«

My wife and I have just returned from a cruise to Alaska, where we both
took a lot of photos. On this trip we shot all raw, I found to my
delight that it was almost impossible to over expose an image when
shooting raw.

Here are two photos that were saved because I was shooting raw, both
would have been way over exposed if I was shooting jpeg.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045238
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61044980

In both cases I show what the camera jpeg would have looked like next
to what I recovered using the raw file.

Once we got home I decided to do a test to see just how much over
exposed a photo can be and still be saved with the raw file. For this
test I shot in the raw+jpeg mode so I could get the jpeg exactly as the
camera produces it. In the test I shot at the normal meter setting and
then two stops over exposed. In this image there are three photos, the
top one is the jpeg from the camera at normal exposure, the middle one
is the camera jpeg two stops over exposed, the bottom is from the raw
file that was captured at the same time, converted using Photoshop
Elements 3. Note I adjusted the color balance as well as the jpeg
images looked a little on the cool side to me.

http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045031

In the past when shooting jpegs I would spend a lot of time looking at
histograms to make sure I was not blowing out the highlights. On this
trip I pretty much just took photos and had to worry about the
histograms far less.

There is a perception by some that shooting raw is more work then
shooting jpegs. The more I shoot raw the more I realize that it is far
easier to shoot in raw then jpeg. I simply don't have to take the
time on every shot to see if I have blown the highlights.

BTW here is a small sampling of the photo I took on the trip.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/alaska

Scott

"Scott W" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> My wife and I have just returned from a cruise to Alaska, where we both
> took a lot of photos. On this trip we shot all raw, I found to my
> delight that it was almost impossible to over expose an image when
> shooting raw.
>

I like RAW as well. I often shoot at 2/3 of a stop over exposed and take
what Adobe CSII suggests in its auto correction mode - not always, RAW
allows a lot leeway for pictures with unusual lighting content.

Someone will soon be along to tell us to get it right in the camera. They
are, of course, correct.

John

"Eatmorepies" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Scott W" <> wrote in message
> news: oups.com...
>> My wife and I have just returned from a cruise to Alaska, where we both
>> took a lot of photos. On this trip we shot all raw, I found to my
>> delight that it was almost impossible to over expose an image when
>> shooting raw.
>>
>
> I like RAW as well. I often shoot at 2/3 of a stop over exposed and take
> what Adobe CSII suggests in its auto correction mode - not always, RAW
> allows a lot leeway for pictures with unusual lighting content.
>
> Someone will soon be along to tell us to get it right in the camera. They
> are, of course, correct.

I have never shot raw. My camera does do them though. What are the
benefits?

Beck wrote:
> are, of course, correct.
>
> I have never shot raw. My camera does do them though. What are the
> benefits?

In most cameras there is a lot of information thrown out when the jpeg
is produced. The raw file has all of that data in it and so you can
often get images from the raw files that are just not possible from the
jpeg.

The main two advantages that I get from it are way more exposure
latitude and the ability to very easily adjust the color balance on a
whole group of image at once.

On this last trip if I had not been shooting raw I would have spend a
lot more time adjusting my exposures and a lot less taking photographs.

In some cases you can also get somewhat sharper images from the raw
file then you can from the jpeg.

Scott

>There is a perception by some that shooting raw is more work then shooting jpegs.

I think that the misconception is more that it's tougher to work with
after the fact than JPEG, and that there are a few variants of RAW,
which are often specific to the manufacturer of the camera.

But for me, I use BreezeBrowser Pro to mass-convert the RAWs to JPEGS
for quick and easy browsing; and then use Camera Raw in Photoshop to
adjust the images as required... Results are far better than if I'd
shot to JPEG directly.

BD

In article <>, naj9daynum3
@lineone.net says...

> I like RAW as well. I often shoot at 2/3 of a stop over exposed and take
> what Adobe CSII suggests in its auto correction mode - not always, RAW
> allows a lot leeway for pictures with unusual lighting content.

You still have to be careful when the scene contains a lot of dynamic
range - in the case you better shoot at exposure, even with RAW.

By the way, why does everybody write "RAW" and not "raw" ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/

Scott W wrote:
>
> My wife and I have just returned from a cruise to Alaska, where we both
> took a lot of photos. On this trip we shot all raw, I found to my
> delight that it was almost impossible to over expose an image when
> shooting raw.
>
> Here are two photos that were saved because I was shooting raw, both
> would have been way over exposed if I was shooting jpeg.
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045238
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61044980
>
> In both cases I show what the camera jpeg would have looked like next
> to what I recovered using the raw file.
>
> Once we got home I decided to do a test to see just how much over
> exposed a photo can be and still be saved with the raw file. For this
> test I shot in the raw+jpeg mode so I could get the jpeg exactly as the
> camera produces it. In the test I shot at the normal meter setting and
> then two stops over exposed. In this image there are three photos, the
> top one is the jpeg from the camera at normal exposure, the middle one
> is the camera jpeg two stops over exposed, the bottom is from the raw
> file that was captured at the same time, converted using Photoshop
> Elements 3. Note I adjusted the color balance as well as the jpeg
> images looked a little on the cool side to me.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045031
>
> In the past when shooting jpegs I would spend a lot of time looking at
> histograms to make sure I was not blowing out the highlights. On this
> trip I pretty much just took photos and had to worry about the
> histograms far less.
>
> There is a perception by some that shooting raw is more work then
> shooting jpegs. The more I shoot raw the more I realize that it is far
> easier to shoot in raw then jpeg. I simply don't have to take the
> time on every shot to see if I have blown the highlights.
>
> BTW here is a small sampling of the photo I took on the trip.
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/alaska
>
> Scott

Right on there, Scott. I shoot 100% raw with my 300D, and I won't shoot
jpeg except under exceptional circumstances - which I haven't run into
yet!

I use DxO Optics to convert to either jpg, tif, or dng - lately I've
been using dng as the files are lossless but only half the size of a tif
file. DxO also has the considerable advantage of correcting lens
aberrations as it converts, specific to the lens and camera used,
including barrel/pincushion, CA, PF etc. My 17-85mm IS looks like an
'L' lens after DxO has straightened it.

DxO corrections are automatic after you set up what you want it to do.
After my Hong Kong trip in January I fed it with >600 raw images, which
it converted overnight. Takes about 40 seconds per image with a 3.00GHz
processor, about 6½ hours processing time while I slept.

Disclaimer: I have no interest in DxO Optics other than an extremely
satisfied user.

Colin D.

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

ColinD wrote:
>
> Scott W wrote:
>
>>My wife and I have just returned from a cruise to Alaska, where we both
>>took a lot of photos. On this trip we shot all raw, I found to my
>>delight that it was almost impossible to over expose an image when
>>shooting raw.
>>
>>Here are two photos that were saved because I was shooting raw, both
>>would have been way over exposed if I was shooting jpeg.
>>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045238
>>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61044980
>>
>>In both cases I show what the camera jpeg would have looked like next
>>to what I recovered using the raw file.
>>
>>Once we got home I decided to do a test to see just how much over
>>exposed a photo can be and still be saved with the raw file. For this
>>test I shot in the raw+jpeg mode so I could get the jpeg exactly as the
>>camera produces it. In the test I shot at the normal meter setting and
>>then two stops over exposed. In this image there are three photos, the
>>top one is the jpeg from the camera at normal exposure, the middle one
>>is the camera jpeg two stops over exposed, the bottom is from the raw
>>file that was captured at the same time, converted using Photoshop
>>Elements 3. Note I adjusted the color balance as well as the jpeg
>>images looked a little on the cool side to me.
>>
>>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045031
>>
>>In the past when shooting jpegs I would spend a lot of time looking at
>>histograms to make sure I was not blowing out the highlights. On this
>>trip I pretty much just took photos and had to worry about the
>>histograms far less.
>>
>>There is a perception by some that shooting raw is more work then
>>shooting jpegs. The more I shoot raw the more I realize that it is far
>>easier to shoot in raw then jpeg. I simply don't have to take the
>>time on every shot to see if I have blown the highlights.
>>
>>BTW here is a small sampling of the photo I took on the trip.
>>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/alaska
>>
>>Scott
>
>
> Right on there, Scott. I shoot 100% raw with my 300D, and I won't shoot
> jpeg except under exceptional circumstances - which I haven't run into
> yet!
>
> I use DxO Optics to convert to either jpg, tif, or dng - lately I've
> been using dng as the files are lossless but only half the size of a tif
> file. DxO also has the considerable advantage of correcting lens
> aberrations as it converts, specific to the lens and camera used,
> including barrel/pincushion, CA, PF etc. My 17-85mm IS looks like an
> 'L' lens after DxO has straightened it.
>
> DxO corrections are automatic after you set up what you want it to do.
> After my Hong Kong trip in January I fed it with >600 raw images, which
> it converted overnight. Takes about 40 seconds per image with a 3.00GHz
> processor, about 6½ hours processing time while I slept.
>
> Disclaimer: I have no interest in DxO Optics other than an extremely
> satisfied user.
>
> Colin D.

Hi Colin.

Interesting. Can you point me to this DxO software?

Take care.

Ken

>By the way, why does everybody write "RAW" and not "raw" ?

Probably because 'raw' is a little more colloquial; lots of things are
'raw' - raw sound, raw meat... 'RAW' images certain specific
implications as to how they are to be handled. If it was considered to
be a truly generic term, and I said "I'm having problems converting
from unprocessed image data to JPEG", people would ask me what the hell
I was on about. I say I am trying to convert from RAW to JPEG, and it
all makes sense.

Or maybe people just want it to sound like an acronym so it sounds more
important...

"Scott W" <> wrote in message
news: ps.com...
> Beck wrote:
>> are, of course, correct.
>>
>> I have never shot raw. My camera does do them though. What are the
>> benefits?
>
> In most cameras there is a lot of information thrown out when the jpeg
> is produced. The raw file has all of that data in it and so you can
> often get images from the raw files that are just not possible from the
> jpeg.
>
> The main two advantages that I get from it are way more exposure
> latitude and the ability to very easily adjust the color balance on a
> whole group of image at once.
>
> On this last trip if I had not been shooting raw I would have spend a
> lot more time adjusting my exposures and a lot less taking photographs.
>
> In some cases you can also get somewhat sharper images from the raw
> file then you can from the jpeg.

So how do you do the conversion to jpg? Do you set the exposure yourself
during the conversion?