive. I want to know WHY. Just 'because' is not answer other than ignorance. So I search and read conflicting advices then, when called out, post a 'clue'.

No worries .. I never take what you say or how you say it personal :) I know better ... I just happen to have a couple photos taken in RAW .. not edited except to save as jpg ... one is underexposed -2/3 ... I personally don't see the noise created by the underexposure ... I'm not saying you are wrong ... really has nothing to do with you .... but I still think that an ISO of more than 400 indoors there is going to be some noise regardless of exposure.

ex. comp 0 ... ISO 100

ex. comp -2/3 .. ISO 100

Mar 23, 2012 00:13:46 #

English_Wolf Loc: Near Pensacola, FL

The under exposure has to be significant. In both case, prior to your post was about 3 stops.

RAW can handle about 2 stop w/o flinching. It is not about being in or outdoor.

Mar 23, 2012 00:15:21 #

photogrl57 Loc: Tennessee

Ah ok well I don't just happen to have that LOL ... my camera will only go 2 full stops either direction...

Mar 23, 2012 06:20:56 #

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

It's all in the lighting. It does not matter what brand of camera either. I can take a photo in bright light with ISO 6400 and have low noise. I can simply turn 90 degrees shot another pic and have all sorts of noise. This applies to other ISO's also. I could show you one shat at 1600 that you can not detect any noise. I can show you another at 1600 that looks like crap. All shot in fine jpeg.

Long story short, Go ahead and shoot in jpeg. Just compensate for the lighting accordingly. RAW should not matter. But if you are going to shoot in RAW, bring plenty of memory with you. Oh, look. It is Friday. Have a great trip.

Mar 23, 2012 10:16:33 #

mdeman Loc: Damascus, Maryland

Thanks to everyone. I was in a bit of a panic: new camera, new to RAW, trip to Africa etc. Just a gentle reminder to double check histograms for exposure when in the field. And to double check my son's work, too.

The amazing thing is that with RAW and being 3 f stops underexposed, I could still pull up an almost acceptable picture that otherwise would have been lost.

Mar 23, 2012 11:51:53 #

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

mdeman wrote:

I thought the whole point of shooting in RAW was to not have to worry about the light color.

I think you may have missed the point on light color adjustment in raw. I believe you have full control to adjust it to make it look right before you store it as a jpeg. What photo editing program do you use?

Mar 23, 2012 13:36:50 #

mdeman Loc: Damascus, Maryland

Light color adjustment wasn't what I was talking about. That is easy enough to do with the PSE9 I am using. Seems the problem as wolf pointed out was way underexposure. I thought that RAW enabled better salvaging of underexposed pictures. I got confused with salvaging blown highlights. The noise from underexposure was what I was dealing with. Fortunately I was able to remove much of it with the noise reduction functions.

Mar 23, 2012 14:44:14 #

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

mdeman wrote:

I thought the whole point of shooting in RAW was to not have to worry about the light color.

You don't but you will have to make the adjustment in post. In Raw it doens't matter if the adjustment is pre or post. You may have software that came with your camera or any program that accepts your raw files.

Mar 23, 2012 17:30:28 #