Post up your un-processed photos

Borderfox

Following on from last Fridays discussion post up your unprocessed photos and if possible what way was your camera set-up (sharpness/saturation/etc)

I will go first, shot with a Canon 350d with a 50mm f1.8, detail settings as default. Hadnt got the camera long so only have it in a jpeg, had shot something similar on a point and shoot (not as nice though) and wanted to replicate it.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/71/163549706_134a146f77.jpg

jpb1974

My camera was setup with Fuji Neopan and the reading from the light meter - (F2.8 - 1/125th sec - ISO400).

The developer was as per the instructions on the side of the bottle.

Morrisseeee

Was dragged screaming/kicking into this 'Tent of Light' the other day, but glad now I was !! I took out the camera, put on the 14-42mm lens @14mm, manual focus (infinity), ISO 100, 1/30s, f3.5, IS = ON, WB = 5400K, In-camera settings: Sharpness = -2, everything else = standard.

/...only a slight crop, hope that is OK !!!

DaireQuinlan

jpb1974 wrote: »

My camera was setup with Fuji Neopan and the reading from the light meter - (F2.8 - 1/125th sec - ISO400).

The developer was as per the instructions on the side of the bottle.

Ah but you inverted it, right ? So it's processed !
Seriously though, I was just thinking looking at the thread title, what actually constitutes an un-processed colour negative shot for example. I scan, lose the magenta mask, invert, level, then colour balance. That gives you what in my book would be an 'unprocessed' scan. From the POV of a digital camera I guess the conversion from raw to a jpg, either done by an external tool or in-camera, involves similar steps.

Morrisseeee

^^ Lets not get tooooo technical now Daire :rolleyes: or we'll be here until the cows come home !

Borderfox

For the purpose of the thread un-processed means straight out of the camera with the only computer intervention to upload is somewhere

From Saturday, I asked the parents if I could take a picture of them all together. Shot this in between work at another arena. Canon 1dmk3 70-200 f2,8 IS f5.6 (Sharpness +2, Saturation +1, Contrast +1) camera is always set up this way for jpeg output.

Ricky91t

Here's two,
I'll get the camera setting in a bit, I know sharpness is bumped up and maybe contrast


ISO 250 200mm 1/1000 f/2.8 handheld

ISO 50 159mm 1/4000 f/2.8 handheld
I know these aren't good but they were the most recent I had

dave66

I think this is my most recent unprocessed shot, will have to check when I get home:



Exposure: 0.05 sec (1/20)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 300 mm
ISO Speed: 1600
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Shot as a jpg

squareballoon

Exposure: 0.004 sec (1/250) Aperture: f/2.8 Focal Length: 52 mm ISO Speed: 100 Exposure: manual Flash: Off, Did not fire

mikeanywhere

Great post Keith.

sasar

Sqyareballoon - I have always loved your stuff!

dazftw

I have a 12 x 16 print of this and its amazing, the grain is incredible.

Canon AE-1 Program
24mm Tokina f/2.8
Fujifilm Neopan 1600

AnimalRights

Borderfox wrote: »

For the purpose of the thread un-processed means straight out of the camera with the only computer intervention to upload is somewhere

From Saturday, I asked the parents if I could take a picture of them all together.

You r parents are very young looking, they don't look a day over 30.

Nisio

contrast adjustments

homerun_homer

Since I've started shooting Raw I don't think there's any photo that hasn't been tampered with, even slightly so that it would remain exactly as shot. But then that was the point of Raw was to give you maximum room to mess with the settings.

I've had to look back to when I shot Jpeg only to pull something that I hadn't messed with even slightly.

Both of these were taken on P&S camera's.





Edit: So can we include modified Raw shots in this in which only minor details were changed like highlights etc?

Thecageyone

The only way I know to convert my RAW files to jpeg is through lightroom, export as jpeg. Is that processing?

Morrisseeee

^^ I would say thats OK, another option is to convert 'in-camera' but there wouldn't be 'much' difference ! Of course you can also have your camera set to different 'defaults' BEFORE you take the pic (ie. sharpness, saturation, white-balance), so that the final outcome would be different, also different sensors will have slight differences aswell ! ....but Borderfox has the final say

oshead

In my mind, untampered, straight from the camera, means importing to lightroom or similar and running the zeroed preset or similar on the image. Then go to details box and remove all sharpening. Only then can you say you have an original raw file with no processing done to it.

Even with that, you gotta choose a camera calibration to interpret the image data. Should you choose Camera Neutral (for Canon)?

Borderfox

Shoot jpeg take card out of camera put in computer and upload to pix/flickr/photobucket thats my idea of unprocessed.

I know newspapers/magazines have their way but this is a good way to think about things, imagine your are working and you have 10 jobs (or more) to do in a day. Think of how much quicker you would do it if you every shot you took was on the money.

I know some of the D3x/s models can process a raw/convert to black and white/crop and stuff (which is very handy) When I work I shoot RAW+JPEG and 99% of the time I use the JPEG, the raw file is just a backup. Instead of using the raw file as a crutch (I can fix it at home/computer later) train yourself to wring the best out of yourself and the camera on the spot.

eas

elven

I wish there was a 'LOL' button...

elven

Borderfox wrote: »

Instead of using the raw file as a crutch (I can fix it at home/computer later) train yourself to wring the best out of yourself and the camera on the spot.

I expose so that I'm providing the best raw material for my intended processing, rather than to get it looking as good as possible straight out of the camera.

Fair enough that's not what this thread is about, but I do think there's a danger of thinking that processing = fixing mistakes, and only that, which is a shame.

homerun_homer

elven wrote: »

I do think there's a danger of thinking that processing = fixing mistakes, and only that, which is a shame.

Shooting RAW is to enhance what you've shot and to get the best out of your image, at no fault to you as a photographer for how you exposed the image. Obviously it's beneficial if you under or over exposed and that's one of the advantages.
We've come too far along from starting off taking photos and taking a leap from shooting Jpeg only to "always shoot RAW" after being badgered about it, only to get stung now by anyone who may think RAW is cheating.

Not that I'm saying anyone here is saying that outright.

Thecageyone

I don't think I can open a RAW file in LR and resist processing ... just a little

I'll shoot a few jpegs today, see what i come up with

[edit]

First shot, an unprocessed fairy:

Borderfox

elven wrote: »

I expose so that I'm providing the best raw material for my intended processing, rather than to get it looking as good as possible straight out of the camera.

Fair enough that's not what this thread is about, but I do think there's a danger of thinking that processing = fixing mistakes, and only that, which is a shame.

I am only saying it from the point of view of something to do, similar to times when you restrict yourself to say one focal length eg 50mm

I shoot all my weddings in raw due to the latitude it gives so in that instance its to enhance what was captured.

Thanks for the insight though Julie

Borderfox

homerun_homer wrote: »

Shooting RAW is to enhance what you've shot and to get the best out of your image, at no fault to you as a photographer for how you exposed the image. Obviously it's beneficial if you under or over exposed and that's one of the advantages.
We've come too far along from starting off taking photos and taking a leap from shooting Jpeg only to "always shoot RAW" after being badgered about it, only to get stung now by anyone who may think RAW is cheating.

Not that I'm saying anyone here is saying that outright.

For the purpose of the thread I am not saying that shooting raw is cheating just that for certain parts of my job/personal shots I am very happy to shoot jpeg.

PS you are cheating!!

stick-dan

Here's mine, I tend to leave candid portrait shots unprocessed all of the time. These were shot on the nifty fifty which in fairness does a lot of the work for you and most of the time turns out some beautifully balanced photos.The aperature was wide open at 1.8 and the focus was placed on left of center. Surely setting the focus point on a lense is processing in a technical capacity no? :P

hi_im_fil

From aaaages ago before I found out about the wonders of RAW

jpb1974

Fujifilm Instax 210 - Mode Normal
Print scan using me Da's DELL All In One Printer - Copier - Scanner

jtang

came straight out my lx3 shot in iA mode, idiot mode as i call it, its great for live gigs.

homerun_homer

Borderfox wrote: »

PS you are cheating!!

pft:(

Well here's more oldies pre my photoshopping and Raw usage;

WHIP IT!

Borderfox wrote: »

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/71/163549706_134a146f77.jpg

Borderfox, that's a cracking pic and what a gorgeous looking horse. Do you mind me asking where it was taken?

Borderfox

WHIP IT! wrote: »

Borderfox, that's a cracking pic and what a gorgeous looking horse. Do you mind me asking where it was taken?

His name is Spirit and it was taken in Thornton Park EC, I had him on the cover of Ireland's Equestrian twice too.

WHIP IT!

Borderfox wrote: »

His name is Spirit and it was taken in Thornton Park EC, I had him on the cover of Ireland's Equestrian twice too.

Ah, I knew he had to be a competition horse. He's an absolute picture. Nice snap.

magicbastarder

Cameraman

Yeah but.......

ALL digital photos are shot in RAW. The only difference is whether you let the camera convert to JPEG, or you do it in some external program.


Some great photos in this thread BTW.

duffman85

Lansdowne Road


Raw -> JPG
White Balance = As shot
All other settings zeroed and sharpening turned off.

pixbyjohn

Thecageyone

Just bought a new Sigma 70-300mm lens today, gave it a test drive in the garden. here's a couple unprocessed - Only thing I used on cam was the D-Range optimiser.






Moth's head looks scary in original size!

Cameraman

Just for comparison - a picture of Dun Laoghaire Harbour from tonight. First one is SOOC (apart from JPEG conversion with everything zeroed, and resizing). Second one has had less than a minutes work in DPP (including a dust spot removal and a quick crop).

Unprocessed



DPP processed

Thecageyone

Thecageyone wrote: »

Since this thread spawned from the Anti-non-processing [my] thread, perfect opp to show how a 'little' PP can really help -

Processed and cropped version of above -



It's clearer in the processed version that the poor wee thing [erm, or, ugly, dizzy moth] had only the one antennae - no wonder he was circling and landing every few seconds.

Attached sneak preview of the processing. Doesn't always have to be full on. Hardly amazing or anything, I don't have a proper macro lens or anything!


But we does like the challenge And I half took this one with this thread in mind

Borderfox

With both of the pictures posted up last most of that could have been done in camera by adjusting the detail settings bar the crop of course. Its worthwile to have a poke around in the menu and try some of the settings (sharpness/contrast etc) to see what can come out of the camera before you even get them on the computer, you can also shoot jpeg+raw and see what difference it makes.

Cameraman

Borderfox wrote: »

With both of the pictures posted up last most of that could have been done in camera by adjusting the detail settings bar the crop of course. Its worthwile to have a poke around in the menu and try some of the settings (sharpness/contrast etc) to see what can come out of the camera before you even get them on the computer, you can also shoot jpeg+raw and see what difference it makes.

Sure you could change your cameras JPG processing parameters - but it's not the way I find works best. I only showed both as an example of what a SOOC image looks like.

As all the photos start as RAW anyway, you basically have two choices for outputting a JPEG (1) process in-camera using preset settings or (2) process externally with much more control.
I always go for option (2). I can only see limited use for outputting RAW+JPEG, as the JPEG is just one version of the RAW.

I can see some use for outputting processed JPEGs only - for example in a situation where you are taking large numbers of very similar photos (e.g. events), and wnat to print them quickly, then it could save a lot of time and camera memory. Otherwise you could just take the RAWs and apply the same processing to them all as a batch - which is what the camera does if you output JPEG only.

Slidinginfinity

Here one from the SPWC on Thursday.



I am still learning how to set up my camera for specific situations.

Jakob