Recolouring pics

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by Grey, Jan 24, 2008.

  1. Grey

    Grey Guest

    I have taken some nice scenic pics on my EOS400D, but I took them in RAW
    format and they seem fairly lacklustre.
    I had another camera which took .jpgs and they are spectacular. If I had
    turned off RAW and took jpgs, using the landscape setting, the camera would
    have brought out the blues and greens far better (as it subsequently did and
    have not used RAW since).

    Obviously, jpgs have colour processing done in the camera and RAW's don't.
    But I want to recreate that processing to make something of my images. Any
    ideas?

    Thanks,

    Graham
     
    Grey, Jan 24, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Grey

    Trev Guest

    It would depend on how they where converted. They are the raw date that goes
    to make up the image, as such you can controll the convertion into the
    finished image.
    http://www.rawtherapee.com/
     
    Trev, Jan 24, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Grey

    Woody Guest


    The results you can get after editing RAW are way way better than jpg, but it takes time and effort.

    You will need a good package that can handle RAW - Adobe Elements 5 or 6 is a good start if you can't afford (or justify) the full Photoshop. You can download Picasa2 from picasa.google.com which will allow you rudimentary editing but not much - oh, and its free.

    Get yourself a good book on how to edit RAW files, or get a photo mag as most months one or other of them has articles on how to edit RAW and usually a CDRom to go with it. Surprisingly Expensive World is a good place to look for photo books - then buy it from Amazon or wherever you can find it cheapest.

    Finally be prepared to spend (cumulatively) perhaps 10 hours or even more to learn how to do it and get the right results. One tip: get your monitor set up properly - be that by hand or with one of the 'spider' devices that you can buy (at a price!) It's not a good idea to spend hours trying to get the picture right on screen only for it to print 20 shades light (as is usually the case!!)
     
    Woody, Jan 24, 2008
    #3
  4. Grey

    MC Guest

    Does not the 400d allow you to save as RAW and JPEG in one shot. Should do
    as the 350d does. You can then compare. You will also have a RAW version
    for superior conversion (to TIFF etc) and image manipulation.

    Shooting nothing JPEG is a waste.

    MC
     
    MC, Jan 25, 2008
    #4
  5. Grey

    simon Guest


    RAW files are differently formatted depending on which manufacturer
    and even which camera I have just got a new D40 and was thinking of
    playing about with some RAW files, however I discovered last night
    that my Adobe elements does not support the D40 NEF files although it
    will support my Coolpix 8800 . Elements / Paintshop pro etc, might
    be good enough with with JPG files for now?

    Simon
     
    simon, Jan 31, 2008
    #5
  6. Its always far better to shoot in RAW for scenery/model photos - anything
    that you want a high quality photograph of. (Different if youre shooting a
    kids birthday party - jpeg is the answer there).
    The biggest advantage of RAW Vs. Jpg is that the *adjustments* to the image
    are far more subtle than you'll ever get from Jpeg - jpeg by its very nature
    was created to that it *could* be compressed - this was the reason it was
    created. If you get yourself the correct software for reading and adjusting
    RAW (I use photoshop CS3) then you'll instantly see the benefits of it.

    Rgds,
    Kev
     
    McKev \(yay!\), Apr 29, 2008
    #6
    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.