I 'm learning to love raw

My wife and I have just returned from a cruise to Alaska, where we both
took a lot of photos. On this trip we shot all raw, I found to my
delight that it was almost impossible to over expose an image when
shooting raw.

Here are two photos that were saved because I was shooting raw, both
would have been way over exposed if I was shooting jpeg.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045238
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61044980

In both cases I show what the camera jpeg would have looked like next
to what I recovered using the raw file.

Once we got home I decided to do a test to see just how much over
exposed a photo can be and still be saved with the raw file. For this
test I shot in the raw+jpeg mode so I could get the jpeg exactly as the
camera produces it. In the test I shot at the normal meter setting and
then two stops over exposed. In this image there are three photos, the
top one is the jpeg from the camera at normal exposure, the middle one
is the camera jpeg two stops over exposed, the bottom is from the raw
file that was captured at the same time, converted using Photoshop
Elements 3. Note I adjusted the color balance as well as the jpeg
images looked a little on the cool side to me.

http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045031

In the past when shooting jpegs I would spend a lot of time looking at
histograms to make sure I was not blowing out the highlights. On this
trip I pretty much just took photos and had to worry about the
histograms far less.

There is a perception by some that shooting raw is more work then
shooting jpegs. The more I shoot raw the more I realize that it is far
easier to shoot in raw then jpeg. I simply don't have to take the
time on every shot to see if I have blown the highlights.

BTW here is a small sampling of the photo I took on the trip.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/alaska

Scott

It seems to me that your camera may simply not be metering properly.

"Scott W" wrote in message
ups.com...
My wife and I have just returned from a cruise to Alaska, where we both
took a lot of photos. On this trip we shot all raw, I found to my
delight that it was almost impossible to over expose an image when
shooting raw.

Here are two photos that were saved because I was shooting raw, both
would have been way over exposed if I was shooting jpeg.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045238
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61044980

In both cases I show what the camera jpeg would have looked like next
to what I recovered using the raw file.

Once we got home I decided to do a test to see just how much over
exposed a photo can be and still be saved with the raw file. For this
test I shot in the raw+jpeg mode so I could get the jpeg exactly as the
camera produces it. In the test I shot at the normal meter setting and
then two stops over exposed. In this image there are three photos, the
top one is the jpeg from the camera at normal exposure, the middle one
is the camera jpeg two stops over exposed, the bottom is from the raw
file that was captured at the same time, converted using Photoshop
Elements 3. Note I adjusted the color balance as well as the jpeg
images looked a little on the cool side to me.

http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045031

In the past when shooting jpegs I would spend a lot of time looking at
histograms to make sure I was not blowing out the highlights. On this
trip I pretty much just took photos and had to worry about the
histograms far less.

There is a perception by some that shooting raw is more work then
shooting jpegs. The more I shoot raw the more I realize that it is far
easier to shoot in raw then jpeg. I simply don't have to take the
time on every shot to see if I have blown the highlights.

BTW here is a small sampling of the photo I took on the trip.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/alaska

Scott

Pete D wrote:
It seems to me that your camera may simply not be metering properly.

Mostly it does pretty good, what will fool it is small bright areas in
an over all dark scene. The images that I showed are crops from much
larger images where the rest of the image is far darker.

It is not too hard to use the histogram to get a "proper" exposure,
but what I have found is I don't need to take this step when shooting
raw.

Scott

Scott W wrote:

My wife and I have just returned from a cruise to Alaska, where we both
took a lot of photos. On this trip we shot all raw, I found to my
delight that it was almost impossible to over expose an image when
shooting raw.

Here are two photos that were saved because I was shooting raw, both
would have been way over exposed if I was shooting jpeg.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045238
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61044980

In both cases I show what the camera jpeg would have looked like next
to what I recovered using the raw file.

What RAW converter are you using? I'm having a tough time making
significant adjustments with RSE other than just EC but maybye I'm just
not used to their highlight/shadow contrast & fill. I don't get such
dramatic results with recovering blown highlights but yes, it certainly
can help.

Once we got home I decided to do a test to see just how much over
exposed a photo can be and still be saved with the raw file. For this
test I shot in the raw+jpeg mode so I could get the jpeg exactly as the
camera produces it. In the test I shot at the normal meter setting and
then two stops over exposed. In this image there are three photos, the
top one is the jpeg from the camera at normal exposure, the middle one
is the camera jpeg two stops over exposed, the bottom is from the raw
file that was captured at the same time, converted using Photoshop
Elements 3. Note I adjusted the color balance as well as the jpeg
images looked a little on the cool side to me.

http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045031

In the past when shooting jpegs I would spend a lot of time looking at
histograms to make sure I was not blowing out the highlights. On this
trip I pretty much just took photos and had to worry about the
histograms far less.

There is a perception by some that shooting raw is more work then
shooting jpegs. The more I shoot raw the more I realize that it is far
easier to shoot in raw then jpeg. I simply don't have to take the
time on every shot to see if I have blown the highlights.

BTW here is a small sampling of the photo I took on the trip.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/alaska

I have to agree with Pete D. The camera may not be metering correctly. There
is a way to check this. If I remember correctly, you shoot a gray card (18%)
and check you histogram for exposure balance. If I have this wrong or if
there is more too it, someone please add or correct me.

Your final images are really nice.


"Scott W" wrote in message
ups.com...
My wife and I have just returned from a cruise to Alaska, where we both
took a lot of photos. On this trip we shot all raw, I found to my
delight that it was almost impossible to over expose an image when
shooting raw.

Here are two photos that were saved because I was shooting raw, both
would have been way over exposed if I was shooting jpeg.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045238
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61044980

In both cases I show what the camera jpeg would have looked like next
to what I recovered using the raw file.

Once we got home I decided to do a test to see just how much over
exposed a photo can be and still be saved with the raw file. For this
test I shot in the raw+jpeg mode so I could get the jpeg exactly as the
camera produces it. In the test I shot at the normal meter setting and
then two stops over exposed. In this image there are three photos, the
top one is the jpeg from the camera at normal exposure, the middle one
is the camera jpeg two stops over exposed, the bottom is from the raw
file that was captured at the same time, converted using Photoshop
Elements 3. Note I adjusted the color balance as well as the jpeg
images looked a little on the cool side to me.

http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045031

In the past when shooting jpegs I would spend a lot of time looking at
histograms to make sure I was not blowing out the highlights. On this
trip I pretty much just took photos and had to worry about the
histograms far less.

There is a perception by some that shooting raw is more work then
shooting jpegs. The more I shoot raw the more I realize that it is far
easier to shoot in raw then jpeg. I simply don't have to take the
time on every shot to see if I have blown the highlights.

BTW here is a small sampling of the photo I took on the trip.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/alaska

Scott

With most cameras you can push a RAW image from 1/3 to a full stop over and
not blow the highlights (it varies from camera to camera) - 2 stops of true
over exposure CAN be recovered sometimes, but it depends on whether all 3
channels are gone, or just 1 or 2 - I certainly wouldn't want to rely on it.

When looking at histograms "in camera" - even when shooting RAW, the
histogram is based on a JPG file anyway as RAW by definition is linear
gamma - and the histogram of a linear gamma shot is a weird looking beast -
so the camera converts it into the more familiar for you anyway - so even
when shooting RAW, the histogram can be out a stop (or more).


"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
Pete D wrote:
It seems to me that your camera may simply not be metering properly.

Mostly it does pretty good, what will fool it is small bright areas in
an over all dark scene. The images that I showed are crops from much
larger images where the rest of the image is far darker.

It is not too hard to use the histogram to get a "proper" exposure,
but what I have found is I don't need to take this step when shooting
raw.

Scott

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
. com...

What RAW converter are you using? I'm having a tough time making
significant adjustments with RSE other than just EC but maybye I'm just
not used to their highlight/shadow contrast & fill. I don't get such
dramatic results with recovering blown highlights but yes, it certainly
can help.

My understanding is that "good old" ACR is one of the best in the business
when it comes to highlight recovery - I've personally recovered one (white)
image that was blown by about 3 stops (serves me right for shooting a white
aeroplane on a bright day with metering set to 'normal').

Paul Furman wrote:
Scott W wrote:

My wife and I have just returned from a cruise to Alaska, where we both
took a lot of photos. On this trip we shot all raw, I found to my
delight that it was almost impossible to over expose an image when
shooting raw.

Here are two photos that were saved because I was shooting raw, both
would have been way over exposed if I was shooting jpeg.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045238
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61044980

In both cases I show what the camera jpeg would have looked like next
to what I recovered using the raw file.

What RAW converter are you using? I'm having a tough time making
significant adjustments with RSE other than just EC but maybye I'm just
not used to their highlight/shadow contrast & fill. I don't get such
dramatic results with recovering blown highlights but yes, it certainly
can help.

RSE works for most of my images but when the highlights are really
blown I use Photoshop Elements 3, which is the same plugin as
Photoshop.

It is pretty amazing how much more of the highlights I can get using
PPE 2 then RSE.

Canons converter does OK but still not as good as Photoshop.

Scott

In message ,
"C J Southern" wrote:

With most cameras you can push a RAW image from 1/3 to a full stop over and
not blow the highlights (it varies from camera to camera) - 2 stops of true
over exposure CAN be recovered sometimes, but it depends on whether all 3
channels are gone, or just 1 or 2 - I certainly wouldn't want to rely on it.

Another factor is scene contrast, and how much of its DR lies above and
below "average metered grey". You can't get away with any positive
exposure compensation in the camera at all, with a white bird or shirt
against a predominant dark background; even with RAW you usually need to
dial in at least -2/3 EC. On the other hand, if you were shooting a
wall that was bright white with small, darker things on it, +3 EC would
probably not blow the RAW in any channel.
--


John P Sheehy

In message ,
"C J Southern" wrote:

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
.com...

What RAW converter are you using? I'm having a tough time making
significant adjustments with RSE other than just EC but maybye I'm just
not used to their highlight/shadow contrast & fill. I don't get such
dramatic results with recovering blown highlights but yes, it certainly
can help.

My understanding is that "good old" ACR is one of the best in the business
when it comes to highlight recovery - I've personally recovered one (white)
image that was blown by about 3 stops (serves me right for shooting a white
aeroplane on a bright day with metering set to 'normal').

It does have some issues - the exposure compensation is not very linear
with -2 EC or below; it leaves some extreme RAW highlights white at -4
with my Canons, which is technically impossible, as there is only about
3.2 - 3.5 stops above middle grey in the green RAW channel; that means a
white with a green RAW value of 4095 should render as a midtone with -4
EC, but it may actuall render as a clipped 255 in the output. Even with
version 3.3, it still had a green cast to one of the marginal highlight
zones where one channel was clipping.

--


John P Sheehy