raw image files rule

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Mark Evans, 23 Jun 2008.

  1. Mark Evans

    Mark Evans Expert

    Messages:
    6,492
    Location:
    newark notts.
    i know this isnt fish related but just to show case a raw file. no photo shop at all.

    this is my son daniel, he just sat infront of the back patio.

    straight from camera and adjust highlight contrast and re adjust exposure. you'll never take a bad photo again. you can under or over expose by at least 2 stops and pull the image back with raw.
    you can adjust white balance, just about everything. if your camera has raw facility, use it
    [ _MG_7724-01.jpg ][/img]
     
  2. Dan Crawford

    Dan Crawford Founder Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    Location:
    Daventry, Northants
    Nice work mate, whats the camera that you use?
     
  3. Mark Evans

    Mark Evans Expert

    Messages:
    6,492
    Location:
    newark notts.
    canon 5d, the best thing ive ever owned,

    like george i had a 10d, still an awsome camera. i've had prints upto 40 x 30 inches of my 5d and the prints are stunning. i used to do wedding photography in the modern style. paperatzi style!

    the younger, more well off couples allways wanted a3+ albums and this was the only camera that would give me this quality. those days are gone now.infact my photography has died off a bit,

    but now im discovering it again with aquascaping. i recently got asked to shoot a boxing match, again the 5d under low light really shines. this is iso 1250. no manipulation to this omage at all!!!!
    [ _MG_8741-01.jpg ][/img]
     
  4. ceg4048

    ceg4048 Expert/Global Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,952
    Location:
    Chicago, USA
    Hi,
    Photoshop or any decent image program has the identical facility to manipulate jpg files. Whatever you can do with Raw you can do with jpgs and you don't have to juggle 25 MB files to do so. Ultimately, if you want to display the raw file you have to convert it to jpg of tif or whatever standard format necessary. On a high resolution camera like a 5D if you intend to make 4 foot prints then yes, this makes a difference, but for the majority of cameras and at the majority of print sizes it's hard to tell the difference and difficult to justify the storage and speed penalties of raw files.

    Cheers,
     
  5. LondonDragon

    LondonDragon Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,272
    Location:
    London
    First photo is excelent and the boxing photo under those conditions are great too, but then with that camera and some practice you shouldm't have many problems ;) great work
     
  6. Mark Evans

    Mark Evans Expert

    Messages:
    6,492
    Location:
    newark notts.
    not true ceg, you cant manipulate a jpeg in the same way as a raw image. believe ma ive heard many a pro say the same. you dont have nowhere near the same control. for eg. if you take a picture in jpeg. thats it. your stuck with it. with rawyou can still change everything to do with that image.

    white balance being the most important, then exposure.... it really is a good photographic habit to get into. honestly.

    when i first started shooting professionaly, i lost alot of images shooting jpeg maybe 50%. with raw just 5% max!

    oh by the way i have 74mb files from my camera :lol:
     
  7. Mark Evans

    Mark Evans Expert

    Messages:
    6,492
    Location:
    newark notts.
    thanks london dragon, :D
     
  8. LondonDragon

    LondonDragon Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,272
    Location:
    London
    Most important for shooting RAW, you have more control of the settings that you might have missed when you took the photo, as when you shoot in JPEG you loose all that, you can somewhat change the balance but thats software manipulate and then loose picture quality.
     
  9. Mark Evans

    Mark Evans Expert

    Messages:
    6,492
    Location:
    newark notts.
    yes to some degree, but again a little off the mark. theres no loss of quality by playing around with a raw file. a jpeg is a compressed file, everyone should know that. a raw files is exactly what it says it is.... a RAW file, uncompressed with no loss of data, in its raw state. this is so the user can make changes at a later state. maybe if cheaper less efficient software is used degradiation ocurs,i doubt it with raw, but in my experience anyway theres no loss of quality. not unless you shoot 4stops underexpose :lol: even then you can rescue it. i dont want to sound off, im just stating facts from experience.

    by the way, how cool is this site? picture sections and all that? brill
     
  10. George Farmer

    George Farmer Founder Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,089
    Location:
    Cambridgeshire
    Super shots, saintly.

    A pro eh? Cool! I can't wait to see your final photo shoots from your aquascapes...

    5D is nice. There's an interesting comparison in last week's Amateur Photographer between the 5D, 40D and Nikon D300. 5D got top. The full-frame clinched it.

    David Noton on RAW - "if you care about your photos, shoot RAW".
     
  11. LondonDragon

    LondonDragon Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,272
    Location:
    London
    I meant the JPEG not the RAW ;)
     
  12. Matt Holbrook-Bull

    Matt Holbrook-Bull Founder

    Messages:
    963
    Location:
    Dorset, UK
    RAW is the best way to go, it has to be said. :)
     
  13. Mark Evans

    Mark Evans Expert

    Messages:
    6,492
    Location:
    newark notts.
    exactly george, shoot raw when ever you get the chance.yup the 5d is awsome to be fair its not far of the 1ds mark11 maybe not the 3 but still brilliant.

    my pro days are gone, thankfully, too much pressure. i prefer my 9 to 5 mate. im looking forward to learning some new techniques for shooting aquariums.

    if i remember rightly dave norton is a brill wildlife photographer.
     
  14. George Farmer

    George Farmer Founder Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,089
    Location:
    Cambridgeshire
    9 to 5 is a nice comfort zone eh?

    I've considered stepping away from my full-time career a few times to pursue freelance writing, aquascaping and photography. If I was single then it would happen tomorrow, but with a young family to look after... You know how it is mate.

    Landscapes in the main. He's a regular Practical Photography magazine contributor whose work I love.

    http://www.davidnoton.com/index.htm
     
  15. Graeme Edwards

    Graeme Edwards Founder Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,161
    Location:
    Wirral/Chester Cheshire.
    I agree that RAW is a must for the serious pro photographer and for use where quality is paramount, ie publications etc. But im dubious about it for the regular photographer. Most wont ever know. And unless your loaded ( unlike me ) the cost of massive memory cards, expensive cameras and powerful computers is out of the question.
    I use a 350D and have shot in RAW many times. But my PC cant handle huge amounts of image data and I have no way of configuring photo-shop on my PC, so im never really going to know if I have the image spot on or not. And all that comes down to muller, the lack of it can dictate how particular you want your processing to be. And at the end of the day, few will know the difference. If Im pro i get paid pro money, then its worth spending the money thats needed.

    Love the pictures, and could tell from your early posts your a photographer.

    With regards to the boxing picture...did you use a lens with a very low F stop capability, ie F2 lens? That will make a huge difference to a situation like that as you know.

    Cheers.
     
  16. Mark Evans

    Mark Evans Expert

    Messages:
    6,492
    Location:
    newark notts.
    hi guys,

    yes george, its nice having the 9-5 thing in my life at the minute. im trying to slow things down a little. the photographer that was in my head was andy rouse, not dave norton. the both do articles for pp.

    3/4 years ago life was hectic playing in a full time pro band, touring europe full time bla blabla...photography turned from a hobby into a proffesion, which for me, wasnt the best thing. i mean i was good at what i produced, it was just the unseen hours when clients think that all you do is take a picture and then print it....little do they know!
    also you cant please everyone which i found difficult to handle. i try my best in everything all for someone to just downgrade your work (ignorence mostly)

    anyway, graeme, the lens i used was a f2.8 . your right, it makes the biggest difference. alot of people believ that having the best camera in the world will produce great images, to some degree maybe, but ime its the glass you use. buy the most expensive that you can afford. greame, i used a 350d as a back-up camera at a wedding last year. Great camera my friend and if you can process raw images you'll get more from it and in turn your images will shine.

    i use raw imaging software, not to over process an image, more to just getting rid of the simple mistakes at the time of shooting. for me the 2 main benafits to raw image processing are

    white balance and exposure. try it.

    take a photo at random in jpeg format (just a snap shot) then try and mend that blown out sky, or under exposed shaded area with photo shop. try and correct the white balance that you forgot to change!....

    now switch to raw (which most entry level slr has) take a snap shot then adjust with raw software and see how you can bring back exposure, or decrees it. change the white balance with far more acuracy etc etc...

    it takes the pain out of on the spot shooting. no need for worrying about exposure compensation any more( i stopped bracketinfg a long time ago when i discovered raw)

    obviously you need to be close to the correct exposure in the first place, but with regards to everything else worry about it later.

    now someone stop me cus im going on..... :lol:
     
  17. George Farmer

    George Farmer Founder Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,089
    Location:
    Cambridgeshire
    So true. Canon L-series all the way from now on for me. One exception is the Canon 100mm f2.8. Super lens for the cash. Optics are pin sharp.
     
  18. Mark Evans

    Mark Evans Expert

    Messages:
    6,492
    Location:
    newark notts.
    the best mate, the best. the 135mm f2 l series has to be one of the best ive owned. f11 you'll never see a sharper image.
     
  19. George Farmer

    George Farmer Founder Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,089
    Location:
    Cambridgeshire
    Sweeeeeeet! Is the boxing shot with the 135mm? Looks pin sharp, even with the high ISO.

    Do you have any L zooms? I fancy the 24-70mm as a nice 'general purpose'. Off-topic, I know, but I didn't think you'd mind...
     
  20. Mark Evans

    Mark Evans Expert

    Messages:
    6,492
    Location:
    newark notts.
    the boxing image was taken using my sigma 24-70mm f2.8. and its 2.8 @ 24mm and 70mm!

    to be honest george i nearly went for the L version of the 24-70mm but looked into it and the sigma came pretty close. you could save yourself some money by opting for the sigma. as you can see from my boxing photo, the glass is pretty special at a fraction of the cost. youve got the 10d right?...youll miss the "true" 24mm with the multyply factor of 0.4. one advantage of the 5d...full frame
    i used to have the 70-200 f4 (i wish the 2.8) and that was great for out door use. similar quality in optics to the big brother, but you have some serious issues if you want to use for indoor low light.
    obviously being f4. i got rid of it in the end as i sadly did with my 135mm gutted me but i needed the money at the time. i also sold a mamiya rz pro2 medium format cheap too...was a sad day.

    i'll try and down grade an image from the 135mm f2
     

Share This Page

Facebook Page
Twitter Page
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice