POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?

Started 4 months ago | Polls
Erik Ohlson
Forum ProPosts: 13,277
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to phototransformations, 4 months ago

phototransformations wrote:

cainn24 wrote:

Erik Ohlson wrote:

I've read reams of arguement on this subject on this forum for years and have yet to see convincing evidence that raw is more than a "cool" sounding word

This is just like the time you posted that thread about how sick to death you were of discussions about low-light performance and then proceeded to post a low-light high ISO image from one of your travelcams processed in neatimage (or whatever software it was) to shut everyone up. Apparently, anyone who values a two-stop advantage is just being silly.

But I guess you didn't feel content to stop there. Now, apparently, anyone who values an exposure safety net, or maximum control over degrees and types of sharpening and noise reduction, is just being silly too; trying to be "cool" instead of practical.

How exactly someone can spend a number of years on this earth, especially exposed to photography culture, and not develop a proper understanding of the concept of subjectivity, is beyond me. I mean are you really telling us that the idea that people can have higher or lower standards than each other, and place different degrees of importance on different factors in the IQ equation, is incomprehensible to you?

Seriously Erik, I know for a fact that it isn't. So what's this really all about? A reaction to some perceived elitism? Is it impossible now for people to be openly enthusiastic about a fast lens, or the superior results they're getting from some new and improved workflow, without provoking such reactions?

From what I've noticed in the last few months, we can apparently also add to the list of silly wastes of time: Photoshop actions, the Foveon sensor, protective filters, in-camera panoramas, tripods, any feature with "Auto" in the name except bracketing, and bringing anything but an "unadorned" camera to a photo shoot.

Very flattering that you two follow my every word.

Perhaps you could find a better use for your time.

What you've missed is the underlying theme: Simplify, simplify, simplify.

-- hide signature --

"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ ohlsonmh@yahoo.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sherman_levine
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,527Gear list
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to Erik Ohlson, 4 months ago

Erik Ohlson wrote:


What you've missed is the underlying theme: Simplify, simplify, simplify.

Erik,

I think you see raw as less simple than jpg.  Given current software, raw is, if anything, simpler.

Five years ago, one needed to worry about lens distortion and CA when processing raw. Not any more - Modern software handles that automatically, just as the in-camera processor does.

Raw avoids problems added by the in-camera JPG processor, so your workstation can use its own processing capabilities, not limited by the "we need to get this done before the next  shutter press" constraints of the in-camera processor.  Simpler, cleaner, more flexible.

The only potential cost is some storage space (which is pretty trivial compared to the other stuff I have on my workstation) and probably a bit slower burst speed.  I consider the tradeoff worthwhile.

YMMV

 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
gardenersassistant
Contributing MemberPosts: 823
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to nicodimus22, 4 months ago

nicodimus22 wrote:

The petal on the right has a lot more fine texture visible, and the one on the left looks waxy and smooth.

Thanks for the confirmation; that's how it looks to me too.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gardenersassistant
Contributing MemberPosts: 823
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to phototransformations, 4 months ago

phototransformations wrote:

Thanks for posting this, Nick. It illustrates very well some of the benefits of RAW. They may be subtle and not significant to a lot of people, but I think they make the difference between a decent photograph and a very good one. The point you are making is similar to that being made in the recent article on calibrating cameras, here, which is convincing me I need to get a ColorChecker Passport.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6497352654/get-more-accurate-color-with-camera-calibration-

From that article: "The theory of 'Marginal Gains' states that if you make tiny improvements in all aspects of your performance, then these improvements will all add up and create a significant overall improvement. The theory of Marginal Gains can also help with your photographic workflow."

David

Thanks David. That is a very interesting link. I've said on several occasions to people in little practical photography groups I run that my processing is often a lot of very small and perhaps almost imperceptible changes, which I believe can collectively have a quite large impact sometimes. But I've never seen it expressed that way, and wider than just processing too, which is good. Theory of Marginal Gains - I like that.

The ColorChecker Passport is interesting. I've used white/grey card, but ended up using that as a starting point and then adjusting to make it look "right", or "good" (not necessarily the same thing of course). And someone in one of my groups said that if I was going to adjust it anyway by eye, why not just do that and sidestep the white/grey card. It seemed like a good point to me, and that's what I've been doing since. I can't help thinking that (a) it might prove to be similar with the ColorChecker Passport and (b) am I really going to have the patience to set up suitable presets and then apply them appropriately? It's not really my style. And how many? And covering what circumstances? Doing it by site seems a strange way to go about it - what about different ambient lighting conditions?

I don't know.... but perhaps I should actually try it rather than assuming on no evidence that it won't work for me..... Blimey, I've just seen how much it costs! Hmmm.  I wonder if the CameraTrax 24ColorCard 2x3 with White Balance and User Guide is much the same; for about 1/6 the price I'd be more inclined to try that.

For some reason it won't let me embed a link to the CameraTrax, so here it is separately

http://www.amazon.co.uk/CameraTrax-24ColorCard-2x3-White-Balance-Guide/dp/B004QXU8VI/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1399073356&sr=8-3&keywords=colorchecker+passport

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Erik Ohlson
Forum ProPosts: 13,277
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to sherman_levine, 4 months ago

sherman_levine wrote, in part:

I consider the tradeoff worthwhile.

I don't.

YMMV

My mileage does indeed, vary.

One difference is, I'm not making it personal.

Nor are you.

Usually when one's mileage varies, both viewpoints are considered; however there is a long tradition of "raw" proponents being "holier that thou."

I have great respect for your knowledge of computer situations, and have at times stated that "if Sherm says so, you can take it to the bank" or words to that effect, but often people will take a pet idea a tad far - I notice that a new person can ask a VERY basic question, and your reply is sometimes: "Ya' gotta' use 'raw'!"  when there's a good chance the person doesn't even know what the basic terms are, much less the more esoteric.

So, yeah, we each have our preferences; I don't care how any particular person processes their images, but I do not consider 'raw' - or better exposure practices ( my version of "raw", so to speak ) to be the holy grail.

We both have legitimate points and remain unconvinced as to the opposite, which is what makes horseraces.

Cheers,

-- hide signature --

"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ ohlsonmh@yahoo.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
djddpr
Senior MemberPosts: 2,620
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to Tom Axford, 4 months ago

Tom,

I voted recently -- I never use raw any more.  I use camera settings to avoid/minimize blown-out highs and plugged-up lows in JPG output, and I post process the JPG file to restore contrast.  Raw is of no value to me.

David Dollevoet

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Timj351
Senior MemberPosts: 2,022
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to Erik Ohlson, 4 months ago

When I first saw this thread I was very curious to see were it would lead. Raw vs Jpeg can be a volatile subject like religion or politics and quite often breaks down to insults and anger in other forums. But once again this forum maintained it's composure even with both sides presenting strong cases. It's why this is my favorite forum.

I've expressed several times before my preference in using the Raw format and I hope that I haven't pushed too far. I enjoy having as much control over my images as possible and I have set up a workflow that makes the process quite quick. So, for the most part, Raw is better for my style of shooting and processing but I will also be the first to admit that there is something sort of liberating about using Jpegs at times. I can batch process my Raw images to speed up the workflow even more but sometimes I will look at an image and wonder if the Jpeg really wouldn't be just as effective. This happens mostly with family snapshots that I take more for the memories than for any artistic value. All of my current cameras can produce very nice Jpegs out of the camera and are perfectly acceptable in a lot of situations.

I love using Raw for most situations but I also don't want to blindly do so just for the sake of it. Yes, storage is cheap compared to what it used to be but I still prefer to manage it efficiently. Each format has it's strengths and weaknesses and I want to stay mindful of that so that I can get the most out of my time and my images.

So as long as these threads stay civil there are always going to be good points to consider from both sides. Thanks for proving, once again, why this is such a great forum.

-Tim

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
myssvictoria
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,566Gear list
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to ysal, 4 months ago

ysal wrote:

You are too kind Stevie, made me blush (seriously). And yes I do only shoot in JPG but I must say I see other RAW processed images here that are far superior than mine (myssvictoria comes to mind).

-- hide signature --

yuki

Thanks, Yuki! However, I'm a JPEG gal. Primarily. At least this season. Raw was getting me down, waiting and waiting for the buffer to clear, seems an eternity as my bird shot of the year came and went 

As far as the JPEG vs raw debate, it depends on the photographer's special needs and temperament. We can't decide for another what is best.

-- hide signature --
 myssvictoria's gear list:myssvictoria's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
phototransformations
Senior MemberPosts: 2,782Gear list
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to gardenersassistant, 4 months ago

Thanks for the link to the cheaper color checker card. However, I don't think it'll do the same thing the author of the article on camera calibration is talking about; there doesn't seem to be any software included with this card, and it's the software that allows you to create the ACR/Lightroom profiles.

If I get it, I'll see if it creates a better profile for my cameras than Adobe did, using the technique for creating more flexible profiles, rather than region-specific ones. I agree that calibrating ACR or Lightroom on a per-region basis seems like a lot of work.

I've done some rudimentary calibration by eye by photographing multiple test print test photos with a lot of colors and grayscale tones under various lighting conditions and getting what I see in the original photograph to match what I see on the screen in ACR. Then I save that tweaked version as the default for that camera, at that ISO, so it's automatically applied when I import the images into ACR. This gives me a much better starting point than the Adobe standard or the JPEG in terms of accurate color and contrast. I would hope that the ColorChecker profiles would be even better, as they seem to be in the article's examples.

David

 phototransformations's gear list:phototransformations's gear list
Samsung TL500 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cyril Catt
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,001
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to Greynerd, 4 months ago

Greynerd wrote: RAW does protect you from white balance errors from my experience. If you take a picture outdoors in Tungsten WB in a jpeg by accident you are pretty stuffed. For shadow details and highlights jpeg's are much more recoverable than the RAW crowd would have you believe. So if I am taking a really important picture I use RAW as a precaution.

Erik Ohlson wrote: I never use 'raw' - it's pointless.

So long as there is a while spot in the picture that can be used to indicate what IS white, I find GraphicConverter adequately adjusts my jpeg's white balance. But what I find adequate may not suit others.

-- hide signature --

Cyril

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Timj351
Senior MemberPosts: 2,022
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to Cyril Catt, 4 months ago

Cyril Catt wrote:

Greynerd wrote: RAW does protect you from white balance errors from my experience. If you take a picture outdoors in Tungsten WB in a jpeg by accident you are pretty stuffed. For shadow details and highlights jpeg's are much more recoverable than the RAW crowd would have you believe. So if I am taking a really important picture I use RAW as a precaution.

Erik Ohlson wrote: I never use 'raw' - it's pointless.

So long as there is a while spot in the picture that can be used to indicate what IS white, I find GraphicConverter adequately adjusts my jpeg's white balance. But what I find adequate may not suit others.

-- hide signature --

Cyril

Not Quite. There are presets in most Raw converters for WB just like there is on your camera. You can also adjust the color temperature manually to correct it by eye if you want to. I rarely use the eyedropper and prefer to make quick adjustments by eye if they are necessary.

-Tim

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cainn24
Senior MemberPosts: 1,940
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to Erik Ohlson, 4 months ago

Erik Ohlson wrote:

Very flattering that you two follow my every word.

Perhaps you could find a better use for your time.

Since you go to the trouble of speaking out against those who are apparently placing too much emphasis on aspects of camera performance that you yourself don't really care about, I'd say that this advice, if we are to legitimize it at all, would be equally applicable to you.What I am doing here is responding in a proportional manner.

What you've missed is the underlying theme: Simplify, simplify, simplify.

No, I haven't missed it.  What I'm doing is calling it what it clearly is: the notion that everyone else should adopt the standards that you have in order to simplify things in the way that you think they should be simplified.  The reason you don't see that is probably because you're failing to understand, or recognize, or acknowledge that some people have higher expectations when it comes to certain aspects of the image quality equation that would preclude them from deriving the same degree of satisfaction from their images if they simplified things in the way that you think they should be simplified.

Could I enjoy photography with nothing but a travelcam and no RAW?  Absolutely.  Of course I could.  In fact I sometimes derive a great amount of satisfaction from producing what I consider to be excellent results using tools that some photographers would scoff at.  I bet we all do.  Isn't that at least part of why compacts are so much fun?  But why shouldn't I also have my larger sensors and faster lenses and greater control over imaging processing parameters so I can push the envelope even further, and get an additional buzz out of doing so?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gardenersassistant
Contributing MemberPosts: 823
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to phototransformations, 4 months ago

phototransformations wrote:

Thanks for the link to the cheaper color checker card. However, I don't think it'll do the same thing the author of the article on camera calibration is talking about; there doesn't seem to be any software included with this card, and it's the software that allows you to create the ACR/Lightroom profiles.

Ah. Pity.

If I get it, I'll see if it creates a better profile for my cameras than Adobe did, using the technique for creating more flexible profiles, rather than region-specific ones. I agree that calibrating ACR or Lightroom on a per-region basis seems like a lot of work.

I was coming at this from a different angle. I do mainly closeups/macros and I was thinking that a "regional" profile wouldn't make much sense for me. It would need to be more of a "what was the ambient light like on a particular day", except that it often changes over the course of a typically four to six hour session, and indeed can change from minute to minute when there is patchy cloud. It also varies depending on whether I am working out in the open, or in shade, amongst foliage etc.

I'd be very interested to know if it would be practical to use the ColorChecker like a grey card - take grey card readings during the session, set the white balance for/from each of them in Lightroom and sync the white balance from each to the relevant images from the session. But perhaps there would be too much of a process involving other software to make that practical.

I've done some rudimentary calibration by eye by photographing multiple test print test photos with a lot of colors and grayscale tones under various lighting conditions and getting what I see in the original photograph to match what I see on the screen in ACR. Then I save that tweaked version as the default for that camera, at that ISO, so it's automatically applied when I import the images into ACR. This gives me a much better starting point than the Adobe standard or the JPEG in terms of accurate color and contrast. I would hope that the ColorChecker profiles would be even better, as they seem to be in the article's examples.

For me there is a significant issue on the "accurate colour" front. My subjects often have colour casts from light reflected from and transmitted through their surroundings (leaves, petals etc). Would using the ColorChecker adjust the colours so the subjects would appear as they would in "neutral" light? The thing is, I don't think I want to "correct" these "environmental" colour casts, because the colour, with the cast, is what it really looked like, and for me is part of the interest of the scene. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding how these colour corrections work.

All gloriously off-topic of course. Except ... would ColorChecker adjustments work equally as well with JPEGs and RAW I wonder? I suspect they would; I think Grey card white balance adjustments work just as well with JPEG as RAW, don't they?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
phototransformations
Senior MemberPosts: 2,782Gear list
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to Erik Ohlson, 4 months ago

Erik Ohlson wrote:

Very flattering that you two follow my every word.

Perhaps you could find a better use for your time.

What you've missed is the underlying theme: Simplify, simplify, simplify.

-- hide signature --

"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ ohlsonmh@yahoo.com

Erik,

I have to assume you mean well, even here. What I "follow," however, is not your every word but, because it is so galling, your disparaging tone.

That you let us know you like to adjust white balance using PSE and Levels and don't care to use an Action, or prefer to shoot JPEGs instead of RAW, or don't find tripods, macro lenses, and interchangeable lenses useful to your kind of shooting, etc., is your prerogative, of course, and nobody's knocking you for it. There's much to be said for limiting choices and seeing how "less" can be "more." But you don't stop there. Instead, you describe as silly, overly complicated, or a waste of time what many of us do to improve our work or to make photographs we couldn't make with your methodology. These are not neutral terms. At best, the effect is irritating. At worst, it feels condescending.

"Simplify, simplify, simplify" means different things to different people. For me, it means use the tool that's best suited to the job at hand.

In my case, sometimes that's shooting with my cheap Casio point and shoot (when I'm out on a kayak and don't want to risk damaging more versatile equipment). Sometimes it's shooting with my FZ200 (when I'm on a motorcycle trip, don't want to carry heavy equipment, and don't know what shooting conditions I may encounter). Sometimes it's using my m4/3 gear, when I'm somewhere I may never return to and want not only to preserve memories, but also capture unique photographic opportunities I couldn't capture in the same way with lesser equipment. Sometimes it's using a legacy lens with unusual bokeh, when that particular background effect will add to a mood I want to capture. Sometimes it's even using my old Nikon D80, because the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens is the best portrait lens I own. Sometimes it's spending hours learning the software techniques for perfecting emulating the way the old master painters created dimensionality that digital cameras can't capture simply by exposing for the highlights and developing for the shadows (my current effort, using the techniques created by George DeWolfe), or it's tweaking the Adobe Camera Raw presets so that I can automatically import my images with the noise, sharpness, clarity, and color balance I view as most natural-looking.

None of this, to me, is silly, too complicated, or a waste of time. It enables me to explore the boundaries of the photographic medium in ways I haven't explored before and to more fully express what my mind's eye sees when I take a picture. I don't view it as different in spirit from the elaborate dodging, burning, and special development Ansel Adams did to shape his images, post capture. (Not that I expect to ever come close to his level of mastery.) Do you think he'd be satisfied only with shooting JPEGs with a travel zoom if he were alive today? Perhaps for some kinds of images, or to see what he could do with only that type of equipment, but certainly not exclusively.

David

 phototransformations's gear list:phototransformations's gear list
Samsung TL500 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
phototransformations
Senior MemberPosts: 2,782Gear list
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to gardenersassistant, 4 months ago

gardenersassistant wrote:

For me there is a significant issue on the "accurate colour" front. My subjects often have colour casts from light reflected from and transmitted through their surroundings (leaves, petals etc). Would using the ColorChecker adjust the colours so the subjects would appear as they would in "neutral" light? The thing is, I don't think I want to "correct" these "environmental" colour casts, because the colour, with the cast, is what it really looked like, and for me is part of the interest of the scene. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding how these colour corrections work.

All gloriously off-topic of course. Except ... would ColorChecker adjustments work equally as well with JPEGs and RAW I wonder? I suspect they would; I think Grey card white balance adjustments work just as well with JPEG as RAW, don't they?

My understanding is that using the ColorChecker and related software allows you to create presets that tell Lightroom how to interpret the color values in the file. They don't have any effect on white balance per se. Instead, they define what "red" and "green" and "blue" should look like. For instance, if the preset created by Adobe defines "red" as "slightly orange red" most of the time, either because Adobe didn't get it right or because your particular camera and lens combination has a slightly yellow cast to it that affects all white balances (except, perhaps, Auto, which could probably compensate for the yellow color cast), then creating a preset for that camera and lens combination with the ColorChecker should more accurately represent "red," regardless of the white balance. White balance and what the ColorChecker is creating are two separate things, I think, though both affect color.

I think what I've created is a "poor man's ColorChecker." In the presets I've created, I've altered the RGB, contrast, and clarity values. When I import my images, all of them are altered in the same way, regardless of white balance, because after much trial and error, I found these particular values gave the most accurate color for my particular camera.

As to your other question, I think, from what I understand the article to be saying, that you could use it like a super gray card by shooting the ColorChecker in the ambient light you were shooting in and then later using that shot to create a preset. Apparently, if you were to shoot the ColorChecker in sunlight, shade, and shadow, you could combine a couple of these into a single preset that overall gave you more accurate color for that locale, regardless of the variation in type of light. Or you could use a different preset for the shots in sunlight, another for the ones in shade, and so on. These should still give more accurate color even when the scene itself had an overall yellow or green or red tint, due, say, to foliage or sunset.

But again, I'm just interpreting what I'm reading. I haven't tried this tool yet.

David

 phototransformations's gear list:phototransformations's gear list
Samsung TL500 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gardenersassistant
Contributing MemberPosts: 823
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to phototransformations, 4 months ago

phototransformations wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

For me there is a significant issue on the "accurate colour" front. My subjects often have colour casts from light reflected from and transmitted through their surroundings (leaves, petals etc). Would using the ColorChecker adjust the colours so the subjects would appear as they would in "neutral" light? The thing is, I don't think I want to "correct" these "environmental" colour casts, because the colour, with the cast, is what it really looked like, and for me is part of the interest of the scene. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding how these colour corrections work.

All gloriously off-topic of course. Except ... would ColorChecker adjustments work equally as well with JPEGs and RAW I wonder? I suspect they would; I think Grey card white balance adjustments work just as well with JPEG as RAW, don't they?

My understanding is that using the ColorChecker and related software allows you to create presets that tell Lightroom how to interpret the color values in the file. They don't have any effect on white balance per se. Instead, they define what "red" and "green" and "blue" should look like. For instance, if the preset created by Adobe defines "red" as "slightly orange red" most of the time, either because Adobe didn't get it right or because your particular camera and lens combination has a slightly yellow cast to it that affects all white balances (except, perhaps, Auto, which could probably compensate for the yellow color cast), then creating a preset for that camera and lens combination with the ColorChecker should more accurately represent "red," regardless of the white balance. White balance and what the ColorChecker is creating are two separate things, I think, though both affect color.

I think what I've created is a "poor man's ColorChecker." In the presets I've created, I've altered the RGB, contrast, and clarity values. When I import my images, all of them are altered in the same way, regardless of white balance, because after much trial and error, I found these particular values gave the most accurate color for my particular camera.

As to your other question, I think, from what I understand the article to be saying, that you could use it like a super gray card by shooting the ColorChecker in the ambient light you were shooting in and then later using that shot to create a preset. Apparently, if you were to shoot the ColorChecker in sunlight, shade, and shadow, you could combine a couple of these into a single preset that overall gave you more accurate color for that locale, regardless of the variation in type of light. Or you could use a different preset for the shots in sunlight, another for the ones in shade, and so on. These should still give more accurate color even when the scene itself had an overall yellow or green or red tint, due, say, to foliage or sunset.

But again, I'm just interpreting what I'm reading. I haven't tried this tool yet.

David

Thanks for taking the time to explain David. I'm afraid I'm having difficulty getting my head around it. I suspect I'll end up trying it eventually, but I don't think I'll rush in case you do go ahead with it, because I'd be intrigued to learn what you discover, both as to exactly what it does/the effects it has on images, and as to the practical issues. It sounds to me from another response you've just written in this thread that you are rather more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am!

It's the colour cast issue that's baffling me. If the software says to Lightroom "this is red", when referring to the colour of a particular area in a reference shot of a scene that was taken with colour-casted illumination, won't Lightroom then turn that colour into "real red", and neutralise the colour cast? (Not sure if that is clear enough to be useful - I'm having difficulty finding words to express thoughts that are rather vague and confused!)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
phototransformations
Senior MemberPosts: 2,782Gear list
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to gardenersassistant, 4 months ago

gardenersassistant wrote:

It's the colour cast issue that's baffling me. If the software says to Lightroom "this is red", when referring to the colour of a particular area in a reference shot of a scene that was taken with colour-casted illumination, won't Lightroom then turn that colour into "real red", and neutralise the colour cast? (Not sure if that is clear enough to be useful - I'm having difficulty finding words to express thoughts that are rather vague and confused!)

I'll try to simplify. Let's say you are photographing something red at the "golden hour" and you are using the Daylight white balance. The camera will not record "red" as "red," but as a reddish orange, and it won't record "gray" as "gray," but as a yellowish gray, which is probably what you want. If you then send that image through Lightroom with the Adobe default preset for your camera, it will dutifully reproduce the scene more or less as it was recorded. But, because your camera is probably a little different from the one Adobe used to calibrate Lightroom, the reddish orange you took a picture of, and the yellowish gray, will be reproduced a little differently than it really looked. When you use the ColorChecker and software to create a profile, though, you are doing the same thing Adobe did when they created a profile for your camera, but you are using your specific camera and lens, and the result should be closer to what you really saw.

In a fully color-managed photography system, the camera and lens combo should be profiled, the monitor should be profiled, and the printer should be profiled. That way, when you shoot something red with a golden glow, you see something red with a golden glow on your monitor, and when you print the image, you get a print where the reds have a golden glow. Without this profiling, everything is a little off.

If you look up articles on color management, I'm sure this is explained better than I can explain it. I'm not an expert, but I have been dealing with color management for quite some time.

 phototransformations's gear list:phototransformations's gear list
Samsung TL500 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Beavin
Senior MemberPosts: 1,695Gear list
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to Rodger1943, 4 months ago

If your shot is properly exposed in the first place why do you need raw? all camera manufactures' do their utmost to produce a perfect picture in jpeg form, any advantage to be seen using raw is only in the eyes of the person using it, I am not convinced there is an advantage, so I stick with jpeg.

 John Beavin's gear list:John Beavin's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-S1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gardenersassistant
Contributing MemberPosts: 823
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to phototransformations, 4 months ago

phototransformations wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

It's the colour cast issue that's baffling me. If the software says to Lightroom "this is red", when referring to the colour of a particular area in a reference shot of a scene that was taken with colour-casted illumination, won't Lightroom then turn that colour into "real red", and neutralise the colour cast? (Not sure if that is clear enough to be useful - I'm having difficulty finding words to express thoughts that are rather vague and confused!)

I'll try to simplify. Let's say you are photographing something red at the "golden hour" and you are using the Daylight white balance. The camera will not record "red" as "red," but as a reddish orange, and it won't record "gray" as "gray," but as a yellowish gray, which is probably what you want. If you then send that image through Lightroom with the Adobe default preset for your camera, it will dutifully reproduce the scene more or less as it was recorded. But, because your camera is probably a little different from the one Adobe used to calibrate Lightroom, the reddish orange you took a picture of, and the yellowish gray, will be reproduced a little differently than it really looked. When you use the ColorChecker and software to create a profile, though, you are doing the same thing Adobe did when they created a profile for your camera, but you are using your specific camera and lens, and the result should be closer to what you really saw.

In a fully color-managed photography system, the camera and lens combo should be profiled, the monitor should be profiled, and the printer should be profiled. That way, when you shoot something red with a golden glow, you see something red with a golden glow on your monitor, and when you print the image, you get a print where the reds have a golden glow. Without this profiling, everything is a little off.

If you look up articles on color management, I'm sure this is explained better than I can explain it. I'm not an expert, but I have been dealing with color management for quite some time.

That seems very clear to me. Thanks so much. Seems to me that it might be worth my trying a ColorChecker.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sherman_levine
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,527Gear list
Like?
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
In reply to John Beavin, 4 months ago

John Beavin wrote:

If your shot is properly exposed in the first place why do you need raw? all camera manufactures' do their utmost to produce a perfect picture in jpeg form, any advantage to be seen using raw is only in the eyes of the person using it, I am not convinced there is an advantage, so I stick with jpeg.

Happiness is good. We're all happy that you're happy

 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads