View Full Version : RAW image processing.
Since my camera shoots in RAW and JPG simultaneously I took a few pics in both modes.
Then I found an on-line workflow tutorial and mucked around with a picture , first with the RAW controls, then in Photoshop Elements 6.0.
What I am posting is the first untouched JPG, the same JPG edited only in PS and thirdly the RAW file fully edited.
Untouched:
http://adkhighpeaks.com/neil/stuff/ADKHP_0001.jpg
Edited in Photoshop Elements only:
http://adkhighpeaks.com/neil/stuff/ADKHP_0002.jpg
Edited as a RAW file then in Photoshop:
http://adkhighpeaks.com/neil/stuff/ADKHP_0003.jpg
Any thoughts?
billandjudy
12-12-2010, 06:03 PM
I use RAW images on occassion...It's a useful tool if you have a good photo editing pkg....Better have a ton of storage 'tho....your 3rd image definately looks the most realistic.... :tup:
Alpine1
12-12-2010, 08:11 PM
To me the second one looks more natural. The trees are greener than the 3rd image. The ground cover in the 3rd seems a bit rich, more like a summer shot than a nov picture...just my humble opinion :)
To me the second one looks more natural. The trees are greener than the 3rd image. The ground cover in the 3rd seems a bit rich, more like a summer shot than a nov picture...just my humble opinion :)
Yeah, it looks like I turned up the "temperature" a bit too much. With RAW it's not a problem to go back and do any number of edits.
I think half-way between 2 and 3 as far as the warmth goes would be best.
W/ memory cards being so cheap nowadays, I always shoot in RAW + .JPG. It just gives so much more forgiveness in allowing you room to edit.
OK here's the overly warm picture followed by my latest effort.
Overly warm:
http://adkhighpeaks.com/neil/stuff/ADKHP_0003.jpg
"Cooler" image:
http://adkhighpeaks.com/neil/stuff/ADKHP_0004.jpg
And finally:
http://adkhighpeaks.com/neil/stuff/ADKHP_0005.jpg
And finally:... Presented in Neil-O-Vision! :twisted:
Alpine1
12-14-2010, 03:23 PM
your doing some pretty funky things to the rocks.
The effects of over sharpening maybe?
That last one was an artefact after driving across the river earlier in the day.
Actually, it's a filter called Ocean Ripple.
Alpine1
12-14-2010, 03:44 PM
they might consider renaming it quartz ripple:D
WinterWarlock
12-14-2010, 04:54 PM
your doing some pretty funky things to the rocks.
The effects of over sharpening maybe?
Looks like the kernel size on the filter is larger than a 3x3....
Commissionpoint
01-06-2011, 01:20 PM
they might consider renaming it quartz ripple:D
Yeh or Orange Sunshine.:eek:
Neil:
What was your f stop setting for the original image? Looks a little dark. That will make it hard to get good color because you have to adjust brightness to the point of washing the image out a bit. So you add more warm tones and increse saturation, but you end up with it looking like May sunlight instead of December sunlight.
I agree if you have some decent sized memory cards on hand to shoot the images with that RAW files can be helpful when you are editing your permanent collection.
What was your f stop setting for the original image? Looks a little dark.
Uhhh...I don't know because I have several shots at different exposures and can't remember which one I used for this thread.
But, you're right, you can only work with what's recorded on your memory card. The better the overall quality of the original shot the better the post-processed product.
ALGonquin Bob
03-06-2011, 10:49 PM
I definitely prefer the "cooler" version in post #6. As a camera club judge, I have seen so much in Photoshop special effects, that I just prefer to see a clean, natural looking image. Of course, the advent of digital photography and Adobe Photoshop has caused me to view every image with a suspicious eye. I can no longer marvel at nature photos, because there's always the chance that they were manufactured, and are more computer effects than natural beauty. But I like your photo! :tup:
T&RDamselfly
03-08-2011, 03:59 AM
I like your cooler version better too and your "water reflection"!
ADKJack
03-08-2011, 11:32 AM
One of the great things about your particular camera, Canon gives you the option of the dual process Raw/JPEG. The RAW standard is just what it says, the image as it has been captured by the sensor based upon ISO (automatic or preset) and before it goes through the interpolation stage, white balance and saturation and sharpness stage and then the compression and finally JPEG file.
Since most digital sensors sense light in Red, Green, Blue with a 2 -1 green to red or blue ratio since the eye is more sensitive to the green spectrum photos that are processed in RAW will look more natural in green base however your red, blue will not be as accurate since the saturation and white balance have not been altered. As seen in you photo's when looking at the ground color.
Overall every one that looks at your pic's will se something different as each screen is set differently and the most important thing to consider is what medium you like to view the picture, on a computer screen or printed. It is rare to match print exactly to screen image.
So with all that said, what is your favorite:D
ALGonquin Bob
03-09-2011, 07:50 AM
Jack - I was just going to say that. :D
Scotzman
03-09-2011, 01:18 PM
That last one was an artefact after driving across the river earlier in the day.
Actually, it's a filter called Ocean Ripple.
Oh, I thought it was the too many UBU's effect! :twisted:
I agree, the thing with Photoshop is, "how much is too much".
My "work-flow" with JPGs usually starts off with deleting 1/2 to 3/4 of my pics and the ones I keep usually get cropped, a levels adjutment, lightning or darkening of selected areas and less often, 5-15% increase of color saturation (either all at once or one or two channels) and very often a big de-saturation of blue. Although here's a case where I gave the blue a big boost to the right. http://adkhighpeaks.com/neil/outdoor%20pursuits/jay_2010/trees%2071.html
A little sharpening at times and then some final lighting adjustments and that's about it.
Sometimes I'll spend a lot of time playing with spotlights, sidelights etc.
The workflow with RAW files seems longer due to the 2 stages of editing. Seeing that I'm just a P&S picture taker I don't use the RAW format very often.
marzrw
03-30-2011, 09:49 PM
I've been shooting more and more in raw, actually I have the option to shoot a jpeg and a raw so that I can view the thumbnail prior to seeing if I want to bother processing in raw. I think the white balance issue is a real big advantage and using the exposure slider can really save an image. Snow is a real problem in photography. That's why it's recommended to increase your exposure setting +1 from what the camera sensor reads or your image may come out darker than you want. But if you shoot raw you just slide the slider up to +1 in post processing. Saved a lot of my recent images from Algonquin as it was a very bright sunny day.
I could have been more careful when shooting, but companions were moving fast and didn't have a lot of time to check images. Checking the histogram is also the best instead of just using the LCD image. Histogram Link:
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Lio6
I don't think I could have made such a dramatic repair with just a JPEG image without getting a lot of noise, etc in the repair.
I too have PS Elements 6 and hardly used most of the functions until the past few months. A never ending learning process which is not as much fun as hiking mts. or fishing, but would like to document these activities the best I can.
Example 1 was the original shot
http://i407.photobucket.com/albums/pp153/marzrw/03_20_11%20Algonquin%20Mt/Original.jpg
Example 2 is the Raw repair
http://i407.photobucket.com/albums/pp153/marzrw/03_20_11%20Algonquin%20Mt/RawRepair.jpg
vBulletin® v3.8.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.