Welcome to DigiForumz.com!
FAQFAQ    SearchSearch      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in

RAW question

 
   Digital Camera Community (Home) -> General Discussions RSS
Next:  Vu Point DV 330  
Author Message
bodhisoma

External


Since: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 7



(Msg. 1) Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:17 am
Post subject: RAW question
Archived from groups: rec>photo>digital (more info?)

Greetings,

I'm using Nikon Capture 4 to process the RAW files from my D50. Under
the "Advanced RAW" toolbar, there is an slider labeled "Exp Comp" with
a -2 to +2 range.

I understand that RAWs are unprocessed captures from the sensor and so
I grasp the negative half of the slider but not the positive half. How
can you get more light out of the digital negative than actually hit
the sensor? Seems like if this really worked then I'd be getting
something for nothing so I assume I don't understand it properly.

Help?

Also, are there any programs that will allow me to "fast" post-process
my RAW images? In other words, I *could* set my capture be RAW+JPG
but that takes up extra space. I'm just looking for a piece of
software that emulates what would have happened in-camera to create
that JPG.

Thanks,
Jason

 >> Stay informed about: RAW question 
Back to top
Login to vote
Mike Russell

External


Since: Dec 22, 2005
Posts: 287



(Msg. 2) Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:28 am
Post subject: Re: RAW question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

<bodhisoma.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166955443.090204.172410@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Greetings,
>
> I'm using Nikon Capture 4 to process the RAW files from my D50. Under
> the "Advanced RAW" toolbar, there is an slider labeled "Exp Comp" with
> a -2 to +2 range.
>
> I understand that RAWs are unprocessed captures from the sensor and so
> I grasp the negative half of the slider but not the positive half. How
> can you get more light out of the digital negative than actually hit
> the sensor? Seems like if this really worked then I'd be getting
> something for nothing so I assume I don't understand it properly.

There are extra bits in a raw image that normally do not contribute to the
final jpeg image. In some situations there is actual image data in those
bits. Though the final result will not be equal to that from a well exposed
original, you can rescue some shadow detail this way. In particular, shadow
detail in a severely underexposed image can be rescued, when the jpeg image
made at that same exposure has little or no shadow detail.

> Also, are there any programs that will allow me to "fast" post-process
> my RAW images? In other words, I *could* set my capture be RAW+JPG
> but that takes up extra space. I'm just looking for a piece of
> software that emulates what would have happened in-camera to create
> that JPG.

Adobe Camera Raw allows batch processing of raw images to jpegs, and I
believe that Nikon Capture can do the same.

There is, IMHO, a false mystique about raw images. If you are not processing
your raw images individually, you may be getting no better results than a
high quality jpeg with carefully set white balance and exposure. Having
said that, many photographers and editors swear by raw mode. If I had one
chance for one great image, I would probably shoot in raw mode, just to
squeeze the last drop of potential quality out of the opportunity.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

 >> Stay informed about: RAW question 
Back to top
Login to vote
Adrian Boliston

External


Since: Apr 14, 2006
Posts: 180



(Msg. 3) Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:55 am
Post subject: Re: RAW question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Mike Russell" <RE-MOVEmike.DeleteThis@Curvemeister.comRE-MOVE> wrote in message
news:DDsjh.17763$QU1.938@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...

> There is, IMHO, a false mystique about raw images. If you are not
> processing your raw images individually, you may be getting no better
> results than a high quality jpeg with carefully set white balance and
> exposure.

I find that quite often the in-camera WB & exposure are just right when I'm
shooting raw, so it's simply a matter of opening the NEF and printing it, or
resizing & saving as a jpg if it's for web or email use. With the cost of
sd & cf cards getting less all the time then I can't really see any
advantage to shooting jpeg.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk
 >> Stay informed about: RAW question 
Back to top
Login to vote
Arnor Baldvinsson

External


Since: Dec 08, 2006
Posts: 36



(Msg. 4) Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:56 pm
Post subject: Re: RAW question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Hi Mike,

> said that, many photographers and editors swear by raw mode. If I had one
> chance for one great image, I would probably shoot in raw mode, just to
> squeeze the last drop of potential quality out of the opportunity.

I agree. I'm not a pro, but I hope to be some day, and I had been shoting
in RAW+JPEG as I had been able to "salvage" some shots from RAW that I
wouldn't have from JPEG (blown out highlights). But as I got better at
taking the photos I realized that I hardly ever looked at the RAW images.
So when I went on vacation this fall and the first stop were the balloon
races in Reno I decided to just take JPEGs. I did shoot a few RAW shots of
things where I wanted to make sure I got everything. I'd rather shoot JPEG
and improve my photography so that I'm satisfied with the JPEGs as then I
feel that I will know when I _need_ to use RAW and when I don't. Since you
helped me with that photo back in November I have realized that I would use
RAW when the light was low or the light color was very odd and using
graycard and custom WB wouldn't quite cut it. BTW: That photo came out
great on 8x10 and I gave it to my friend, framed and all and he was very
happy with it. I also gave him a copy to give to the honor guard guy who
was just thrilled - first time anyone had give him a photo like that!
Thanks again and Merry Christmas:)

--
Arnor Baldvinsson
San Antonio, Texas
 >> Stay informed about: RAW question 
Back to top
Login to vote
Mike Russell

External


Since: Dec 22, 2005
Posts: 287



(Msg. 5) Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:46 pm
Post subject: Re: RAW question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Arnor Baldvinsson" <photong.TakeThisOut@icetips.com> wrote in message
news:tdyjh.29$ji1.24@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> BTW: That photo came out great on 8x10 and I gave it to my friend, framed
> and all and he was very happy with it. I also gave him a copy to give to
> the honor guard guy who was just thrilled - first time anyone had give him
> a photo like that! Thanks again and Merry Christmas:)

I'm delighted to hear this - it was a rewarding image to help with.

Best holiday wishes to you.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/
 >> Stay informed about: RAW question 
Back to top
Login to vote
Alan Browne

External


Since: May 22, 2006
Posts: 87



(Msg. 6) Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 2:04 pm
Post subject: Re: RAW question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

bodhisoma DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I'm using Nikon Capture 4 to process the RAW files from my D50. Under
> the "Advanced RAW" toolbar, there is an slider labeled "Exp Comp" with
> a -2 to +2 range.
>
> I understand that RAWs are unprocessed captures from the sensor and so
> I grasp the negative half of the slider but not the positive half. How
> can you get more light out of the digital negative than actually hit
> the sensor? Seems like if this really worked then I'd be getting
> something for nothing so I assume I don't understand it properly.

You can't get "more light" but you can shift the highlights over to
where they are supposed to be. If the Nikon Capture s/w shows a
histogram (I use Adobe...), and if the image has good highlights (white
areas, properly exposed, for example), then increase the setting until
the right "content" of the histogram is close to the maximum.

This, in effect, corrects the exposure (assuming there was white or near
white in it) resulting in more saturated colors. If the change is
small, then the "noise" added will be small.

This also increases quantization noise in the lesser exposed areas...
which in a final print often will not show at all.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
 >> Stay informed about: RAW question 
Back to top
Login to vote
"Ed Ruf

External


Since: May 29, 2006
Posts: 376



(Msg. 7) Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:17 pm
Post subject: Re: RAW question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: RAW question 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
Related Topics:
MP question. - Hello all, I have a question that I hope someone, or persons can answer, an fill me in on the needed information. I am going to make the move to get back into photography, and am going to go ahead and get digital. I am after good sharp photos. And..

Removal of Pet "Red Eye" Question??? - We have a lovely Shih Tzu puppy. When I need to use a flash to take his picture - he rarely sits still - occassionally I will only have time to use the small on-camera flash. Often this results in "yellow eye" (or the pet equivalent of human's ...

Portfolio Question - What size photographs should your porfolio contain? 8x6? 8x8? 8x10? -- CoolAzzRob*** Still Doing It Well Despite The Haterz RollingBlueThunder.com BlackBikeWeek.info KiMoMi.net

Question for the master Roy G - Okay, said the student to the master, when I print a full bleed (borderless) be it a photo, PS2 document, Quark document, even a word document, the right and bottom are always cut off, almost a centimeter. The printer settings are set at 8.5 by 11. I..

Lens Question - Hi, I have an 80-200 f2.8 Nikon Zoom left over from a late and totally unlamented F-100 that I used to own. It was the most unreliable and fragile 35mm that I've ever had! Anyway- it seems that when you use 35mm lenses on digital cameras there are..
   Digital Camera Community (Home) -> General Discussions All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Page 1 of 1

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]