RAW image processing.

[Neil]

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:

Edited in Photoshop Elements only:

Edited as a RAW file then in Photoshop:


Any thoughts?

[billandjudy]

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....

[Alpine1]

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

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Alpine1

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.

[lx93]

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.

[Neil]

OK here's the overly warm picture followed by my latest effort.

Overly warm:

"Cooler" image:

[Neil]

And finally:

[TFR]

Originally Posted by Neil

And finally:...

Presented in Neil-O-Vision!

[Alpine1]

your doing some pretty funky things to the rocks.
The effects of over sharpening maybe?

[Neil]

That last one was an artefact after driving across the river earlier in the day.

Actually, it's a filter called Ocean Ripple.

[Alpine1]

they might consider renaming it quartz ripple

[WinterWarlock]

Originally Posted by Alpine1

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]

Originally Posted by Alpine1

they might consider renaming it quartz ripple

Yeh or Orange Sunshine.

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.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Commissionpoint

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]

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!

[T&RDamselfly]

I like your cooler version better too and your "water reflection"!

[ADKJack]

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

[ALGonquin Bob]

Jack - I was just going to say that.

[Scotzman]

Originally Posted by Neil

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!

[Neil]

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...rees%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.