Working with RAW for Dummies

Mike Russell wrote:
> Others fall a bit short, from a composition standpoint, for example
> including the sign in the lower right corner of the Cornish boiler weakens
> the image, which would benefit from being cropped.

Ah. But how would you have known that it is a cornish boiler otherwise?

 >> Stay informed about: Working with RAW for Dummies 

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 07:05:51 +0000, jmc wrote:

> Ah, so I've just come back from my first full day of shooting. I now
> have 142 RAW images.
>
> First, is RAW truly that? Absolutely no adjustments applied? Where can
> I read up on how to take better pictures in RAW?

Canon's site http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/dpp2/index.html
Ron Bigelow's articles http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm


--
gautam
 >> Stay informed about: Working with RAW for Dummies 

acl wrote:
> Mike Russell wrote:
>> Others fall a bit short, from a composition standpoint, for example
>> including the sign in the lower right corner of the Cornish boiler weakens
>> the image, which would benefit from being cropped.
>
> Ah. But how would you have known that it is a cornish boiler otherwise?

Yeah. I thought it was a Lancashire boiler at first......

--
john mcwilliams
 >> Stay informed about: Working with RAW for Dummies 

Roy G wrote:
> "acl" <achilleaslazarides.RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1168698524.294931.91940@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Mike Russell wrote:
> >> Others fall a bit short, from a composition standpoint, for example
> >> including the sign in the lower right corner of the Cornish boiler
> >> weakens
> >> the image, which would benefit from being cropped.
> >
> > Ah. But how would you have known that it is a cornish boiler otherwise?
> >
> >
>
> Hi.
>
> As Curvmeister says, cropping is vital to ensure your image has good
> composition.
>
> As a Club judge I see too many photos which are spoiled by lack of judicious
> cropping. It is a very common problem, and I have actually seen some judges
> using cardboard "L"s to demonstrate what should have been cropped off during
> their assessments.
>
> Cropping should be done individually, not batched. Prints should be made in
> whatever shape best suits the composition.
>
> They can later be matted to suit standard frame sizes. Indeed they always
> look better with some sort of matt betweeen them and the Frame.
>
> Sometimes it is neccesssary to make a slightly smaller print, so that it
> looks good on a mounting board. The top and side margins should never be
> larger than the bottom margin.

Hello. Three things:
a) They're not my photographs
b) I agree with what you say
c) I was joking
 >> Stay informed about: Working with RAW for Dummies 

why not read the articles on cambridgeincolour.com
they are very good.


"Gautam Majumdar" <gmajumdar.TakeThisOut@freeuk.com> schreef in bericht
news:pan.2007.01.13.08.09.26.718251.5652@freeuk.com...
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 07:05:51 +0000, jmc wrote:
>
>> Ah, so I've just come back from my first full day of shooting. I now
>> have 142 RAW images.
>>
>> First, is RAW truly that? Absolutely no adjustments applied? Where can
>> I read up on how to take better pictures in RAW?
>
> Canon's site http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/dpp2/index.html
> Ron Bigelow's articles http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm
>
>
> --
> gautam
 >> Stay informed about: Working with RAW for Dummies 

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:35:51 +0930, jmc wrote:

> Ah, so I've just come back from my first full day of shooting. I now
> have 142 RAW images.
>
> First, is RAW truly that? Absolutely no adjustments applied? Where can
> I read up on how to take better pictures in RAW? I'm getting rather
> different results with my current habits than I did with .jpg - I expect
> that but am not sure how I need ot do things different.
>
> So, now I got the images off the camera (man, that takes a while!) and
> am working with Digital Photo Professional.
>
> I've used Canon's software and attempted to make the appropriate
> adjustments, creating and copying recipes and such, and now I'm running
> a batch job that looks to take hours, converting them to .jpg into
> another folder. (I want to keep the original images just as taken)
>
> Is this life with RAW? Is there a primer somewheres that tells newbies
> like me what I *should* be doing with those RAW images before converting
> them to jpg for use? Is it supposed to take so long to convert each
> image (or do I have an excuse to upgrade my system?)
>
> I guess I'm just getting old. I had this workflow I've been using for
> years, and the Canon software + using RAW is just turning that on it's
> head. It's more the software than the image format, really, but I'm
> feeling a bit outside my zone, and don't want to ruin my photos.
>
> Anyway. I just feel like I'm flailing a bit, some sort of primer for
> people new to RAW and new to Canon's software's image processing
> workflow would be helpful.
>
> jmc

1) I'm certainly no expert, but I think those are really nice shots.

2) I'm also fairly new into processing raw. You should be able to find
some web pages to raw processing by doing a simple web search. I'd suggest
you look at some other tools, too. I've been exploring, in particular,
ufraw - an open source project, which seems to do most of what I will need
to do on a regular basis. Also looking interesting are bibble and
lightzone.
 >> Stay informed about: Working with RAW for Dummies 

"acl" <achilleaslazarides DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1168698524.294931.91940@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mike Russell wrote:
>> Others fall a bit short, from a composition standpoint, for example
>> including the sign in the lower right corner of the Cornish boiler
>> weakens
>> the image, which would benefit from being cropped.
>
> Ah. But how would you have known that it is a cornish boiler otherwise?
>
>

Hi.

As Curvmeister says, cropping is vital to ensure your image has good
composition.

As a Club judge I see too many photos which are spoiled by lack of judicious
cropping. It is a very common problem, and I have actually seen some judges
using cardboard "L"s to demonstrate what should have been cropped off during
their assessments.

Cropping should be done individually, not batched. Prints should be made in
whatever shape best suits the composition.

They can later be matted to suit standard frame sizes. Indeed they always
look better with some sort of matt betweeen them and the Frame.

Sometimes it is neccesssary to make a slightly smaller print, so that it
looks good on a mounting board. The top and side margins should never be
larger than the bottom margin.

Roy G
 >> Stay informed about: Working with RAW for Dummies 

Suddenly, without warning, Roy G exclaimed (14-Jan-07 1:40 AM):
> "acl" <achilleaslazarides DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1168698524.294931.91940@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Mike Russell wrote:
>>> Others fall a bit short, from a composition standpoint, for example
>>> including the sign in the lower right corner of the Cornish boiler
>>> weakens
>>> the image, which would benefit from being cropped.
>> Ah. But how would you have known that it is a cornish boiler otherwise?
>>
>>
>
> Hi.
>
> As Curvmeister says, cropping is vital to ensure your image has good
> composition.
>
> As a Club judge I see too many photos which are spoiled by lack of judicious
> cropping. It is a very common problem, and I have actually seen some judges
> using cardboard "L"s to demonstrate what should have been cropped off during
> their assessments.
>
> Cropping should be done individually, not batched. Prints should be made in
> whatever shape best suits the composition.
>
> They can later be matted to suit standard frame sizes. Indeed they always
> look better with some sort of matt betweeen them and the Frame.
>
> Sometimes it is neccesssary to make a slightly smaller print, so that it
> looks good on a mounting board. The top and side margins should never be
> larger than the bottom margin.
>
> Roy G
>
>

Roy:

Thanks. I have *always* cropped individually, all I've been doing is
individually cropping to common print sizes. Otherwise your comments
are well taken, and I'll custom crop my pics again from now on. I
rarely print them anyway, except for the occasional local photo contest.

I think that's when I got into the habit of cropping to print sizes,
particularly 8x10 - the last place I was, the contest only allowed 8x10
prints (which was annoying, 'cause I do a lot of panoramics).

Fortunately, the one I'm about to enter isn't so restrictive. Which
reminds me, I have another question to ask... (in a new post)

jmc
 >> Stay informed about: Working with RAW for Dummies 

Suddenly, without warning, jmc exclaimed (13-Jan-07 4:35 PM):
> Ah, so I've just come back from my first full day of shooting. I now
> have 142 RAW images.
>
> jmc

In case anyone's interested, I've put up some images of today's
adventure at
http://www.jodi.ws/australia/2007-01-13_arltunga/arltunga07_.html

I'd love comments & constructive criticisms on how I did for my first
time out with the new camera (and new format).

Comments on the website itself are also welcome.

jmc
 >> Stay informed about: Working with RAW for Dummies 

"jmc" <NOnewsgroupsSPAM.TakeThisOut@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote in message
news:50s1koF1h5alvU1@mid.individual.net...
> Suddenly, without warning, jmc exclaimed (13-Jan-07 4:35 PM):
>> Ah, so I've just come back from my first full day of shooting. I now
>> have 142 RAW images.
>
> In case anyone's interested, I've put up some images of today's adventure
> at http://www.jodi.ws/australia/2007-01-13_arltunga/arltunga07_.html
>
> I'd love comments & constructive criticisms on how I did for my first time
> out with the new camera (and new format).

The images and color look fine on the web page. I'm a bit leery of the
benefits of widespread use of raw in the first place, though it can be
valuable for certain images. My suggestion would be to use raw for an
occasional image and see what you can do to improve the tones of that
particular image, rather than batch processing all of them the same way. If
you're going to do that, there's no benefit, IMHO, over using jpeg.

You tend to include too much in each image, and the result is a weaker
composition. That said, some of your images - particularly those where a
particular object fills the frame - have very strong composition, such as
the chestnut horse, the windmill, and the last image of the stone house.
Others fall a bit short, from a composition standpoint, for example
including the sign in the lower right corner of the Cornish boiler weakens
the image, which would benefit from being cropped. Your weakest
compositions are the general landscapes, where you don't seem to have much
in the way of objects to lock on to, and there is a lack of foreground
interest in many of your images. I like your use of cropping for the image
of the three horses, which is one way to address the foreground problem.
The image of the two horses running across the road would look better with a
similar treatment. Another thought would be to use a longer lens for the
more distant subjects.

It's a matter of taste how much color to add to images like this - I tend to
crank the color up a notch, particularly for desert scenes, to stay in
keeping with my memory of what appear to be vivid colors in such a
relatively colorless world. Using curves, or other means, to increase the
contrast and tonality of important elements of the image would increase the
impact considerably.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/
 >> Stay informed about: Working with RAW for Dummies 

Suddenly, without warning, Mike Russell exclaimed (13-Jan-07 10:34 PM):
> "jmc" <NOnewsgroupsSPAM.RemoveThis@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote in message
> news:50s1koF1h5alvU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Suddenly, without warning, jmc exclaimed (13-Jan-07 4:35 PM):
>>> Ah, so I've just come back from my first full day of shooting. I now
>>> have 142 RAW images.
>> In case anyone's interested, I've put up some images of today's adventure
>> at http://www.jodi.ws/australia/2007-01-13_arltunga/arltunga07_.html
>>
>> I'd love comments & constructive criticisms on how I did for my first time
>> out with the new camera (and new format).
>
> The images and color look fine on the web page. I'm a bit leery of the
> benefits of widespread use of raw in the first place, though it can be
> valuable for certain images. My suggestion would be to use raw for an
> occasional image and see what you can do to improve the tones of that
> particular image, rather than batch processing all of them the same way. If
> you're going to do that, there's no benefit, IMHO, over using jpeg.
>
> You tend to include too much in each image, and the result is a weaker
> composition. That said, some of your images - particularly those where a
> particular object fills the frame - have very strong composition, such as
> the chestnut horse, the windmill, and the last image of the stone house.
> Others fall a bit short, from a composition standpoint, for example
> including the sign in the lower right corner of the Cornish boiler weakens
> the image, which would benefit from being cropped. Your weakest
> compositions are the general landscapes, where you don't seem to have much
> in the way of objects to lock on to, and there is a lack of foreground
> interest in many of your images. I like your use of cropping for the image
> of the three horses, which is one way to address the foreground problem.
> The image of the two horses running across the road would look better with a
> similar treatment. Another thought would be to use a longer lens for the
> more distant subjects.
>
> It's a matter of taste how much color to add to images like this - I tend to
> crank the color up a notch, particularly for desert scenes, to stay in
> keeping with my memory of what appear to be vivid colors in such a
> relatively colorless world. Using curves, or other means, to increase the
> contrast and tonality of important elements of the image would increase the
> impact considerably.

Thanks for your comments, especially about ways I can improve
composition. To be honest, although I try to take good photos always,
this was essentially a tourist expedition, which is why I included, for
instance, the sign on the boiler. But your comment on my landscapes is
well taken; guess I've gotten lazy - I do need to pay more attention to
how I'm composing my shots.

I blame the flies. We had some rain, and Outback Australia is notorious
for the most obnoxious flies in the world. Drives one crazy, it does,
not to mention making photography difficult. My camera can handle
cleaning dust; I bet it'd have more trouble handling the fuzzy black
spec of an Australian Bush Fly sitting on the lens I'm probably
going to have nightmares about them tonight as it is <g>.

I'm glad you like the crop of the three horses. I've been using the
4x10 panoramic crops a lot, for just the reason you state, but I've no
idea if that's a good or bad thing, if the subject isn't really a panorama.

As for a longer lens, that's the next project. I didn't want to spend a
good bit more $ on a second lens until I got used to the camera, and got
a better handle on just what I'll need next.

What I used to do was custom-crop all my pictures, which took care of
the "too much space" problem, but made good pictures difficult to print
and frame. I now use a utility that lets me choose crops based on
standard print sizes; I usually use 8x10, or 5x7 (or 4x10). Should I go
back to custom crops, do you think?

Again, thanks for your comments. I'll pay more attention to what I'm
doing next time out.

jmc
 >> Stay informed about: Working with RAW for Dummies 

jmc wrote:
> Suddenly, without warning, Mike Russell exclaimed (13-Jan-07 10:34 PM):
>> "jmc" <NOnewsgroupsSPAM.RemoveThis@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote in message
>> news:50s1koF1h5alvU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Suddenly, without warning, jmc exclaimed (13-Jan-07 4:35 PM):
>>>> Ah, so I've just come back from my first full day of shooting. I
>>>> now have 142 RAW images.
>>> In case anyone's interested, I've put up some images of today's
>>> adventure at
>>> http://www.jodi.ws/australia/2007-01-13_arltunga/arltunga07_.html
>>>
>>> I'd love comments & constructive criticisms on how I did for my first
>>> time out with the new camera (and new format).
>>
>> The images and color look fine on the web page. I'm a bit leery of
>> the benefits of widespread use of raw in the first place, though it
>> can be valuable for certain images. My suggestion would be to use raw
>> for an occasional image and see what you can do to improve the tones
>> of that particular image, rather than batch processing all of them the
>> same way. If you're going to do that, there's no benefit, IMHO, over
>> using jpeg.
>>
>> You tend to include too much in each image, and the result is a weaker
>> composition. That said, some of your images - particularly those
>> where a particular object fills the frame - have very strong
>> composition, such as the chestnut horse, the windmill, and the last
>> image of the stone house. Others fall a bit short, from a composition
>> standpoint, for example including the sign in the lower right corner
>> of the Cornish boiler weakens the image, which would benefit from
>> being cropped. Your weakest compositions are the general landscapes,
>> where you don't seem to have much in the way of objects to lock on to,
>> and there is a lack of foreground interest in many of your images. I
>> like your use of cropping for the image of the three horses, which is
>> one way to address the foreground problem. The image of the two horses
>> running across the road would look better with a similar treatment.
>> Another thought would be to use a longer lens for the more distant
>> subjects.
>>
>> It's a matter of taste how much color to add to images like this - I
>> tend to crank the color up a notch, particularly for desert scenes, to
>> stay in keeping with my memory of what appear to be vivid colors in
>> such a relatively colorless world. Using curves, or other means, to
>> increase the contrast and tonality of important elements of the image
>> would increase the impact considerably.
>
> Thanks for your comments, especially about ways I can improve
> composition. To be honest, although I try to take good photos always,
> this was essentially a tourist expedition, which is why I included, for
> instance, the sign on the boiler. But your comment on my landscapes is
> well taken; guess I've gotten lazy - I do need to pay more attention to
> how I'm composing my shots.
>
> I blame the flies. We had some rain, and Outback Australia is notorious
> for the most obnoxious flies in the world. Drives one crazy, it does,
> not to mention making photography difficult. My camera can handle
> cleaning dust; I bet it'd have more trouble handling the fuzzy black
> spec of an Australian Bush Fly sitting on the lens I'm probably
> going to have nightmares about them tonight as it is <g>.
>
> I'm glad you like the crop of the three horses. I've been using the
> 4x10 panoramic crops a lot, for just the reason you state, but I've no
> idea if that's a good or bad thing, if the subject isn't really a panorama.
>
> As for a longer lens, that's the next project. I didn't want to spend a
> good bit more $ on a second lens until I got used to the camera, and got
> a better handle on just what I'll need next.
>
> What I used to do was custom-crop all my pictures, which took care of
> the "too much space" problem, but made good pictures difficult to print
> and frame. I now use a utility that lets me choose crops based on
> standard print sizes; I usually use 8x10, or 5x7 (or 4x10). Should I go
> back to custom crops, do you think?
>
> Again, thanks for your comments. I'll pay more attention to what I'm
> doing next time out.

I learned the Australian salute within a day of arriving, and that was
in an Urban area! Damned flies!

Cropping: Lightroom might be a nice tool to use for the type of shooting
you presented. You can crop in anyway you want, and it's
non-destructive. Also custom tone curves, easy to apply across the
board, and then adjust the individuals, all also non-D.

--
John McWilliams
 >> Stay informed about: Working with RAW for Dummies 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Working with RAW for Dummies