RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photo Processing Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   What RAW can do for you! (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14345)

PLEzero 09-11-2011 10:38 PM

What RAW can do for you!
 
1 Attachment(s)
I had a little 'whoops' moment earlier today and it reminded me of mp16dot39's thread HERE about RAW processing. Today was a mostly overcast day with a little sunshine mixed in. I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time but I muffed the shot. It didn't look too bad on the LCD but once it was uploaded onto my computer the flaws were very obvious. No worries! A few corrections in Adobe Camera Raw 6.0 and Photoshop CS5 in less than a few minutes and it's a respectable photo.

The edited version of this photo can be seen here on my Flickr page.

bigbassloyd 09-11-2011 10:56 PM

That's minor to some of the flub's I've saved with RAW :D. I may just have to post a few examples from the externals tonight.

Loyd L.

trainboysd40 09-12-2011 05:49 PM

I think that toning down the sky wasn't enough - The foreground seems unnaturally bright now.
Where RAW really shines, though, is recovering shadow detail - I think I might start calling this the most edited photo on railpictures! [photoid=326446]

jnohallman 09-12-2011 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trainboysd40 (Post 142132)
I think I might start calling this the most edited photo on railpictures! [photoid=326446]

You do realize Gary Knapp posts photos on here? :lol:

Jon

trainboysd40 09-12-2011 11:33 PM

Oh right. I try to ignore him.

stlgevo51 09-13-2011 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trainboysd40 (Post 142132)
Where RAW really shines, though, is recovering shadow detail - I think I might start calling this the most edited photo on railpictures!

Not so fast:
[photoid=350554]

I wish I could get my 50D to shoot photos as sharp as yours, Brad. Plus, I find that my jpeg files actually look better than my raw files, both in color and quality. I guess I am doing something really bad in processing. I am probably the only person who actually converted back to jpeg shooting.

JRMDC 09-13-2011 01:31 AM

I'm shooting a 50D now and my shots are pretty sharp. What lenses are you using? And what software do you sharpen with, and what settings?

I use a 17-55IS, a 10-22, and occasionally a 70-200 f/4 and a 55-250. I don't do too much tele these days, but you never know. Had the f/4 out yesterday. I use PSE 9; with the Enhance/Adjust Sharpness with the More Refined turned on it seems overly sharp at times.

stlgevo51 09-13-2011 02:53 AM

I shoot with a EF 24-105mm IS. I think the problem has more to do with the processing of raw images. My jpegs look fine (not exceptional, but good) while the raw files look bad. I will try to put a comparison up to see what you all think.

jnohallman 09-13-2011 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stlgevo51 (Post 142146)
I shoot with a EF 24-105mm IS. I think the problem has more to do with the processing of raw images. My jpegs look fine (not exceptional, but good) while the raw files look bad. I will try to put a comparison up to see what you all think.

Are you saying your RAW files look bad after post-processing? Because if you haven't done any and are looking at the original RAW image, I'd expect it not to look as good as the JPEG, which has had sharpening, saturation adjustments and so on applied based on your in-camera settings.

Jon

troy12n 09-14-2011 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnohallman (Post 142147)
Are you saying your RAW files look bad after post-processing? Because if you haven't done any and are looking at the original RAW image, I'd expect it not to look as good as the JPEG, which has had sharpening, saturation adjustments and so on applied based on your in-camera settings.

Depending on your camera settings, it is very conceivable that jpegs could look significantly better than yor raws right out of the camera (pre-post processing). By default, jpeg's will have sharpening applied and tonal adjustments, whereas raw's will not.

jnohallman 09-14-2011 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 142164)
Depending on your camera settings, it is very conceivable that jpegs could look significantly better than yor raws right out of the camera (pre-post processing). By default, jpeg's will have sharpening applied and tonal adjustments, whereas raw's will not.

My point exactly! :D

Jon


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.