home brewer wrote:
I know this is an old topic; but maybe I can some. I am heading to antelope canyon on a photo tour in about a month and want to make sure I get good shots. I am assuming that the raw photos will improve my chances of fixing improper exposures.
This discussion is directed to those who use raw. I have read many of the on-line explanations about raw photos having more color depth, levels of brightness and the file not degrading when it is edited. I notice for my d500 that for the same photo the jpeg is 13.9 mp (5568x3712x24b) and the raw 25.7 mb (5568x3712x48b) there does not appear to be much if any difference between the jpeg and the raw . On the screen of the 4 year old 23" PA248 ASUS the images look the same and the same for the Dell ultra sharp. Resolution is set at 1920 x 1200 for both. The color space is Adobe RGB. The shots were at iso 200, f/10, 1/100s and 18mm with auto white balance facing north on a sunny morning. The shot goes from light shade to bright sun on the trees. I shoot both raw, compressed, 14 bit and jpeg large fine.
Maybe I am missing something; but I think most of the good shots do not need postprocessing. If the shot is important I bracket expose and may change the f-stop and shutter speed.
It seems to me one shoots raw to fix shots that were incorrectly exposed.
I print my photos on an Epson Artisan 810. So far, I have not tried any shop for a larger print. The local drugs stores and other similar places do not good work.
Questions and comments
1. Should I switch to rRGB color space and why?
2. How can I tell how much brightness levels are in the photo? Is it in the histogram? The histogram for the two photos are not the same.
3. The apparent brightness in greater in the jpeg.
4. What changes do you make to most raw shots?
5. Are there good on lind articles on how to process raw photos?
6. What format do you save them in after post processing?
Thanks to all those help
I know this is an old topic; but maybe I can some.... (
show quote)
Anyone who shoot with a digital camera shoots raw. Some of us enjoy the extra latitude, greater bit depth for better tone/color accuracy, wider color gamut, greater fine detail capture, relative freedom from posterization, greater creative opportunities, etc that are not available when you allow the camera to convert from raw to jpeg in the camera.
With some average contrast scenes or subjects with good lighting, you are not likely to see much of a difference.
Recording raw allows you to fix things, but you can also shoot scenes with considerably greater contrast range than you can with jpeg, without blowing out the highlights and taking your shadows into the mud. Such images shot as raw-only appear underexposed. But the highlights are not blown, and the shadows and midtones can be made brighter to make a great image. This is not as successful if all you have to work with is an 8 bit jpeg.
Taken in order:
1. No. While editing you are less likely to clip a channel or cause banding if you perform your editing in a large color space, like ProPhoto, then once you are done, convert down to sRGB as a final step.
2. The histogram while in an image editing program will tell you what you have. You bet the histograms will not be the same.
3. That's because of how you set your camera up for jpeg development.
4. Whatever it takes to produce my vision
5. Tons and tons.
6. For my own work, I save the raw files, and make PSD images for editing in Photoshop and other programs after I have done what I can to them in the raw converter. I produce jpegs as a final step, but never save those - I consider them for output only.
There are a lot of reasons to shoot raw - and a few reasons to just shoot jpeg - you'll need to try it for yourself and see what works for you. I haven't shot a jpeg since 2006. And when I have had to work on a student's jpeg I feel as if I am in a straight jacket.
You can see some of my work here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gene_lugo/