for those who ask about RAW vs JPG. a good example

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Hugo Drax, Jul 16, 2004.

  1. Hugo Drax

    Hugo Drax Guest

    Flip through the different test images and you will see the difference RAW
    does when you encounter a big oops in exposure etc..
    it could be the difference between spending money on a reshoot or actually
    getting a image that is printable. and sometimes a reshoot can get
    expensive.

    http://www.pbase.com/hugodrax/miscpics
     
    Hugo Drax, Jul 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Hugo Drax

    Paul H. Guest

    That's a strange comment because sometimes post-processing or editing is
    essential for anything other than simple snapshots. Before an exposure is
    made, a photographer has absolute control over four things:
    composition/framing, shutter speed, aperture, and filter-stacking but only
    the latter three govern exposure. That's it. If you're really lucky, you
    might have some control over external lighting using flash or reflectors.

    Neither film nor digital imagers respond to light the way the human eye
    does, nor do they have any idea about what you're trying to do with the
    picture artistically, so, as the old saying goes, you have to expose for the
    highlights and develop for the shadows, whether using filim or digital.
    Well, guess what? The "develop" part for digital cameras sometimes means
    post-processing, i.e., editing photos, to achieve a well-balanced
    properly-exposed-looking print.

    Do the best film photographers just drop their shots off at a local one-hour
    photo booth and hope for the best? Not hardly. Professional
    photographers--and Ansel Adams is probably the most-referenced
    example--spend as much or more time in the darkroom with a negative and
    print as they did in setting up and taking their shots in the first place.
    Terms like "dodging", "burning", and "contrast masking" weren't invented for
    Photoshop, but instead describe actual physical *editing* techniques used by
    film photographers to change the appearance of their prints as they're being
    exposed to paper. Dodging, for example, involves interposing
    objects--sometimes just fingers--between the enlarger lens and the paper to
    differentially govern exposure over sections of the frame. Thank heavens,
    we digital photographers don't have to go through such gymnastics, nor do we
    have to pay for the stacks of expensive photo paper resulting from mistakes.
    But we often have virtually edit, or post-process, all the same.

    So even if the goal is a realistic-looking landscape, there is absolutely
    nothing philosophically or artistically wrong about post-processing RAW
    images from a digital camera. Post-processing doesn't always imply a lack
    of skill and often it's the only way to get a print worth a second look.
     
    Paul H., Jul 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Hugo Drax

    Paul H. Guest

    <snip>

    Oh, excuse me: I hadn't realized you were a know-nothing, troll-wannabe.
    My mistake, bunky.
     
    Paul H., Jul 16, 2004
    #3
  4. []
    Seems a peculiar way of putting it! The juxtaposition of "sometimes" and
    "essential".

    I must admit that regard post-processing as something with which to rescue
    photographs that have somehow gone wrong, or where joining or geometric
    correction was intended at taking time. It would would be nice to have
    12-bit JPEG, though!

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 16, 2004
    #4
  5. Hugo Drax

    Hugo Drax Guest

    This post was to show a worst case scenario and how powerful RAW is
    regarding information that can be recovered VS JPEG. Obviously the optimal
    method is to properly expose but there is more to it than just having
    perfectly exposed images. My workflow is much faster using RAW vs JPG, I
    always give each shot a quick lookover and batch them away its fast and
    efficient. I have several custom workflow settings/modified camera profiles
    etc.. for different uses, some people like the look of velvia others the
    look of realia or portra some like neutral accurate colors etc... it is so
    much faster to batch custom jobs for people VIA RAW. Maybe you never
    experienced time in a darkroom but I consider the postprocess work darkroom
    time and that is always just as important as taking the picture.

    There is no better, it all depends on your requirements and your customers
    requirements.
     
    Hugo Drax, Jul 16, 2004
    #5
  6. Hugo Drax

    Hugo Drax Guest

    but humans are not perfect so when an ooops occurs its always good to know
    there is always a little extra help.
    The main thing I use postprocess work is for custom color, sort of adding a
    little sizzle or flavor to the steak :)
     
    Hugo Drax, Jul 16, 2004
    #6
  7. Hugo Drax

    Paul H. Guest

    "Sometimes" and "essential" are together to express the thought, "When you
    need post-processing, you often REALLY need it."

    "Essential" in my sentence applied to specific instances of the class of
    all photos, some of which will need no editing whatsoever, others of which
    will require substantial editing. For example, if you take a picture of a
    piece of shiny jewelry under completely flat (non-directional) lighting, you
    will not have to edit it; however, if you take a photo of the same
    composition under strongly directional light, you'll likely have to stop
    down the exposure to avoid blowing out highlights and then bring up the
    darker areas in post-processing. Whether or not editing is required depends
    upon the individual photo, but when editing is necessary, it's sometimes
    essential _for the particular photo in question_.

    I do a lot of landscape/nature photography. Shots in a wood under cloudy
    skies always come out of the camera quite nice, but shots taken with
    sunlight filtering down through the leaves nearly always require adjustment
    for acceptable exposures because the dynamic range requirement of the scene
    is drastically increased. Hence, editing is _essential_ for the latter type
    of photo, but not for the former.

    If all shots were studio shots, there would be much less need for
    post-processing. Sorry for the apparent confusion.

    I agree. The more bits per color channel, the happier I'll be. Makes me
    wonder how many bits might be required to actually mimic the response of the
    eye.
     
    Paul H., Jul 17, 2004
    #7
  8. Hugo Drax

    Paul H. Guest

    I didn't intend to criticize anyone! I was simply stating there are
    legitimate uses for post-processing, whether you shoot RAW or JPEG and that
    post-processing has an honorable history, extending back into the dim past
    of film-only days.
     
    Paul H., Jul 17, 2004
    #8
  9. []
    Paul,

    Thanks for that clarification, and about the subject matter that routinely
    needs post-processing. Of course, digital does have a straight-line
    characteristic transfer curve, lacking the shadow "toe" and highlight
    capture ability which film has, whereas the eye is more logarithmic -
    providing it with a great dynamic range. We did talk some time ago here
    as to whether a log sensor and processing chain might be a better way to
    go - but there would be great noise problems at the sensor end......

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 17, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.