RX10/100v1 .. worthwhile to shoot RAW?

Started Mar 11, 2014 | Discussions thread
2eyesee Senior Member • Posts: 2,159
Re: RX10/100v1 .. worthwhile to shoot RAW?

Digital Nigel wrote:

2eyesee wrote:

I actually don't think you under-exposed the original at all. You've managed to avoid blowing out the sky and then lifted shadows in post. It's what I would have done.

If I can offer one piece of criticism though it would be that like your other examples, I feel you lift the shadows a bit too much. I would like to see something in-between - leaving more shadow in the image to make it more dramatic and moody.

Yes, you have a good point -- had the original been exposed for the black loco, the sky would surely have been blown. Maybe the camera is smarter than I gave it credit for! But I still think it could have reduced the shutter speed a bit.

I don't think the shadows should have been left any darker -- the loco's wheels would be lost in that case.

The great thing about RAW though is that it gives you the ability to render an image differently in the future with much greater flexibility than JPEG.

But I agree that there's an argument for reducing the gamma, which I'll try tomorrow. As Ron has said, these are all arguments for optimising the final JPEG in post-processing, not in-camera. And the RAW is a better starting point for that, as there's otherwise too much noise and not enough detail in the dark areas.

Yes - what sometimes gets lost in these RAW vs JPEG debates is the fact that the JPEG is just an in-camera conversion of RAW to JPEG. So if you're going to create your own JPEG it makes sense to start with the RAW.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow