-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
How many people edit RAW files by making random guesses?
- Thread starter Aur
- Start date
Chris59
Forum Pro
The purpose of a photograph is not just to record light and shade as an average 18% grey every time. The purpose of a photograph is that it should look exactly how you want it to look.Photography isn't about math and being technically correct and light meters. The purpose of the initial exposure is to get you into the ballpark, and make sure you haven't lost any precious data. That's why RAW is so important--you lose less of the scene's original data.
The final adjustment should always be done by feel, trial, and experience. No different from painting or composing. I think you should adjust until you bring out the mood and feel of the original scene, no matter if it isn't technically correct. If it was late at night, spooky, and desolate, give the photo what you felt. That JPEG may make it look bright and cheerful.
You want high key, you want the shadows blocked, you want gritty realism--make it so. The nice thing about RAW is you can try over and over again, and do so very quickly, with a lot more control than what you get in the field.
This is heavily processed. But it made me remember what I felt when I was there.
--
no, I won't return to read your witty reply!
professional cynic and contrarian: don't take it personally
http://500px.com/omearak
RAW capture allows us to use as much data as possible to enhance/change/alter an image with the minimum amount of deterioration and that is why it is always best to record RAW. Indeed, an image which has no post processing done on it at all will still have less deterioration than a JPEG out of the camera.
Also, there is no "objective" or "scientific" or "mathematically correct" way to change an image because you eye and your mind's eye see and remember a scene differently to how it "looks" to the sensor as well as how the image is displayed on a monitor or printed.
In the end it is your eye which is the best arbiter of how the image should look because that is how it will look to others as well - there is no point to using some supposedly "correct" rendering of the data to produce an image if it isn't the way you want it to look.
As for myself, I always change an image by eye alone until it is the way I want it to look and will frequently revisit and change the way I think it should look and even make a number of different images (different framing, colour saturation, monochrome etc.) from the one file.
Dareshooter
Veteran Member
Nothing remotely odd about it. Just another contrived way of starting a jpeg vs raw argument that's been done to death over and over ...
Last edited:
Judgement, based on my mental database of tens of thousands of images.
However, the basic mistake you are making is in thinking that a photograph is a copy of a scene. It can be, if you are copying flat artwork, or a textile design, or bacterial cultures; but when you shoot a normal three-dimensional scene or object, with light and shade, the flat photograph is a considered equivalent of the original, not a replica.
The purpose of metering is to avoid either clipped highlights or noisy shadows, not to give a "correct" result.
You do choose between slides and negatives. The slide comes back from processing as a finished image (like a JPG), the negative requires judgement on your part when developing the film and when making the print.
How do you decide where to dodge or burn, or what paper grade to use ? It is a matter of artistic judgement. Two people may make very different prints from the same negative.
Last edited:
J
JP Scherrer
Guest
IMO the OP doesn't know anything about RAW "developpment" in particular and photography in general !
;-)
Photo Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/scherrer
Spherical Panoramas at http://www.360cities.net/profile/jps or http://www.viewat.org/?sec=pn&id_aut=2489
;-)
Photo Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/scherrer
Spherical Panoramas at http://www.360cities.net/profile/jps or http://www.viewat.org/?sec=pn&id_aut=2489
Mike CH
Veteran Member
It seems to me that you have a basic assumption that going for an exact reproduction of the scene is the ultimate expression of photography.
This is true of certain kinds of photography in some cases, ie. repro work and product photography or editorial, but certainly not true for all kind of photography. Many people use post processing to recreate a feeling they had at the scene and are much more happy if the viewer shares that feeling than if the colors are exactly the same.
Another assumption you are making is that if you are not going for an exact reproduction, then raw doesn't matter. This is certainly not true. Raw offers a much larger working space and thus gives a much larger chance for recreating that feeling mentioned above. Curves work, dodging and burning, white balance adjustments and everything else simply works much better and introduces less artifacts when working in raw as opposed to working with JPGs. Raws also give you a much better starting point.
Regards, Mike
This is true of certain kinds of photography in some cases, ie. repro work and product photography or editorial, but certainly not true for all kind of photography. Many people use post processing to recreate a feeling they had at the scene and are much more happy if the viewer shares that feeling than if the colors are exactly the same.
Another assumption you are making is that if you are not going for an exact reproduction, then raw doesn't matter. This is certainly not true. Raw offers a much larger working space and thus gives a much larger chance for recreating that feeling mentioned above. Curves work, dodging and burning, white balance adjustments and everything else simply works much better and introduces less artifacts when working in raw as opposed to working with JPGs. Raws also give you a much better starting point.
Regards, Mike
J
JP Scherrer
Guest
.
The grass is greener on the other side of the other fence !
...sorry, I couldn't resist ! Certainly a -croocked sense of humour- reaction to this very impressive -but bringing back horrendous memories- image !
Great shot, once again !
;-)
Photo Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/scherrer
Spherical Panoramas at http://www.360cities.net/profile/jps or http://www.viewat.org/?sec=pn&id_aut=2489
The grass is greener on the other side of the other fence !
...sorry, I couldn't resist ! Certainly a -croocked sense of humour- reaction to this very impressive -but bringing back horrendous memories- image !
Great shot, once again !
;-)
Photo Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/scherrer
Spherical Panoramas at http://www.360cities.net/profile/jps or http://www.viewat.org/?sec=pn&id_aut=2489
Last edited:
Mike_PEAT
Forum Pro
Gerry Winterbourne
Forum Pro
Why do you say sliders in the plural? There's only one slider that has anything to do with exposure - the one labelled Exposure.
A camera can be set to just one exposure setting at a time and the whole sensor (or film) receives that exposure. What you are discussing is whether that exposure is "right" for the scene being photographed, as opposed to being under- or over-exposed.
This is a fundamental factor. "Under"- or "over"-exposure depends on how one defines correct exposure and I can think of at least three different definitions, each of which is perfectly valid in its context.
The first definition, stemming from the earliest days of photography, is that a photo is exposed correctly if (after processing it in accordance with the accepted norms) it looks right according to the way the original scene looked. For film the accepted norms were standard developer, temperature, time etc; for digital they are the maker's out-of-camera JPG at default settings. PP is unnecessary (although it may be done as an optional extra).
The second definition, really only appropriate to digital, is that a photo is properly exposed if the signal-to-noise ratio is the highest it can be without clipping highlights. This is what is called exposing to the right (ETTR). The out-of-camera results rarely look "right" according to the way the original scene looked. PP is an essential part of the process. (I think your -2EV shot is reasonably close to this although I'd need to se the original raw file to be sure).
The third definition is that exposure is correct if it produces a first output (negative, raw file or JPG) the way the photographer intended, having regard to the subsequent treatment they intended to apply to it.
Once the exposure is correct there is the separate question of how tonality is distributed across the range of colours and tones in the scene and the photographer's intentions for the output image.
Here's another fundamental error: people don't guess what looks right to them - they know what looks right for them. And, yes - but it's not "some" people - it's all people who understand what PP is for.
It's worth noting that the way cameras work, splitting the infinite range of natural colours into just three primaries and later recombining them means it is impossible to reproduce the originals perfectly. So trying to apply some sort of mathematical algorithm is doomed to failure. hen it comes to making a photo closely resemble what a human eye sees, the human hand guided by a human eye is actually more reliable than any algorithm.
No. JPG is created by just one of a range of possible algorithms which, as I've said, can't create accurate reproduction. JPG is for people who are happy that the algorithm is close enough to what they want or who don't have time for anything else.
First, you describe what one exposure mode offered by one maker does, nor all cameras. Second, I think you've misunderstood what the maker's description means. And, most important, it all depends on which definition of "right" you adopt. As it happens, the meaning implicit in your post is the first I listed above, which is appropriate for shooting JPG ... and therefore has little, if any, relevance to raw development.
For exposure "eyeballing" means watching the clipping warning, which is very precise. For everything else, as I've explained, what you describe isn't guessing.
Well, we have very clear evidence here of one who doesn't know. There are probably a few more in the world. But most know exactly what they are doing, and the fact that you don't understand doesn't make them wrong.
Mike CH
Veteran Member
On technical grounds for a greater working latitude, not necessarily for an exacter reproduction.
You seem somehow to have gotten the impression that digital photography is some kind of exact science with singular, correct answers. It is not. There is a heavy element of personal taste and feeling involved in many parts of it.
Regards, Mike
gollywop
Veteran Member
The OP quite possibly suffers from ANS, the Adept Nescience Syndrome. People who suffer this disorder exhibit variously:
a) a belief that their inability is everyone's inability,
b) an unconquerable hesitancy, perhaps inability, to do anything to correct their inability,
c) an ironic tendency to call their inability to the attention of others, and
d) a complete lack of embarrassment, and indeed a delight, when making their inability known to others.
There is some feeling that this syndrome arises as a result of the sufferer's need for reassurance that he/she is not alone in possessing the inability. The sufferer is often completely unable to rectify the situation causing the syndrome because he/she would find it intolerable to discover that he/she is in fact alone. Subsequent actions and indications of intractability are likely to be grounded in the old adage that the best defense is a good offense, even when the game plan is seen to be losing.
--
gollywop
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg
a) a belief that their inability is everyone's inability,
b) an unconquerable hesitancy, perhaps inability, to do anything to correct their inability,
c) an ironic tendency to call their inability to the attention of others, and
d) a complete lack of embarrassment, and indeed a delight, when making their inability known to others.
There is some feeling that this syndrome arises as a result of the sufferer's need for reassurance that he/she is not alone in possessing the inability. The sufferer is often completely unable to rectify the situation causing the syndrome because he/she would find it intolerable to discover that he/she is in fact alone. Subsequent actions and indications of intractability are likely to be grounded in the old adage that the best defense is a good offense, even when the game plan is seen to be losing.
--
gollywop
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg
Last edited:
M
Mark B.
Guest
I don't think it's that either...the OP has already admitted to being a film shooter and only rarely shoots digital and thus really has no idea about PP.
KCK14
Senior Member
Nikon has made this claim since the first FA had matrix metering.
While a more complex adjustment procedure, that requires Nikon provided software to write to the meter Eprom, there was no indication that the camera itself had any database. Its gotten more complex with more metering segments, but an experienced photog can match or beat Matrix metering. I find matrix metering to be an unneeded mode.
While a more complex adjustment procedure, that requires Nikon provided software to write to the meter Eprom, there was no indication that the camera itself had any database. Its gotten more complex with more metering segments, but an experienced photog can match or beat Matrix metering. I find matrix metering to be an unneeded mode.
rubank
Senior Member
I mean, what would Mona Lisa have looked like if DaVinci hadn´t used a lightmeter!
And all the newspaper pages and test targets look so much better if you use a lightmeter.
And all the newspaper pages and test targets look so much better if you use a lightmeter.
This isn't true. The manufacturers do study real pictures to make decisions regarding exposure parameters and how the matrix or multipoint metering will make exposure decisions, but the meters themselves are not accessing built in data bases of images.
Note also, this has no effect at all on non multipoint metering, only the metering algorithms used for matrix/multi point metering.
Since your point is based on a flawed interpretation of something you've read on the internet, you aren't making a valid point, other than to reinforce that you don't know as much as you like to think you know.
crashpc
Veteran Member
There is always someone less educated or excited enaugh to make mistake, in troll fight. Then this mistake will be used for "true" security of original troll after he shows he was right at least about something, which will make him feel he´s right about everything. Now you stepped on this bomb and we are all lost. Doomed.
Now I can bring popcorn safely. Aaaand beer.
Hope we will max out soon.
P.S.: You´re not right.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum