image post processing

[Groucho]

Yes, but the exposure has nothing to do with the white balance, contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc. Because the RAW file applies none of those things, it will likely never look as good as a JPG shot under the exact same situation. You can always have a default value in your RAW processor for these though.

Kevin

Most any raw processor will use whatever camera settings are there for the default for the RAW file. Ie, if you set your camera to do max saturation, tungsten white balance, and minimum contrast, that's how the RAW file will be processed by default. So, theoretically, a raw file should always be at least as good as the jpg if the camera had created one. (Or as good as the matching jpg if you shoot raw+jpg.)

My response to the OP is that no, you certainly don't need to. I rarely did before starting to use Lightroom. However, a little extra time spent post-processing can make a big difference, and the DSLR can produce a quality enough photo (especially as a raw) that it can be really rewarding to post-process. You will also find yourself with more keepers. I've just started putting some of my updated (more post-processing) shots from my January WDW trip online, and here's one that I didn't even think was a keeper at the default settings - too dark and colorless, even though it's a 2.1-second exposure. Now it's one of my favorites.

Here's a before and after of a lantern in the PotC queue. Before, it's OK, but there's not much to it. A little post-processing and I was able to brighten up the wall a little without blowing out the details of the actual lantern. I also adjusted the colors slightly (though I honestly don't remember for sure how accurate they are.)

Now, I've also been post-processing my old non-DSLR photos too, but you don't have quite as much flexibility with the JPGs and you're not capable of pulling in as much additional detail.

 

[Anewman]

Most any raw processor will use whatever camera settings are there for the default for the RAW file. Ie, if you set your camera to do max saturation, tungsten white balance, and minimum contrast, that's how the RAW file will be processed by default. So, theoretically, a raw file should always be at least as good as the jpg if the camera had created one. (Or as good as the matching jpg if you shoot raw+jpg.)

From the way I understand things, that is only accurate if you are using that camera makers software. I do not think ACR/Lightroom/other can read all the parameters that raw files were shot with, even white balance "as shot" is only a guess.

I lower all the in camera parameters to lowest possible(-3) so the histogram displayed on the camera gives me a more accurate representation, but it makes no difference if I were to say set Lightroom on auto.

 

[Groucho]

From the way I understand things, that is only accurate if you are using that camera makers software. I do not think ACR/Lightroom/other can read all the parameters that raw files were shot with, even white balance "as shot" is only a guess.

I lower all the in camera parameters to lowest possible(-3) so the histogram displayed on the camera gives me a more accurate representation, but it makes no difference if I were to say set Lightroom on auto.

Lightroom/ACR is probably the exception though I think it does pull the white balance info - if it's guessing, then I would assume there'd be no difference between "as shot" and "auto", and there definitely is. I assume all the camera settings are in the MakerNote somewhere but I'm not 100% sure. It'd be easy to test but I'm not going to bother tonight, maybe later - it's past my bedtime already.

To be fair, though, Lightroom is aimed at the more advanced shooter who's going to want more control over such things. I think most DSLR users will just use whatever came with the camera (I certainly did for the longest time) and should still get very satisfactory results, at least as good and probably usually better than they'd get with a jpg.

 

[Tickla]

Thank you everyone. Now it all is more clear to me. I guess I have just been into film for so long it's hard to understand some of the digital stuff--you are so great here at explaining things!! I really appreciate it!

 

[Anewman]

Lightroom/ACR is probably the exception though I think it does pull the white balance info - if it's guessing, then I would assume there'd be no difference between "as shot" and "auto", and there definitely is. I assume all the camera settings are in the MakerNote somewhere but I'm not 100% sure. It'd be easy to test but I'm not going to bother tonight, maybe later - it's past my bedtime already.

According to ADOBE white balance is only saved in the file as a EXIF metadata tag.
So Lightroom would be able to see that white balance was set to "flash" and then apply its own FLASH temperatures which probably do not match temperatures that the camera would apply to the JPEG.


Note second paragraph...
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/ps_workflow_sec3.pdf

 

[MICKEY88]

Most any raw processor will use whatever camera settings are there for the default for the RAW file. Ie, if you set your camera to do max saturation, tungsten white balance, and minimum contrast, that's how the RAW file will be processed by default. So, theoretically, a raw file should always be at least as good as the jpg if the camera had created one. (Or as good as the matching jpg if you shoot raw+jpg.)

My response to the OP is that no, you certainly don't need to. I rarely did before starting to use Lightroom. However, a little extra time spent post-processing can make a big difference, and the DSLR can produce a quality enough photo (especially as a raw) that it can be really rewarding to post-process. You will also find yourself with more keepers. I've just started putting some of my updated (more post-processing) shots from my January WDW trip online, and here's one that I didn't even think was a keeper at the default settings - too dark and colorless, even though it's a 2.1-second exposure. Now it's one of my favorites.

Here's a before and after of a lantern in the PotC queue. Before, it's OK, but there's not much to it. A little post-processing and I was able to brighten up the wall a little without blowing out the details of the actual lantern. I also adjusted the colors slightly (though I honestly don't remember for sure how accurate they are.)

Now, I've also been post-processing my old non-DSLR photos too, but you don't have quite as much flexibility with the JPGs and you're not capable of pulling in as much additional detail.

although it was a 2.1 second exposure...was it an accurate exposure... a scene like that often requires a +1 or 2 exposure compensation or even more.., if you had given it more exposure, chances are it would look the same as it does now, post processing...

 

[jann1033]

Thank you everyone. Now it all is more clear to me. I guess I have just been into film for so long it's hard to understand some of the digital stuff--you are so great here at explaining things!! I really appreciate it!

truthfully that is probably imo the major benefit of digital vs film, the ability to see the photo before you print it and adjust it accordingly either by shooting again or post processing. other than that i kind of liked knowing basically how color etc was going to turn out depending on what film i used. digital is definitely a learning experience in that regard with white balance etc. if you are used to a film slr though i am sure you can adjust to the digital

 

[fitzperry]

According to ADOBE white balance is only saved in the file as a EXIF metadata tag.
So Lightroom would be able to see that white balance was set to "flash" and then apply its own FLASH temperatures which probably do not match temperatures that the camera would apply to the JPEG.


Note second paragraph...
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/ps_workflow_sec3.pdf

But if the metadata only shows that the white balance was set to "auto", why does the "as shot" wb still differ from "auto" when you open it in Lightroom/PS?

 

[Master Mason]

although it was a 2.1 second exposure...was it an accurate exposure... a scene like that often requires a +1 or 2 exposure compensation or even more.., if you had given it more exposure, chances are it would look the same as it does now, post processing...

Mickey,

the problem with this arguement, is people have been PP ing with film as well for years in the developement process. If you know what your doing there are many reasons why you can get a better shot by not having the perfect exposure and then post processing it afterwords.

I understand your point, it shouldn't be used as a crutch to fix every mistake, but PP'ing can also be used as a creative tool, and there isn't anything wrong with that either.

And yes there are things you can do in PP that you can not do with exposure in camera, because you can expand the dymanic range within pp.

 

[MICKEY88]

Mickey,

the problem with this arguement, is people have been PP ing with film as well for years in the developement process. If you know what your doing there are many reasons why you can get a better shot by not having the perfect exposure and then post processing it afterwords.

I understand your point, it shouldn't be used as a crutch to fix every mistake, but PP'ing can also be used as a creative tool, and there isn't anything wrong with that either.

And yes there are things you can do in PP that you can not do with exposure in camera, because you can expand the dymanic range within pp.

I never said PPing shouldn't be used, as a crutch or creatively, the point I am making is that PP is not neccessary on all raw files, and that the more accurate the original exposure, the less likely the need to pp....

with the photo in question I was merely stating that more exposure would most likely have rendered more color and possibly eliminated the need to pp

paint shop pro photo XI is my favorite software I spend hours manipulating photos to see what different options I have

 

[boBQuincy]

I never said PPing shouldn't be used, as a crutch or creatively, the point I am making is that PP is not neccessary on all raw files, and that the more accurate the original exposure, the less likely the need to pp....

If the image is edited after exposure and outside of the camera it is PostProcessing, and *all* RAW images require PostProcessing to be of any use.

Accurate exposure is rarely (almost never) enough to effectively convey most scenes, since their range far exceeds that of our cameras. Almost every image we take can be improved with burning, dodging, white balance, curves, and more. All this is the domain of PostProcessing and becomes even more important when we print the image.

RAW images can be converted simply, by using the defaults, but where is the benefit of RAW then? Of course we still have the RAW file to go back to for further PP but we might as well shoot RAW+Large JPG and save the trouble.

 

[fitzperry]

Of course we still have the RAW file to go back to for further PP but we might as well shoot RAW+Large JPG and save the trouble.

Unless you have a Nikon that will only shoot basic JPG + RAW.

 

[Reminiscing_Cody]

Of course we still have the RAW file to go back to for further PP but we might as well shoot RAW+Large JPG and save the trouble.

I was going to shoot RAW+SHQ JPG on my Olympus E-510, but my understanding is using the manufacturer's software as a developer with default settings ("as shot" on everything) is exactly the same. It is very quick to do batch RAW development when I unload the camera, so adding the JPG in-camera just fills up the card faster and slows continuous shooting.

The benefit, then, is more flexibility if I do want to go back and do some PP, but I suppose you already said exactly that

 

[boBQuincy]

Unless you have a Nikon that will only shoot basic JPG + RAW.

My older Canon D30 doesn't have many options in that mode either. Let's hope the camera manufacturers give us more options.

 

[MICKEY88]

If the image is edited after exposure and outside of the camera it is PostProcessing, and *all* RAW images require PostProcessing to be of any use.

Accurate exposure is rarely (almost never) enough to effectively convey most scenes, since their range far exceeds that of our cameras.if you almost never effectively convey the scene, something is not right... Almost every image we take can be improved with burning, dodging, white balance, curves, and more. sure images can be improved and made more dramatic, but the average person will never do these things, the average person thought 110 cameras with their film cartrdges and tiny negatives, produced good pictures..for the advanced or pro photographer sure these are good points. All this is the domain of PostProcessing and becomes even more important when we print the image.

RAW images can be converted simply, by using the defaults, but where is the benefit of RAW then? Of course we still have the RAW file to go back to for further PP but we might as well shoot RAW+Large JPG and save the trouble.

m the benefit is having the raw to improve good shots and save bad shots...but for the average person jpg is going to work just fine as is raw converted with default settings...

 

[Anewman]

But if the metadata only shows that the white balance was set to "auto", why does the "as shot" wb still differ from "auto" when you open it in Lightroom/PS?

Metadata would contain which of the white balance presets(flash, florescent, etc..) was selected by the cameras "AUTO" setting, so Adobes "as shot" would try to replicate that camera preset. While Adobes "AUTO" is independent of what it thinks the camera may have used.

 

[fitzperry]

Metadata would contain which of the white balance presets(flash, florescent, etc..) was selected by the cameras "AUTO" setting, so Adobes "as shot" would try to replicate that camera preset. While Adobes "AUTO" is independent of what it thinks the camera may have used.

Thanks.

 

[Groucho]

I'm still not 100% convinced on the Adobe thing. I mean, yes, of course the white balance is stored in exif - where else could it be stored? What's really going on is that Adobe is complaining that not all the manufacturers let them know just what's in the MakerNote section, where probably much of that data is stored. There's some info here on some parts of MakerNotes that had been documented - probably be reverse-engineering.

A good test might be to set a custom white balance to something ridiculous, like purple or orange, and take a couple shots, and see what Lightroom displays them as, especially in comparison to a manufacturer-provided raw processor.

Another solution is to use a camera that can store photos in DNG format, that way Adobe cannot fairly complain about such things.

Mickey88, I did more than just brighten up that shot, I did a few other tweaks, too. (But you are right, it would have helped to start with a brighter photo to begin with - that was from my second night at WDW that trip, and the first night I spent most of it in bed sick, so I was definitely still learning!) Similar to the photo I posted below it, which had fill light added, which allowed the background to brighten up without blowing out the light itself. I'm telling you, Lightroom is awesome, way beyond trying to use any photo editor to process your RAWs one at a time. I simply cannot handle that much work; Lightroom makes it trivial to process huge piles of photos quickly. Version 1.1 adds several new improvements, too, like the "clarity" slider which is really cool, and the keywording is way beyond anything else I've seen out there. All my updated WDW pics have full keywords, for example, that shot of the castle has "Cinderella Castle, Disney World, Magic Kingdom" as keywords. I can now go in and instantly see every photo of a specific ride, or of the castle, or of the Contemporary, or so on.

 

[scejas]

Anyone have a good book I can read up on -- i feel like i have hit a wall on my post processing skills and I would like to manipulate my pictures better...

or a good website is also good...

 

[tinksdad]

I've read the Art of RAW Conversion and found it informative and helpful.