I love the first photo most! The other thing about raw is they take up a lot of mb. They are much larger than jpeg. Lightroom if free for the first 30 days from adobe to try and play with editing you pics.
The first photo is by far the best, the remaining are over processed and look unnatural.
RAW captures save the maximum amount of photographic information the camera can capture, it is like film in that respect.
RAW is best for two types of photographic situations. 1. You are the type of photographer who sets the camera on "Full Auto" and accepts whatever the camera decides to capture.
2. As the photographer, you have way too much time on your hands and can afford to spend hours in the digital darkroom.
In today's modern digital cameras we have the very latest in JPG compression tools, and they will compress an image to a reasonable file size and preserve most of the critical image information.
If you spend a reasonable amount of time setting up the camera for a good exposure, you will spend a lot less time on the computer correcting camera errors in exposure captures. The advantage of digital today is instant feedback on your capture. Once reviewed on the LCD panel you can correct for poor exposures on the spot, not weeks later when the processed film is returned from the chemical processor.
Try it your self. Make a series of test photos using both RAW captures, and JPG captures. Make sure you use a standard subject set-up for all tests. Try using a Child's toy doll as the subject. Take a couple of shots in RAW using center spot focus, center spot exposure metering, Aperture Priority (Av), and ISO = 400.
Now take the same photos with the highest resolution in JPG format. This time take the time to set the camera White Balance to Auto, and then a few of the other settings (sun, clouds, shade, flash,indecent, florescent).
Compare all your captures and decide what will be best for your needs.
Can I purchase LightRoom from the Internet and download here in China? Do u know the cost? I have PS5.
yes I would think you can from Adobe and also from Amazon. If you are enrolled in a photography class and can prove it you also can get it from Amazon and get a discount. At Adobe in US is $150, but for a student it is $79
The first photo is by far the best, the remaining are over processed and look unnatural.
RAW captures save the maximum amount of photographic information the camera can capture, it is like film in that respect.
RAW is best for two types of photographic situations. 1. You are the type of photographer who sets the camera on "Full Auto" and accepts whatever the camera decides to capture.
2. As the photographer, you have way too much time on your hands and can afford to spend hours in the digital darkroom.
In today's modern digital cameras we have the very latest in JPG compression tools, and they will compress an image to a reasonable file size and preserve most of the critical image information.
If you spend a reasonable amount of time setting up the camera for a good exposure, you will spend a lot less time on the computer correcting camera errors in exposure captures. The advantage of digital today is instant feedback on your capture. Once reviewed on the LCD panel you can correct for poor exposures on the spot, not weeks later when the processed film is returned from the chemical processor.
Try it your self. Make a series of test photos using both RAW captures, and JPG captures. Make sure you use a standard subject set-up for all tests. Try using a Child's toy doll as the subject. Take a couple of shots in RAW using center spot focus, center spot exposure metering, Aperture Priority (Av), and ISO = 400.
Now take the same photos with the highest resolution in JPG format. This time take the time to set the camera White Balance to Auto, and then a few of the other settings (sun, clouds, shade, flash,indecent, florescent).
Compare all your captures and decide what will be best for your needs.
Isnt it wonderful that we all see things differently. The first two pics, to me, have too much yellow tint (I know, could be an ethnic thing.. but even the guys teeth seem a little yellow on my screen.) The 4th pic looks the most natural to me and makes a pleasing portrait. I don't think focus is a problem but perhaps depth of field is, just a little. Seems very shallow DOF but the focus point is great (on the zip or thereabouts). As said, all in all, a pleasing result. As for RAW vs other formats. RAW (or NEF or whatever) I think is a bit like using the original negative back in film days. However, for me the big advantage is that you can do anything to a RAW file you want and years later there is no loss to the file. JPEGs particularly loss a lot of info every time you open the file. Even just rotating a pic in Photoview results in a loss of data. So yes, one can manipulate a RAW file and get lots of effects but these days you can also do a lot with a jpeg, to me the big deal is having a lossless format that wont deteriorate with age.
The first photo is by far the best, the remaining are over processed and look unnatural.
RAW captures save the maximum amount of photographic information the camera can capture, it is like film in that respect.
RAW is best for two types of photographic situations. 1. You are the type of photographer who sets the camera on "Full Auto" and accepts whatever the camera decides to capture.
2. As the photographer, you have way too much time on your hands and can afford to spend hours in the digital darkroom.
In today's modern digital cameras we have the very latest in JPG compression tools, and they will compress an image to a reasonable file size and preserve most of the critical image information.
If you spend a reasonable amount of time setting up the camera for a good exposure, you will spend a lot less time on the computer correcting camera errors in exposure captures. The advantage of digital today is instant feedback on your capture. Once reviewed on the LCD panel you can correct for poor exposures on the spot, not weeks later when the processed film is returned from the chemical processor.
Try it your self. Make a series of test photos using both RAW captures, and JPG captures. Make sure you use a standard subject set-up for all tests. Try using a Child's toy doll as the subject. Take a couple of shots in RAW using center spot focus, center spot exposure metering, Aperture Priority (Av), and ISO = 400.
Now take the same photos with the highest resolution in JPG format. This time take the time to set the camera White Balance to Auto, and then a few of the other settings (sun, clouds, shade, flash,indecent, florescent).
Compare all your captures and decide what will be best for your needs.
Isnt it wonderful that we all see things differently. The first two pics, to me, have too much yellow tint (I know, could be an ethnic thing.. but even the guys teeth seem a little yellow on my screen.) The 4th pic looks the most natural to me and makes a pleasing portrait. I don't think focus is a problem but perhaps depth of field is, just a little. Seems very shallow DOF but the focus point is great (on the zip or thereabouts). As said, all in all, a pleasing result. As for RAW vs other formats. RAW (or NEF or whatever) I think is a bit like using the original negative back in film days. However, for me the big advantage is that you can do anything to a RAW file you want and years later there is no loss to the file. JPEGs particularly loss a lot of info every time you open the file. Even just rotating a pic in Photoview results in a loss of data. So yes, one can manipulate a RAW file and get lots of effects but these days you can also do a lot with a jpeg, to me the big deal is having a lossless format that wont deteriorate with age.
You make the same points I was trying to make. JPEG is great for anyone whose needs are met by shooting JPEG Fine. Mine are not.
For example: I want to be able to shoot landscapes in raw and then individually adjust the tones by individual color. I know I can do that with filters, 80A, et al, but this limits me to adjusting only one color plus I would need to carry gradients of each color-- and even then, I'm limited.
The other point: we don't know what refinement/advances will happen down the road. I prefer the option of re-working files when/if that happens.
But I realize: most (photographic) needs can be met with JPEGs-- and that fine (for them).
The first photo is by far the best, the remaining are over processed and look unnatural.
RAW captures save the maximum amount of photographic information the camera can capture, it is like film in that respect.
RAW is best for two types of photographic situations. 1. You are the type of photographer who sets the camera on "Full Auto" and accepts whatever the camera decides to capture.
2. As the photographer, you have way too much time on your hands and can afford to spend hours in the digital darkroom.
In today's modern digital cameras we have the very latest in JPG compression tools, and they will compress an image to a reasonable file size and preserve most of the critical image information.
If you spend a reasonable amount of time setting up the camera for a good exposure, you will spend a lot less time on the computer correcting camera errors in exposure captures. The advantage of digital today is instant feedback on your capture. Once reviewed on the LCD panel you can correct for poor exposures on the spot, not weeks later when the processed film is returned from the chemical processor.
Try it your self. Make a series of test photos using both RAW captures, and JPG captures. Make sure you use a standard subject set-up for all tests. Try using a Child's toy doll as the subject. Take a couple of shots in RAW using center spot focus, center spot exposure metering, Aperture Priority (Av), and ISO = 400.
Now take the same photos with the highest resolution in JPG format. This time take the time to set the camera White Balance to Auto, and then a few of the other settings (sun, clouds, shade, flash,indecent, florescent).
Compare all your captures and decide what will be best for your needs.
Isnt it wonderful that we all see things differently. The first two pics, to me, have too much yellow tint (I know, could be an ethnic thing.. but even the guys teeth seem a little yellow on my screen.) The 4th pic looks the most natural to me and makes a pleasing portrait. I don't think focus is a problem but perhaps depth of field is, just a little. Seems very shallow DOF but the focus point is great (on the zip or thereabouts). As said, all in all, a pleasing result. As for RAW vs other formats. RAW (or NEF or whatever) I think is a bit like using the original negative back in film days. However, for me the big advantage is that you can do anything to a RAW file you want and years later there is no loss to the file. JPEGs particularly loss a lot of info every time you open the file. Even just rotating a pic in Photoview results in a loss of data. So yes, one can manipulate a RAW file and get lots of effects but these days you can also do a lot with a jpeg, to me the big deal is having a lossless format that wont deteriorate with age.
On one point I will disagree. You do not lose any detail by opening a .jpg file. You only lose image data when you save a .jpg again. If you are loosing image detail by rotating the image then you need a more modern image editing program. Years ago rotating complex image files would soften the image, but not with modern editors.
The first photo is by far the best, the remaining are over processed and look unnatural.
RAW captures save the maximum amount of photographic information the camera can capture, it is like film in that respect.
RAW is best for two types of photographic situations. 1. You are the type of photographer who sets the camera on "Full Auto" and accepts whatever the camera decides to capture.
2. As the photographer, you have way too much time on your hands and can afford to spend hours in the digital darkroom.
In today's modern digital cameras we have the very latest in JPG compression tools, and they will compress an image to a reasonable file size and preserve most of the critical image information.
If you spend a reasonable amount of time setting up the camera for a good exposure, you will spend a lot less time on the computer correcting camera errors in exposure captures. The advantage of digital today is instant feedback on your capture. Once reviewed on the LCD panel you can correct for poor exposures on the spot, not weeks later when the processed film is returned from the chemical processor.
Try it your self. Make a series of test photos using both RAW captures, and JPG captures. Make sure you use a standard subject set-up for all tests. Try using a Child's toy doll as the subject. Take a couple of shots in RAW using center spot focus, center spot exposure metering, Aperture Priority (Av), and ISO = 400.
Now take the same photos with the highest resolution in JPG format. This time take the time to set the camera White Balance to Auto, and then a few of the other settings (sun, clouds, shade, flash,indecent, florescent).
Compare all your captures and decide what will be best for your needs.
Isnt it wonderful that we all see things differently. The first two pics, to me, have too much yellow tint (I know, could be an ethnic thing.. but even the guys teeth seem a little yellow on my screen.) The 4th pic looks the most natural to me and makes a pleasing portrait. I don't think focus is a problem but perhaps depth of field is, just a little. Seems very shallow DOF but the focus point is great (on the zip or thereabouts). As said, all in all, a pleasing result. As for RAW vs other formats. RAW (or NEF or whatever) I think is a bit like using the original negative back in film days. However, for me the big advantage is that you can do anything to a RAW file you want and years later there is no loss to the file. JPEGs particularly loss a lot of info every time you open the file. Even just rotating a pic in Photoview results in a loss of data. So yes, one can manipulate a RAW file and get lots of effects but these days you can also do a lot with a jpeg, to me the big deal is having a lossless format that wont deteriorate with age.
On one point I will disagree. You do not lose any detail by opening a .jpg file. You only lose image data when you save a .jpg again. If you are loosing image detail by rotating the image then you need a more modern image editing program. Years ago rotating complex image files would soften the image, but not with modern editors.
Me: Here's that picture I just took. Wife: Great picture! Can you put that on my computer so I can use it as wallpaper? Me: Um, uh, I'll be back in a half hour...
Interstingly enough, I think Irfanview auto-adjusts .KDC (Kodak RAW) because I compared with a .JPG and they both looked the same.
Me: Here's that picture I just took. Wife: Great picture! Can you put that on my computer so I can use it as wallpaper? Me: Um, uh, I'll be back in a half hour...
Interstingly enough, I think Irfanview auto-adjusts .KDC (Kodak RAW) because I compared with a .JPG and they both looked the same.
It won't take you a half hour when you get the hang of it. You just open the image and do a save-as to jpg or in some programs you just export and change a few settings so that it saves it as a jpg. I know at first this might seem a little confusing, but once you do get the hang of it this should only take you 1 minute.
What are the advantages of shooting in RAW format?
What do you do if you do not have PhotoShop? How do you convert the pictures to JPEG?
I attached a few pictures I took shooting RAW and then the post editing process afterwards. First two pictures were edited with adding vibrant and black.
Other photos were not altered in RAW 6.7 but in PhotoShop using auto color.
Thanks
CP
A RAW file contains ALL the data the camera records at the time time the picture was taken. A JPEG file is a compress stripped down of data. RAW files allows you to edit in post processing since you have all the necessary information to work with.
Regarding software, there is GIMP 2.8
GIMP Resources
I do strongly recommend GIMP 2.8 It has thousands of presets. It is as powerful as Photoshop and it's absolutely FREE!
GIMP 2.8 Official website - After downloading, check out the right column for Documentation (Manual, Tutorials, Books), Plug-in Registry http://www.gimp.org/
Before and After by Katherine Landreth This eBook costs $12 including a 1 year subscription to her loaded website with articles, tutorials, tips, goodies and library. http://pareandfocus.com/index.htm/gimp-book/
File Menu Click 'Export' Write name of file and format (picture.jpg) in the top (Name) slot. Click Export button. Select degree of quality. Click Export button
Q&A: Q: can you tell us where this "content aware" / resynthisiser feature is hiding in GIMP? Not being 'negative' but can you or your 11 year old tutor tell us if it actually is in GIMP or has to be downloaded seperately from yet another site and then installed? A: Yes, this is a free plugin for GIMP. It is updated regularly. The resynthesize plugin for Gimp 2.8.2 has not yet been announced. We are all waiting and hope to see it soon. The previous version was 2.6 which works in 2.8 after a fashion (not good). I'll keep the forum posted when the update becomes available. In the mean time, try the heal tool or the Clone tool. Manual operation but excellent tools.
Well I like all your pictures here, but probably would pick the first picture, however knowing the asian skin color very well, I would guess the second picture comes closest to what you really saw. So like the famous quote, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," yes?