Forum menu
(Edit: Drac's fixed his own typo 🙂 )
Ahhh fixed that one already but for some reason didn't work.
Cheers Graham.
I'll add, the flesh tone on your daughter is still off a little, and your wife's jacket is a touched over exposed not now on the one I altered. However, that can be fixed the changes I only took 30 seconds or so. With more time brushes and layers can be added for fine tuning.
Lol, now you've broke the Before image 😀
I still see it.
Mmm might have been me.. All tickety boo now.
(I'll remove my one)
Drac - like the warmth you've added - seems a definite improvement. Was it complicated to achieve, or a quick 'fiddle'?
In Lightroom it was extremely easy, again it's a process of trying difference settings to see what they do and mix them. The beauty is that the image isn't altered it uses metadata so can all be reset at any time, it's only when you export to a new image that it keeps the settings to be seen outside of Lightroom but that is the new image only.
There's loads of tutorials on you tube and adobe site for Lightroom.
Likewise edits like that can be easily done directly to a NEF file in [url= http://www.capturenx.com ]CaptureNX[/url] and the (non-destructive) results saved back to the same file. You can even save multiple versions in the same NEF, flip between them and always still get back to the "As Shot" original.
Just a quick comment to those worried about not being able to read raw files in a few years time. The best bet for now is to convert your the proprietary RAW files into Adobe DNG which is designed as an open standard. This doesn't completely remove the burden of library maintenance, but it does make life easier.
-j
I actually like the first image better. Coldness of the scene contrasted with the warmth of the subject matter.. I love the muted colours. Makes it even more of a stand-out shot.. which it is by the way - top work.
Yup personal choice but I'd say his wife's not that pale or is her hair. The Background could be left alone if I you wanted to and just alter flesh and hair tones as I say it's quick edit to show what's possible rather than "point click I'm done"
thanks ... inspired to have a bit of a play. One (probably) daft qn - if i shoot on RAW (or NEF), can I get them printed out just the same as Jpeg files?
Thanks
Yes but maybe not in places like boots you can save them as other formats though even the jpg to help with such things.
Just a quick comment to those worried about not being able to read raw files in a few years time. The best bet for now is to convert your the proprietary RAW files into Adobe DNG which is designed as an open standard. This doesn't completely remove the burden of library maintenance, but it does make life easier.
Not convinced about that. DNG is an Adobe proprietary format and while "open" for now, may not be for ever.
Not convinced about that. DNG is an Adobe proprietary format and while "open" for now, may not be for ever.
The same could be said about any format, but the fact that Adobe is constantly improving their DNG format to be compatible with manufacturer's newest RAW types does appear to suggest that such a move would be unlikely. It would be, from a business point of view, incredibly stupid of them to reduce the usability of the DNG format, in the same way that requiring non-open software to read PDFs would be. Although you clearly are not, I'm confident that DNG will become an open standard in the same way that PDF has.
Image now removed.
try to avoid overexposure before you even have to fiddle around in the [s]darkroom[/s] living room.
@DrJ - two points: 1) DNG is fully documented, so in theory if Adobe closed the standard someone could write a reader independently. 2) You can embed your original camera manufacturer RAW files within the DNG, so you don't lose anything apart from a bit of disk space.
Also of note is that DNG is basically an extension of the TIFF standard and I believe that the ISO group responsible for TIFF are looking at merging the changes into the next spec.
-j
jca - Member
There is a quality issue with shooting jpegs as well - it is a lossy compression format, which results in a reduction of image quality. You probably won't noticeimmediately , but if you keep editing and resave your jpegs, the effect is cumulative.
This is the main reason to shoot in a non lossy format such as TIFF or Raw.
For years, I shot weddings in jpeg format. I know how to compensate for odd lighting conditions (strong backlighting for instance, which will fool the meter into silhouetting the subject). Auto WB does the job for most situations and it's a doddle to tweak it where necessary. I didn't feel I needed the 'safety-net' which raw provides.
I looked at my colleagues shooting in raw and wondered why they wanted to add an extra step into their workflow - I was editing and processing entire weddings in a day, maybe two - they were taking at least two, usually three.
Then I began to notice that by the time my images made it onto the web, they were definitely degraded. Details were blocking up and the pics looked very unlike the original, processed images. This was due to what jca describes in his post - every time you open and re-save a jpeg, you lose quality. I was re-saving each image perhaps five times as part of my workflow.
I became a raw convert, doubled my workflow time, invested daft cash in new software (Lightroom) and hardware (mahoosive hard drives).
This worked well for a while but now shoot nothing but TIFF - my colleagues still think I'm strange (and brave 🙂 ) but I can process them with a mixture of LR and PS and re-save them as often as I like with no loss of quality - and I do so in the (fairly reasonable) certainty that the TIFF format will still be around in 20 years.
Sorry for the big post 🙂
@DrJ - two points: 1) DNG is fully documented, so in theory if Adobe closed the standard someone could write a reader independently. 2) You can embed your original camera manufacturer RAW files within the DNG, so you don't lose anything apart from a bit of disk space.
As things stand, I agree it is fine, but there is no guarantee that that will remain the case. I'm not really anti-DNG, I just don't see that it adds anything at this stage. Relying on some 3rd party to extract my images from DNG at some point in the future is not more appealing than relying on someone to reverse engineer a programme to read RAW files.
try to avoid overexposure before you even have to fiddle around in the darkroom living room
Agreed, but although a lot of people have mentioned the ability to 'rescue' shots with RAW there is more to it than that.
RAW gives you far more control over things like white balance, levels, response curve, noise reduction, saturation, lens correction, etc than your camera ever possibly could.
(Plus it lets you work in wider-gamuts like AdobeRGB if that is your thing).
That is why the Rockwell "I just get it right in camera" school of thought misses the point a bit.
This worked well for a while but now shoot
nothing but TIFF - my colleagues still think I'm
strange
So why not just shoot RAW and then save as TIFF when you finish editting?
Wouldn't that give you the same benefits?
every time you open and re-save a jpeg, you lose quality. I was re-saving each image perhaps five times as part of my workflow.
Why re-save 5 times?? If I edit a jpeg and don't get it finished before I have to stop working on it, I save it as a psd file (as I'll undoubtedly have some layers).
I then save the final image off as a jpeg, so am only re-saving once.
Or I get all my editing done and then do a 'save as' so the original file is still there.
I can pretty much guarantee that you would not be able to discern the drop in quality caused by the jpeg saving routine doing this (especially if you chose high quality, lower compression).
I think next time I take some pics I will set the camera in 'RAW + Jpeg' mode and do some more comparisons.
Why re-save 5 times?? If I edit a jpeg and don't get it finished before I have to stop working on it, I save it as a psd file (as I'll undoubtedly have some layers).
I then save the final image off as a jpeg, so am only re-saving once.Or I get all my editing done and then do a 'save as' so the original file is still there.
Or you could just use Lightroom or such software that doesn't actually alter the file.
Or you could just use Lightroom or such software that doesn't actually alter the file.
But, I don't have Lightroom......and don't really wanna splash £200 on it, either.
Saving as a psd as an intermediate step seems to work fine and is lossless as far as I was aware....?
No one has EVER commented on any photo I have taken that the jpeg image capture & saving method I use has added unacceptable artefacts to the image........so while I can potentially see the processing advantages of using RAW, I think for the everyday photographer the whole 'jpeg lossy' format thing is an unnecessary concern.
So why not just shoot RAW and then save as TIFF when you finish editting?
Wouldn't that give you the same benefits?
Yes, biut it adds another hour or so onto my workflow for no extra benefits at all - that is, I have to wait an hour for my computer to convert about 1500 photos from raws to TIFFs.
Why re-save 5 times?? If I edit a jpeg and don't get it finished before I have to stop working on it, I save it as a psd file (as I'll undoubtedly have some layers).
I then save the final image off as a jpeg, so am only re-saving once.
Fair question. It's mostly due to the way I used to process, resize, sharpen, 'de-noise' and save for web. I used to start with a file full of jpegs and work on each file at full size, saving to another folder.
Once all these were done, I would run the processed pics through Noise Ninja (or similar), saving them again, in a new folder. I then ran a couple of photoshop actions to sharpen / resize for web / add drop shadow frame / whatever else, saving again into a new folder.
So that's why I used to end up opening and closing my files several times, causing degradation. And that's why I now work pretty much only with TIFFs.
Apologies to the OP - IIRC, the D70 only does Jpegs or raw....
I think for the everyday photographer the whole 'jpeg lossy' format thing is an unnecessary concern.
Might depend on your camera too, but with mine the jpeg colours just don't look as good somehow - and when you increase the contrast (even by quite a lot) on a RAW file you get gorgeous deeper colours, whereas the jpegs start to look funny fairly rapidly.
That's because a RAW file is typically 12-bit, whereas as JPG is 8-bit.
Each pixel is a combination of Red, Green and Blue channels.
An 8-bit jpg has just 256 possible values for each channel, whereas 12-bit RAW has 4096 possible values per channel.
The limited precision of the jpg means when you tweak it you can quickly run into problems with colours blocking together etc.
While it's true (at least from my point of view) that Lightroom is the dog'd bo**ocks, other RAW editors are available.
Nikon and Canon bundle their own with RAW-capable cameras, and several aftermarket solutions are available, such as ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) for Photoshop CS (whatever is the latest version) and Elements, which is free.
As others have mentioned, if you can shoot jpeg and RAW at the same time, you should consider doing so, as then you could learn to post-process RAW images and actually see for yourself the extra quality, detail, etc you qould squeeze from them.
Granted it's a little more time-consuming than shooting jpegs, but it really will open up a whole new range of possibilities for your photography.
I prefer raw files to jpeg, and it might just be software driven,I'll explain.
I used a Canon 7D, if I chose save the file as raw and jpeg, then I can clearly see a difference in the unedited image.
Raw is much better.
I save the images to a folder on my external hard drive and then open them with Canon DPP (its free as well). The images really do look good from the off.
Sometimes export in Aperture as its easier to edit if I need to do some extensive editing.
Have to agree about saving the final version as a jpeg though.
Best policy is to print your best images - so many people leave them on their hard drive.
Its the same as holding a vinyl record - the album cover artwork needed to be handled and viewed by many. Maybe its just me, but its the same with books vs ebooks.
Raw files as sooooo big though.
Is it worth getting Photoshop LS over the RAW adjuster that comes with Elements 8 (which I already have)?
Best policy is to print your best images - so many people leave them on their hard drive.Its the same as holding a vinyl record - the album cover artwork needed to be handled and viewed by many. Maybe its just me, but its the same with books vs ebooks.
Agreed. Nothing beats getting a nice picture printed well.
Nikon and Canon bundle their own with RAW-capable cameras, and several aftermarket solutions are available, such as ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) for Photoshop CS (whatever is the latest version) and Elements, which is free.
What's the Nikon one - I've got loads of CDs with my D80 but didn't think that it came with a RAW converter as standard - perhaps I need to check over the CDs again!!.
I downloaded the RAW converter for my copy of CS2.
Best policy is to print your best images - so many people leave them on their hard drive.
Definitely YES! I have a hard covered spiral bound sketch book that I got from an art shop & every now & again I get my favourite recent pics printed & spend an evening putting them in the book. Much nicer way to look through pics than on a monitor.
And GrahamS - I agree with your comments about the colour information limitations with jpeg. If you do some hard post-processing to an image, you do get some weird colour artefacts emerging as you run out of colour info. I normally don't process images to this point, but it could be an issue if you are trying to do some 'creative' processing.
@Molgrips: Yes, and no. Yes, if you shoot lots and want a way of organising and editing large numbers of files in batches, including complex whole-image manipulations like gradients and split-toned B+W.
If, on the other hand, you just shoot RAW every now and again, or simply don't shoot that often, then the very latest ACR plugin for Photoshop or Elements is all you need, as it's the same RAW converter as the latest version of Lightroom is based on, but without all the whistles and bells.
@Stumpy: I'm afraid I don't know the name of Nikon's RAW software, being a Canon shooter. I'll try and find out, but I'm sure my brother said he had a raw converter with his camera (D80, I think?).
Don't know whether he downloaded it seperately though, I'm sorry.
Does the latest version of ACR support your camera in CS2? I didn't think it CS2 was still being supported by recent ACR updates (but I could easily be wrong about this, as I no longer use CS2 very often and don't own a Nikon.)
belgianbob - well I've got a D80 & CS2 & have always been able to open RAWs.
Wasn't able to with CS though.
@Stumpy: I'm afraid I don't know the name of Nikon's RAW software, being a Canon shooter.
Capture NX?
Nikon ViewNX provides a image browser and basic NEF image editting. It is free (get the latest version from the Nikon website).
But yes, [url= http://www.capturenx.com ]CaptureNX is the full-blown Nikon RAW editor[/url]. It costs but I don't think it is as much as Lightroom. Try the 30-day trial (you'll probably need to watch a few of the tutoroal videos on that site to get the hang of it tho because the UPoint editting it uses is pretty unique - in a good way).
I really can't be arsed with RAW as I can't see the quality improvements are worth the hassle.
Perhaps if I had a superb landscape in front of me and brilliant light falling onto it, I might consider using RAW, or if I was out to get THE shot that might end up on my wall....
Other than that, JPEG all the way.
JPEGS will always be accessible to all PC's too
I really can't be arsed with RAW as I can't see the quality improvements are worth the hassle.
Not much hassle, unless you choose to mess about with it.
(Anecdote alert. A while ago I grabbed my camera from my bag and took a once-in-a-lifetime, well, once-in-a-week shot. Got home - image was all blue, as I'd not set the WB correctly. But it was a RAW file so all was saved.)
That is why the Rockwell "I just get it right in camera" school of thought misses the point a bit.
I agree (on this point anyway...) with Ken = closer it is to 'right' in camera = [i]greatly[/i] reduced PP'ing time...
(by which I mean less time correcting exposure issues, time spent 'enhancing' and image is another thing entirely...)
If you want to spend your life in-front of a screen then go for it - point and shoot to your hearts content - i've been there, done that, won't be going back to it..
aren't jpgs a hassle too though?
If you want in-camera jpg that is remotely as good as a tweaked RAW then for every shot you'd have to set a custom white balance and adjust the colour mode, sharpening, saturation and contrast based on the subject and style. Or maybe load a custom curve.
With RAW I can make these settings decisions after the fact and interactively fine tune them on my nice 28" IPS screen.
If you want to spend your life in-front of a screen then go for it - point and shoot to your hearts content - i've been there, done that, won't be going back to it..
But that's relative to any format.
I agree (on this point anyway...) with Ken =
closer it is to 'right' in camera = greatly
reduced PP'ing time...
(by which I mean less time correcting exposure
issues, time spent 'enhancing' and image is
another thing entirely...)
Yeah correct exposure is crucial regardless of whether you shoot RAW or JPG. I wasn't arguing that.
I was saying that there are many other settings you [u]can't[/u] "get right in camera"
e.g.
White balance: I generally shoot Cloudy+1 as it typically looks nice, but when I edit the RAW and can move the WB and tint on a slider to the exact position I want.
Noise Reduction: the camera offers very coarse control over this compared to CaptureNX
Sharpening: I'll often run a Unsharp Mask of the image and adjust radius, intensity and threshold. The camera just has on, off and enhanced.
Even exposure: my camera does thirds of a stop, CaptureNX offers tenths of a stop.
marsdenman - MemberThat is why the Rockwell "I just get it right in camera" school of thought misses the point a bit.
I agree (on this point anyway...) with Ken = closer it is to 'right' in camera = greatly reduced PP'ing time...
(by which I mean less time correcting exposure issues, time spent 'enhancing' and image is another thing entirely...)
+1, learn how to get the correct exposure, learn how to take a photograph. There is, of course, room for enhancing and photoshop editing if you want to be adventurous.
What GrahamS says is spot on. My philosophy:
In camera - capture all the data you need, ie - exposure and (somewhat) composition.
In front of computer - use those data to create the image you want.
Of course my final product may be as crap as any newbie with a phone camera, but that is a different issue :-((