How many people edit RAW files by making random guesses?

[techjedi]

How many people move sliders about in DPP / Lightroom / Aftershot by eyeballing it and how many do it based on data from a light meter or from studio data?

I see this person on a video just move his sliders about, guessing what looks right to him. Is that how some people really do it? Shouldn't those people be using JPG instead if they use no data to determine what should be changed?

When a camera does it's own light metering, it uses built in collections of tens of thousands of images and compares those to the shot you take to come up with the right exposure, but ppl some are just editing RAW...by eyeballing and guessing.

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

At the end of the day, the final image is all the matters. Obsessing about the method it got into that state isn't productive.

 

[Martin.au]

When a camera does it's own light metering, it uses built in collections of tens of thousands of images and compares those to the shot you take to come up with the right exposure

Bahaha. No.

Bahaha. Yes...

I thought this was common knowledge. Parameters that determine light metering come from a built in database of thousands of images. All camera makers I know do this.

It just reinforces my point that most people actually don't know what they're doing with RAW files.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3/D3A5.HTM

How it actually works.

I do love the idea of a camera assessing a built-in collection of thousands of images, looking for something similar. Perhaps in a few decades.

I don't see any mention of what I said.

Here is the link from Nikon that I showed you. Matrix / evaluative, whatever you want to call it, uses image databases, everyone sort of knows that I think.

: https://support.nikonusa.com/app/an...en-spot,-center-weighted-and-matrix-metering?

I suspect what they meant to say is something like: "We used a database of 30,000 images to create a lookup table that we use use to compare the current scene to using a complex (hell it might even be simple) algorithm"

I'm no camera software designer so take the above with a pinch of salt

--
Charles
Somewhere south of 38 S

Sounds about right, IMO.

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

Do you include yourself in this group?

Leonard Migliore

I don't think RAW is better, it's different, I think it's fine if you have a light meter with you or something, and you know what needs changed. In the case I don't, no I won't know what I'm doing, I'd be making random guesses.

That's an interesting statement. As it happens, I have a light meter. I don't use it a whole lot because the one in my camera usually does the job but there are some situations where the meter allows me to get a better exposure.

Now, what does this have to do with RAW? Do I need the meter when I'm moving Lightroom sliders at random?

Also, you didn't answer the question I posed in the post you quoted: Do you prefer the image processed per the out-of-camera JPG or the one that I randomly altered?

 

[Leonard Migliore]

That's a really fine image. But it makes my blood run cold every time I see it.

 

[Brev00]

I don't take pictures of scenes. I capture pixels or paints. Then, use my sliders or brushes to apply the paints. A light meter would kill the mood.

Actually, there are parameters within the raw processong format that could be considered guidelines that help provide some semblance of order: the use of the white balance dropper to eliminate color casts, the black and white warnings that help establish the range of tones and can help to determine the exact exposure, highlight recovery, blacks, and shadow settings. So, while raw processing does not partake of the science of exposure and light meters, it has a methodology of its own determined at the computer by individuals. Some say the deeper you look within, the more general the truth you find.
--

brev99

Explore brev99’s 6,815 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[LeeStar]

You call it a guess; I call it what is pleasing to my eye. I'm not a professional photographer. I don't get paid for my images. It's a hobby that I do because I enjoy it. I don't do it for anyone besides myself (and a few friends that enjoy seeing them). Why would I make edits I don't like, just because some computer software tells me I should? So no, I don't edit RAW files by making random guesses. I choose carefully based on the 'look' I am trying to achieve.

L

 

[Neil-H]

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

Do you include yourself in this group?

Leonard Migliore

I don't think RAW is better, it's different, I think it's fine if you have a light meter with you or something, and you know what needs changed. In the case I don't, no I won't know what I'm doing, I'd be making random guesses.

Of course you don't think raw is better, you prefer phones and most of those don't offer raw. But you are on a gear review site asking about this stuff, so of course many of us will disagree. Then you criticize people in general for adjusting their own sliders by eye, yet you don't even do that when shooting jpeg, you are essentially letting some stranger adjust those sliders for you.

If you really want to get down to it, there is more to metering than just adjusting camera settings. No camera or company knows exactly how I want the shot to look, no camera or company knows exactly how I want my WB to be set. I shoot raw so I can adjust these to my liking rather than bowing down to somebody else's decisions.

IMO if you own a device without the ability to shoot raw, or really if you refuse to shoot raw in general, you have the lowest standards of all photo graphers.

 

[Aur]

Of course you don't think raw is better, you prefer phones and most of those don't offer raw.

I prefer phones? Why do I prefer phones, over what? I don't even have a smartphone, I have one of those dumbphones from Nokia, only thing it can do is play Snake.

Why do you say I prefer phones?

 

[Neil-H]

Of course you don't think raw is better, you prefer phones and most of those don't offer raw.

I prefer phones? Why do I prefer phones, over what? I don't even have a smartphone, I have one of those dumbphones from Nokia, only thing it can do is play Snake.

Why do you say I prefer phones?

Must have been thinking of somebody else. Well, what cameras do you own and use?

 

[Aur]

IMO if you own a device without the ability to shoot raw, or really if you refuse to shoot raw in general, you have the lowest standards of all photo graphers.

I shoot film most of the time, like I already said. What's wrong with people not shooting RAW?

 

[Aur]

Of course you don't think raw is better, you prefer phones and most of those don't offer raw.

I prefer phones? Why do I prefer phones, over what? I don't even have a smartphone, I have one of those dumbphones from Nokia, only thing it can do is play Snake.

Why do you say I prefer phones?

Must have been thinking of somebody else. Well, what cameras do you own and use?

zeiss contarex film camera I use most and a 650D I use rarely

 

[Dareshooter]

IMO if you own a device without the ability to shoot raw, or really if you refuse to shoot raw in general, you have the lowest standards of all photo graphers.

I shoot film most of the time, like I already said. What's wrong with people not shooting RAW?

Nothing. Nothing wrong with people who prefer to shoot raw either.

 

[stevo23]

How many people move sliders about in DPP / Lightroom / Aftershot by eyeballing it and how many do it based on data from a light meter or from studio data?

I see this person on a video just move his sliders about, guessing what looks right to him. Is that how some people really do it? Shouldn't those people be using JPG instead if they use no data to determine what should be changed?

When a camera does it's own light metering, it uses built in collections of tens of thousands of images and compares those to the shot you take to come up with the right exposure

Bahaha. No.

This is how Nikon supposedly does it.

, but ppl some are just editing RAW...by eyeballing and guessing.

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

 

[Hithertoo]

There is nothing random about it, particularly not with a decent raw editor like lightroom or photoshop which shows you your colour channels on the histogram as you edit. Just because you don't understand how to get good results doesn't mean others don't.

--
All views expressed above are my own and are not an expression of how others should think, or a matter of group think for others.

 

[stevo23]

How many people move sliders about in DPP / Lightroom / Aftershot by eyeballing it and how many do it based on data from a light meter or from studio data?

I see this person on a video just move his sliders about, guessing what looks right to him. Is that how some people really do it? Shouldn't those people be using JPG instead if they use no data to determine what should be changed?

When a camera does it's own light metering, it uses built in collections of tens of thousands of images and compares those to the shot you take to come up with the right exposure, but ppl some are just editing RAW...by eyeballing and guessing.

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

Because when we use RAW, we also like to expose to the right - maximizing DR and clean signal. As a result, the image almost never looks right to start with. We slide things around for the look we want to achieve.

What would studio data do for it? Why do you think we need some kind of studio or metering data to decide how it should be? I'm curious on this one - never heard it before.

 

[stevo23]

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

Do you include yourself in this group?

Leonard Migliore

I don't think RAW is better, it's different, I think it's fine if you have a light meter with you or something, and you know what needs changed. In the case I don't, no I won't know what I'm doing, I'd be making random guesses.

How does a light meter give you an idea what to do in post processing?

 

[stevo23]

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

I do; apparently you don't.

what do you use to determine how much exposure an image should have then when you're editing your RAW file

This is a nonsensical question - truly. The image needs to look the way you want it to - there is no "should have".

 

[Graham Meale]

How many people move sliders about in DPP / Lightroom / Aftershot by eyeballing it and how many do it based on data from a light meter or from studio data?

I see this person on a video just move his sliders about, guessing what looks right to him. Is that how some people really do it? Shouldn't those people be using JPG instead if they use no data to determine what should be changed?

When a camera does it's own light metering, it uses built in collections of tens of thousands of images and compares those to the shot you take to come up with the right exposure, but ppl some are just editing RAW...by eyeballing and guessing.

Then I see people say RAW is so much better, how many people actually don't know what they're doing when they edit a RAW file...

If technology was so wonderful, we wouldn't need to process photos at all. But we do. I prefer to use my own eyes and judgement, thank you.

 

[Dan Marchant]

I don't much care what the lightmeter says and I don't randomly move sliders about. I move the sliders based on a belief that doing so will create the style of image I am looking to create. I am not always quite right and sometimes need to readjust but I certainly wouldn't say it was random.

 

[MPA1]

Photography is art. How do you think darkroom images were created? Using data as a base then by eye.

It's not a fixed mathematical constant, it's an art form.