Is It Alot Of Mucking About With RAW.

Sponsored Links

23 Feb 2005 - 4:52 AM

• Options

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

croberts

7

23 Feb 2005 - 4:54 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

not much more than you would with a jpeg! colour correct and sharpen. i suppose its an extra step in the proceess, as you have to convert it to a TIFF or JPEG. The only other difference is that its far easier to colour correct a RAW file than a jpeg.

deviant

8

23 Feb 2005 - 5:00 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Depends. I usualy just make sure colour temperature is ok and open them. It is possible to make some adjustment to exposure if required and sharpen/saturate images. Doesn't take long at all and you can do it in batches.

Carabosse (e2 Member)

9

23 Feb 2005 - 5:04 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Well using something like RawShooter you can adjust:

Colour Temperature
Tint
Appearance
Exposure Compensation
Fill Light
Shadow Contrast
Highlight Contrast
Saturation
Hue
Sharpness
Detail Extraction
Noise Suppression
Colour Noise Suppression

Phew!!

Obviously you don't HAVE to adjust all those: limit it to colour correction and sharpness if you want.

But then with the latest DSLRs you can adjust several of the in-camera processing parameters too.

Experiment and see for yourself, I think. What is right for one person may not be right for another. If you constantly find yourself making major adjustments to JPEG you may want to see if RAW will give a better result. At least we now seem to have some decent quality free software in RawShooter so you don't have to commit yourself to any expenditure.

No definite answers here, I'm afraid!!

elowes

8

23 Feb 2005 - 5:48 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I use jpeg when I know I am running out of space on the cards I have with me (as I have done on a couple of trips abroad and have now got a lot more cards) and RAW when I know I have the space.

I find RAW to be better but the additional processing of the image takes time and a little getting used to.

Never work on jpegs. Once down loaded they should be worked in PS format or tiff. If you save a worked jpeg the compression causes a loss of information. Sorry if I am teaching egg sucking but I know of one or two people who always do every thing in jpeg to save hard drive space.

philwig

7

23 Feb 2005 - 5:56 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

As above. I use the Adobe RAW plug-in thing so it's pretty much the same as it would be with JPEG, I just get that first step where I can correct any colour issues or exposure problems, which I couldn't do with jpeg. Plus it's uncompressed of course, so there's no JPEG artifacts.

If you're picky about quality then you already use no in-camera "enhancements" (sharpening etc).

The main disadvantage is that you can't just flip through a slide-show of jpegs, unless you shoot simultaneous RAW+JPEG (which I found a pain anyway). You can easily create a "droplet" for PS if you like to create machine-generated jpegs from eveything. Personally I look at each shot in ACR's preview (at 100%) and work that way. It's acceptably fast for showing customers if you have a good pc.

brian1208 (e2 Member)

8

23 Feb 2005 - 6:29 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

RAW Shooter has a very nice Slide Show facility, good for viewing, sorting and deleting as well

brian

chris.maddock

11

23 Feb 2005 - 8:07 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

There isn't a curve or level tool - it's just the shadow contrast, highlight contrast and fill-light sliders.
However, even though I also use C1 I do think this is worth keeping both an eye and an open mind on - once it works on my AthlonXP/Win2K photo editing PC that is