«

From a current news thread in rec.photo.digital
I am about to skim the rest of the thread
---------
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

BillU wrote:
>> From a current news thread in rec.photo.digital
>> I am about to skim the rest of the thread
>> ---------
>> 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
>>
>> Scott

If obtaining correct exposure is the only reason you capture RAW, you really
do need to learn more about the subject.

D Mac wrote:
> BillU wrote:
>>> From a current news thread in rec.photo.digital
>>> I am about to skim the rest of the thread
>>> ---------
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Scott
>
> If obtaining correct exposure is the only reason you capture RAW, you
> really do need to learn more about the subject.

Exposure correction (shadow detail and highlight capture) is a HUGE aspect
of why RAW is so powerful.
The only other MAJOR factors are white balance and non-compression factors.

What other biggie would you have him obsess over, Doug?

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson