Why Shoot RAW? Example.

[GaryS]

First off, I know this is a crap shot. I was getting the camera set to take some photos of the kids at swimming lessons, and I snapped this when I was setting up before the flash was on.

Anyway, my point was more that RAW gives incredible flexibility to correct exposure mistakes ESPECIALLY when you are learning.

This is the same RAW file, processed 2x as described. Both photos have no PP except resizing for the web.

Before (Processed from RAW in DPP using as shot settings):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2234/2231379233_9fc131dcd5.jpg

After (+2 exposure, click set white balance):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2366/2232171996_a75d4bd488.jpg

[moneypenny02]

wow...that makes me want to go look at all the crap pictures I've taken and see if they can actually be salvaged....

[cdifoto]

This is an ok example if you actually detail out the process you used to salvage the photo. Otherwise, I consider overexposure to be a more compelling reason for RAW since you can boost a JPEG too.

[droopy1592]

This is an ok example if you actually detail out the process you used to salvage the photo. Otherwise, I consider overexposure to be a more compelling reason for RAW since you can boost a JPEG too.

I'd have to see the same attempt with a Jpeg. I might do my own experiment this weekend and post it.

[Ratamahatta]

I would really like to see the same image in .JPG format with +2 exposure (you can make it in LightRoom I think) for comparison.

Also, will making RAW images help with picures where you have one area overexposed and another underexposed?

[GaryS]

Ratamahatta, it doesn't directly help when you have too much dynamic range... RAW does have great DR than jpg, but you are going to have to convert to jpg at some point.

Although, what I have learned to do it this way. With the one RAW file, develop it in DPP 2 times. Create 1 jpg where the highlights are good, then create another jpg where the shadows are good. Now, go into Photoshop and put the two jpgs on layers, then with a software brush erase out the top layer where its bad, showing the good layer that is below.

[michaelb]

This is an ok example if you actually detail out the process you used to salvage the photo. Otherwise, I consider overexposure to be a more compelling reason for RAW since you can boost a JPEG too.

I agree with you on this one Don. You could probably adjust this exposure just as well in jpeg. I tend to shoot in RAW so I can quickly adjust WB in DPP; this is the primary reason I shoot in RAW.

[Turn]

I can see a bit of colour ickyness in the photo due to the increased exposure

really, you should try get the best first time and only slightly underexpose if the shutterspeed is too low

[zmikers]

I can see a bit of colour ickyness in the photo due to the increased exposure

really, you should try get the best first time and only slightly underexpose if the shutterspeed is too low

Turn, I agree with you 100% here, but I don't really think that was the purpose of this thread. I think it was just an example of what RAW can do for you. When showing examples I think it's best to show extremes and that's not saying that anyone would really shoot that way.

In saying that, Don I also agree with you that this could probably be done just as well in jpeg especially in Lightroom, even the white balance. I would love to see some exampels of correcting extreme over exposures......Again, not that I hope to extremely over expose and then expect to make a perfect pic out of it, but I am curious none the less.:)

[Turn]

Turn, I agree with you 100% here, but I don't really think that was the purpose of this thread. I think it was just an example of what RAW can do for you. When showing examples I think it's best to show extremes and that's not saying that anyone would really shoot that way.

In saying that, Don I also agree with you that this could probably be done just as well in jpeg especially in Lightroom, even the white balance. I would love to see some exampels of correcting extreme over exposures......Again, not that I hope to extremely over expose and then expect to make a perfect pic out of it, but I am curious none the less.:)

good point :)

I just can't sometimes see a reason for RAW..like I've shot in RAW for whole days and found that it was only a few photos that needed say a really big white balance change that Photoshop couldn't do..

I'm a fast shooter, like I'm always moving and shooting quickly (its how I work) so the time it takes for RAW to capture sometimes messes me up and yeh I just think its unnecessary except for some situations

[zmikers]

good point :)

I just can't sometimes see a reason for RAW..like I've shot in RAW for whole days and found that it was only a few photos that needed say a really big white balance change that Photoshop couldn't do..

I'm a fast shooter, like I'm always moving and shooting quickly (its how I work) so the time it takes for RAW to capture sometimes messes me up and yeh I just think its unnecessary except for some situations

Fair enough. That is a good point too, especially with programs out there that can do to jpegs pretty much what can be done to RAW, like lightroom for example.

This is not an arguement but a genuine question because I don't know the answer:p......If you are doing something like HDR and you are only using one shot that has over and under exposed portions, is it easier to get detail from those areas if the photo is shot in RAW rather than jpeg? If this is true, I know it still supports what you were saying about "some situations." Anyways, just curious:)

[cdifoto]

I would love to see some exampels of correcting extreme over exposures......Again, not that I hope to extremely over expose and then expect to make a perfect pic out of it, but I am curious none the less.:)

I had a one stop overexposure comparison thread awhile back but I deleted the attachments. I'll re-work it later today if I remember.

[zmikers]

I had a one stop overexposure comparison thread awhile back but I deleted the attachments. I'll re-work it later today if I remember.

Cheers for that. I guess I could get off my ars and do some experiments myself......:p

[cwphoto]

I agree with you on this one Don. You could probably adjust this exposure just as well in jpeg. I tend to shoot in RAW so I can quickly adjust WB in DPP; this is the primary reason I shoot in RAW.

Good luck trying to pull those shadows out of a JPEG.

[24Peter]

Good luck trying to pull those shadows out of a JPEG.

You might be surprised Christian. I'm working on a shoot right now where many of my shots were underexposed 1-2 stops and I'm having great luck pulling up the shadow detail from my 40D jpegs. Don't know if it's the new 14 bit processor or what, but I'm seeing far better shadow detail than I think I would have gotten out of my XT.

Just for the record for the newbies out there, you can absolutely adjust white balance and overall exposure on jpegs - don't need to shoot RAW for that.

FWIW - when I got my 40D, I bought an 8GB Extreme III card so I could finally start shooting RAW (+jpeg). Well, using both DPP and ACR I saw little or no advantage between my RAW processed shots and the out of camera .jpegs. For me, the amount of work involved in processing RAW files wasn't worth the slight potential advantage of shooting RAW to recover mildly blown highlights. If you're able to properly expose a photo, IMO out of camera jpegs are fine. Now I don't shoot white wedding dresses next to black tuxedos all day - there might be some advantage there. But for my shooting jpegs are fine.

EDIT: So there! :p (I was a bit serious this morning - sorry. You want to shoot RAW, be my guest. None of my business. I'll keep quiet from now on. :eek: )

[timmciglobal]

I've got to ask... what are the boys doing laying on floor?

Tim

[zmikers]

EDIT: So there! :p (I was a bit serious this morning - sorry. You want to shoot RAW, be my guest. None of my business. I'll keep quiet from now on. :eek: )

Really. I thought it was perfectly fine what you posted. It wasn't too serious. In fact it was good information, cheers for the post.

[droopy1592]

Working with raw on 8 bit per channel monitors probably won't show any differrence anyway...

[GaryS]

tim, the boys are pretending they have drowned... The others are supposed to try to wake them up, and then call for help or something.

24peter, I didn't think you were harsh or anything. It was a good post, so don't keep quiet!

[cdr116]

Is the kid on the right not enjoying the view up the lady's towel?