I love RAW!

[FlyingPete]

I know it has been said before, heck even I have already said this, but it need saying again!

I was shooting at a concert a few weeks back (only just got the time to process the images), I decided to shhot RAW, as the lighting conditions were very tough, I left the camera (20D) on Tugsten White Balance, as it was theatre lighting.

First here is the JPG from the camera:
http://www.lowden.net.nz/Stuff/KevinJPG.jpg

And now the RAW (none of the preset WB's worked on this image, needed white point and fine tunning):
http://www.lowden.net.nz/Stuff/KevinRAW.jpg

Normally I put up with the odd lighting in these situations, but this time I really prefer the manually converted RAW.

RAW ROCKS :D

[flam79]

These are nice pictures!!
What's the difference between RAW and non? (Sorry i'm a noob to photography.)
are these without flash?
What settings did you use?
Aren't the RAW Pictures taken with the same settings as what is set on the camera? Do you open and edit the RAW with photoshop after?
Can't you just do that with a regular photo?

All these questions! Hope someone can answer them all. Thanks!

[FlyingPete]

These are nice pictures!!
What's the difference between RAW and non? (Sorry i'm a noob to photography.)
are these without flash?
What settings did you use?
Aren't the RAW Pictures taken with the same settings as what is set on the camera? Do you open and edit the RAW with photoshop after?
Can't you just do that with a regular photo?

All these questions! Hope someone can answer them all. Thanks!

Phew there are a few questions there, I will do my best!
First this image was shot with a 75-300IS hand held, ISO1600 (cleaned in NeatImage), f/4.5 1/60s @ 105mm, no flash.

RAW is the data that comes straight of the sensor, it is not 'rendered' in anyway, no white balance, sharpening or any other adjustments are made, a JPG has all of the above done to it first, downside with RAW is file size, my 20D that is typically around 8-10MB each, also there is a post processing process required afterwards to make a JPG (or TIF), the conversion softeware is included with all Canon cameras that support it, also Photoshop has an importer. Many third party converters such as Breeze Browser are also available. Think of a RAW as a digital negative.

The option of changeing the white balance after the shot is not possible with a JPG, in fact an incorrect white balance can be very difficult to correct (try and make the JPG above look like the processed RAW in Photoshop!). You also have the option to save in TIF and 16bit. There is usually more esposure latitiude in a RAW as well as it is recored in 12bit, not the 8bit that the JPG uses.

Got all that?

[tim]

Nice Pete. I guess the red was because of the stage lighting - did you want to get rid of the completely? The 2nd looks a lot better than the first.

[flam79]

Thanks for taking your time to respond. I think I have to play with both and really compare. I just took a couple RAW images and play with it. But it's still amazing how you took it at IS0 1600 1/60 and have it come out bright with no noise...Good Job! Thanks again.

[Hellashot]

You know you can get the same color corrections if you shoot JPG and correct in post processing.

[UncleDoug]

You know you can get the same color corrections if you shoot JPG and correct in post processing.

Your results will not be as good as the RAW.
Also the JPEG has already lost some of the original information contained in the RAW file.

[FlyingPete]

You know you can get the same color corrections if you shoot JPG and correct in post processing.

Go for it, I challenge you, download the top image, and process it to look the like second one ;)
If you suceed, tell us how, because I can't! Any attempt to correct white balance post shooting for me usually results in washed out images that don't look quite right.

Nice Pete. I guess the red was because of the stage lighting - did you want to get rid of the completely? The 2nd looks a lot better than the first.

I didn't want the stage lighting completely eliminated, you can still see a little in the shadows etc, enough for it to still look like a perfromance, but that read was way too much. In fact the lighting during that evening was pretty bad all round, I have seen alot better.

[lnterestlng]

So just for a little fun I went ahead and did the post processing on the .JPG . Obviously, as stated previously the data lost with JPG is a big factor and RAW is the way to go. But, if you feel like there is no hope for your image I can tell you there is always hope. I did this only to prove that the same effect can be reproduced after the fact once the raw data is lost. However in respect to time and effort. It did take a little more time to acheive the desired effect. Still though it took longer to type this post than to edit the image. Here are my settings.:)

levels adjustment layer:
RGB - o, 1.18, 255
red - 0, 1.00, 255
green - 0, 0.76, 225
blue - 0, 0.66, 245

color balance adjustment layer: uncheck "preserve luminosity"
shadows - -100, +52, +47
midtones - -1, -8, +37
highlights - -73, +32, +7

[FlyingPete]

So just for a little fun I went ahead and did the post processing on the .JPG . Obviously, as stated previously the data lost with JPG is a big factor and RAW is the way to go. But, if you feel like there is no hope for your image I can tell you there is always hope. I did this only to prove that the same effect can be reproduced after the fact once the raw data is lost. However in respect to time and effort. It did take a little more time to acheive the desired effect. Still though it took longer to type this post than to edit the image. Here are my settings.:)

levels adjustment layer:
RGB - o, 1.18, 255
red - 0, 1.00, 255
green - 0, 0.76, 225
blue - 0, 0.66, 245

color balance adjustment layer: uncheck "preserve luminosity"
shadows - -100, +52, +47
midtones - -1, -8, +37
highlights - -73, +32, +7

"Impressive, but perhaps JPG is not as powerful as it would seem" (OK it is Star Wars season!).

That is a lot closer than I would have though possible, but I will still take the RAW.

BTW where did you learn all that Photoshop. "I see you have mastered Photoshop, you are indeed powerful as the Emporer has forseen" , OK I'l cut the Star Wars :D

[blinking8s]

i used to shoot 100% raw till i started shooting sports a whole lot...now i shoot like 80% jpeg, i cannot deny the power of raw, but it is just too heavy on my 20d when im firing off rounds and rounds of shots...

[PhotosGuy]

A lot of you have already seen this, but for those who arrived after...
Why I love RAW - '53 Ford Sunliner (Fixed) (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43761&highlight=sunliner)

[Danny Boy]

Blinking8s,

What do you mean shooting raw is too 'heavy' on your 20D? Raw images taking up too much space on your CF or not being able to shoot machine gun style for a long period? Just trying to understand.

Dan

[FlyingPete]

Blinking8s,

What do you mean shooting raw is too 'heavy' on your 20D? Raw images taking up too much space on your CF or not being able to shoot machine gun style for a long period? Just trying to understand.

Dan

I know for me, the main reason I shoot JPG is space, and time (no need to process the RAW's)

[BrandonSi]

I cannot tell you how many times RAW has saved my *ss! When it's important, it gets done in RAW.