The RAW Experiment - C&C please?

Dragan

Last night i was about to head out to a friends to do a shoot with him ( Jedi Knight - great craic ) when i decided "**** it, time to shoot it RAW". I had meant to move onto RAW straight away when i got the 40d, but i think i was happy enough in my JPEG rut.

Anyway, i switched the camera to RAW and set out down the canal, taking a few test shots as i went.

All i can say is that i am actually amazed at the difference shooting in RAW made. It's actually hard to describe. Just the ease and smoothness when it came to dealing with the photos in Lightroom made me always promise i'll never shoot JPEG again.

Anyway, with that, onto the shots. I was trying to do something a bit different here. Most night photography i see seems to involve flooding the scene with as much available light as possible/long exposures etc.

I didn't even have the tripod with me, so i went a different route, using heavy black area's to highlight the available detail i could pick up. I also decided to limit myself to "black and white" mentality when shooting. Below is what i came up with. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


.

.

kjt

Raw ftw!!! Like the second shot!

I can't even compare jpg/raw! The ONLY time I would shoot jpg would be when I want to make an action shot and need to shoot 20-50shots fast.

greeneyedspirit

Thumbs up - I really like all three shots!
And good on ya for going RAW. Once you make that switch, you won't go back.

Morrisseeee

I like the last one.

Just the ease and smoothness when it came to dealing with the photos in Lightroom made me always promise i'll never shoot JPEG again.

...and thats the POWER of RAW, you can do so much with a photo, toooo much at times !:pac:

KarmaGarda

Oh for the love of god... that's it, my camera is getting switched to raw for today.

Super stuff, love them all.

Crispin

RAW, once you pop you can't stop (or so they say :eek::o)

I think I like the last one the best, I am not sure about your wonky horizon approach in the first 2.
I did read your OP but they are all overly dark to me :P;)

KarmaGarda

Actually, after a second look I'll offer a bit of C&C (even though I've never worked with raw!)

The first 2 are superb. They inspire me to go raw format!

On the third, and sorry to nit pick, there's something funny with the skyline I couldn't quite put my finger on. I took a look in your flicker and popped it up to max size and I still can't figure out what it is! Did you pop a new sky in there? Or is it just the PP that's throwing me off?

Apart from that, excellent work. Bravo.

sikahunter

great shots #3 is my fav

Dragan

KarmaGarda wrote: »

Actually, after a second look I'll offer a bit of C&C (even though I've never worked with raw!)

The first 2 are superb. They inspire me to go raw format!

On the third, and sorry to nit pick, there's something funny with the skyline I couldn't quite put my finger on. I took a look in your flicker and popped it up to max size and I still can't figure out what it is! Did you pop a new sky in there? Or is it just the PP that's throwing me off?

Apart from that, excellent work. Bravo.

The lighting is pretty much inverted on the clouds. I imagine it's that.

Thanks for all the replies folks.

Mensch Maschine

greeneyedspirit wrote: »

Thumbs up - I really like all three shots!
And good on ya for going RAW. Once you make that switch, you won't go back.

Exactly.

I love the third shot. Well done.

Fenster

I didn't think they were that great. I was presented with three completely uninteresting silhouettes; the only real difference I can see between them is the forty five degree angle.

The 2nd and the 3rd are great,the 1st one doesn't really catch my eye though,I don't know how to explain it but it might be a bit too dark for my liking or it could be that there's nothing to really focus on in the image,not too sure.But I like the other 2

As for shooting Raw I seem to be one of the only ones here who still shoots Jpeg,the difference probably shows in my photos but still I don't think it's worth the effort switching to Raw.Maybe I'm just being stubborn

kjt

Could you not have shot these with just jpg? I would have though if you where using raw it would help if you wanted to bring back the detail in your darker areas. These shots sort of defeat the purpose of raw, or am I wrong?

AnimalRights

Just had a quick glance and #3 IMHumbleO is ze best.

AnCatDubh

In #1 & #2 I don't like the angles. #3 I really like. There is subtlety in the shadows and overall they are very pleasing to the eye. Well done.

RAW is great. There are two downsides to it IMHO. (a) The file sizes. I recently had to off load about 80GB's of RAWs (bad practice on my part for not archiving as I went) - not a pleasant experience. (b) Batch processing will take time to export to JPG's once your initial processing is complete. Other than that RAW is awesome in its subtleties. JPG's are grand so long as you are happy with your camera's in built processing but generally (in my experience) JPG's are limited in pulling detail from shadows and highlights in particular.

I also have more recently shot RAW + JPG - the JPG being very good for a quick review without any processing.

That being said - and having shot constant RAW for a couple of years at this stage, I now think its a choice thing that I will make at each shooting location depending on how good or bad conditions are - purely for the two disadvantages referenced above (file size and speed of processing). RAW all the way if you have no problem with storage and archival management.

Dragan

kjt wrote: »

Could you not have shot these with just jpg? I would have though if you where using raw it would help if you wanted to bring back the detail in your darker areas. These shots sort of defeat the purpose of raw, or am I wrong?

A lot of the colour and tone, and the detail of the sky especially...only came out at all when i was using the Recovery slider.

Ballyman

Fenster wrote: »

I didn't think they were that great. I was presented with three completely uninteresting silhouettes; the only real difference I can see between them is the forty five degree angle.

I'd be inclined to agree with this. They just look like blobs of black to me. Maybe my screen is too dark or something.

AnCatDubh

AnCatDubh wrote: »

RAW is great. There are two downsides to it IMHO. (a) The file sizes. I recently had to off load about 80GB's of RAWs (bad practice on my part for not archiving as I went) - not a pleasant experience. (b) Batch processing will take time to export to JPG's once your initial processing is complete. Other than that RAW is awesome in its subtleties. JPG's are grand so long as you are happy with your camera's in built processing but generally (in my experience) JPG's are limited in pulling detail from shadows and highlights in particular.

I also have more recently shot RAW + JPG - the JPG being very good for a quick review without any processing.

That being said - and having shot constant RAW for a couple of years at this stage, I now think its a choice thing that I will make at each shooting location depending on how good or bad conditions are - purely for the two disadvantages referenced above (file size and speed of processing). RAW all the way if you have no problem with storage and archival management.

Well said,I guess it all comes down to whether you have the time and resources for it.From personal experience I can tell you trying to process Raw files on 512 ram is absolute hell

wasper

Dragan wrote: »

Last night i was about to head out to a friends to do a shoot with him ( Jedi Knight - great craic ) when i decided "**** it, time to shoot it RAW". I had meant to move onto RAW straight away when i got the 40d, but i think i was happy enough in my JPEG rut.

Anyway, i switched the camera to RAW and set out down the canal, taking a few test shots as i went.

All i can say is that i am actually amazed at the difference shooting in RAW made. It's actually hard to describe. Just the ease and smoothness when it came to dealing with the photos in Lightroom made me always promise i'll never shoot JPEG again.

Anyway, with that, onto the shots. I was trying to do something a bit different here. Most night photography i see seems to involve flooding the scene with as much available light as possible/long exposures etc.

I didn't even have the tripod with me, so i went a different route, using heavy black area's to highlight the available detail i could pick up. I also decided to limit myself to "black and white" mentality when shooting. Below is what i came up with. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


.

.

I think if someone pays good money to buy a decent camera, that has RAW function, then should in RAW all the time. Otherwise one buy a compact & shoot in JPEG.

AnCatDubh

wasper wrote: »

I think if someone pays good money to buy a decent camera, that has RAW function, then should in RAW all the time. Otherwise one buy a compact & shoot in JPEG.

Yes for the large part BUT there are circumstances that it is not going to be appropriate such as when you need to burst for long periods. Calina has previously posted amazing sequences of kite surfers flying through the air - while the camera indeed had raw available to it, the capacity of the camera (40D if i recall correctly) couldn't have captured the extent of the sequence in RAW due to limitations of the buffer / requirement to flush. More powerful cameras with better buffers may be able to. I guess its knowing your gear also.

Dragan

wasper wrote: »

I think if someone pays good money to buy a decent camera, that has RAW function, then should in RAW all the time. Otherwise one buy a compact & shoot in JPEG.

So you are saying the only effective difference between a SLR and a compact is RAW?

Fair enough.

I looked at them first and thought that Dragan had really missed the mark, which would be strange for him!

However, looking at them again I actually really #1 and #3. They are two very well composed and clever images. #2 for lacks the subtleness of the other 2 and seems overly dark, but very well done on the others.

wasper

Dragan wrote: »

So you are saying the only effective difference between a SLR and a compact is RAW?

Fair enough.

I have nothing against compact camera. I have one & I have seen some stunning photos taken with some of them not by me I might add:).
But I have bought Nikon D80 & if I don't try to push it to it's limit then why pay the money.
I do accept the point about shooting in jpeg for continuous shooting.

wasper

wasper wrote: »

I have nothing against compact camera. I have one & I have seen some stunning photos taken with some of them not by me I might add:).
But I have bought Nikon D80 & if I don't try to push it to it's limit then why pay the money.
I do accept the point about shooting in jpeg for continuous shooting.

My 500d can shoot 3.4fps

I am remiss in not shooting every image I take in .29 seconds? Because if I don't I'm neither pushing myself nor the camera to its limit.

Also, I must be a failure as a photographer, I didn't push either myself or the camera to our working temperature limits...

The camera is a tool, the image is the challenge. Sometimes I think people here seem to get that backward.

gary82

kjt wrote: »

Could you not have shot these with just jpg? I would have though if you where using raw it would help if you wanted to bring back the detail in your darker areas. These shots sort of defeat the purpose of raw, or am I wrong?

Ditto.

Must said I "don't get" the raw thing... not yet anyway. I've never had major problems doing my post processing with JPEGs. There seems to be an impression that pp can't be done with jpegs which puzzles me a bit. The bulkyness of raw seems too much for me, maybe some day I'll be hooked.

Dragan

gary82 wrote: »

Ditto.

Must said I "don't get" the raw thing... not yet anyway. I've never had major problems doing my post processing with JPEGs. There seems to be an impression that pp can't be done with jpegs which puzzles me a bit. The bulkyness of raw seems too much for me, maybe some day I'll be hooked.

Pretty much what i thought. I have done some more things in Raw since these shots, including some digital art bases, and it's definitely a much "finer" level of control over things.

*grins* As for the "things can't be done in JPEG", of course they, i've done everything up to this point in JPEG and i've produced some great images using it. I think will help to bring things to the next level.

Anouilh

I like the first one very much and think that increasing the drama of the silhouette would be, not so much an improvement, as an enhancement.

With your permission, I would like to try some variations and upload one here. If you don't like it, I'll remove it, of course.

I always shoot in RAW now and having discovered the versatility it offers combined with Custom WB, I find JPEGs thin and flat in comparison. It's a matter of taste and for sports, as the experts have pointed out, JPEGs have an edge with speed.

Dragan

Anouilh wrote: »

With your permission, I would like to try some variations and upload one here. If you don't like it, I'll remove it, of course.

If you want to PM me an email address i can send you the original RAW file?

Anouilh

It's simple to organise with the photo here.

The silhouette is the striking element, so having a colour contrast that highlights it shows up the fine lines in the water reflection. You can use your favourite colour, but I thought this works. The image has ended up over processed, but if you work on levels in your original and sharpen a bit, you'll get a good result.



Thank you for the opportunity to try something new.
I use Canon Digital Professional, the software that came with my camera, and the recipe I applied to your photo has turned out to be really useful on some of my work.

I should mention that you would be unwise to send your original raw files to other people. It would be the equivalent of giving away negatives and you might find they use them in ways you cannot control. There have been threads here about posters who gave files to friends and they end up in the print media. It's not usual, but worth considering.

Freddie59

It's a pity everyone's getting so fired up about this. I have a DSLR (450D) since early 08. I have shot in RAW since I bought it. Yes, it is a more versatile format. But nowadays I tend to shoot RAW+jpeg, and only adjust the files that I need to. There also appears to be a slight air of disdain shown towards P&S or bridge cameras.

I remember reading an article by an internationally-renowned photographer some months ago (name escapes me now) where he lauded the P & S and bridge cameras, even going as far as to say that they could sometimes deliver as good an image (in certain cases) as a DSLR.

Prior to the 450D I used a Fuji s5000 in full auto, and before that an Olympus C2020 zoom. The images produced by both were incredible, and, considering the price differential, and the alleged advances in DSLR technology, they should not be discounted.

Here are two images. The first taken by the 12MP Eos 450D - Manual mode. Second one by the 3MP Fuji s5000. Full auto.

Mods - I hope it's OK to post in this size, just so as to give a feel for the quality and detail in both images.

Dragan

Anouilh wrote: »

Thank you for the opportunity to try something new.
I use Canon Digital Professional, the software that came with my camera, and the recipe I applied to your photo has turned out to be really useful on some of my work.

I should mention that you would be unwise to send your original raw files to other people. It would be the equivalent of giving away negatives and you might find they use them in ways you cannot control. There have been threads here about posters who gave files to friends and they end up in the print media. It's not usual, but worth considering.

I see exactly what you mean and i really like what you did with it. Very nice indeed.

As for the files, I honestly don't worry about it. My image is my image, if someone steals it and uses it then so be it, there success is really mine and in the back of their head they will always know it.

I know it's something a lot of people worry about but i would see it simply as meaning if someone robs my work, i own there success. lol

Ah no, i know what you mean, there are plenty of my images that i will protect, and plenty that i will send out into the ether.

Anouilh

The RAW V JPEG debate does not really exist in my mind. When you save a file worked on from RAW, it is usually in JPEG form in any case. The professionals always seem to save in both formats... a reminder to buy a bigger memory card.

This explains quite a bit:

http://www.musicphotographers.net/guides-and-tutorials/camera-raw-vs-jpg

Morrisseeee

The RAW V JPEG debate does not really exist in my mind.

....well it should exist (in your mind ), the RAW file is your negative, you can always go back and re-process it, because it holds ALL the data captured at that instant. If you used JPEG then thats it, ie. RAW data is processed (in camera, to the manufacturers processing) and no more processing can be done, without seriously affecting the JPEG (because JPEG is a lossy/compressed format).

When you save a file worked on from RAW, it is usually in JPEG form in any case.

.....yes, because you have the negative, ie. the RAW file. You don't delete the RAW file then, as it would be like throwing away the negative !!

The professionals always seem to save in both formats... a reminder to buy a bigger graphics card.

They save in both formats (on the camera) for backup or quick editing purposes, ie. pics needed for a paper that day. Everyone saves the RAW file & JPEG on their own PC, as backup, don't they !!
'Graphics card' ?............do you mean memory card !

Anouilh

Morrisseeee wrote: »

....well it should exist (in your mind ), the RAW file is your negative, you can always go back and re-process it, because it holds ALL the data captured at that instant. If you used JPEG then thats it, ie. RAW data is processed (in camera, to the manufacturers processing) and no more processing can be done, without seriously affecting the JPEG (because JPEG is a lossy/compressed format).

.....yes, because you have the negative, ie. the RAW file. You don't delete the RAW file then, as it would be like throwing away the negative !!

They save in both formats (on the camera) for backup or quick editing purposes, ie. pics needed for a paper that day. Everyone saves the RAW file & JPEG on their own PC, as backup, don't they !!
'Graphics card' ?............do you mean memory card !

Exactly.

You have confirmed everything I think.