POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?

Started 7 months ago | Polls thread
sherman_levine
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,256Gear list
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to djddpr, 7 months ago

djddpr wrote:

sherman_levine wrote:

djddpr wrote:

sherman_levine wrote:

Nothing posted in this thread because the advantages are pretty much "old news" for those who (IMHO appropriately) find them useful. Here's one example.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3649040

For your properly-exposed ISO 200 images, the Raw vs JPG discussion is of course moot. Nobody's arguing that one is better than the other in that setting. Indeed, you've chosen in-camera setup values for your JPGs which minimize the camera's processing, precisely for the same reason that some of use Raw. That approach works for your images, but not for others such as the example in my link above

-- hide signature --

Sherm

Sherm,

Thank-you for responding with raw photographic evidence. I remember the thread that you reference, and I have reviewed it again. I agree that, for the exposure that you made, raw processing is obviously beneficial. My question is this: why did you make that exposure? The camera's histogram should have indicated blown-out highlights. If possible, reducing contrast via setting the camera's contrast to its minimum value might/should have resulted in fewer blown-out highs. Perhaps a jpg post-processed to restore dynamic range would then have been about equivalent to post-processing a raw file. My conclusion here is: 1. an unadjusted exposure of a too wide dynamic range is better corrected by post-processing a raw file than a unadjusted jpg. 2. there is no evidence here that a jpg file, that was adjusted to compensate for a too wide dynamic range via in-camera contrast setting plus post-processing, would be deficient to a post-processed raw file.

Thanks for looking.

David Dollevoet

Here's my explanation of the exposure issue, copied from that thread.

"Unfortunately the camera doesn't have an "Expose to keep the highlights from saturating" setting - and the dancers move around a stage of very inconstant brightness. Spot metering seems to be a good start - but even there I get a lot of overexposure. If I deliberately underexpose the set to prevent the occasional hot spots, then the images are on the average quite a bit noisier - and that matters to me."

-- hide signature --

Sherm

Sherm,

Perhaps you would re-read my response?

Of course there is no "Expose to keep highlights from saturating" setting on your camera, nor did I propose such. And your comment "If I deliberately underexpose..." is also not relevant to my response. A proper reading of my response indicates that I recommend, when dynamic range is extremely high, compensating by simply setting CAMERA CONTRAST to its minimum value and post-processing the jpg file to restore some/all of the dynamic range (standard procedure with any editing software that supports multiple transparent layers). For years I have used this procedure to good effect, as the few photos I submitted earlier indicate. And I can submit as photographic evidence hundreds or even thousands of such examples. How much photographic evidence would you like me to submit for your review? In making your decision, please be prepared to respond in kind and amount with your photographic evidence.

David Dollevoet

David,

I'm well aware of the contrast setting, as you can see from this 2007 thread using FZ18.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2124697

FWIW, I've done the same testing with FZ200, and it appears that the contrast setting is much more limited in scope - I could discern some minor differences between +2 and -2, but nowhere as large as the FZ18 effects.

Nonetheless, I do tend to keep contrast at -2, since it appears to do no harm, even though I don't expect it that it will make much difference.

Yes - of course I understood what you wrote, and I responded appropriately: I don't have the time to keep up with the changes in lighting as the dancers move rapidly across the stage, so I need to select an exposure setting which will give me the best results as often as possible. This means that some images will be overexposed, and some underexposed.  I can minimize the number of overexposed images at the cost of more noise in the group as a while, or I can minimize noise at the cost of more frequent overexposure.  Things just move too fast to achieve optimum exposure on every image.

I hope that this is informative to others.  You and I both appear to be happy with what we're doing, and I suspect that will not be changed by additional discussion.

 sherman_levine's gear list:sherman_levine's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000
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