Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
The only reason I haven't been doing RAW format imaging is the fact that I was using an eleven year old PC until recently. Now that it doesn't take forever to process the images, I plan on using RAW format, and I have a lot to learn.
Here's a bit of a discussion I recently read, and I would love to read any comments on it;
: I seem to get better results (more often) when I do not expose to the right.
: I will say it here for you again just once more: in many cases the very best exposure for a given RAW file will look washed out and too light both on the back of the camera and on the computer. Such images will represent the best exposures and will contain the greatest amount of data. All that you need to do is convert the image properly. You will have produced the best possible image.
Exposing to the right is all about getting as much data as possible into the shot to work with - that is stacking as much of the graph on the right side of the histogram as possible - without clipping the highlights (hitting the furthest righthand side). One mistake many make is to always push to get a weighted curve on the right side and there are (many) cases where this is not possible without blowing the highlights.
Overall I think the key is to expose as correctly as possible whilst working within the constraints that you have and have a mind to getting as much light data as possible.
Also when it comes to RAW processing there are (far as I can tell) two main schools of thought. The first is to process all - or as much as possible - in the RAW editor - with things like lightroom getting more advanced this is becoming more and more feasable.
The other kind is to set all the RAW processing sliders to 0. Then set both the white balance and the exposure (using a combination of exposure, brightness and ) so that you have as much graph on the right as possible, but whilst leaving as small gap before the lins hit the right hand side - note that in some cases you might have to process a RAW twice - once for the dark and midtones and once for the brights to really pull all of the detail possible from brighter areas on the shot. *note processing twice works for both kinds of RAW processing - the first and the second*.
The main idea of the second is to pull as much light data as possible into photoshop/editing software and then perform your editing upon the photo to get your desired effect. This can take longer, the bonus is increased control (eg using layermasks to specify the exact areas you want to have each effect) over the final product.
Either can work very well and in the right hands give you fantastic results - I tend to conform to the first kind whilst I've experimented with the second and find that you do need a good exposure to get it to work well.
I don't disagree with the theory or other folk's technique to 'shoot to the right' however, I don't use this method. I find it an unappealing and aesthetically unpleasing way to take photos even though I know it may well produce me better quality images. I choose to shoot 'what looks good to me' on the histogram and LCD, I find it much more satisfying and pleasurable to get a 'correctly exposed' image for me and my tastes than one that in theory will be better. I would much rather make my PP tweaks to a file that already looks right from the camera than one that looks awful (to my mind) and needs a different approach in processing that is a bit unintuitive to me.
The majority of my histograms look decidedly left sided but with good midtone spreads with only slight nudges to the right, its just the way I like to do things.
There are quite a few things I do which could be considered 'not the best practice' but its the way that I choose to make images regardless of theoretical image quality.
For instance,
I don't bother too much about optimum WB for any given scene, I just stick it in Auto or Cloudy if in Scotland.
I never do any sharpening in PP, just rely on the max setting in camera.
I exclusively work in 8 bit, never in 16 bit.
and I exclusively have my whole colour profile in sRGB as opposed to Adobe RGB or other wider colour spaces.
To be honest, I would rather just get out there and take pictures than worry too much about all the technical this and thats, I've settled on a routine that I'm comfortable with that produces reasonable results that I'm happy with.
I'd suggest that you try a few of the different tips and techniques out Den, come to your own conclusions and settle on a workflow that you are comfortable with, one that is possibly easy to manage and that produces results that you are happy with.
John
There is a perfectly valid technical reason for using the 'expose to the right' technique. However the technique is only really suitable for occasions when you have the opportunity to check and retake (eg landscapes), otherwise you run the risk of missing the shot altogether.
As to settings, if you are shooting in raw then in camera sharpening etc do not apply. I usually leave my WB set to auto as they are so accurate these days. I tweak the WB in Capture 1.
Have fun
Ian
Quote: As to settings, if you are shooting in raw then in camera sharpening etc do not apply.
They do if you use Nikon and the Nikon NX2 Raw convertor software Ian. All in-camera settings and parameters are transfered with the RAW file into NX2 where you can make further adjustments and view the results on screen in the RAW file. Once you save as a TIFF then they are set into that file.
All good points guys. I have 123di extended version 6.2 on my PC, I swear by it. Btw John, it has an extremely comprehensive section on Nikon NX2 Raw. I will be using Adobe Elements 7.0 until ver. 9.0 is released, and I'm going to take a look at Capture 1 also. I use a Pentax K20D, and I have the Pentax RAW software, which I'll try. I have tried processing a couple of RAW images in camera, and they turned out not too shabby, but There's not a lot you can do. I'm open to any tips, advice, or comments on RAW processing, and also setting up the camera for Raw imaging.
Quote: They do if you use Nikon and the Nikon NX2 Raw convertor software Ian. All in-camera settings and parameters are transfered with the RAW file into NX2 where you can make further adjustments and view the results on screen in the RAW file. Once you save as a TIFF then they are set into that file.
Ah, right. I have never used NX2. I stand corrected.
Den, I think you have the basics to get you into a RAW workflow pretty good.
I'd just recommend this:
Set your camera up to shoot RAW, you may have options to alter contrast, sharpness, tones, etc but I don't know if they will be carried and applied with Pentax RAW files and used in say Capture One?
Import all RAW files into a dedicated RAW convertor, C1 or Lightroom for example. When done basic RAW processing save as TIFFs in 8bit if using Elements.
Open Elements and it will let you transfer all the RAW and TIFFs into it's Organiser. Organise away.
Select the ones you want to edit, open Elements editor. Edit away and save as a Master TIFF. Close file or editor.
The Organiser automatically stacks all the RAW and TIFFs of a file into a version set, nice and neat.
I save all my Master TIFFs to a dedicated folder that gets backed up to another HDD and periodically to DVD.
Hope it helps.
JP
when I edit a "shoot to the right" shot and I lower the exposure to what I think it should have been, it never really looks quite right - certainly not as good as one I correctly exposed in camera
I know why we should shoot to the right, far more information in the brighter areas than dark, but I dunno... if you're going to produce a bright sunny shot, maybe it works... if you're after something a bit darker, just shoot for correct exposure and get a good noise reduction plugin 
Perhaps a tutorial is in order for how to do "shoot to the right" properly ?
I have one available, but Ade's right, it can make some shots a bit pasty looking. It really depends what effect you are going for. You can always increase contrast after the shot, but if you can get a good result without all the extra work, then why not?
Shooting to the right refers to the camera histogram. First thing to be aware of is that the histogram on your camera is based on the JPEG image and does not indicate the exposure situation for Raw. Wih Raw you will have about 3 stops more dynamic range available. Martin Evening (in his Lightroom book) recommends overexposing Raw by about 1 stop. Assuming that you use a reliable method to determine exposure just add one stop. In the Raw converter you will need a small adjustment to ensure highlights are not clipped and a combination of Exposure and recovery will do this. The big gain is that there are over 4,000 levels in the lightest stop, half that in the 2nd lightest and so on. So by overexposing you lift the darker tones and can thus obtain more shadow detail; using the fill slider can help. Martin is suggesting that by optimum use of the sliders, any deterioration in highlights should be neglible but the gain is shadow detail is significant. Although, I do not intentionally overexpose myself (I only read Martin's view this week), it makes good sense and is certainly consistemt with what I have found when (occassionally
) unintentionally overexposing. I think it might pay to use this advise carefully. Where lighting is well controlled (e.g. a studio) overexposing it probably a low risk and well worth doing. When light is less predictable I would be less inclinded to overexpose and use the extra dynamic range to cope with unintentional errors.
For anyone new to Photography Martin evening is a professional fashion Photographer and author of the excellent books on Photoshop and Lightroom now supported by Adobe.
Dave
Too much is written about "shoot to the right" on that I agree with John, certainly for landscapes. If you have a medium / top end dslr their latitude at the native ISO is superb - far better than 5 years ago. But in Johns case I bet he shoots to the right most of the time without realising it (i.e No blinkies) so you go as far as possible without over-exposing. If you had a more "balanced" histogram there would be too many blown highlights.
Where it does matter is at high ISO, a couple of years ago I had a Nikon D80 which was supposobly cr*p at Iso's >400. Well I had some images at >1000 that were almost noise free. There the images that worked was those stacked slightly to the right with a few "blinkies" which were retreived in RAW (I was going to say lightroom, tho I cant remember if that one was Captureone). Even with newer models it does matter. I now use full frame, and when I've messed up exposure you can get some noise at ISO 400-800, but with great exposure you can get away with ISO 4000. Yes in that one you can see some noise on screen, but not in print, where it really matters.
When you get used to RAW it will make a huge difference, you can easily change white balance, exposure, tone curve etc all of which are very difficult in Jpeg. Also JPEGs set sharpening in camera - with RAW / PS you adjust accordingly after.
If I were to recommend one it would be Lightroom 3, mainly because it now almost matches Captureone for ultimate quality (may be on par now), but is far more intuitive and if you get Martin Evenings book you will grasp the basics pretty quickly.
Quote: Shooting to the right refers to the camera histogram. First thing to be aware of is that the histogram on your camera is based on the JPEG image and does not indicate the exposure situation for Raw.
Dave
Surprising no-one mentioned this earlier. The relationship between the RAW capture and the JPEG that appears on the LCD and upon which the histogram is based will be determined by the algorithm used by the camera's firmware. That will vary (perhaps considerably) between different makes and models of camera (and maybe even between different firmware versions).
That's why the histogram shown on the camera can vary considerably from the histogram shown in ACR or Lightroom when the RAW file is imported. Ideally, if you want to be particularly "nerdish" about it, you could experiment to see what shape of on-camera histogram corresponded with the "ideal" histogram in the RAW converter - but I suspect that the relationship would vary with different types of photograph subject.
The way to see this would be to import the RAW files into ACR or Lightroom and then put the memory card back in the camera and look at the histogram on the LCD for each image at the same time as looking at the histogram in Lightroom on the computer monitor. Maybe, for your particular camera and subject matter, you will need a right-weighted histogram in the camera to get an evenly centred histogram on the PC. Or not?
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...Featured e2 Photo
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top