RAW and bracketing?

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> If you shoot at a low ISO, most raw converters will allow you to adjust the
> "exposure" by one or more stops in either direction with _almost_ no loss of
> image quality. Almost being the operative term here. (Some raw converters
> are better than others: Canon's DPP is almost useless for this

What's wrong with it? I've tried it and the converter that works
inside Photoshop, and while I dislike Canon's as it is less
feature-laden, it seems to work OK.

Doug McDonald
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and bracketing? 

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald.RemoveThis@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>> If you shoot at a low ISO, most raw converters will allow you to adjust
>> the "exposure" by one or more stops in either direction with _almost_ no
>> loss of image quality. Almost being the operative term here. (Some raw
>> converters are better than others: Canon's DPP is almost useless for this
>
> What's wrong with it?

I wasn't able to persuade it's exposure adjustment function to give me any
more highlight information than the default conversion. I.e. adjusting
exposure downward just shifts the histogram down and shifts in zeros for the
highlights. Lightroom and RSP shift in real information from the raw capture
that had been lost in the default conversion.

> I've tried it and the converter that works
> inside Photoshop, and while I dislike Canon's as it is less
> feature-laden, it seems to work OK.

There may be a way to get it to give back the highlights, but I haven't
figured it out.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and bracketing? 

On Mar 14, 4:09 am, "DeanB" <deanbrow... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> The book Digital Photography, by Kelby, states in a sub note that if
> you take RAW photos, there is almost no need for exposure bracketing
> any more. Is this a mistake or not? Could someone please explain why
> this would be the case?

I would not say that there is no need for exposure bracketing when
shooting raw, but the need is far less. When I shoot in jpeg mode I
did a fair bit of bracketing because even a little over exposed could
ruin the shot, When shooting raw it is rare that I need to bracket,
but I still will do it from time to time, when the lighting is very
tricky.

If I am shooting at high ISOs then I do a lot more bracketing since I
can't afford to underexpose at all, but at ISO 100 it is pretty hard
to miss an exposure.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and bracketing? 

"DeanB" <deanbrown3d.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173881398.072913.66720@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> The book Digital Photography, by Kelby, states in a sub note that if
> you take RAW photos, there is almost no need for exposure bracketing
> any more. Is this a mistake or not? Could someone please explain why
> this would be the case?
>
Because when you are bracketing the exposure in a digital camera, you are
really just changing the analog gain.
Now, assuming that you do not run into overexposure, you can perform the
same procedure in the raw converter.
Hence, there tends to be a much reduced need for bracketing in the camera.

Jim
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and bracketing? 

On 14 Mar 2007 07:09:58 -0700, "DeanB" <deanbrown3d RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

>The book Digital Photography, by Kelby, states in a sub note that if
>you take RAW photos, there is almost no need for exposure bracketing
>any more. Is this a mistake or not? Could someone please explain why
>this would be the case?

I can't see the logic in that. Bracketing is one way of getting the
correct exposure which is important to take advantage of the dynamic
range available.

Are you sure it wasn't white balance bracketing?
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and bracketing? 

In article <mnqgv211jcfucbm59jvi6mtsmifhtmaqvn.RemoveThis@4ax.com>, Westy
<noone.RemoveThis@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

> On 14 Mar 2007 07:09:58 -0700, "DeanB" <deanbrown3d.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >The book Digital Photography, by Kelby, states in a sub note that if
> >you take RAW photos, there is almost no need for exposure bracketing
> >any more. Is this a mistake or not? Could someone please explain why
> >this would be the case?
>

Bracketing is better.

Yes, you can adjust the exposure with raw files (pet peeve note: "raw"
is *not* an acronym and is not properly used in ALL CAPS, despite the
overwhelmng tendency to do so by most). But it's better to shoot it
right rather than adjusting. With film that cost money (e.g., film,
processing, printing). With digital, it costs nothing but a few
electrons.

It's that simple.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and bracketing? 

"DeanB" <deanbrown3d.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173881398.072913.66720@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> The book Digital Photography, by Kelby, states in a sub note that if
> you take RAW photos, there is almost no need for exposure bracketing
> any more. Is this a mistake or not? Could someone please explain why
> this would be the case?
>
I don't agree. RAW gives you about a stop of extra latitude. If you were 1.5
stops off or more, braketing would have helped.
John
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and bracketing? 

"DeanB" <deanbrown3d.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173881398.072913.66720@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> The book Digital Photography, by Kelby, states in a sub note that if
> you take RAW photos, there is almost no need for exposure bracketing
> any more. Is this a mistake or not? Could someone please explain why
> this would be the case?
>

I tend to disagree. You still want to have correct exposure regardless of
shooting raw or jpg. Raw can only do so much, and it's easier to convert a
raw that has proper exposure - one less thing you need to adjust for.

Mark
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and bracketing? 

"DeanB" <deanbrown3d.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1173881398.072913.66720
@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> The book Digital Photography, by Kelby, states in a sub note that if
> you take RAW photos, there is almost no need for exposure bracketing
> any more. Is this a mistake or not? Could someone please explain why
> this would be the case?

RAW gives you more latitude than JPEG, but there is still such a thing as
an optimal RAW exposure (which would most likely result in a blown or pale
JPEG).

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS.TakeThisOut@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and bracketing? 

Doug McDonald <mcdonald.TakeThisOut@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in
news:et95hv$mff$2@news.ks.uiuc.edu:


> What's wrong with it? I've tried it and the converter that works
> inside Photoshop, and while I dislike Canon's as it is less
> feature-laden, it seems to work OK.

DPP, like all Canon software, pretends that the top 1/3 to 1/2 stop of RAW
highlights don't exist, and clips them. That might be to simplify the
converter so it doesn't have to deal with different cameras differently.
This attitude extends into the EOS 30D, where some of the "extra 1/3-stop
ISOs" throw away the top 1/3 stop in the RAW data, making it inferior to
making the exposure adjustment yourself.



--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS.TakeThisOut@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and bracketing?