New to RAW ... Pt 3
Sep 6, 2023 17:44:16 #
~ OK! Again, lots of GREAT Help and Support was posted on Pt 1 & 2! Thanks to all who responded to this RAW newby!! 
- Now let's continue if you don't mind.... This subject was chosen only as a learning tool. Someday I may take a more appealing image, but for my School Project here, I chose this angle so as to be a challenge to myself. What is left of the white paint on the roof is giving a challenge - maybe it's OK to let it blow out??
~ I shot this at f1.4 to add to the challenge difficulty (or maybe I should not have added that variable??).
...Also, I'm guessing that the Magenta fringe on the rooftop is Chromatic Aberration rearing its head from, again, shooting at f1.4! Interesting!
- Now let's continue if you don't mind.... This subject was chosen only as a learning tool. Someday I may take a more appealing image, but for my School Project here, I chose this angle so as to be a challenge to myself. What is left of the white paint on the roof is giving a challenge - maybe it's OK to let it blow out??
~ I shot this at f1.4 to add to the challenge difficulty (or maybe I should not have added that variable??).
...Also, I'm guessing that the Magenta fringe on the rooftop is Chromatic Aberration rearing its head from, again, shooting at f1.4! Interesting!
Sep 6, 2023 19:21:31 #
I am afraid that the blown out portion of the roof is gone. When shooting something like that, meter on that spot, not the overall bird house.
Attached is how I would process your SOOC.
Attached is how I would process your SOOC.
Sep 6, 2023 19:23:00 #
Sep 6, 2023 19:45:59 #
Cany143
Loc: SE Utah
Looked back at your two previous 'New To Raw' postings... What I'm about to say may --or probably won't-- be of use to you. Nevertheless....
In this present posting, what --really-- have you gained by shooting in RAW? Granted, you were able (?) to 'lift' the shadows somewhat, you (presumably?) tamed the heavily saturated blues, greens and oranges a bit, and you were able (?) to recover the slightest bit of texture in what I'd bet were the overexposed highlights (the whites) in the roof and sun-side of the birdhouse. I expect much the same could've been accomplished with your SOOC .jpg, which essentially means that the RAW version netted you little more --in this instance-- than a larger file with greater bit depth to 'work with' (before it had been 'finalized' and reduced to the web-friendly 8 bit jpg you've posted), but with no ostensible, additional --real gain.
I don't use the software you (previously) mentioned you use, so I don't know whether or not that has any way to address chromatic aberration. What I do know, however, is that CA and/or the use of a wide open aperture has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever 'remedies' you can or cannot accomplish in having a RAW file to work with as opposed to having a .jpg file to start with. Depth of field is depth of field, and over exposure is over exposure, plain and simple.
Shooting in RAW allows for greater possibilities in bringing up shadow areas and for decreasing highlight values --as well as myriad other possibilities in the adjusting of hues and saturations and more, and there are a wide variety of ways to effect each or any of these, with some being better and others being otherwise. It's extremely difficult to describe, but the best I can put it is that with experience, the RAW shooter comes to learn how far the extremes can be pushed. And sometimes extremes are best accomplished with camera and/or lens settings, while other times they're not extremes at all, and are easily accomplished with software.
Much of this is seeing the possibilities before you ever point the camera.
In this present posting, what --really-- have you gained by shooting in RAW? Granted, you were able (?) to 'lift' the shadows somewhat, you (presumably?) tamed the heavily saturated blues, greens and oranges a bit, and you were able (?) to recover the slightest bit of texture in what I'd bet were the overexposed highlights (the whites) in the roof and sun-side of the birdhouse. I expect much the same could've been accomplished with your SOOC .jpg, which essentially means that the RAW version netted you little more --in this instance-- than a larger file with greater bit depth to 'work with' (before it had been 'finalized' and reduced to the web-friendly 8 bit jpg you've posted), but with no ostensible, additional --real gain.
I don't use the software you (previously) mentioned you use, so I don't know whether or not that has any way to address chromatic aberration. What I do know, however, is that CA and/or the use of a wide open aperture has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever 'remedies' you can or cannot accomplish in having a RAW file to work with as opposed to having a .jpg file to start with. Depth of field is depth of field, and over exposure is over exposure, plain and simple.
Shooting in RAW allows for greater possibilities in bringing up shadow areas and for decreasing highlight values --as well as myriad other possibilities in the adjusting of hues and saturations and more, and there are a wide variety of ways to effect each or any of these, with some being better and others being otherwise. It's extremely difficult to describe, but the best I can put it is that with experience, the RAW shooter comes to learn how far the extremes can be pushed. And sometimes extremes are best accomplished with camera and/or lens settings, while other times they're not extremes at all, and are easily accomplished with software.
Much of this is seeing the possibilities before you ever point the camera.
Sep 6, 2023 20:48:22 #
UTMike wrote:
Now?
Impressive!! That makes a lot of sense.
That you, UTMike!
Sep 7, 2023 11:11:37 #
UTMike wrote:
Now?
This is what's fun about this section of UHH! People (for instance, YOU, UTMike!) are Genuinely helpful and constructive!
Thank you, UTMike!!
Sep 7, 2023 11:45:42 #
Cany143 wrote:
Looked back at your two previous 'New To Raw' post... (show quote)
Well, your info here is VERY MUCH of use to me! Thank you for your words and insight here, Cany143 !
~ To clarify my position - I AM primally a JPG shooter. And will remain so. RAW is just another avenue to take on my learning journey. Most of what I shoot now, as I'm no longer in the Professional Game, goes online on Instagram or to friends, family, and various agencies. Those avenues could care less about all the fine innuendos of getting the "Best" image out of a particular camera. The impact of a shot subject is King/Queen with that! Not that I will put out garbage for posting - I still have to qualify the shot as, in my own mind, a qualifying shot - or "cool" as may be!
... I would, however, like to print a couple of 20 x 24 or 30 x 40s in the near future for my own entertainment - one from RAW product, and one from strictly JPG. Just for my own entertainment to see what happens!!
Again, thank you, Cany143! Words of wisdom doth you impart!
Sep 10, 2023 10:10:38 #
Cany143 wrote:
Looked back at your two previous 'New To Raw' post... (show quote)
Actually overexposure is not just overexposure. There is one stop or move of recoverable highlights in a raw file that is gone forever in a jpg, including thousands of intermediate tonal values. This is not to say that a decent jpg shot under normal lighting conditions cannot look good, but in situations of high dynamic range, the raw will allow adjustments that the jpg could not come near.
Sep 10, 2023 10:12:24 #
kymarto wrote:
Actually overexposure is not just overexposure. There is one stop or move of recoverable highlights in a raw file that is gone forever in a jpg, including thousands of intermediate tonal values. This is not to say that a decent jpg shot under normal lighting conditions cannot look good, but in situations of high dynamic range, the raw will allow adjustments that the jpg could not come near.
Good info to play with, kymarto! Thank you!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.