Troy's RAW Roo Shootout!

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Troy Piggins, Aug 17, 2007.

  1. Troy Piggins

    Troy Piggins Guest

    Ok, since some people have been kind enough to take the time to
    post-process my crap photo from an 800x533 jpg file, I thought it
    would be interesting to post the RAW file and the converted JPG
    file 3504x2336 untouched to see what can be done in terms of
    sharpness and colour.

    I understand if you think this is pretty tedious for you. It is
    not me challenging anyone to do better. I just got the
    impression that better could be done if the RAW file or full-size
    JPG were available.

    And I thought it might be relevant because I have recently read
    some debate about RAW vs JPG formats and their merits recently.
    I didn't read too much into them at the time, but it seems apt


    Troy Piggins, Aug 17, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Troy Piggins

    Noons Guest

    I don't have s/w to process Canon raw so I had to use the jpg.
    this is a quick stab at sharpen/colour balance it:
    Quite sure much better can be done from the RAW.
    Noons, Aug 17, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Troy Piggins

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Aug 17, 2007
  4. Troy Piggins

    Troy Piggins Guest

    * Annika1980 is quoted & my replies are inline below :
    OMG don't start a pun war! You'll roo-in this thread, and that'd
    be raw-ful. Sorry, those were terrible.
    Thanks. Isn't that the one from the other day? From the 800x533
    jpg? Isn't the RAW file any easier/better to handle?
    Will do. So do you think part of the problem was simply
    over-exposure? Come to think of it, if I was shooting in Av mode
    with that aperture and ISO, 1/8000 was probably the limit of how
    fast it could go and it /would/ overexpose. Bugger.
    Troy Piggins, Aug 17, 2007
  5. Troy Piggins

    PixelPix Guest

    Here is my take from the RAW file, processed Capture One.....

    I have found the other images quite saturated and the roo appearing
    too orange. So my personal preference is to keep the roo looking

    As far as the sharpness goes.... well it is sharp, but the plain of
    focus is very shallow (because of shooting at f2.8) and runs through
    the roos foot/joey's head area.....

    So all in all it's not a bad shot, just needed a little for depth of


    Photography Help Blog:
    PixelPix, Aug 17, 2007
  6. Troy Piggins

    Troy Piggins Guest

    * Noons is quoted & my replies are inline below :
    Troy Piggins, Aug 17, 2007
  7. Troy Piggins

    PixelPix Guest

    Oh! I should mention... if your system is not calibrated to industry
    standard display specs, there is no guaranty that this image will
    present to you, as it does on my system. ;-)
    PixelPix, Aug 17, 2007
  8. Troy Piggins

    Annika1980 Guest

    Only slight differences at web resolution. The full-sized version
    from the RAW file looks much better, especially in terms of
    Annika1980, Aug 17, 2007
  9. Troy Piggins

    Troy Piggins Guest

    * PixelPix is quoted & my replies are inline below :
    Russell that's the best PP on that image yet IMO. Thanks! Don't
    suppose you could paint in the legs and tail? :)
    I agree about the orange.
    Yep. I have since downloaded a DOF calculator for my XDA so I
    can calculate the DOF for lens/aperture combos until I get a feel
    for it myself. I know I could use the DOF preview button on
    camera, but I always find it too dark and doesn't help my eye.

    Thanks again.
    Troy Piggins, Aug 17, 2007
  10. Troy Piggins

    PixelPix Guest

    Over exposure is not a problem.... it's only about 1/2 a stop over and
    well within acceptable limits for correction.

    Shooting at f2.8 has given you more of a problem with the shallow DOF
    that's all.
    PixelPix, Aug 17, 2007
  11. Troy Piggins

    PixelPix Guest

    hehe... if it had to be done, it could be done. ;-)
    PixelPix, Aug 17, 2007
  12. Troy Piggins

    N Guest

    That's what "composing with your feet" is all about. :)
    N, Aug 17, 2007
  13. Troy Piggins

    Troy Piggins Guest

    * N is quoted & my replies are inline below :
    Touche :)
    Troy Piggins, Aug 18, 2007
  14. Troy Piggins

    Poxy Guest

    Nice work, and good call on the saturation.
    Poxy, Aug 18, 2007
  15. Troy Piggins

    Noons Guest

    Noons, Aug 18, 2007
  16. Troy Piggins

    Smee Guest

    Smee, Aug 18, 2007
  17. Troy Piggins

    Troy Piggins Guest

    * Smee is quoted & my replies are inline below :
    Good one. Definitely better than the one I did.

    Did you use the RAW file, the full-size jpg, or the first posted
    800x533 jpg? I note yours is sized 800x533 but am unsure if you
    resized it or not.
    Troy Piggins, Aug 18, 2007
  18. Troy Piggins

    Rob Guest

    With all the different methods that could have been used to enhance a
    somewhat poorly presented image. Could we now have some details.

    What program and methods, have been used to arrive at your final image?

    Don't just post your image!

    I'm certain the Troy and myself would like to know.

    Rob, Aug 18, 2007
  19. Troy Piggins

    Smee Guest

    I used the Raw file and resized it.
    I have cs3 so used the raw converter to get rid of the excess glare
    under post processing and carefully used the shadow/highlight tool, the
    other tool used was the selective colour tool and adjusted the neutral
    Last thing was to sharpen it using one of my sharpening actions and then
    resized it using a very very slight sharpen.
    I made sure it wasn't oversaturated since kangas are not really that
    Smee, Aug 18, 2007
  20. OK, here's mine:

    ....and here's my workflow:

    1 Convert the raw file to TIFF (8 bit, sRGB) in Capture 1, with a bit
    of a trim on the hightlight end (watching the histogram), and some
    darkening (by eye, on profiled monitor)

    2 In PhotoShop, further trimming on highlight level, and further curves
    adjustment to darken a little further

    3 Capture sharpen (PhotoKit plugin)

    4 Downsize to 800px wide (using Fred Miranda's Web Presenter Pro plugin)

    5 Output sharpen (PhotoKit plugin)

    6 Save for web (fairly high quality setting, by eye)

    I agree with Rusty about the shallow depth of field. 1/1000s at F/8 at
    200 iso would be my choice with your lens and camera.

    How nice to be having a constructive discussion here -- is this really Am I dreaming?

    Peter Marquis-Kyle
    Peter Marquis-Kyle, Aug 18, 2007
    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.