photo critique of Maddie

[jbcollins1957]

Posted two images of my dog lying in the sun after having a bath, the darker images is the original raw image untouched. The second image is after I did some post-processing in raw-therapee.
Here is the list of what I did:
Exp. +3
Black -2671
Lightness +3
Contrast +13
Saturation +31

Dynamic Range Compression

Amount -19
Detail +70

The exif data is Nikon D3100
18-55 mm
f 11
1/500
ISO 100
55 mm
- 3.00 ev
Any comments or critiques would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
P.S The images of my Avitar is of a younger Maddie.

[Manfred M]

First issue is applying a -3 ev to the shot. Nothing in that I see in the image suggests that any exposure compensation is warranted. You essentially started with an underexposed image and then brightened it. Technically, not something you should do as that will increase digital noise in the shot.

As I am not a RawTherapee user, the various adjustments are meaningless to me, but the fact that you applied Exp +3 suggests that your basic exposure was incorrect as mentioned before.

[Shadowman]

I like the tones from the edited image but it is overall a bit soft.

[jbcollins1957]

I should have explained in my post that I was doing some playing around with my camera,(even though I have had it for a while I have not really explored the camera settings, I am trying to do more in photography so I was learning more about the tool that I am using). I hope that explains why the weird settings. Also my dog just happened to be lying where I was playing around with the camera. Normally I would have properly exposed the photo. Thanks for your critique.

[Manfred M]

I should have explained in my post that I was doing some playing around with my camera,(even though I have had it for a while I have not really explored the camera settings, I am trying to do more in photography so I was learning more about the tool that I am using). I hope that explains why the weird settings. Also my dog just happened to be lying where I was playing around with the camera. Normally I would have properly exposed the photo. Thanks for your critique.

Thanks for the explanation. Exposure compensation is there as a tool to override the default metered readings for one of the automated exposure modes. The algorithms in your camera assume "standard" lighting conditions and meter to give what is effectively a mid-gray result. This works quite well for most scenes, but if you shoot in a dark setting (for instance night shots), bright scenes (snow scapes or scenes with lots of sky) your camera will overexpose and underexpose. Applying EC allows you to get your camera to correctly expose. For instance, when I shoot a snowscape, I will generally start with +0.7 EC and may tweak, based on what the histogram shows me.

[Jim A]

Hi James, I don't know anything of raw-therapee, but if you are adventurous enough to try Affinity Photo then you will certainly find enough to challenge you at a very affordable price. RAW is processed in the Develop Persona (Module). Nevertheless the great advice given by Manfred must be your first priority.

[george013]

Posted two images of my dog lying in the sun after having a bath, the darker images is the original raw image untouched. The second image is after I did some post-processing in raw-therapee.
Here is the list of what I did:
Exp. +3
Black -2671
Lightness +3
Contrast +13
Saturation +31

Dynamic Range Compression

Amount -19
Detail +70

The exif data is Nikon D3100
18-55 mm
f 11
1/500
ISO 100
55 mm
- 3.00 ev
Any comments or critiques would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
P.S The images of my Avitar is of a younger Maddie.

It's never a RAW image, it's always a product of a raw conversion. If you took that image from the nef file in a browser, then you have the embedded jpg in the nef file, a product of the build in Nikon converter in the camera. If you opened the raw file in rt and exported it directly, then you have a product of the rt converter. Just a general addition to what Manfred said.

George

[jbcollins1957]

It's never a RAW image, it's always a product of a raw conversion. If you took that image from the nef file in a browser, then you have the embedded jpg in the nef file, a product of the build in Nikon converter in the camera. If you opened the raw file in rt and exported it directly, then you have a product of the rt converter. Just a general addition to what Manfred said.

George

The images came from the raw data files of my Nikon camera “NEF” which I ran through raw therapy then saved them as a jpeg file.I shoot “NEF” only on my camera.

[george013]

I see. In that case you can compare them.

George

[DanK]

The images came from the raw data files of my Nikon camera “NEF” which I ran through raw therapy then saved them as a jpeg file.I shoot “NEF” only on my camera.

I think what George was saying is that at this stage, it is no longer a raw image, regardless of what you did or didn't do in the conversion software. To render the image viewable, the conversion software is applying some processing algorithms to the photo. Not being a Raw Therapy user, I have no idea what those might be. I use Lightroom, and it gives you several different options for this initial rendering, some using Adobe's own rendering intents and others that emulate the picture styles the camera would use to create in-camera JPEGs. In any case, it is just a starting point and does not affect the underlying raw file. You can impose whatever you want, and some of what you impose will undo what the software initially did.

[george013]

I think what George was saying is that at this stage, it is no longer a raw image, regardless of what you did or didn't do in the conversion software. To render the image viewable, the conversion software is applying some processing algorithms to the photo. Not being a Raw Therapy user, I have no idea what those might be. I use Lightroom, and it gives you several different options for this initial rendering, some using Adobe's own rendering intents and others that emulate the picture styles the camera would use to create in-camera JPEGs. In any case, it is just a starting point and does not affect the underlying raw file. You can impose whatever you want, and some of what you impose will undo what the software initially did.

I think James understood me well.
Every image is the result of a conversion. Different converters create different images. The least thing one could do when "comparing" raw with jpg is to use the same converter.
I made a little diagram of that. I won't show it for some people will get overheated.

George

[1claire]

The edited photo looks amazing than the raw one, it is livelier.