Shooting in Canon RAW format + Post processing


Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 25, 2005
396
0
0
www.geocities.com
#1
Hi I would like to learn from canon GURU any good websites for the treating canon RAW files? I think the built in JPEG conversion, AWB, EV change might result in poor image quality if set wrongly. I am not very experience how to set those setting accordingly as I cannot judge the lighting condition and the needed exposure. So I am thinking of shooting in RAW mode and learn how these parameters affect the photo quality during post treatment with PhotoShop.

If we shoot in RAW format, we can adjust the white balance, colour saturation, contrast during post processing and adjust other setting to achive better quality. Is it true??

http://www.breezesys.com/BreezeBrowser/help/raw.htm
 

solarii

New Member
Oct 20, 2005
1,354
0
0
Bt. Timah
#5
Shooting RAW allows you to adjust parameters such as WB, exposure etc. But I feel it should only be used to adjust WB, tweak colour or correct minor exposure issues.

It can't help if your image is severly over-exposed (burnt out highlights) or under exposed. Based on your account, I suggest you practice more and get a feel of how your camera meters light. Use the on-camera histogram (if you have one) to check your exposures and reshoot if necessary, instead of relying on post-processing.

Besides, it takes ages to process RAW files, esp if u have like 300+ imgs!:bigeyes:
 

freelancer

New Member
Apr 30, 2004
466
0
0
#6
solarii said:
Besides, it takes ages to process RAW files, esp if u have like 300+ imgs!:bigeyes:
At around 6 to 8 seconds per image, you are looking at around 30+ minutes. The main point is with C1 or RSE/RSP you can continue to work on your RAW files as the images (JPEG/TIFF) are generated. It all depends on your raw workflow and how efficient it is. Use of quick proofs or previews to sort out the keepers from the maybes or "to delete" ones first will help cut the post-processing time.

You can correct up to around +/- 1 EV without much noticeable quality issues and up to +/- 2 EV if you really need to push it. More importantly, you can recover from the shadow or under-exposed areas much easier than over-exposed.

I do agree that you get the exposure spot on when you shoot with the help of the histogram or light meter instead of relying on post-processing to recover. Someone once remarked that with raw, its like shooting the scene first and then during processing select the type of "film" you want to use. YMMV
 

tanjk

New Member
Mar 8, 2002
267
0
0
Visit site
#7
solarii said:
Shooting RAW allows you to adjust parameters such as WB, exposure etc. But I feel it should only be used to adjust WB, tweak colour or correct minor exposure issues.

It can't help if your image is severly over-exposed (burnt out highlights) or under exposed. Based on your account, I suggest you practice more and get a feel of how your camera meters light. Use the on-camera histogram (if you have one) to check your exposures and reshoot if necessary, instead of relying on post-processing.

Besides, it takes ages to process RAW files, esp if u have like 300+ imgs!:bigeyes:
Actually I don't quite agree with you. Shooting RAW is a form of insurance. Yes, you have to get the exposure right but let me just say that even the pros might make mistake at times. During events where you may not have the time to check histogram or ask your 'subject' to hold on, this can be a great saver. RAW then gives you an easy way to correct your exposure or colour balance.

Also, it does not take ages to process RAW files, even on my lowly lappy (1.4PM with 512MB Ram), I thought it's within reasonable limits.

Of course, it still boils down to individual preferences, post processing is almost a must if you don't want to rely on the camera to do the thinking. So if you are going to do it, why not do it on the RAW file instead on JPGs?

FYI, I shoot exclusively in RAW and I find it a joy to be able to tweak the output :)

Regards,
JK
 

Jun 25, 2005
396
0
0
www.geocities.com
#9
tanjk said:
Actually I don't quite agree with you. Shooting RAW is a form of insurance. Yes, you have to get the exposure right but let me just say that even the pros might make mistake at times. During events where you may not have the time to check histogram or ask your 'subject' to hold on, this can be a great saver. RAW then gives you an easy way to correct your exposure or colour balance.

Also, it does not take ages to process RAW files, even on my lowly lappy (1.4PM with 512MB Ram), I thought it's within reasonable limits.

Of course, it still boils down to individual preferences, post processing is almost a must if you don't want to rely on the camera to do the thinking. So if you are going to do it, why not do it on the RAW file instead on JPGs?

FYI, I shoot exclusively in RAW and I find it a joy to be able to tweak the output :)

Regards,
JK
I have the same feeling and do not mind the time for post processing. I feel the critical moment is short and it does not allow me to choose the best EV. I can only choose my favourite Av mode to adjust only the F values to achieve highest possible shutter speed 8000. Shooting in raw mode allows me to post processing without losing any datails. I find the BreezeBrowser PRO quite good and it can batch processing. I don't process all images except the good one normally less than 10 in 100 shots.
 

freelancer

New Member
Apr 30, 2004
466
0
0
#10
tanjk said:
Shooting RAW is a form of insurance.
Since you mention this a little more, with events for example, it is always a challenge to get the WB or exposure right unlike the studio where lighting is controlled.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom