raw image files rule

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

  1. Mark Evans

    Mark Evans Expert

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2008
    Messages:
    6,492
    Location:
    newark notts.
    i got to photograph paul jones blues band a few years ago.

    this pick is just to show the capabilitys of the 5d and the 135mm under very low light. you get what you pay for.

    remember this is realy low quality. the full file is awsome to look at. hopefully youll see in the hair the amount of detail.

    [ pauljones.jpg ][/img]
     
  2. George Farmer

    George Farmer Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    30 Jun 2007
    Messages:
    7,092
    Location:
    Cambridgeshire
    1.6 actually mate, but I get you. Comes in handy sometimes.

    I've got my eye on the 1Ds Mk.3 actually. Serious bucks though. Next year maybe, when I get a nice lump sum from the taxman. :D
    Interesting on the Sigma. f/2.8 through the focal lengths. Nice.

    Superb shot. Love the detail, even with this lo-res.
     
  3. Mark Evans

    Mark Evans Expert

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2008
    Messages:
    6,492
    Location:
    newark notts.
    tar very much george,

    good old rebates eh?...im due 1 soon. :D
     
  4. ceg4048

    ceg4048 Expert/Global Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    11 Jul 2007
    Messages:
    8,953
    Location:
    Chicago, USA
    I must be missing something because I do this all the time with jpgs. :rolleyes: Photoshop shas a function called "Shadow/Highlight" That's how you fix blown out skies. You can also use various plugins such as Graduated ND simulators.

    Here is a blown out sky that was fixed and color corrected using the "Shadow/Highlight", "White Balance" and Tiffen ND plugin Photoshop features. There is also the "Exposure" function that handles compensation issues. All this was done in jpg.
    [​IMG]

    Digital cameras, other than the most expensive, don't do a very good job of handling blown highlights anyway so if the section of the image is beyond a couple stops overexposed then the data is lost anyway and any recovery tends to look fake due to loss of texture and color shifts.

    I agree totally with Graeme that just the investment in storage space alone is a penalty not compensated for by the extra quality of raw, at least not for hobby grade photos. :wideyed:

    As I said, in my opinion, unless you are making large prints and require the utmost in perfection it's simply not worth the energy. Being a pro is a completely different story.

    Cheers,
     
  5. Mark Evans

    Mark Evans Expert

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2008
    Messages:
    6,492
    Location:
    newark notts.
    agreed ceg4048 , i dont doubt what you say.

    what i find odd is that with the image you'd taken (landscape shot) you say you have corrected in photoshop using various pluggins? for me if i were taking a landscape shot, i wouldnt leave the seen with a shot that had blown highlights in the first place. im pretty sure raw isnt for everyone, but for most its powerful;l and precise. for most of my images i get more or less what i want from raw software, and i can do that in approx 15 sec. thats including fixing a blown sky.. im also guessing it would take you longer to apply all your correction effects and simulaters to get the same result. and i still have the virgin copy of the image too. each to there own my friend, it's what works for you.

    as a rule i allways shoot at least 1 stop under and pull it back in raw software, i know 1 or 2 other pros that do the same. if you blow highlights, thats it! it prints white! if you under expose ALL data is in the shot. from highlight areas to the deepest shade. ive not lost a shot in a long time now.

    nice pic by the way :D
     
  6. Dave Spencer

    Dave Spencer Member

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2007
    Messages:
    1,389
    Location:
    N. Wales
    I always go for underexposure myself. This is particularly the case when photographing your tank using the tank lighting. All the detail of the plants nearest the lighting often gets irretrievably burnt out.

    Personally, I try to convince myself that I am one of those people capable enough to justify using RAW. :?

    Dave.

    P.S. Nikon rule, so you Canon boys can just shut your faces! :lol:
     
  7. Mark Evans

    Mark Evans Expert

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2008
    Messages:
    6,492
    Location:
    newark notts.
    :lol: genius! comedian eh?...brilliant.

    there's no boundry line that say's who and who cannot use a raw image.pro status means nothing. i've worked along side and seen other "pro" wedding photographers and just plain pld freelance for that matter with the skill of a peanut. i think it might be from an old way of thinking regarding photography and equipment. maybe im wrong i dont know. i do know one thing, if your camera has raw, you have the software and your not a peanut :lol: ...use it dave!
     

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