Shooting Raw

[Colin Southern]

A RAW file, is a RAW file, so you can't really do anything 'creative' with it, until it hits the computer.

This may or may not be relevant, but the "creative" process that makes the difference is in how one chooses to capture the scene in the first place (as in apertures & shutterspeeds used)

I encourage people to go though "levels", with the first being the ability to capture what was there, like they saw it - eg



The you go "up a level" and start thinking "Hmm - although this isn't what I'm seeing in front of me, if I choose a long exposure, I'll get an effect that I can imagine how it will look" eg



Then I think there's another level where you plan the shot on the "simulator" in your head long before you even get to the location eg "Hmmm - if I used a really long shutterspeed and shot at night, I could capture the lights from an arriving aircraft - but if I wanted the aircraft at the end of the lights that wouldn't work, so I could use a 2nd camera with different settings to capture that" etc etc etc, and end up with:



I think the more "levels" you pass through, the more "creative" you get long before it hits the PC. I know this probably isn't what you were meaning anyway, but I did think it might be helpful for what I wrote to be articulated for some people.

[Mike Buckley]

The wine only enters the analogy at the "creative interpretation" phase of processing; the more wine, the more "abstract" it gets!

I beg to differ. The more wine is consumed before the shutter is released, the more abstract the image becomes, especially if post-processing is done immediately after capturing the image. In that case, the wine impacts creativity before and after the capture.

[rpcrowe]

There is one thing that I would like to mention regarding shooting in RAW vs. JPEG and white balance correction.

I always shoot in RAW with auto ISO so I decided for my own edification, and to prove to a friend, that shooting using a white balance totally wrong was easily compensated for. I shot some images outdoors using tungsten white balance. As expected, it was supremely easy to switch to the correct white balance using Adobe Camera Raw. No harm done!

However, using the incorrect white balance resulted in my an LCD showing an image that was totally over blue. So much so that I could hardly distinguish other colors. Since, my object was to prove to my friend that mistakenly selecting the wrong white balance was not the end of the world, when shooting RAW; I did not pursue my experiment any further.

Perhaps there is a way to compensate for the overly blue LCD image but, I did not care to go that far in my experiment.

[Mike Buckley]

the "simulator" in your head

That's a wonderful analogy, despite the omission of any reference to wine. Seriously, I like that a lot. In fact, I'll be sure to remember to keep that concept in the simulator in my head rather than in my mind.

[Mike Buckley]

Perhaps there is a way to compensate for the overly blue LCD image but, I did not care to go that far in my experiment.

There is. Shoot in black-and-white.

[Colin Southern]

Hic,

Cheers Mike!

[Colin Southern]

Perhaps there is a way to compensate for the overly blue LCD image but, I did not care to go that far in my experiment.

Easiest thing to do is whack the camera into LiveView - choose manual WB - then just spin the wheel until the image looks about right on the screen.

[Mike Buckley]

Hic

Serious wine drinkers don't burp. We leave that to the beer drinkers. Instead, we politely nod off.

[Mike Buckley]

Easiest thing to do is whack the camera into LiveView

Not very easy to do when your camera doesn't have Live View, unless of course you've been drinking enough wine, in which case anything we tell ourselves is believable.

[Colin Southern]

That's a wonderful analogy, despite the omission of any reference to wine. Seriously, I like that a lot. In fact, I'll be sure to remember to keep that concept in the simulator in my head rather than in my mind.

Thanks Mike,

But to be honest, it's probably just a fancy word for saying "a 'togs vision of a shot that s/he then creates using his experience".

It's why I say there are (at least) 3 parts to photography though; the image capture is one of them - the image processing is another - but the 3rd is the one that comes first; PLANNING THE SHOOT, which entails everything from prepping a model with the right clothes, hair and makeup - briefing them - thinking through and setting up lighting, backdrops, fans, water sprays, props, assistants -- all before one even picks up the camera.

[Colin Southern]

Serious wine drinkers don't burp. We leave that to the beer drinkers. Instead, we politely nod off.

I was hiccuping, not burping.

ZZzzz ...

[Mike Buckley]

True, Colin, but the concept of using a "simulator" to make that happen powerfully brings all of that into one simple word, at least for me.

[Colin Southern]

Not very easy to do when your camera doesn't have Live View, unless of course you've been drinking enough wine, in which case anything we tell ourselves is believable.

Then you just have to use you "Zen" and "see it on the inside"

(or open the corroded zipper on your moth-ridden wallet and just buy a more modern camera!).

[Mike Buckley]

I Digress aka Off-topic

History is interesting. The D90 was Nikon's first prosumer camera body with Live View. It was introduced in August 2008 and discontinued in May 2011.

[ajohnw]

White balance - raw ? I use auto white balance and for some really strange reason a raw conversion picks up what it was. It's usually as correct as it can expected to be too. ie rather close.

Clearly wine has something to do with some thoughts on this subject - too much fogs the brain permanently and results in people just shooting raw and not keeping up to date on the capabilities of their cameras.

John
-

[Andrew76]

Absolutely correct. Our in-camera creativity is the same whether shooting RAW, JPEG or RAW+JPEG.

Not to get you guys too far off topic (AKA the wine discussion), but thanks for clarifying, Mike - I know that I may be losing some of my mind, but not that much.

So back to what Erich said, I hope that this thread hasn't confused him too much, because the statement he made eludes to the fact that maybe we have.

Unless again, I'm entirely misunderstanding what he meant when he made the statement....

[Colin Southern]

White balance - raw ? I use auto white balance and for some really strange reason a raw conversion picks up what it was. It's usually as correct as it can expected to be too. ie rather close.

In terms of the RAW image (ie disregarding the embedded JPEG and what's presented on a LiveView screen), the calculated WB is simply passed on to the RAW converter as part of the metadata. Packages like ACR use it as the default starting point; it's interesting that it's one of the few metadata parameters that they do actually use (things like picture styles are discarded). Manufacturer supplied packages will generally use most of the metadata though.

[Glenn NK]

There is one thing that I would like to mention regarding shooting in RAW vs. JPEG and white balance correction.

I always shoot in RAW with auto ISO so I decided for my own edification, and to prove to a friend, that shooting using a white balance totally wrong was easily compensated for. I shot some images outdoors using tungsten white balance. As expected, it was supremely easy to switch to the correct white balance using Adobe Camera Raw. No harm done!

However, using the incorrect white balance resulted in my an LCD showing an image that was totally over blue. So much so that I could hardly distinguish other colors. Since, my object was to prove to my friend that mistakenly selecting the wrong white balance was not the end of the world, when shooting RAW; I did not pursue my experiment any further.

Perhaps there is a way to compensate for the overly blue LCD image but, I did not care to go that far in my experiment.

Thanks Richard - now if only everybody knew that.

[pnodrog]

Anything to do with food and I'm your man

Donald should quiz you about haggis or is that not classed as food?....

[Colin Southern]

Donald should quiz you about haggis or is that not classed as food?....

Sorry, I was meaning more from a consumption perspective

But to answer the "question", it'll be a cold day in Hades before I eat any body organs!