Options
RAW question
Elaine
Registered Users Posts: 3,532 Major grins
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but...
I've just begun shooting RAW and I'm enjoying have more detail to work with when processing. There are a few things I don't understand though...
I've actually shot RAW + JPEG. When I pull the two shots into PSE 5, the RAW has a lot more shadow detail, but ends up looking kinda flat, lacking contrast and color punch. Skin tones tend to look a bit magenta too. Even after I've worked up a raw shot, sometimes it still looks kinda blah, like I can't quite get the color depth and contrast that I want. I've checked my color space and as far as I can tell it's all set for sRGB.
Sometimes a shot will look really underexposed in jpeg form and really overexposed in raw form (that's right after pulling them into PSE 5). What's happening here?
Between learning about RAW and how to process it and learning about flash and how to work with it, I feel like I'm back in school! But it's all good...I'm happy to learn more stuff!
I've just begun shooting RAW and I'm enjoying have more detail to work with when processing. There are a few things I don't understand though...
I've actually shot RAW + JPEG. When I pull the two shots into PSE 5, the RAW has a lot more shadow detail, but ends up looking kinda flat, lacking contrast and color punch. Skin tones tend to look a bit magenta too. Even after I've worked up a raw shot, sometimes it still looks kinda blah, like I can't quite get the color depth and contrast that I want. I've checked my color space and as far as I can tell it's all set for sRGB.
Sometimes a shot will look really underexposed in jpeg form and really overexposed in raw form (that's right after pulling them into PSE 5). What's happening here?
Between learning about RAW and how to process it and learning about flash and how to work with it, I feel like I'm back in school! But it's all good...I'm happy to learn more stuff!
0
Comments
The raw camera conversion software (you did not mention what you use) may or may not be from the same company, so there is no surprise that they will not match "out of the box" (even if the raw converter was from the camera maker).
With the raw file and Photoshop, you should be able to surpass the JPEG, either directly with the raw converter or with the addition of Photoshop edits on top of the best that you can do via raw rendering.
This is all explained here (differences between camera and raw converter workflow):
http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/dialogbox/karllang/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf
Regards,
Stephen Marsh.
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
I have started thinking of my raw files as almost blank canvases. Though that is perhaps not the best analogy. I found that as I keep shooting and learning more about different ways to process a photo from the raw image, the more I discover. It's intimidating, but cool!
When actually in the process of shooting I've started paying less attention to the image that is on the LCD and focusing only on my histogram and general composition. What are you using the jpg for right now, may I ask?
Can't wait to see your photos!
Photos that don't suck / 365 / Film & Lomography
IF you're shooting Raw, the LCD is of little help.
See this:
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/tech/exposing-for-raw.html
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Yup. What they all said. The RAW data is just that. A bunch of ons and offs. I had a hard time with the scenario you described even tho I knew that the camera's jpeg algorithm started with just the same flat, dull, RAW data that I hated looking at. What's really been a psychological boost to me is that I've got a preset in Lightroom that "perks-up" my RAW files before I have to look at them naked. The nice thing is that if I have any issues, I can just hover over "General-Zeroed" and I get my old dull RAW image back!! I don't process near enough images to really be able to justify $300 for Lightroom, but this one feature makes it so much more pleasurable to work with RAW, that I'm keeping it.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
There is a tradeoff between shadow detail and midtone contrast. If you bring up the shadows using a simple curve, you have less dynamic range available for the midtones. I don't know what is available in PSE5, but there are a couple of tricks I use to deal with this in Lightroom/ACR
1. Use a steep curve for midtone contrast the Fill Light slider to bring up the shadows.
2. Use a gentle curve to protect the shadows and the Clarity slider for midtone contrast.
Once I have the contrast where I want it, I usually use Vibrance to adjust the color saturation.
As for color, Lightroom/ACR renders the RAW data to color differently from your camera. If you are like me, often you will find that the default ACR color rendering is not as pleasing as the in camera JPEG which is a bummer, but at least ACR gives you a lot of tools to sort the problem out.
With the RAW files from my camera (Canon 5D), I know ACR tends have trouble rendering reds and they often end up looking more orange than red. Both DPP (the Canon RAW converter) and DxO optics get the color right, but ACR leaves me with a wash of oranges where I should have good color separation. I have a couple presets that help sort the color out when this happens (one using the hue sliders, the other using the calibration sliders) and often one of them gets me closer to where I want to be. There are times, though, when I either have to go to Photoshop or a different RAW converter to get the precision required to separate the colors.
Calibrating my 5D with a GretagMacbeth card and the calibration script from chromoholics - http://fors.net/chromoholics/downloads/index.php was a revelation for me. The reds I am getting are terrific in comparison to before.
You have to invest a hour or so to work through it all, but I am pleased I bothered.
Anthony.
Most modern dSLRs capture an image with an imager and processor capable of producing 12 bits of information in each of the three color channels (RGB).
JPG is an image file format only capable of displaying, or printing, 8 bits of information per color channel.
RAW image files store all of the original 12 bits of tonality of the original capture, or 2^4 (2 to the fourth power) more information than JPGs (potentially, at least).
The JPG images have been down-sampled by the camera using rather sophisticated processing based on a set of rules and algorithms that the camera designers pre-programmed into the camera, and those can be tempered and adjusted by user settings and "modes" of the camera.
Since your computer display is similarly restricted in tonality, you can never see all the tones that are available in the original RAW image file. The particular RAW converter has to make decisions about how to display the information and most refer to a rather "flat" model to represent the image.
As you adjust the RAW converter, you are simply moving the emphasis away from the flat representation into whatever you wish. If you wish to accentuate or preserve the highlights, you can do that, but at the expense of some middle tone or shadow information. The important thing to remember is that it is now "your" choice, and not the camera designers' choice, as to what is important to be recorded in the output file, whether that be sRGB JPG, or a more expansive file format like an advanced 16 bit TIFF.
Think of it kinda like a large box of crayons vs the smaller box. While you can create many splendid things with the small box of colors, the large box gives you the greater palette to create even better, more creative images, but with the greater responsibility that entails.
P.S. Some of the latest cameras from Canon and Nikon can record 14 bits in each color channel, and some medium and large format digital backs record 16 bits. However, it will all have to be distilled back to 8 bits for most presentation formats and printing.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I would also recommend Rodney's article in Photoshop User on color Management.
My Images | My Lessons Learned and Other Adventures
While a hand-held meter can be valuable in a controlled light setting or when there is time to use it properly, there are too many times when a seperate meter is impractical.
A digital camera with a spot meter capability is a type of reflectance meter with a difference, it is a permanent attachment so you aren't liable to forget it or lose it, and it can be calibrated to be used with great accuracy.
Once you have calibrated your spot meter, or at least undersood how it meters, you are ready to apply it in your photography.
The important thing about a camera's histogram is that it graphically represents how "your" camera "recorded" the scene, something no meter can do.
Once you know how to read your histogram, it can supply you with more usable information than any meter can because the information is a result of the capture.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
The reason I chose to shoot RAW + JPEG was that I guessed that my camera (KM 5D) would not allow me to view the raw images in playback mode and I wanted to be able to check my composition and focus on the jpeg file. I consulted my manual and found that wasn't entirely correct...shooting raw alone won't allow me to use enlarged playback, so I wouldn't be able to zoom in and check my focus, which I do routinely, shooting people. So for now, even though I discard the jpegs in post, I use raw + jpeg so I can zoom my LCD for a focus check. This makes my 1 & 2 gig cards fill up way too fast!
This brings me to my next questions...from what I read in the link that arodney shared above, it seems that the histogram is based on a jpeg version of the shot, whether you shoot raw alone or raw + jpeg. I had already become accustomed to paying attention to the histogram rather than the LCD picture when checking for exposure, but it would seem that even that does not provide a truly accurate rendering of your raw data.
Are there camera modes or settings that I should be aware of or change in order to make the jpeg file that produces the histogram as "naked" as possible? I tend to leave my camera on a "natural +" setting, which has a contrast of +1, saturation of 0 and sharpness of 0. Maybe I should put that back on plain "natural" with 0 settings for all three variables? I'm also confused on how to interpret the histogram, knowing it's not showing me my raw file anyway. I thought I could trust it!
As this has become long already, I'll leave it at that for now! Thanks again for really helping me understand this stuff!!
Comments and constructive critique always welcome!
Elaine Heasley Photography
Nope, not really. Raw data is linearly encoded. The Histogram would look really odd compared to a gamma corrected Histogram (all the data shoved up to one side). The manufacturers could show us this but they don't. Best to totally ignore the histogram if your goal is to capture the best Raw data. And in a way, most of what we're looking at here is mildly useful at best. What happens on either end of a Histogram (clipping both luminance and saturation) is useful, all the stuff in between isn't. If you're going to look at Histograms, look at them in the Raw converter which at least should be showing you this based on the current rendering of the Raw data. That's certainly the case in Camera Raw, kind of the case in Lightroom IF you encode using ProPhoto RGB.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
It makes me slow down and be more selective about what I shoot as well as be more careful about composition. I love having the control to get the image just the way I want it with editing, especially by having control over levels and saturation. You can get pretty creative and redefine your style this way.
www.pictureyourworld.net
http://pictureyourworldphotography.blogspot.com/
http://www.onedayonepicture.com
Actually this thread has helped me a lot, I understand the techie portion of the data storage and compression too well but this helped with the artistic portion.
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/