raw image files rule

Mark Evans

Expert
Joined
13 Jun 2008
Messages
6,486
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]
 

George Farmer

Founder
Staff member
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Messages
7,068
Location
Cambridgeshire
saintly said:
youll miss the "true" 24mm with the multyply factor of 0.4.
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.
 

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
Staff member
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
8,993
Location
Chicago, USA
saintly said:
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!....

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.


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,
 

Mark Evans

Expert
Joined
13 Jun 2008
Messages
6,486
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
 

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:
 

Mark Evans

Expert
Joined
13 Jun 2008
Messages
6,486
Location
newark notts.
saintly said:
P.S. Nikon rule, so you Canon boys can just shut your faces!

: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!
 
Top