How much time do you spend on processing?
Apr 11, 2014 10:38:47 #
wingnut1956 wrote:
Just a curiosity question..I'm wondering how much ... (show quote)
Quite a bit of time because I have a half dozen or so different workflows I like to try on images I think are potentially good. Each results in a unique look to the final image, 95% of the time in monochrome.
Apr 11, 2014 10:49:18 #
marcomarks wrote:
I find this very hard to believe unless the CR2 file includes data to tell RAW post processing software to make changes to simulate in-camera JPG settings while still maintaining the RAW format.
Probably no one except the camera maker's software programmers know what the camera's RAW files tell software.
Nonetheless, there is a difference not only between RAW files from different manufacturers, but between different camera models from the same manufacturer, as well.
Apr 11, 2014 10:51:57 #
russelray wrote:
Probably no one except the camera maker's software programmers know what the camera's RAW files tell software.
Nonetheless, there is a difference not only between RAW files from different manufacturers, but between different camera models from the same manufacturer, as well.
Nonetheless, there is a difference not only between RAW files from different manufacturers, but between different camera models from the same manufacturer, as well.
Possibly so. I know that my 40D and 7D raws are flat, flat, flat. but I haven't done any comparisons other than to the jpgs by shooting raw+jpg.
I don't really worry about it that much. My post work gives me the colors and the contrast that I want, and the white balance is correct most of the time, as I try to get it right when I shoot it.
Apr 11, 2014 10:52:17 #
les_stockton wrote:
Regardless, I thinkt he point is that we try to shoot as best we can in-camera, and then the post processing is less of an issue.
I have no doubt that some, perhaps even most, people try to get the best they can in camera. However, there are some of us for whom the actual picture is what we want to capture. Everything else can be done in photo editing software.
Apr 11, 2014 10:54:02 #
les_stockton wrote:
Possibly so. I know that my 40D and 7D raws are flat, flat, flat. but I haven't done any comparisons other than to the jpgs by shooting raw+jpg.
I don't really worry about it that much. My post work gives me the colors and the contrast that I want, and the white balance is correct most of the time, as I try to get it right when I shoot it.
I don't really worry about it that much. My post work gives me the colors and the contrast that I want, and the white balance is correct most of the time, as I try to get it right when I shoot it.
You might be able to get even flatter than flat, flat, flat by setting the picture styles in your camera. I was surprised. You might be, too.
White balance can be reset with photo editing software, too.
Apr 11, 2014 10:54:46 #
les_stockton wrote:
Possibly so. I know that my 40D and 7D raws are flat, flat, flat. but I haven't done any comparisons other than to the jpgs by shooting raw+jpg.
I don't really worry about it that much. My post work gives me the colors and the contrast that I want, and the white balance is correct most of the time, as I try to get it right when I shoot it.
I don't really worry about it that much. My post work gives me the colors and the contrast that I want, and the white balance is correct most of the time, as I try to get it right when I shoot it.
You are right Raw captures are flat and need PP on the computer JPEG are PP in camera according to what ever you told the camera to do
Apr 11, 2014 10:57:09 #
mborn wrote:
You are right Raw captures are flat and need PP on the computer JPEG are PP in camera according to what ever you told the camera to do
But RAW files from different manufacturers, and different cameras from the same manufacturer, can be different. One would have to inquire of the camera maker software programmers what their definition of "flat" is. Reminds me of the color white with automakers.
Apr 11, 2014 10:58:47 #
russelray wrote:
But RAW files from different manufacturers, and different cameras from the same manufacturer, can be different. One would have to inquire of the camera maker software programmers what their definition of "flat" is. Reminds me of the color white with automakers.
this is probably a debate for a different thread. I think the original question was regarding time taken to edit photos.
It seems to be me that it's going to vary depending on whether he shoots raw or not, and what manufacturer of raw, as well as his style and what he is shooting.
Apr 11, 2014 11:31:11 #
les_stockton wrote:
It's fact. I'm not sure one can debate facts per sé, only interpreting the facts, like politicians do.this is probably a debate for a different thread.
Apr 11, 2014 11:34:25 #
russelray wrote:
It's fact. I'm not sure one can debate facts per sé, only interpreting the facts, like politicians do.
I was being polite. I'm not arguing the point.
and I was further implying that just because it's that way in the Rebel line, doesn't mean that it is for all Canon lines.
Apr 11, 2014 11:35:57 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
les_stockton wrote:
Possibly so. I know that my 40D and 7D raws are flat, flat, flat. but I haven't done any comparisons other than to the jpgs by shooting raw+jpg.
I don't really worry about it that much. My post work gives me the colors and the contrast that I want, and the white balance is correct most of the time, as I try to get it right when I shoot it.
I don't really worry about it that much. My post work gives me the colors and the contrast that I want, and the white balance is correct most of the time, as I try to get it right when I shoot it.
The raw file is not "flat", because the raw "sensor data" cannot be displayed on a monitor or print, as it is not RGB data. Any software you use to see the raw file is doing some default "post processing", and that is producing a flat image.
Apr 11, 2014 11:38:02 #
les_stockton wrote:
I was being polite. I'm not arguing the point.
and I was further implying that just because it's that way in the Rebel line, doesn't mean that it is for all Canon lines.
and I was further implying that just because it's that way in the Rebel line, doesn't mean that it is for all Canon lines.
It is though. Done checked with others in the three local photography clubs that I belong to. Any Canon camera, and probably other makers as well, which allows you to alter the Picture Style via the menu alters how the RAW files are created.
Apr 11, 2014 11:39:44 #
amehta wrote:
The raw file is not "flat", because the raw "sensor data" cannot be displayed on a monitor or print, as it is not RGB data. Any software you use to see the raw file is doing some default "post processing", and that is producing a flat image.
I understand that, but the flat image from a DNG RAW file is flatter than the flat image from a CR2 RAW file, and the images from CR2 RAW files are different depending on how I set the Picture Style via the menu in the camera. So flat is not always defined the same way.
Apr 11, 2014 11:50:10 #
I rarely bother with much PP for an average photo. The ones that are worth working on may take 15 minutes up to several hours.
Apr 11, 2014 11:52:57 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
russelray wrote:
It is though. Done checked with others in the three local photography clubs that I belong to. Any Canon camera, and probably other makers as well, which allows you to alter the Picture Style via the menu alters how the RAW files are created.
Changing the picture style (sharpening, noise reduction, color saturation, etc) does not affect the raw file.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.