# raw image files rule



## Mark Evans (23 Jun 2008)

i know this isnt fish related but just to show case a raw file.  no photo shop at all.

this is my son daniel, he just sat infront of the back patio.

straight from camera and adjust highlight contrast and re adjust exposure. you'll never take a bad photo again. you can under or over expose by at least 2 stops and pull the image back with raw.
you can adjust white balance, just about everything. if your camera has raw facility, use it
[


][/img]


----------



## Dan Crawford (23 Jun 2008)

Nice work mate, whats the camera that you use?


----------



## Mark Evans (23 Jun 2008)

canon 5d, the best thing ive ever owned,

like george i had a 10d, still an awsome camera. i've had prints upto 40 x 30 inches of my 5d and the prints are stunning. i used to do wedding photography in the modern style. paperatzi style!

the younger, more well off couples allways wanted a3+ albums and this was the only camera that would give me this quality. those days are gone now.infact my photography has died off a bit,

but now im discovering it again with aquascaping. i recently got asked to shoot a boxing match, again the 5d under low light really shines. this is iso 1250. no manipulation to this omage at all!!!!
[

][/img]


----------



## ceg4048 (23 Jun 2008)

Hi,
   Photoshop or any decent image program has the identical facility to manipulate jpg files. Whatever you can do with Raw you can do with jpgs and you don't have to juggle 25 MB files to do so. Ultimately, if you want to display the raw file you have to convert it to jpg of tif or whatever standard format necessary. On a high resolution camera like a 5D if you intend to make 4 foot prints then yes, this makes a difference, but for the majority of cameras and at the majority of print sizes it's hard to tell the difference and difficult to justify the storage and speed penalties of raw files.

Cheers,


----------



## LondonDragon (23 Jun 2008)

First photo is excelent and the boxing photo under those conditions are great too, but then with that camera and some practice you shouldm't have many problems  great work


----------



## Mark Evans (23 Jun 2008)

not true ceg, you cant manipulate a jpeg in the same way as a raw image. believe ma ive heard many a pro say the same. you dont have nowhere near the same control. for eg. if you take a picture in jpeg. thats it. your stuck with it. with rawyou can still change everything to do with that image.

white balance being the most important, then exposure.... it really is a good photographic habit to get into. honestly.

when i first started shooting professionaly, i lost alot of images shooting jpeg maybe 50%. with raw just 5% max!

oh by the way i have 74mb files from my camera


----------



## Mark Evans (23 Jun 2008)

thanks london dragon,


----------



## LondonDragon (23 Jun 2008)

saintly said:
			
		

> white balance being the most important, then exposure.... it really is a good photographic habit to get into. honestly.
> when i first started shooting professionaly, i lost alot of images shooting jpeg maybe 50%. with raw just 5% max!


Most important for shooting RAW, you have more control of the settings that you might have missed when you took the photo, as when you shoot in JPEG you loose all that, you can somewhat change the balance but thats software manipulate and then loose picture quality.


----------



## Mark Evans (24 Jun 2008)

yes to some degree, but again a little off the mark. theres no loss of quality by playing around with a raw file. a jpeg is a compressed file, everyone should know that. a raw files is exactly what it says it is.... a RAW file, uncompressed with no loss of data, in its raw state. this is so the user can make changes at a later state. maybe if cheaper less efficient software is used degradiation ocurs,i doubt it with raw, but in my experience anyway theres no loss of quality. not unless you shoot 4stops underexpose   even then you can rescue it. i dont want to sound off, im just stating facts from experience.

by the way, how cool is this site? picture sections and all that? brill


----------



## George Farmer (24 Jun 2008)

Super shots, saintly.  

A pro eh?  Cool!  I can't wait to see your final photo shoots from your aquascapes...

5D is nice.  There's an interesting comparison in last week's Amateur Photographer between the 5D, 40D and Nikon D300.  5D got top.  The full-frame clinched it.  

David Noton on RAW - "if you care about your photos, shoot RAW".


----------



## LondonDragon (24 Jun 2008)

saintly said:
			
		

> yes to some degree, but again a little off the mark. theres no loss of quality by playing around with a raw file. a jpeg is a compressed file, everyone should know that. a raw files is exactly what it says it is.... a RAW file, uncompressed with no loss of data


I meant the JPEG not the RAW


----------



## Matt Holbrook-Bull (24 Jun 2008)

RAW is the best way to go, it has to be said.


----------



## Mark Evans (24 Jun 2008)

exactly george, shoot raw when ever you get  the chance.yup the 5d is awsome to be fair its not far of the 1ds mark11 maybe not the 3 but still brilliant.

my pro days are gone, thankfully, too much pressure. i prefer my 9 to 5 mate. im looking forward to learning some new techniques for shooting aquariums.

if i remember rightly dave norton is a brill wildlife photographer.


----------



## George Farmer (24 Jun 2008)

9 to 5 is a nice comfort zone eh?  

I've considered stepping away from my full-time career a few times to pursue freelance writing, aquascaping and photography.  If I was single then it would happen tomorrow, but with a young family to look after...  You know how it is mate.



			
				saintly said:
			
		

> ..if i remember rightly dave norton is a brill wildlife photographer.



Landscapes in the main.  He's a regular Practical Photography magazine contributor whose work I love.

http://www.davidnoton.com/index.htm


----------



## Graeme Edwards (24 Jun 2008)

I agree that RAW is a must for the serious pro photographer and for use where quality is paramount, ie publications etc. But im dubious about it for the regular photographer. Most wont ever know. And unless your loaded ( unlike me ) the cost of massive memory cards, expensive cameras and powerful computers is out of the question.
I use a 350D and have shot in RAW many times. But my PC cant handle huge amounts of image data and I have no way of configuring photo-shop on my PC, so im never really going to know if I have the image spot on or not. And all that comes down to muller, the lack of it can dictate how particular you want your processing to be. And at the end of the day, few will know the difference. If Im pro i get paid pro money, then its worth spending the money thats needed.

Love the pictures, and could tell from your early posts your a photographer.

With regards to the boxing picture...did you use a lens with a very low F stop capability, ie F2 lens? That will make a huge difference to a situation like that as you know.

Cheers.


----------



## Mark Evans (25 Jun 2008)

hi guys,

yes george, its nice having the 9-5 thing in my life at the minute. im trying to slow things down a little. the photographer that was in my head was andy rouse, not dave norton. the both do articles for pp.

3/4 years ago life was hectic playing in a full time pro band, touring europe full time bla blabla...photography turned from a hobby into a proffesion, which for me, wasnt the best thing. i mean i was good at what i produced, it was just the unseen hours when clients think that all you do is take a picture and then print it....little do they know!
  also you cant please everyone which i found difficult to handle. i try my best in everything all for someone to just downgrade your work (ignorence mostly)

anyway, graeme, the lens i used was a f2.8 . your right, it makes  the biggest difference. alot of people believ that having the best camera in the world will produce great images, to some degree maybe, but ime its the glass you use. buy the most expensive that you can afford. greame, i used a 350d  as a back-up camera at a wedding last year. Great camera my friend and if you can process raw images you'll get more from it and in turn your images will shine.

i use raw imaging software, not to over process an image, more to just getting rid of the simple mistakes at the time of shooting. for me the 2 main benafits to raw image processing are

white balance and exposure. try it.

take a photo at random in jpeg format (just a snap shot) then try and mend that blown out sky, or under exposed shaded area with photo shop. try and correct the white balance that you forgot to change!....

now switch to raw (which most entry level slr has) take a snap shot then adjust with raw software and see how you can bring back exposure, or decrees it. change the white balance with far more acuracy etc etc...

it takes the pain out of on the spot shooting. no need for worrying about exposure compensation any more( i stopped bracketinfg a long time ago when i discovered raw)

obviously you need to be close to the correct exposure in the first place, but with regards to everything else worry about it later.

now someone stop me cus im going on.....


----------



## George Farmer (25 Jun 2008)

saintly said:
			
		

> alot of people believ that having the best camera in the world will produce great images, to some degree maybe, but ime its the glass you use. buy the most expensive that you can afford.


So true.  Canon L-series all the way from now on for me.  One exception is the Canon 100mm f2.8.  Super lens for the cash.  Optics are pin sharp.


----------



## Mark Evans (25 Jun 2008)

the best mate, the best. the 135mm f2 l series has to be one of the best ive owned. f11 you'll never see a sharper image.


----------



## George Farmer (25 Jun 2008)

saintly said:
			
		

> the best mate, the best. the 135mm f2 l series has to be one of the best ive owned. f11 you'll never see a sharper image.


Sweeeeeeet!   Is the boxing shot with the 135mm?  Looks pin sharp, even with the high ISO.

Do you have any L zooms?  I fancy the 24-70mm as a nice 'general purpose'.  Off-topic, I know, but I didn't think you'd mind...


----------



## Mark Evans (25 Jun 2008)

the boxing image was taken using my sigma 24-70mm f2.8. and its 2.8 @ 24mm and 70mm!

to be honest george i nearly went for the L version of the 24-70mm but looked into it and the sigma came pretty close. you could save yourself some money by opting for the sigma. as you can see from my boxing photo, the glass is pretty special at a fraction of the cost. youve got the 10d right?...youll miss the "true" 24mm with the multyply factor of 0.4. one advantage of the 5d...full frame
i used to have the 70-200 f4 (i wish the 2.8) and that was great for out door use. similar quality in optics to the big brother, but you have some serious issues if you want to use for indoor low light.
obviously being f4. i got rid of it in the end as i sadly did with my 135mm gutted me but i needed the money at the time. i also sold a mamiya rz pro2 medium format cheap too...was a sad day.

i'll try and down grade an image from the 135mm f2


----------



## Mark Evans (25 Jun 2008)

i got to photograph paul jones blues band a few years ago.

this pick is just to show the capabilitys of the 5d and the 135mm under very low light. you get what you pay for.

remember this is realy low quality. the full file is awsome to look at. hopefully youll see in the hair the amount of detail.

[


][/img]


----------



## George Farmer (25 Jun 2008)

saintly said:
			
		

> youll miss the "true" 24mm with the multyply factor of 0.4.


1.6 actually mate, but I get you. Comes in handy sometimes.

I've got my eye on the 1Ds Mk.3 actually.  Serious bucks though.  Next year maybe, when I get a nice lump sum from the taxman.   
Interesting on the Sigma.  f/2.8 through the focal lengths.  Nice.

Superb shot.  Love the detail, even with this lo-res.


----------



## Mark Evans (25 Jun 2008)

tar very much george,

good old rebates eh?...im due 1 soon.


----------



## ceg4048 (26 Jun 2008)

saintly said:
			
		

> i use raw imaging software, not to over process an image, more to just getting rid of the simple mistakes at the time of shooting. for me the 2 main benafits to raw image processing are
> 
> white balance and exposure. try it.
> 
> take a photo at random in jpeg format (just a snap shot) then try and mend that blown out sky, or under exposed shaded area with photo shop. try and correct the white balance that you forgot to change!....



I must be missing something because I do this all the time with jpgs.  Photoshop shas a function called "Shadow/Highlight" That's how you fix blown out skies. You can also use various plugins such as Graduated ND simulators.

Here is a blown out sky that was fixed and color corrected using the "Shadow/Highlight", "White Balance" and Tiffen ND plugin Photoshop features. There is also the "Exposure" function that handles compensation issues. All this was done in jpg. 





Digital cameras, other than the most expensive, don't do a very good job of handling blown highlights anyway so if the section of the image is beyond a couple stops overexposed then the data is lost anyway and any recovery tends to look fake due to loss of texture and color shifts.

I agree totally with Graeme that just the investment in storage space alone is a penalty not compensated for by the extra quality of raw, at least not for hobby grade photos.  

As I said, in my opinion, unless you are making large prints and require the utmost in perfection it's simply not worth the energy. Being a pro is a completely different story.

Cheers,


----------



## Mark Evans (26 Jun 2008)

agreed ceg4048 , i dont doubt what you say.

what i find odd is that with the image you'd taken (landscape shot) you say you have corrected in photoshop using various pluggins? for me if i were taking a landscape shot, i wouldnt leave the seen with a shot that had blown highlights in the first place. im pretty sure raw isnt for everyone, but for most its powerful;l and precise. for most of my images i get more or less what i want from raw software, and i can do that in approx 15 sec. thats including fixing a blown sky.. im also guessing it would take you longer to apply all your correction effects and simulaters to get the same result. and i still have the virgin copy of the image too. each to there own my friend, it's what works for you.

as a rule i allways shoot at least 1 stop under and pull it back in raw software, i know 1 or 2 other pros that do the same. if you blow highlights, thats it! it prints white! if you under expose ALL data is in the shot. from highlight areas to the deepest shade. ive not lost a shot in a long time now.

nice pic by the way


----------



## Dave Spencer (26 Jun 2008)

I always go for underexposure myself. This is particularly the case when photographing your tank using the tank lighting. All the detail of the plants nearest the lighting often gets irretrievably burnt out.

Personally, I try to convince myself that I am one of those people capable enough to justify using RAW.  :? 

Dave.

P.S. Nikon rule, so you Canon boys can just shut your faces!


----------



## Mark Evans (26 Jun 2008)

saintly said:
			
		

> P.S. Nikon rule, so you Canon boys can just shut your faces!



 genius! comedian eh?...brilliant.

there's no boundry line that say's who and who cannot use a raw image.pro status means nothing. i've worked along side and seen other "pro" wedding photographers and just plain pld freelance for that matter with the skill of a peanut.  i think it might be from an old way of thinking regarding photography and equipment. maybe im wrong i dont know. i do know one thing, if your camera has raw, you have the software and your not a peanut   ...use it dave!


----------

