Saving a Poorly Exposed Photo
May 4, 2016 20:08:03 #
I was taking some snapshots at my youngest granddaughters first birthday celebration. I turned the flash off between a series and forgot to turn it on again. The result was a very dark first image in the next group.
I was about to delete it, but decided to see just how far I could push the processing of this poorly exposed image. The amount of recovered details in the shadows of the raw (nef) file impressed me. Parts of the image were pushed up almost 5 exposure levels using ACR and PS CC (in Photoshop slider increments).
Granted, in the next similar shot using flash, I could see fingerprint details on the hand, but this shot still made me appreciate both my camera, and the editing software capabilities.
I was about to delete it, but decided to see just how far I could push the processing of this poorly exposed image. The amount of recovered details in the shadows of the raw (nef) file impressed me. Parts of the image were pushed up almost 5 exposure levels using ACR and PS CC (in Photoshop slider increments).
Granted, in the next similar shot using flash, I could see fingerprint details on the hand, but this shot still made me appreciate both my camera, and the editing software capabilities.
May 4, 2016 20:20:44 #
Rick36203 wrote:
I was taking some snapshots at my youngest grandda... (show quote)
Yes, processing a raw can be amazing ;)
Sometimes having all of the data helps tremendously !
:thumbup:
May 4, 2016 20:57:01 #
You have labeled one image as an "untouched raw file" and the other as a "processed file". Those are not valid descriptions, and your understanding and ability to work with your images will improve if the correct relationship is understood.
Those are both JPEG images processed from the same raw sensor data in the RAW file. The exact same process produced each of them. One was done in the camera and the other on a computer. If the same options were used on the computer the resulting JPEG would be identical to what the camera produced.
The point is that the first image is not any more a "RAW" image than the second one, and the second one is no more "processed" than the first.
Those are both JPEG images processed from the same raw sensor data in the RAW file. The exact same process produced each of them. One was done in the camera and the other on a computer. If the same options were used on the computer the resulting JPEG would be identical to what the camera produced.
The point is that the first image is not any more a "RAW" image than the second one, and the second one is no more "processed" than the first.
May 4, 2016 21:29:24 #
Apaflo wrote:
You have labeled one image as an "untouched raw file" ...
Thank you for your comments. But, please re-read the label attached to the first image.
May 4, 2016 21:33:24 #
Apaflo wrote:
You have labeled one image as an "untouched r... (show quote)
Just saying....I came away understanding exactly what the OP was trying to show, and understand there is always more of a chance with raw data to save a photo where if it were a JPG that chance might be smaller or not there at all, which I believe is what the OP was showing very nicely.
May 4, 2016 21:37:51 #
May 4, 2016 21:41:36 #
Rick36203 wrote:
Thank you for your comments. But, please re-read the label attached to the first image.
Yes... how does each description not precisely fit the other image?
The labels aren't good because of fuzzy thinking that produced them. Straightening out exactly what you have will help to work with it. (Which incidentally is one of the biggest advantages to discussions on forums.)
May 4, 2016 22:10:17 #
Apaflo wrote:
Yes... how does each description not precisely fit the other image?
The labels aren't good because of fuzzy thinking that produced them. Straightening out exactly what you have will help to work with it. (Which incidentally is one of the biggest advantages to discussions on forums.)
The labels aren't good because of fuzzy thinking that produced them. Straightening out exactly what you have will help to work with it. (Which incidentally is one of the biggest advantages to discussions on forums.)
Thank you, Apaflo, once again for your attention to detail. Hopefully, I am working toward at least a rudimentary understanding of the raw data concept. Perhaps I should have typed... "the first image is a jpeg representation of the information in the nef file as it was captured and processed in camera, and before any additional software editing was completed". Seems like a mouthful to me. And, I'm not sure that would fit on the image label line... and finally, yes, all of my thinking is fuzzy, and it has been so for many years... :)
May 4, 2016 22:15:08 #
Here's another for comparison that I won't label, and just call "finished product" of a shot where the flash fired (bounced off wall/ceiling behind me).
May 4, 2016 22:19:43 #
Bill_de wrote:
Great job of recovery ... and a nice picture of your granddaughter.
--
--
Thanks, Bill. And, as all grandparents are biased, I'll admit, she's a cutie.
May 4, 2016 22:29:56 #
Rick36203 wrote:
Thank you, Apaflo, once again for your attention to detail. Hopefully, I am working toward at least a rudimentary understanding of the raw data concept. Perhaps I should have typed... "the first image is a jpeg representation of the information in the nef file as it was captured and processed in camera, and before any additional software editing was completed". Seems like a mouthful to me. And, I'm not sure that would fit on the image label line... :)
The images are not a "representation of the information" in the RAW file. Nearly an infinite number of slightly different images can be correctly derived from any RAW file. A JPEG file contains exactly one single image, and it does not represent all of the raw sensor data potential.
You've got some truly wonderful shots! You are showing very well why almost everyone in almost any circumstances, might benefit from shooting RAW rather than JPEG.
May 4, 2016 22:47:14 #
Apaflo wrote:
The images are not a "representation of the information" in the RAW file. Nearly an infinite number of slightly different images can be correctly derived from any RAW file. A JPEG file contains exactly one single image, and it does not represent all of the raw sensor data potential.
You've got some truly wonderful shots! You are showing very well why almost everyone in almost any circumstances, might benefit from shooting RAW rather than JPEG.
You've got some truly wonderful shots! You are showing very well why almost everyone in almost any circumstances, might benefit from shooting RAW rather than JPEG.
Well, Bless your heart, Apaflo. I never knew just how deep my misunderstanding of this really was. I'm impressed at how you can explain it to me by extracting sentence fragments from my comments, changing the message, and thereby advancing my learning experience by untold volumes. Thank you, thank you, thank you...
May 4, 2016 23:08:39 #
May 4, 2016 23:13:43 #
May 5, 2016 13:45:04 #
You've done a very wonderful job in showing why one should shoot in RAW. In making the adjustments you've taken a "throw away" to a "keeper". A beautiful shot of your granddaughter. Mahalo for sharing.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.