Must I edit RAW images?

Doug Haag said:

bobn2 said:

extrapolator said:

Hi all! - I don't seem to be able to find an answer to my question, so thought I'd ask it here. First, I've had my Canon 70D for 6-7 years now, was initially kinda overwhelmed by it so barely scratched the surface; ie used auto mode for a while, realized the images were no better than my cell phone so put the DSLR away :-( But now I have a definite need to get competent with it, and the covid I caught a couple months ago gave me a week and a half away from work which I used to do some intensive photography study. I watched A LOT of photography vids, read and took tons of practice images.

So what I need now is to take a full set of thorough images for the sale auction of my collector car; exterior, interior, engine, suspension, trunk, etc. At this point I've recorded hundreds of images of it, all in RAW, and going in to this endeavor I thought it was for sure that I would be editing all the images. Well, to me they're actually looking pretty good straight out of the camera, even in RAW ... not super glamorous, just authentic / accurate ... so I'm starting to think they might actually need little to no editing, instead just saving them straight to JPG as-is.

So my question is: How common is it for a photographer to record images in RAW and not edit them, instead just saving as JPG / PNG?

One thing I planned to try next, when it stops raining every day here in Florida, is to save the images as RAW and JPG, and since I already think the RAW images look good, maybe the JPGs will look even better. Any comments or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

Click to expand...

Quite often this kind of conundrum is caused by misuse of terminology. Let's define two different things, 'processing' and 'editing'. 'Processing', in the context of a raw image, means to 'develop' it into a viewable image. A raw image itself is not directly viewable, since it is just a recording of the light levels captured at the sensor. To be viewable processing needs to be done to translate those levels into a definition of how an observer should see the image. You are not actually seeing the image 'straight out of the camera'. These days most computer operating systems and viewing apps include a processor for most of the common raw formats built-in, so the processing is done automatically.

'Editing' means to make changes. Though raw processing programs are often called 'raw editors' this is not strictly what they are doing. They aren't editing the raw file, they are allowing choices to be made as to how that file should be processed, which includes things like choosing white balance, black and white levels, tone curves and colour space (though mostly through indirect tools).

So, it's not the raw images that look good, it is the default processing applied to the raw images that produces a nice looking JPEG. Further JPEGs produced using that default processing will look exactly the same. It's quite possible that by driving the processing yourself that you can produce images that you like better. Then again. many people find that they can't, and if that's the case, then you might as well stick to JPEGs. The big advantage of saving the raw files is that should you in the future become more adept, or better raw processors be developed, you can reprocess them and get a better result.

Click to expand...

The OP didn't say what software he was using to "view" his raw files. Is it possible that he is using software that displays the embedded jpeg and not the "processed" raw data into a viewable rbg? If so, that could account for why he is pleased with the look without further editing. A lot of people complain about the "flat" look of basic raw processing, but he is not seeing that if he is looking at an embedded jpeg.

He says he shot these images solely in raw. So by not saving raw + jpeg, he would be unaware that there is no visible difference between the actual jpeg and a viewer that displays the embedded jpeg.

Just a thought.

Click to expand...

I've been using PhotoScape X v4.2.1 on my Win10 PC with a 27" Acer 1920 x 1080 LED monitor.

As I said, my next shoot will be with raw+jpeg ... looking forward to seeing the differences.

Thanks all ... and I'm still reading thru all the replies and replying.

extrapolator said:

Tom Axford said:

For several years after I started digital photography I shot only JPEG images and was quite happy with those.

Later, I became dissatisfied with the JPEG images from my cameras and decided that I would try shooting raw images and processing them myself.

I now shoot raw images all the time for two reasons: (1) I prefer the images I get by doing my own processing, and (2) I enjoy doing the processing myself (although it is very time-consuming).

Don't be deceived into thinking that shooting raw is just as easy as shooting JPEGs. It takes considerable time and skill to process all your raw images into JPEGs. Unless you enjoy doing the processing (and are skilled enough to produce good results), stick to using JPEGs straight from the camera.

Click to expand...

Thank you, your reply reads like maybe it's coming more from an artistic point of view, vs my desire to make accurate images, with them also looking as fantastic as possible of course ... with 'fantastic' being in the eye of the beholder of course.

Click to expand...

"Accurate images" is an interesting term.

For instance, imagine taking a shot of a solid blue ball. Most people would not want the color of the ball in the image to match the color of the actual ball. If it did, the image would have a solid blue circle. What most people want is an image that shows a variety of shades/intensities of blue, that make the mind think the flat two dimensional circle is a three dimensional sphere.

Now, you might say that you want the colors in the image to match the colors as the they were to the viewer in real life. But that's probably not correct either. If the blue ball is illuminated by sunlight, there will be more blue light coming from it than if it is illuminated by tungsten light.

So you might say, you want to record the light coming from the subject but you want to compensate for any color cast from the lighting. But even that's not always the case. Many people want to shoot at "magic hour" (just before sunset), because they want the subject to be colored by the warm glow of the light (during "magic hour" sunlight is close to tungsten light).

It turns out that when people want a photo that looks "accurate", what they really want is a photo that when viewed, tricks the human mind into thinking that it is seeing the same thing as it would if it was there in person.

.

Remember, typical cameras do not record the entire visible light spectrum. Instead they take a red, green, and blue measurement, and try to come up with a combination of those three colors, that looks to the human eye to be the same as the original.

Consider an object that reflects only a single wavelength of yellow light. Most computer monitors cannot produce yellow light. They mix green and red wavelengths together and come up with a result that the human visual system perceives as being the same as a single wavelength of yellow light.

.

Yes, there are times when you really do want to get an "accurate" color (i.e. certain types of product photography), but even then you may want to deviate from "accurate" in order to shape and texture.

What most photographers want is an image that looks "right", not an image that's accurate.

ThrillaMozilla said:

Use your own judgement. Shoot raw if it offers an advantage. Sometimes it doesn't.

Be prepared for some dogmatic religious replies.

Click to expand...

Could you please give us a few examples of when Raw will have zero advantages?

Wouldn't it be better to shoot in both and have the Raws as a backup? I mean in case not all of the shots are perfectly exposed etc? If the Raw file is not needed it can simply be discarded!

John

John Crowe said:

For your selling purposes you may get away without post processing. I just photographed a boat that I am selling and I did choose to make minor processing changes, but I really did not need to. However, if your car is expensive and you want attention to get top dollar then post processing will help, just like any advertising.

A RAW file lacks contrast and colour vibrancy, so for printing or viewing they look dull and bland. It takes very little processing in a RAW converter to breathe some life into them and then go straight to jpeg.

Click to expand...

While there's a very small chance I could try to dip a toe in the pro photog business at some point, the images in question here are for my own car. Also, the images will only be used on the web; no prints needed, that I'm aware of.

"A RAW file lacks contrast and colour vibrancy, so for printing or viewing they look dull and bland. It takes very little processing in a RAW converter to breathe some life into them and then go straight to jpeg."

... OK, thanks. Again, I have some more learning to do.

extrapolator said:

Hi all! - I don't seem to be able to find an answer to my question, so thought I'd ask it here. First, I've had my Canon 70D for 6-7 years now, was initially kinda overwhelmed by it so barely scratched the surface; ie used auto mode for a while, realized the images were no better than my cell phone so put the DSLR away :-( But now I have a definite need to get competent with it, and the covid I caught a couple months ago gave me a week and a half away from work which I used to do some intensive photography study. I watched A LOT of photography vids, read and took tons of practice images.

So what I need now is to take a full set of thorough images for the sale auction of my collector car; exterior, interior, engine, suspension, trunk, etc. At this point I've recorded hundreds of images of it, all in RAW, and going in to this endeavor I thought it was for sure that I would be editing all the images. Well, to me they're actually looking pretty good straight out of the camera, even in RAW ... not super glamorous, just authentic / accurate ... so I'm starting to think they might actually need little to no editing, instead just saving them straight to JPG as-is.

So my question is: How common is it for a photographer to record images in RAW and not edit them, instead just saving as JPG / PNG?

One thing I planned to try next, when it stops raining every day here in Florida, is to save the images as RAW and JPG, and since I already think the RAW images look good, maybe the JPGs will look even better. Any comments or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

Click to expand...

I save RAW images from different Camera Brands into my Sony's PlayMemories Home software. When I output images to an folder, my once RAW images of my FF camera which were once almost 50mb are now less than 1mb.

So although I will still save those as RAW files first and foremost, I have the nice option to not worry much about editing the file myself if I think it already looks great, straight out of camera. But if later I want to do more extensive revision later, I still have the original Raw data if I want to use an intensive Post Processing Software option.

I don't know if that really answers your question but that would save you the effort of extensive post processing if you think one has already nailed the image, straight out of camera but one still wants to retain the RAW data.

Klaus dk said:

extrapolator said:

Klaus dk said:

I save raw+jpeg. If the picture needs tweaking, I use the raw file, if the jpeg is fine, I use it as it is.

Although I agree with bobn2 that processing and editing are conceptually different, I often combine them in one session: lens correction, lifting the shadows, tweaking WB, cropping, removing a zit, straightening the horizon. All this can be done in DPP.

As I've become more proficient and have bought cameras with more Mpix, I also tend to do more of those little tweaks.

For more advanced editing, I've used PhotoShop Elements and lately Affinity Photo.

BTW, raw is a word, not an acronym. These are literaly the raw data from the sensor.

Regarding authenticity/accuracy, one of the reasons phone cameras are so popular is, that the manufacturers are putting a lot of effort into tweaking pictures to look as they think the big public would prefer to see them: bright colours, blue skies, not too deep shadows, etc, while dedicated cameras does not assume as much about your preferences.

Good luck and good light.

Click to expand...

Raw+jpeg, yes I've already set my 70D to that for the next shoot, after the rains. Maybe I'll decide the jpegs are better for me to use, whether or not I edit them.

Click to expand...

The thing is that raw files have more headroom for processing/editing, and changes are non-destructive. Data is lost each time a jpeg is saved after an edit.

Click to expand...

Losses from multiple decompression/editing/recompression cycles are not the main issue.

The data in the raw file has more dynamic range than the data in a JPEG. This gives you more latitude for adjusting tone curves, contrast, brightness, etc.

In the camera produced JPEG, you may find that the highlights are blown out (no detail) and the shadows are solid black (also no detail). If you only have the JPEG, those details are lost and not recoverable.

With the raw data, you may be able to recover both the highlight and the shadow detail. You can end up with a result that retains detail both in the bride's white gown, and the groom's black tux.

There are also issues with white balance. If your white balance is off, you may find that some color channels in the JPEG end up clipped. If you have the raw data, you can reprocess the data with a corrected white balance, and not clip any of the channels.

If you are shooting inside a room, and there is a window, you may find that he camera produced JPEG has the window blown out, or the room too dark. With the raw data you can use various techniques to have both the interior of the room look good, and the scene outside the window. If done properly, it looks very natural, even though in real life the exterior is much brighter.

extrapolator said:

John Crowe said:

...

Click to expand...

...

"A RAW file lacks contrast and colour vibrancy, so for printing or viewing they look dull and bland. It takes very little processing in a RAW converter to breathe some life into them and then go straight to jpeg."

...

Click to expand...

it's not that the raw file lacks contrast and vibrancy. It lacks color.

The pixels in most cameras don't measure the color of the light, they measure how much light they see.

If you have a 20 megapixel camera, the raw data consists of only how much light each pixel saw.

The trick to making color photos, is that 10 million of those pixels are behind a green filter, 5 million are behind a blue filter, and 5 million are behind a red filter. When the raw data is processed, the camera need to estimate the missing two color components for each pixel. If we are processing a green pixel, the algorithms consider the nearby red and blue pixels in order to guess how much red and blue should be in that pixel.

While this sounds like it can't possibly work very well, it turns out that it does. The vast majority of digital cameras work like this.

It turns out that different raw processors use different algorithms for guessing. This is one factor in why different raw processing software can result in different colors.

When previewing a raw file, something has to come up with an RGB preview version. If that software isn't very good, or uses less than optimal parameters, then the preview image can look off.

Some cameras embed a JPEG preview image into the raw file. If that preview image is not in sRGB, and your workflow isn't properly managed, then a colorspace mismatch can cause the image to look dull and muted.

.

But the bottom line is that unprocessed raw files have not yet been converted to RGB, so it doesn't make sense to classify that conversion as lacking contrast or vibrancy.

JohnSil said:

ThrillaMozilla said:

Use your own judgement. Shoot raw if it offers an advantage. Sometimes it doesn't.

Be prepared for some dogmatic religious replies.

Click to expand...

Could you please give us a few examples of when Raw will have zero advantages?

Wouldn't it be better to shoot in both and have the Raws as a backup? I mean in case not all of the shots are perfectly exposed etc? If the Raw file is not needed it can simply be discarded!

John

Click to expand...

If the Image comes out decently, it certainly will not require working in raw, particularly for the user's purposes. JPG engines have gotten quite good, and in many cases an inexperienced user will likely not do as well as the jpg did. This user has not worked with raw to any extent, I'd not push them to suddenly start learning for this purpose.

I would think it's far more important for the user to be worried in this case about lighting, camera angle, reflections etc than about trying to master raw.

JohnSil said:

ThrillaMozilla said:

Use your own judgement. Shoot raw if it offers an advantage. Sometimes it doesn't.

Be prepared for some dogmatic religious replies.

Click to expand...

Could you please give us a few examples of when Raw will have zero advantages?

Click to expand...

Sometimes the client requires a camera produced JPEG. This can be the case in news reporting where they want to minimize opportunities for editing to bias the image.

Sometimes you need to get the image out as quickly as possible. There may not be time to manually process raw files. My camera can ftp ready to use JPEG images to my client as I am shooting.

Sometimes you need to be conservative in how much disk space you are using. JPEG images take up less room than raw files.

Sometimes, there is simply no need for quality higher than the camera produced JPEG. For instance passport photos. The end result is 2" by 2" print. 600px by 600px is all that you need. There is no need for wide gamut color spaces, and a requirement that you don't edit the image. If you've got the lighting right, there is no advantage to shooting raw. This is a case where camera produced JPEG images are already far higher quality than what you need.

JohnSil said:

Wouldn't it be better to shoot in both and have the Raws as a backup? I mean in case not all of the shots are perfectly exposed etc? If the Raw file is not needed it can simply be discarded!

John

Click to expand...

For many people shooting raw+JPEG is a fine solution. If the camera produced JPEG meets your needs, you are done. if it doesn't, you have the opportunity to work with the raw file to produce a good image.

It all depends on what you need, how likely it is that you will need the raw, and what the consequences are for missing a shot.

Consider someone who is shooting runners in a marathon. The images are made available online for the runners to purchase. Perhaps there are 5,000 runners in the race, and you take two shots of each. This is a case where it may be advantageous to shoot only JPEG. Sure, there may be a few shoots that turn out bad, but could have been salvaged from the raw. However the benefit of salvaging those few shots may not be enough to offset the cost of storing, and transferring 10,000 raw files (9,990 of which you don't need).

Again, I am not suggesting that it's bad to shoot RAW+JPEG. I am merely pointing out that there are lots of different situations. There is no single strategy that works for every situation.

Michael Fryd said:

The data in the raw file has more dynamic range than the data in a JPEG. This gives you more latitude for adjusting tone curves, contrast, brightness, etc.

Click to expand...

It's more about lost information than just dynamic range. Processing sets a white and black level. Anything in the raw file darker than 'black' or lighter than 'white' is lost, and cannot be retrieved. So, if the clouds are clipped to all white, you can't retrieve detail, similarly with the deep shadows. As to why white and black levels are set, that's because JPEGs are in a perceptual scale, which only runs from what you perceive as 'black' to what you see as 'white'. Raw files range over the whole brightness range of the sensor, however that might be perceived in the final image.

JohnSil said:

ThrillaMozilla said:

Use your own judgement. Shoot raw if it offers an advantage. Sometimes it doesn't.

Be prepared for some dogmatic religious replies.

Click to expand...

Could you please give us a few examples of when Raw will have zero advantages?

Click to expand...

Others have already answered the question.

JohnSil said:

Wouldn't it be better to shoot in both and have the Raws as a backup? I mean in case not all of the shots are perfectly exposed etc? If the Raw file is not needed it can simply be discarded!

John

Click to expand...

BackToNature1 said:

I save RAW images from different Camera Brands into my Sony's PlayMemories Home software. When I output images to an folder, my once RAW images of my FF camera which were once almost 50mb are now less than 1mb.

Click to expand...

It seems like the name was chosen because your pictures will be reduced to memories.

extrapolator said:

John Crowe said:

"A RAW file lacks contrast and colour vibrancy, so for printing or viewing they look dull and bland. It takes very little processing in a RAW converter to breathe some life into them and then go straight to jpeg."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's a complete misunderstanding. They would look great if there were a display device that could display them properly.

extrapolator said:

... OK, thanks. Again, I have some more learning to do.

Click to expand...

JustUs7 said:

Canon applies jpeg settings to raw files opened in their proprietary DPP4 software, as others have mentioned. However, they do come out a bit flat and lacking contrast. For two quick clicks, I can generally edit an acceptable and improved file to process as a jpeg.

First click is auto gamma adjustments. This is a process that I speculate happens in camera on a jpeg. Essentially it automatically tweaks the highlights, shadows, and contrast. Just gives a bit more texture and depth to the images. You can further manually fine tune as desired.

Second click is a plus one to contrast. Based on personal taste, and depends on the subject/scene.

You generally can’t share your raw files and be certain others will see what you want them to see. That will depend on the software they are viewing with. So, no matter what you do on the processing front, you do need to convert the files to jpeg for sharing.

Just a step deeper into editing raws, DPP4 allows you to see what your camera would have done if different settings were chosen. You can toggle through all the White Balance choices, for example. You can also toggle through all the picture styles (landscape, portrait, standard, fine detail, etc) and see how your image would have looked. For example, I set my camera to auto, but when I want a more vivid outcome, I can change to daylight white balance and landscape picture style then publish my jpeg. Below is the difference between AWB-White Priority and Standard picture style vs Daylight / Landscape.


AWB-White Priority / Standard


Daylight/Landscape

This is not intense editing. It’s three or four clicks, then process as jpeg.

Click to expand...

OK, got it. Again, I look forward to seeing the raw vs jpeg images I get out of the camera.



BTW I'm using a tripod for every shots, a wireless shutter release, and exposure bracketing. I also just got a circular polarizer since the reflections are out of control on some shots, but haven't had the chance to take images of the car with it yet. My garage isn't big enough for shots at 50mm+ so I'm using the driveway in front of my garage, so of course, sun.

bobn2 said:

iljitsch said:

If you don't feel your images need editing, then don't edit them. The suggestion that all images need at least a bit of tweaking is harmful because editing for editing's sake can only make your images worse.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

bobn2 said:

I shoot raw+JPEG, where I normally use the JPEGs unless I have an image that needs editing and is important enough for me to spend the time. That is exceedingly rare.

I of course try to make sure that the JPEGs straight out of the camera look the way I want them to look. Others do the opposite and for instance set a fixed white balance that will often be wrong for the scene but they change the white balance (and other stuff) in post processing anyway, so why bother paying attention to it during shooting?

To reiterate: if you have to ask, the answer is no.

Click to expand...

I tend to the full raw workflow, but part of the reason for that is that I expose for raw, not to get a well balanced JPEG. I guess I could set up the in-camera processing options to get a workable JPEG along with the raw, but that's too much trouble for me. Added to which, I enjoy processing. I find that once you get the picture up on the screen, you'll see possibilities that weren't apparent when you took the shot.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this has me considering an external monitor mounted on my 70D.

Mark B. said:

extrapolator said:

Hi all! - I don't seem to be able to find an answer to my question, so thought I'd ask it here. First, I've had my Canon 70D for 6-7 years now, was initially kinda overwhelmed by it so barely scratched the surface; ie used auto mode for a while, realized the images were no better than my cell phone so put the DSLR away :-( But now I have a definite need to get competent with it, and the covid I caught a couple months ago gave me a week and a half away from work which I used to do some intensive photography study. I watched A LOT of photography vids, read and took tons of practice images.

So what I need now is to take a full set of thorough images for the sale auction of my collector car; exterior, interior, engine, suspension, trunk, etc. At this point I've recorded hundreds of images of it, all in RAW, and going in to this endeavor I thought it was for sure that I would be editing all the images. Well, to me they're actually looking pretty good straight out of the camera, even in RAW ... not super glamorous, just authentic / accurate ... so I'm starting to think they might actually need little to no editing, instead just saving them straight to JPG as-is.

So my question is: How common is it for a photographer to record images in RAW and not edit them, instead just saving as JPG / PNG?

One thing I planned to try next, when it stops raining every day here in Florida, is to save the images as RAW and JPG, and since I already think the RAW images look good, maybe the JPGs will look even better. Any comments or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

Click to expand...

If you don’t make any edits to your raw images there’s really no advantage to shooting raw to begin with. You still have to convert at least to jpg before it can be printed or posted/viewed anywhere on the web. I would say it’s very uncommon to shoot raw and convert straight to jpg with zero edits.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Very concise. Looking forward to no rain and another shoot in raw+jpeg.

jxh said:

JohnSil said:

ThrillaMozilla said:

Use your own judgement. Shoot raw if it offers an advantage. Sometimes it doesn't.

Be prepared for some dogmatic religious replies.

Click to expand...

Could you please give us a few examples of when Raw will have zero advantages?

Wouldn't it be better to shoot in both and have the Raws as a backup? I mean in case not all of the shots are perfectly exposed etc? If the Raw file is not needed it can simply be discarded!

John

Click to expand...

If the Image comes out decently, it certainly will not require working in raw, particularly for the user's purposes. JPG engines have gotten quite good, and in many cases an inexperienced user will likely not do as well as the jpg did. This user has not worked with raw to any extent, I'd not push them to suddenly start learning for this purpose.
I would think it's far more important for the user to be worried in this case about lighting, camera angle, reflections etc than about trying to master raw.

Click to expand...

That does feel like the case here, that I'm too inexperienced to know how to edit raw images sufficiently to make them look better than raw but not over-done.

extrapolator said:

AnthonyL said:

JohnSil said:

extrapolator said:

I've had my Canon 70D for 6-7 years now,

So my question is: How common is it for a photographer to record images in RAW and not edit them, instead just saving as JPG / PNG?

Thank you!

Click to expand...

Extra, hey while you were scratching the surface your camera has almost past you by!

I think it's actually quite rare for anyone to not at least tweak a Raw at least a little bit. Depending on what you use to process a file may or may not retain any presets you have in the camera which would be effective if your output was in jpeg but it's not.

YES process your Raws!

I suggest you download the Canon Digital Photo Professional(DPP) that comes FREE with your camera and start by using that. it's very simple to use and will give you an idea of what you may want to do in further depth like with Photoshop or LR but those cost money! Good luck

Click to expand...

Plus the fact that DPP automatically starts off with the JPG settings of the camera as a starting point, so if nothing more is done then the result is what the JPG would have done. If something needs adjusting then it can be done, especially White Balance which is harder to adjust in the JPG.

And finally there is the RAW file available for more comprehensive processing as skills develop (the RAW file serves as my backup of my images).

Win Win for me.

Click to expand...

OK, same question for you: Should I switch from PhotoScape X to DPP now, even though I have, I dunno, 10 hours of time with PhotoScape?

Click to expand...

I have never used and know nothing of Photoscape. I'd be fairly confident that DPP will produce a better result basically because it is built for Canon cameras and apart from the benefits already mentioned it also has inbuilt lens correction if you are using Canon lenses.

It doesn't take much to install, if you are familiar with any processing then it is not exactly difficult to get to the point that you'll know whether or not it is an improvement to you. There are several Canon users on DPR who prefer DPP for RAW (raw) conversion and then maybe doing more in Photoshop.

Try it and if you have any questions pop over to the appropriate Canon forum for your camera so that you can get more relevant answers.

I'm using this Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/ef-s-17-55-f-2-8-is-usm

OK, I'll install DPP. At this point I was just starting to get accustomed to PhotoScape, but not so committed that it bothers me to switch.

By the way, here are some of the images showing how they're coming out. Feel free to comment, everybody, I can take it ... I'm wanting to learn!


Zero editing of the raw file, just reduced file size to 2304 x 1536 and saved as jpeg at 95% quality. In this one I think the car looks really good, but the walls are more yellow than in person. The garage door is open, so there's a mix of indirect sunlight and overhead 4' fluorescent tubes.


Zero editing of the raw file, no healing (as you can see a lil dirt on the mat), nothing, just reduced file size to 2304 x 1536 and saved as jpeg at 95% quality. One thing that does bother me is that the red looks somewhat orange-y. The car is a very red, maybe a little lighter than blood red, in person.


Zero editing of the raw file, no healing, nothing, just reduced file size to 2304 x 1536 and saved as jpeg at 95% quality. One thing that does bother me is that the red looks somewhat orange-y. The car is a very red, maybe a little lighter than blood red, in person.


Zero editing of the raw file, just reduced file size to 2304 x 1536 and saved as jpeg at 95% quality. This one look good to me, but if you think it needs something, please feel free to say.

Let me know of any questions about these. And, do you think they're junk, and I'm way off base (and I need mental help!), and should throw in the towel, give up on photography, and hire a pro?? Or do you think these are OK? Do you look at these and right away know you'd do this, this and this?

Should I process jpegs at 100% quality?

Thanks again ... !

Wow! So cool how the posted pics pop up all of the images' metadata!