Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: photo critique of Maddie

  1. #1
    jbcollins1957's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Sarnia, Ont. Canada
    Posts
    18
    Real Name
    James Collins

    photo critique of Maddie

    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.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    Moderator Manfred M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    22,148
    Real Name
    Manfred Mueller

    Re: photo critique of Maddie

    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.

  3. #3
    Shadowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    36,716
    Real Name
    John

    Re: photo critique of Maddie

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

  4. #4
    jbcollins1957's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Sarnia, Ont. Canada
    Posts
    18
    Real Name
    James Collins

    Re: photo critique of Maddie

    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.

  5. #5
    Moderator Manfred M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    22,148
    Real Name
    Manfred Mueller

    Re: photo critique of Maddie

    Quote Originally Posted by jbcollins1957 View Post
    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.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    ex Auckland, now Porirua, New Zealand
    Posts
    957

    Re: photo critique of Maddie

    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.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    amsterdam, netherlands
    Posts
    3,182
    Real Name
    George

    Re: photo critique of Maddie

    Quote Originally Posted by jbcollins1957 View Post
    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

  8. #8
    jbcollins1957's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Sarnia, Ont. Canada
    Posts
    18
    Real Name
    James Collins

    Re: photo critique of Maddie

    Quote Originally Posted by george013 View Post
    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.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    amsterdam, netherlands
    Posts
    3,182
    Real Name
    George

    Re: photo critique of Maddie

    I see. In that case you can compare them.

    George

  10. #10
    DanK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    8,798
    Real Name
    Dan

    Re: photo critique of Maddie

    Quote Originally Posted by jbcollins1957 View Post
    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.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    amsterdam, netherlands
    Posts
    3,182
    Real Name
    George

    Re: photo critique of Maddie

    Quote Originally Posted by DanK View Post
    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

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    32
    Real Name
    Claire

    Re: photo critique of Maddie

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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •