Back Modifications (0)
Views 74 Unique 31 Award Shortlist   

High Tech !

By salopian
2015 resolution - to try to get to grips with Raw technique having dabbled before with no succes
Decide to take a static subject indoors and set up the Samsung on a tripod so I had stable conditions. Used manual focus, set WB to lighting and used self timer. So far so good. Trouble began when I had downloaded onto PC and wanted to work on the image. I used Samsung Raw converter ( I had done nothing in camera ) and sure enough quite a few adjustments were available, but when I wanted to save the edited image it was saved as a jpeg ( I suppose "converter" is a clue ! ) Is it possible to edit a Raw image, save it as such and print/post it, still in Raw format?
( there was so little colour in the image I converted it to mono using channels )

Geoff

Tags: Raw General Kodak Edit

Save 60% On inPixio Eclipse HDR Pro

Comments


prabhusinha 13 5 5 India
14 Jan 2015 11:35AM
Just think for a moment, It has a sensor of its size 6x9 cm, may be with the same optics.
IainHamer Plus
15 21 5 England
14 Jan 2015 12:22PM
Raw is a digital negative and as such can't really be printed as is. Any adjustments you make are NON permanent so you can adjust the image. Image quality from the RAW to JPG depends on what size you save the JPG at. About 300dpi is normal for printing but for some reason most software defaults to 72 dpi - screen resolution - so try saving your JPG's at about 300dpi

Iain
mrswoolybill Plus
14 2.7k 2375 United Kingdom
14 Jan 2015 1:47PM
As above - the Raw file is the unprocessed file with all its data intact and untouched. It's not an acronym, it's a word - genuinely the raw material!

I have no experience of Samsung Raw, but in Adobe Camera Raw, after I've made the initial adjustments I hold down the Alt key and click on Open copy. Then I can proceed with my processing on a copy, and when I have finished I use Save as and save as a PSD (Photoshop Data - I'm not sure what your equivalent will be) file, which retails the full data of the processed image. Then I can re-save that as a jpeg for easy viewing, uploading, emailing, printing etc.

I keep all three files on my hard drive, and back them up. The only downside of Raw for me is the memory that it takes up!

I'm really not very technically minded, I tend to work on instinct and panic at the technical side - but see if that helps...
Moira
banehawi Plus
16 2.4k 4217 Canada
14 Jan 2015 4:00PM
No. But you should be able to save it in many different formats, especially TIFF, which will allow you to perform non-destructive editing on the Tiff file. This is what most pros will do; Tiff files, when saved, are not ever compressed, - they are large files.

Jpegs, on the other hand, are always compressed, and worse still are compressed every time you open and save, So you can, over time, end up with a very poor quality file.

Lightroom though has quite a unique trick. It does save the RAW in its library, but the file size is small because it saves the alterations its made without compression, so you can access the original, edited raw file at any time.

I would try a PS converter rather than the Samsung. The manufacturers own converters are usually very limited in functionality, - all manufacturers.

The PPI depends on a few factors, such as sensor size, megapixel count, size of printed image, (larger images are viewed from further away), and the capability of the printer. 200 will cover most conditions.
But 72 if the image will only ever be seen on a screen.


Its a nice shot too!


Regards



Willie
dark_lord Plus
16 2.8k 750 England
14 Jan 2015 8:58PM
Well done for giving RAW a go. Ultimately this will give you greater control over quality of image output, by that I mean sharpness, contrast, colour tonality etc. there is a learning curve, but then ther is with all things and you only get out waht you put in.

You should have the option of outputting as a tiff. If your RAW converter doesn't, shame on it, though I really think it should.
I agree with Willie about manufacturer's RAW converters, though Canon's is supposed to be quite good but I use Lightroom. If you have Photoshop, Adobe Camear RAW is part of it, but may or may not support your camera depending on version.

Good to see you used Channels for your conversion. It looks like you've done a decent job here. Mind you, if there's little colour to start with there's not much room for manouvre with channels. And different photographers will have different preferences too, so there's no right or wrong in that sense.
What you'll find is that even with using Channels (or the mono conversion tool in LR or PS) is that you often benefit from using a contrast adjustment too (I use Curves for greater control, but the Contrast tool often works well too).

Now to your image.
Mono is perfect for the subject, if nothing else because mono was the medium of choice in those days.
There's good detail and sharpness and the verticals are correct. A leaning camera would just not look right!

There are a couple of bright highlights on the metal parts (nothing that spoils the overal image though as they are small) which can be avoided by shooting this type of subject in a light cube or light tent. If that's not an option, you could diffuse the light through a thin sheet of material such as muslin (you may need to rope in an assistant to hold it).

As it stands I'd like to see a little more space around the subject to make it look less claustrophobic.
However, it depends on what you want to use the image for. For a brochure, for selling or as an illustration this is fine but as a picture per se then some room is more acceptable to the eye.
I'm sure the original shot does have some room as this shot is square and not the aspect ratio of images produced by your camera.
It can be difficult when several different crops can work!

How cameras have changed.
But they essentially do the same job, recording our memories.

Keith
dudler Plus
17 1.5k 1810 England
14 Jan 2015 10:05PM
You grabbed my attention with the camera: bar the colour and flash contacts, this is my first camera - mine was a dun-coloured Six-Twenty Junior.

I suspect a second pull-out behind the one that's visible, with a yellow filter. But the camera died when I was in my teens, so my memory may not be utterly reliable.

I have really come to appreciate the power of RAW in the last year: it allows so much more adjustment in several ways (and none at all in others, so you need to do some stuff in RAW, and then save in a different format to do other things). My own post today shows just how different a picture processed from RAW can be.

By then, though, the work is done: you have pulled out a great deal of extra quality, and you can safely lock it into a different format. The really good news is that all of the Adobe software includes a very powerful and subtle RAW converter, equally available in Elements, Lightroom, and Photoshop. If you've got a recent version, it should handle most cameras - as noted above, it's a pain that it doesn't update, but there you go.

You've done a beautiful job here: the geometry is excellent, as are the tones: you've let the Brownie be the star, and not showed off in any way. As Keith suggests, a little more room round it wouldn't hurt, but it's not a big deal.

So, I think, job done: just don't fret that you have to move to a different file type after processing.
salopian 9 3 28 United Kingdom
15 Jan 2015 11:55AM
Well, I am glad I posted with my queries, you have provided so much info and advice.
Dark Lord - lots of useful info.- thanks. The close cropping was needed as I used my microwave as a lightbox ( got to be a first ! ) - plenty of reflected light from the tungsten bulb with a tissue to diffuse it and also used a couple of A4 sheets to adjust the relected light. This produced a rather messy background, hence the cropping.
Willie - I will try saving in Tiff as you suggest and sort out another converter.
Moira - I have noted your technique and am keen to give it a go, preferably with a different converter.
John - Yes, it does have the yellow pull out filter. I seem to remember it used to put a bit of punch into blue skies when I used it with mono film years ago. The difference between V1 and V2 in your post today is quite astonishing. The last sentence of your comment is very pertinent - I was fretting about saving to a different file type when obviously, from all the advice I have had today, it is the norm.
Thanks everyone for your comments and advice.

Geoff
paulbroad 13 131 1293 United Kingdom
15 Jan 2015 1:03PM
Good and interesting record. As said, you should be able to save in a range of image formats, although JPG or TIFF should be enough. The latter is best for quality, but file sizes are large.

Depends on the use for your image. Sales etc, TIFF, family album, JPG usually.

You should be able to print a RAW file directly if you really wanted to.

Paul
dark_lord Plus
16 2.8k 750 England
15 Jan 2015 4:36PM
I congratulate you for your ingenuity of using a microwave. That must be a first. It's worked exceptionally well.
xwang 11 56 8
17 Mar 2015 2:03PM
I've heard of this camera, not sure if I have seen a real one.. good work, Geoff.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.