RAW question: I always shoot in RAW format and sometimes the shots come out looking perfect without any adjustments at all. I usually mess with them anyway just to see if I can improve...

Gary Truchelut Loc: Coldspring, TX

I always shoot in RAW format and sometimes the shots come out looking perfect without any adjustments at all. I usually mess with them anyway just to see if I can improve them. My question is: does anybody ever use the out of the camera RAW image without any post processing? or is that just not an option for most of us?

BigDaveMT Loc: Plentywood, MT

Isn't that what most of us are striving for?

gdwsr Loc: Northern California

Sometimes you get lucky but camera limitations seem to require some adjustments to get the scene accurate.

Festina Lente Loc: Florida & Missouri

Gary Truchelut wrote:

I always shoot in RAW format and sometimes the shots come out looking perfect without any adjustments at all. I usually mess with them anyway just to see if I can improve them. My question is: does anybody ever use the out of the camera RAW image without any post processing? or is that just not an option for most of us?

To me, RAW always appears somewhat flat, lacking a bit of vibrancy and luminescence. A little minor post processing can usually improve the image without changing anything substantive, but it is not essential if it looks the way you want it after conversion to JPEG.

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

RAW is digital's answer to the NEGATIVE. It provides maximum digital information which is geared toward post production.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Gary Truchelut wrote:

I always shoot in RAW format and sometimes the shots come out looking perfect without any adjustments at all. I usually mess with them anyway just to see if I can improve them. My question is: does anybody ever use the out of the camera RAW image without any post processing? or is that just not an option for most of us?

I know what you are asking, but in reality it is impossible. When you open that image in any RAW converter and then save it as whatever, SOME processing has been done to convert it from RAW to the TIFF or JPEG. It may be minimal, but some processing occurred. It could be LR presets or some Auto processing from Adobe Camera Raw or...something.

If you have your converter set to do no adjustments, then you will get pretty much an "as-is" image.

Gary Truchelut Loc: Coldspring, TX

thanks for the explanation, I didn't think saving to Jpeg would change the look of the image, but I now see that it can

CaptainC wrote:

quote=Gary Truchelut I always shoot in RAW format... (show quote)

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Gary Truchelut wrote:

thanks for the explanation, I didn't think saving ... (show quote)

One area in which you might see a difference is an image with a wide expanse of sky and that sky has a large gradient from a dark blue to lighter (much lighter) blue. Your RAW file might contain a gazillion shades, but conveying to JPEG drops it to just
16 million (If I remember correctly) and that can cause banding in the sky as there are just not enough colors to make a smooth transition from the huge number of shades of blue that occur from really dark to really light.

Gary Truchelut Loc: Coldspring, TX

I have seen that happen but didn't know what was going on. Good info

CaptainC wrote:

quote=Gary Truchelut thanks for the explanation, ... (show quote)

Dodger Loc: Melbourne Australia

Hi Gary,
My understanding is that a raw image is not processed by the camera at all.
It takes in all available information.
In the post processing you can adjust everything even the exposure.
A raw image will nearly always require processing, as it is a "raw" image that needs a little "cooking'
Feel free to send me an image you are not happy with and I will simmer it for you and repost

Gary Truchelut Loc: Coldspring, TX

I understand that you can do all the adjustments to RAW images and I always do. On occasion I will have an image that looks perfect to me right out of the camera and I think to myself that it couldn't be because it is a RAW image and needs processing. I try to make improvements to it and find out it was better without any processing at all, so I reset it back to original. Does this ever happen to you?

Dodger wrote:

Hi Gary,
My understanding is that a raw image is not processed by the camera at all.
It takes in all available information.
In the post processing you can adjust everything even the exposure.
A raw image will nearly always require processing, as it is a "raw" image that needs a little "cooking'
Feel free to send me an image you are not happy with and I will simmer it for you and repost

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I always shoot in RAW but do a lot of PP for artistic effect such as the one below. This is a picture of Ford's Mansion better known as Washingtons Headquarters in Morristown NJ where he spent the winter in 1776, while his troops camped at Jokey Hollow about 15 miles away. The picture was taken with a Nikon D7000 and a Nikon 18-105mm lens and processed in Photoshop CS6 using OnOne plug in.

Gary Truchelut wrote:

I always shoot in RAW format and sometimes the shots come out looking perfect without any adjustments at all. I usually mess with them anyway just to see if I can improve them. My question is: does anybody ever use the out of the camera RAW image without any post processing? or is that just not an option for most of us?

Heavy PP from RAW photo

Gary Truchelut Loc: Coldspring, TX

very interesting look, I like it

TimS Loc: GA

Just about every RAW image will need/could benefit from some sharpening done to it as well as some amount of noise reduction.

Dawinchi

No I never can use out of camera raw. Sometimes when I was using Canon's Digital Photography Professional I did not have to do anything more than what DPP had already done. Now that I use Lightroom, I have to touch every picture. Luckily for my sanity I can usually apply the same settings to all the pictures I take at a location., then maybe tweak a few individually.