That RAW Troublemaker Again With Files

Started Sep 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
Alan_S
Senior MemberPosts: 1,425Gear list
Like?
Re: For what it's worth...
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, Sep 4, 2013

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Alan_S wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Alan_S wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Alan_S wrote:

I grabbed two RAW/JPG files from the links you had posted briefly... Here's my quick rendition in Adobe Camera Raw (displayed at left in Photoshop at 100%, along with the same crop of your untouched JPG):

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Well, different exposure choices, nice and sharp, but not a big difference from the JPG. Did you catch the 833 file that was the subject of the long thread?

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

No, saw the JPG version of the other one, but didn't find the RAW file.

Regarding your image above, this is typical of results I see from an average well lit snapshot (RAW vs JPG), and indicative of my earlier statement that I've always (no exceptions, none) gotten a better image processing the raw myself vs the OOC JPG. No, this is not a particular dramatic difference, but in comparison the OOC JPG is dull and muddy looking -- before processing the RAW I didn't even notice the reflected light on the side of the truck and could barely see the trailer number. Pull it up close and you'll see a lot more detail on the left image in the palm tree, the bricks, the vent grid on the brick wall, even the traffic lights. So, when even rather mundane "good light" samples like this show obvious improvements processed from RAW, I just cannot bring myself to waste the card space on in-cam JPGs. I want each image to look the best that it can, and I've found that the in-cam JPG almost never does that for me.

More challengingly lit scenes will provide even more flexibility to extract dramatically more detail, as in this example

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Yep - that is what RAW is for all right!

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Exactly... not for "fixing mistakes" (in my above example I purposely exposed mid-way between blown highlights and darkest shadows, so that I could extract the best of both from the RAW), but for getting the best possible from each image.

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Fine, but have you heard about the a77 and a99's auto HDR? Works only in JPG mode.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Fine, if you you want to hand over all the control to the camera and accept the results, in a much smaller 8-bit file, with image compression applied, decided upon by the processor -- that may be your choice, usually not mine. Prefer having the full 16-bit file to process my way; this also demonstrates the fantastic dynamic range of the a99, less need to take those multiple exposures used by auto HDR.

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

 Alan_S's gear list:Alan_S's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow