New to DSLR and raw - advice needed

kofa

Dear PP sPPecialists, :-)

I'm new to DSLR land (I've bought a friend's D80) and also to RAW.
I'm currently learning (how to use the D80, how to use RAW). I'm just a casual shooter, so I know RAW is not the best platform for me, but I'm a techie, too :-) I've found that in low light (indoors, dim fluourescent lighting - welcome to white balance / noise hell) RAW produced better results, even if I just used automated conversion via dcraw (BTW, I'm a Linux guy; I have dcraw, RawTherapee, UFRaw, Bibble trial).

Still, the images are pretty much washed out (e.g. http://photos.kovacs-telekes.<wbr>org/Friends/Nonoeknal-2009-11-<wbr>13/ - some of the original NEFs are at http://oldblog.kovacs-telekes.<wbr>org/raw/). I guess I also set messed up white balance, resulting in bluish images. [I know they also have all kinds of problems, from composition to bad focus and motion blur, but that's not the point now.]

I'm looking for advice on treating images in the future, especially related to taking pictures in the less than ideal lighting mentioned above, getting WB right etc. Buying Windows/ a Mac / a flash are not the solution I'm looking for :-)

Thanks in advance,
Kofa

Richard

Hi Kofa and welcome to Dgrin.

I took a look at your gallery. Since I didn't see any EXIF data it's hard to be certain, but I think the pics generally show two problems: 1) as you said, there are frequently WB issues; and 2) I think you may be using too slow a shutter speed. I didn't see any serious noise problem (maybe you fixed it), so I would suggest that you shoot at a higher ISO to give yourself a little more speed. As for the WB, I'm not familiar with the tools you are using, but most RAW converters have a one-click dropper you can use on any area that you know should be neutral. Don't use pure white or black, as these may be exposure problems and not accurate samples. There are much more sophisticated approaches, but you will learn these over time.

One great way to learn is to post a few problem pics here. There are many advanced PP folks who are willing to help.

kofa

I shot those at ISO 1600. I know about slow shutter speeds, they were in the 1/10-1/50 range (too slow), if memory serves me well, at apertures of 1/1.8 - 1/2.4 with a 50 mm Nikkor f/1.8 lens (which is soft wide open).

The trouble is, using the 'eye dropper' to set white balance did not do the trick in many cases, e.g. when the face was in the shade. Once I saw some Lightroom(?) tutorials, where they demonstrated the software's ability to set WB separately for shadows (which usually have a blue cast compared to direct light). Alas, I do not have that tool. I could produce multiple images, and blend them as layers in an editor, I guess.

A friend of mine (former owner of my camera :-)) has run them through his usual workflow:
http://trance.easyhosting.hu/~perger/kofa_raw/out_web/

However, my daughters' faces have a red or brown cast to them (DSC_7169.jpg, DSC_7196.jpg, DSC_7670.jpg), they are rather fair skinned in reality. I like his rendering of the lady (DSC_7718.jpg) and the boy (DSC_7801.jpg) - the little fellow has darker skin than my daughters, something like what a Japanese person or one of Hispanic origins would have.

For DSC_7169.NEF, I've tried setting white from the clothes; for DSC_7196.NEF, from the paint on the clown's face or the chair at the bottom left; for DSC_7670.NEF, from the tights (bottom left). None of those worked for me.

Thanks,
Kofa

Richard

If the eye-dropper isn't giving you satisfactory results, most RAW conversion utilities let you tweak color temperature and tint separately. Another thing you might try is shooting a gray card frame in the light in which you will be working and use that as a WB reference.

craig_d

Hi, Kofa,

I'm another Linux guy (Kubuntu 9.10 currently), so maybe my experience will be helpful.

I use UFRaw and the GIMP for image processing. When I first used UFRaw, it was a slightly outdated version that did not have support for the then-new model of camera I was using (a Canon Rebel XSi), and I got very washed-out looking images. I went to the UFRaw web site (ufraw.sourceforge.net) and downloaded source for the then-latest version, which did support my camera, and that took care of the problem. So you may want to check your versions of UFRaw and dcraw and get them up to date if possible.

Another possibility is that your camera may be set to use the Adobe RGB color space. There should be an option in the camera's menus for that. Particularly since you're a beginner, it would be better if you set the camera to use sRGB.

I haven't used dcraw directly in a long time, as I find UFRaw to be a much more pleasant environment to work in. I suppose if I need to batch-process thousands of images, dcraw would be the way to go. UFRaw allows you to choose either the camera's recommended white balance, or its own suggestion based on the content of the image, or you can play with the WB manually (as well as tone curves, gamma, and a variety of other things).

One thing to realize about camera-generated WB in RAW files is that the camera does not actually change the image data; all it does is record its suggested WB settings in the EXIF data. So I just leave the camera in Auto WB mode all the time. If I don't like the camera's idea of what the WB should be, I can change it in UFRaw with no adverse effects.

I like having the eyedropper as an option for WB, but I rarely use it. The issue for me is that any kind of automatic WB, whether camera-generated or an eyedropper tool, is going to try to make your picture look like it was taken under perfectly pure white light, and very few pictures are actually taken under such conditions. Sunlight isn't pure white, nor are candles, nor are most artificial lights. The human eye tends to compensate for the color of light, but only to a degree; you can, if you're paying attention, tell that sunset light is more orangey than noon light, and you can tell the difference between sunlight, incandescent bulbs, and flourescent tubes. So it's really beyond me why anyone would want all their pictures to look like they were taken under pure white light, because that doesn't correspond to our experience in the real world. I usually bias my WB toward what I can recall of the actual light color until I arrive at something that looks right to me. What "looks right" is often a compromise, somewhere between what I actually saw at the time and the pure-white-light look, because our experience of photographs is also affected by the conditions under which we are viewing the photographs. Ultimately WB is an artistic decision, and for this reason it is not one that should be left to machines.

CatOne

craig_d wrote:

Hi, Kofa,

Another possibility is that your camera may be set to use the Adobe RGB color space. There should be an option in the camera's menus for that. Particularly since you're a beginner, it would be better if you set the camera to use sRGB.

Note, color space doesn't matter if you're shooting RAW. Not one bit. There is no "color space" on a RAW file; this is only used if you tell the camera to generate a JPEG from the RAW file in camera.

I like having the eyedropper as an option for WB, but I rarely use it. The issue for me is that any kind of automatic WB, whether camera-generated or an eyedropper tool, is going to try to make your picture look like it was taken under perfectly pure white light, and very few pictures are actually taken under such conditions. Sunlight isn't pure white, nor are candles, nor are most artificial lights. The human eye tends to compensate for the color of light, but only to a degree; you can, if you're paying attention, tell that sunset light is more orangey than noon light, and you can tell the difference between sunlight, incandescent bulbs, and flourescent tubes. So it's really beyond me why anyone would want all their pictures to look like they were taken under pure white light, because that doesn't correspond to our experience in the real world. I usually bias my WB toward what I can recall of the actual light color until I arrive at something that looks right to me. What "looks right" is often a compromise, somewhere between what I actually saw at the time and the pure-white-light look, because our experience of photographs is also affected by the conditions under which we are viewing the photographs. Ultimately WB is an artistic decision, and for this reason it is not one that should be left to machines.

I think it's a good starting point. If you have something that's white, you should make it white as a reference point, and then add color to taste. By light varies so much in color temperature that going with an eyedropper (or, using the right white balance in camera, or even shooting a grey card or using a whibal or white balance lens cap) makes a big difference. The original posted images are far too blue; if that's the best the RAW editing software on Linux can do, it's time for a VM based solution that can do the job correctly

craig_d

CatOne wrote:

Note, color space doesn't matter if you're shooting RAW. Not one bit. There is no "color space" on a RAW file; this is only used if you tell the camera to generate a JPEG from the RAW file in camera.

Well, color space in RAW files matters the same way white balance does: it's information in the EXIF data that may affect what your RAW processor chooses to do when demosaicing the image. After all, a PC-based RAW converter is basically doing the same things the camera does when it generates a JPEG; you just have more manual control over the process, and you get to keep the original unprocessed image data. So the color space setting isn't completely irrelevant.

CatOne

craig_d wrote:

Well, color space in RAW files matters the same way white balance does: it's information in the EXIF data that may affect what your RAW processor chooses to do when demosaicing the image. After all, a PC-based RAW converter is basically doing the same things the camera does when it generates a JPEG; you just have more manual control over the process, and you get to keep the original unprocessed image data. So the color space setting isn't completely irrelevant.

I'm unaware of a single RAW converter on the planet that does this. Why would you artificially constrain the color space? It's useless information, as compared to the white balance information, which is a strong hint as to how the image should be rendered.

kofa

CatOne wrote:

The original posted images are far too blue; if that's the best the RAW editing software on Linux can do, it's time for a VM based solution that can do the job correctly

Note that most raw converters rely on the tool called dcraw, originally a Linux command-line utility.
http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/

You can find some comparisons here:
http://www.insflug.org/raw/Resources/
http://www.rawtherapee.com/RAW_Compare/

As I said, most of the originally posted images were produced in automatic mode (which pretty much defeats the purpose of shooting raw, of course; still, the JPEG files from the camera were *way* too red).
Setting the white point manually in RawTherapee, and then enhancing local contrast (similar to Photoshop's Clarity effect, I believe):


Several versions have been posted in dpreview's forums:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1006&message=33740555

pathfinder

When you have a known white, that is illuminated in the same manner as most of the image, why would you not try it as a white balance point in post processing ? Like was done off the eye of the plastic toy.

Images with a preponderance of one color, will usually defeat the accuracy of AWB - that is my own observation, I see it in my own images and here on dgrin over and over. AWB assumes an overall neutral color balance in an image. That is why custom white balancing works so well - you shoot a totally neutral white or grey card, and set a color temperature from that. Bouncing flash off a non white wall is an easy way to get a preponderance of one color tone....

I shot bounced flash off the wall of a room with olive brown walls and had really horrible color balance issues, but fortunately for me, the child had a black and white striped shirt that allowed a lovely rendering in post processing.



If you can include a reliable target like a WHiBal card or other device in at least one frame of a session, it will save you a lot of headaches and torment

It is true that white balance is finally a choice of the artist, because we rarely want neutral white balance at sunrise or sunset, or even in the shade sometimes, or the studio. A little warmth rarely hurts portraits.

It is always good to know how to play more than one note with an instrument as an artist.

kofa

Dear Pathfinder,

using neutral-looking parts to get white balance is what I usually do - same as I had done previously with the compact camera.

pathfinder wrote:

If you can include a reliable target like a WHiBal card or other device in at least one frame of a session, it will save you a lot of headaches and torment

Yesterday I went to a photography store here and asked for a grey card. They didn't carry it, only the Expodisc , which is not what I wanted.
Instead, I walked over to a paper shop and bought a sheet of grey paper. I know it's not ideal (not guaranteed to be spectrally neutral), but it was better than nothing.
At home, I tried setting custom balance from the grey sheet, a plain white sheet, and they both worked OK. As a last experiment, to imitate incedent WB metering a'la Expodisc, I put a thin white plastic bag over the lens and took a WB reading that way, which worked well, too. (I'm not talking about studio quality, just large improvements compared to auto WB.)

pathfinder wrote:

It is true that white balance is finally a choice of the artist, because we rarely want neutral white balance at sunrise or sunset, or even in the shade sometimes, or the studio. A little warmth rarely hurts portraits.

It is always good to know how to play more than one note with an instrument as an artist.

I sometimes don't even find which end of the instrument to hold

craig_d

CatOne wrote:

I'm unaware of a single RAW converter on the planet that does this. Why would you artificially constrain the color space? It's useless information, as compared to the white balance information, which is a strong hint as to how the image should be rendered.

Okay, I've done a little more reading up on this and it appears you are correct. The funny thing is that I'm sure I've seen RAW files look significantly less "punchy" when I had my camera set to Adobe RGB, so I figured the RAW converter had to be doing something with that setting. Maybe not.

pathfinder

kofa wrote:

Dear Pathfinder,

Yesterday I went to a photography store here and asked for a grey card. They didn't carry it, only the Expodisc , which is not what I wanted.
Instead, I walked over to a paper shop and bought a sheet of grey paper. I know it's not ideal (not guaranteed to be spectrally neutral), but it was better than nothing.
At home, I tried setting custom balance from the grey sheet, a plain white sheet, and they both worked OK. As a last experiment, to imitate incedent WB metering a'la Expodisc, I put a thin white plastic bag over the lens and took a WB reading that way, which worked well, too. (I'm not talking about studio quality, just large improvements compared to auto WB.)


I sometimes don't even find which end of the instrument to hold

IceBear did a study here on dgrin a year ago or so, testing Pringles can lids, butter tubs etc against an Expodisc. He found that serious tools slammed can lids etc. That prompted me to do a more formal test of white balance tool here - http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=90438

I found I really like the BalanceSmarter reflector from Lastolite. It is a real neutral, non specular target with white lines that permit using it without turning off your autofocus. (If I turn my AF off, I alway seem to forget to turn it back on at the most inappropriate time.)

A WHiBal card works, but can give you specular refletions which do NOT work. A MacBeth color checker with a white square - but not the whitest square on the checker - can work very well also. As does an Expodisc, or a SpectraSnap filter.

I even own a white titianium oxide stone that is a true non specular white as well. I tested all of those in my link above. I came to the conclusion that accurately exposed jpgs , shot with a custom white balance, can be superb images. But proper accurate exposure requires 1/3 of a stop accuracy - even greater accuracy than color transparency film.

Create a step grey scale in Photoshop with a Black to white gradient, posterized with 32 steps, print it out, and try to photograph it with in camera jpgs, in Manual mode, so that the middle step measures 128,128,128 in Photoshop. You will find changing your exposure 1/3 of an fstop, moves the scale to the right and the left significantly.

It is an educational experience. You will notice I did include a Kodak Step gray scale in my thread about color balance tools.....

kofa

Pathfinder - thanks for the link and advice, I'll have a look.

CatOne

kofa wrote:

Note that most raw converters rely on the tool called dcraw, originally a Linux command-line utility.
http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/

I'm not sure what your definition of "most" is here. Perhaps, on Linux, where few commercial solutions exist. I think if you go to the platforms that tend to have commercial support (Mac OS X and Windows) you'll find that between Adobe (ACR + Lightroom), Apple (Aperture), and Capture One, you'll get 95% of the target. Bibble may pretty much round out the rest; I've never heard of anyone using it first-hand, only in Internet comparisons. I've seen RAW Therapee mentioned as an example of a very good converter, but for the most part we're splitting hairs on what "very good" means, given that workflow is _so_ important when shooting large numbers of shots. I want to use a tool that has the workflow/adjustments that I need, and it should also have outstanding RAW conversion. But RAW conversion is an expected; I'm not going to choose any RAW converter if it has a workflow that is behind what Aperture and Lightroom currently offer. If you come back with 5,000 shots from a week-long trip, anything that doesn't allow you to edit and select through that in a matter of hours is a total non-starter.

Wil Davis

Interesting thread…


…and not much to add

pathfinder wrote:

snip…

It is always good to know how to play more than one note with an instrument as an artist.

…very true, but I think it's even more important to be able to play in tune!

- Wil

kofa

CatOne wrote:

I'm not sure what your definition of "most" is here.

Perhaps what I said is no longer true. ACR, at one time, relied on dcraw; I'm not sure about the others. Here is a thread on that subject:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=28325149

There also used to be a list of commercial software relying on dcraw; here's an archived version:
http://cvs.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/contrib-SPECS/dcraw/dcraw.html?view=co

I've also read that when Nikon introduced encrypted WB setting in their RAW format, major companies like Adobe were in trouble because they feared legal consequences of reverse engineering the encryption; dcraw was the first to do so (if memory serves me well, Nikon later provided help to other software companies). The source code of dcraw may also be considered as a kind of documentation of proprietary raw formats.

Interesting pieces of info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dcraw
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042701davecoffininterview.asp

Anyway, I agree with your comments, workflow is very important (and being able to play the instrument is even more important - plenty to learn for me). I only replied because of your comment on Linux tools - here it's not the tools that are lame, it's me.

Now, before you flag me as a Linux zealot, I'll try to get back to photography

tsk1979

On linux I suggest you try rawtherapee.
ITs better than UFRAW.
Use it like canon DPP.
Then use GIMP to process the JPEGS.

Other thing you can do is install DPP on your linux system. Its really an excellent software if you have Canon.
If non canon, rawtherapee is really really good

kofa

tsk1979 wrote:

On linux I suggest you try rawtherapee.

Yes, that's what I mostly use. I hate its preview mode though. If I set it to process full-sized images for preview (I don't mean viewing actual pixels, but the drop-down in the bottom left; I usually just fit the scaled preview image into the preview window, and use the Detail window for pixel-peeping when I need that to set sharpening etc.). The 1:1 preview is very slow (it takes several seconds to process anything, e.g. moving an exposure slider). If I reduce the preview size (e.g. 1:4, 1:5 or 1:6), it's a lot faster but the preview becomes very aliased/jaggy because of scaling, and looks as if a horrendous amount of noise were present. I'll learn to live with that (or buy Bibble...). As far as I know, UFRaw does not allow copying of settings (white balance and exposure come to mind) from one image to another. Its preview, however, is a lot more convenient than that of RT.

For high-ISO images, I plan to use NoiseNinja if needed (I've bought it because of the noise issues with my previous camera). It works way better than either DCRAW's wavelet filter or RawTherapee's own.

Other thing you can do is install DPP on your linux system. Its really an excellent software if you have Canon.

Thanks for the suggestion - I shoot a Nikon D80, so I'll stick with RT.

Cheers,
Kofa