Robdale Loc: South Carolina

Being a novice to raw files, these converted files have two different compositions. Bridge 3 photo was shot with a Canon 80d with a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 at 160 sec, F8, ISO 250, 55mm. Bridge 10 same camera and lens at 160 sec, F10, ISO 650, 21mm.
Any comments would be welcomed. I hope these are relevant questions for this forum.

(Download)


(Download)

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

People new to photography and Post Processing tend to treat the RAW file with something approaching reverence and awe but it is just a file format that provides little or no processing in the camera. This allows you to start with a blank slate and make 'the picture, your picture'.

Without the originals to compare against I can't comment on the processing. I am impressed with a camera/lens combo that produced the DOF shown in these. Information on what PP software you use would also be helpful.

When I first started processing RAW images my camera was set to capture RAW/JPG Fine. I would process the RAW file in Photoshop, without looking at the JPG. When my edit was complete I would compare my shot with the out of the camera JPG to see if and how they varied.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Welcome to PP Forum, Robdale. What a difference a sunny day makes for these photos!

Curmudgeon suggested shooting raw+jpg (for comparison purposes); I think you mentioned in your other thread that you are doing that. And you're using DPP to edit, is that right? Good to mention that in the opening of any future questions here.

I personally don't see any issues with either photo aside from there may be a tiny tilt to #1 (I didn't double check in an editor, but if you have a grid view you can confirm). There could possibly be more clarity achieved with unsharp mask, or other tools, but at normal viewing distance, I would be very pleased with these results.

Enjoy your journey and come back anytime

Robdale Loc: South Carolina

Yes, I am using DPP. Others have stated that there are limitations to DPP and that I should consider using another program to compliment the limitations of DPP. Do you have recommendations?
Thanks for your comments.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Whenever this question comes up in main discussion, there are dozens of recommendations. Most of the more powerful programs have free trials to help you find what fits best for your interests and needs. Some that are mentioned the most often (I'm probably forgetting 2 or 3):

Photoshop/Lightroom (Curmudgeon and hundreds of others on UHH)
Photoshop Elements (many of us find this PS "lite" to be perfectly acceptable )
Affinity (growing in popularity)
Luminar
Topaz products as stand-alone or plug into existing software

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I don't read a question Rob, but I think I know what you are getting at here. This seems to be a new adventure into the raw picture capture and now you just need to be pointed in the right direction.

If you had take both of these in both raw and jpg, you could compare the pictures on your computer screen. You'd probably note that the jpg looks better than the raw and you might even think "what the heck" I thought raw was supposed to be better. Well, in a way it is but not straight out of the camera it's NOT.

Think of a raw file as all the ingredients of a cake thrown into a mixing bowl but not mixed up much, while a jpg is not only mixed but it's baked and yummy right out of your camera. To make the raw file yummy you have to mix it, blend it, maybe modify the ingredients slightly, and then bake it but bake it very carefully so that it's just so. Then and only then do you have a better cake or file.

What I'm saying is that the raw file has a lot of data that can be manipulated until you get a better result than the jpg. But you have to be the one that process it on your computer with a good software program. Just so you know, ALL raw files require at least a little sharpening. They all need a little contrast, saturation, highlight and shadow adjustments and maybe a little w/b adjustment to make them as good or better than a jpg. Then you still have the latitude to work more on the image to make those clouds more dramatic, or the wood grain pop, or the water more turquoise or blue or the sky more blue or less blue if you like it to be as you saw it the day you took the picture. You can really make major adjustments without the pixels falling apart since there is more data. A jpg is only an 8-bit file, so it has about 1000x less data to work with and if you want to make a really dramatic change, the pixels will not look right and the image falls apart.

I hope this makes some sense. If not, take a picture with your camera of a scene with a dramatic sunset or dramatic clouds and set it to capture both jpg and raw. The on your computer make a major adjustment to both pictures and see what happens to the jpg vss the raw file. It will make more sense.

Not everyone needs to shoot raw. Jpg pictures for the most part if taken at the correct exposure are fine to look at and print. But there are cases where the photographer wants to be in control of how each picture comes out and have the data to make a big change to the image without it falling apart.

Rocky71203 Loc: Monroe, LA

Consider saving a copy of the original raw file as v2, leave the original unchanged and work on the v2 copy. You can always start over with the original if necessary. I call it version control, as I believe others do as well. As I make major changes I save several versions as I go forward, v3, v4, etc.
When I am satisified, I leave it a day the relook and if OK delete middle versions keeping only the original and final version. Safest way to me!