View Full Version : I am in love with RAW
22nd of January 2008 (Tue), 01:53
Today i wanted to learn how to shoot/edit in RAW format so i just went out and did it. I LOVE IT. Now, I am not totally sure what i am doing but my waterfall pictures today had a blue tint to them. The white balance was off. EASY fix in RawShooter Essentials - slide the color temperature bar. Can control the highlight and shadow contrast seperatly. Im loving it so far. One question though, if you shoot strictly RAW do you always use an auto WB and simply edit it later?
22nd of January 2008 (Tue), 01:55
Welcome to the RAW club...!
I usu. do shoot in Auto WB, and then edit it later if I have to. There are some exceptions, but rarely.
22nd of January 2008 (Tue), 01:57
if you shoot strictly RAW do you always use an auto WB and simply edit it later?
Yes. Generally the auto white balance is fine. If it's obviously wrong, then I'll play with it until it looks better (it only ever seems to err on the side of "too warm" so far as I've seen).
22nd of January 2008 (Tue), 02:09
Is there any 'general' things i need to know about? I edited what i wanted to in my RAW program and converted the file. It converted it to a .tiff. Now just go about my normal PP method in photoshop and save it as a jpeg when im done?
22nd of January 2008 (Tue), 02:26
I'd say that your workflow would depend on what the capabilities of your RAW software are and then what you need to accomplish.
I use Lightroom for my RAW processing and it does enough to allow me to process well over 90% of my images and export them directly (with a subtle "capture sharpening") as Web-friendly jpegs and has printing with some "output sharpening" that is less selective than Photoshop but can be all I need. So, I don't often use Photoshop -- only when its selective editing and sharpening are needed.
In the above scenario, saving to a .tiff is not needed -- you can just work on your collection of RAW files and convert to Web jpegs or print as needed.
In the instance where you want/need to go into Photoshop, yeah, saving as a .tiff is good because it's high quality and readable by all editors. Just ensure that you keep your original .tiff stored unaltered in your library linked to your original RAW file.
Saving all your RAWs as .tiffs may seem to be a "logical" approach, but 1)tiffs are several times larger than RAWs, 2)why? and 3) the tiffs are a "hard" step away from your "raw material" -- you can always go back to RAW and start from any point in your development; you can't do that with .tiff.
22nd of January 2008 (Tue), 02:37
I can't recommend Lightroom enough for working with RAW photos. You only need one copy of your photo, as Lightroom uses non-destructive editing. Basically once Lightroom imports the photo it stores the edits you make while leaving the original photo alone. You can undo changes at any time. It's not cheap though. They have a 30-day free trial to get you hooked on it (the first hit is always free): https://www.adobe.com/go/trylightroom
22nd of January 2008 (Tue), 03:18
as i was told and i learned it later, not everything is recoverable later. so RAW is not the magic wand. try to get it as correct as possible and RAW will help you make it better
22nd of January 2008 (Tue), 08:23
I second Riff.....Lightroom a must. Easy to use, can accomplish the majority of my picture changes with this. Used to be a strict JPEG person....now I haven't seen a JPeg file in quite some time. Agree with arironsi...the closer you get it on the sensor, the easier postproduction will be !!
22nd of January 2008 (Tue), 10:15
I use RSP & almost always use a custom WB or a pre-set so I have less clean up work after. A lot of people say AWB works well outside, but I suggest you never use it inside.
Notice that the very last exposure in the 2nd group of tests was of a gray card.
22nd of January 2008 (Tue), 19:18
I rarely change the white balance from Auto, then when processing find something neutral in the photo I can use to set it more accurately.
(Incidentally I hated Lightroom but liked the Develop module, but I loved Aperture but hated the lack of many of Lightroom's controls for processing - so I just use Bridge and Photoshop with my raw files.)
The only times I have changed away from auto WB it is to use custom mode after taking a reference shot. To me for the sake of using one of the presets in camera you can just as easily use a preset in processing afterwards so I doubt I would ever use anything but auto or custom.
22nd of January 2008 (Tue), 21:42
I use Auto WB unless there's a reason to use a Custom WB:)!
You'll notice I say that with tongue in cheek...in practice, the only time I think about Custom WB is when I'm indoors and actually thinking about WB.
That's not to say that Auto WB is never off. In fact, just yesterday I was going over some pics I had taken outdoors around sunset that Auto had set to a warmer temp than was "natural". When I initially processed these shots I left them as they were, but when I revisited them it was no hassle to take a batch and, in Lightroom, set the temp to something more "natural", and re-export and post them. Shooting in RAW helps to fine-tune such an approach, because you can set a particular temperature rather than be limited to a range of +/- adjustments like you are with jpegs.
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.