RAW file format

[Pea-n-Me]

Looks like a little bit of camera chake, not sure if your camera has a shutter delay, but nikons you can delay the shutter by .4 sec or so so you do not get any shake from the camera mirror.

It probably does, but wouldn't you accomplish the same thing using the timer?

 

[Pea-n-Me]

4) ISO1600
Wow, what was I thinking there?

Dumb question, and maybe really complicated I know (or just incredibly simple, sometimes not sure) - to get the same effect, what aperture and shutter settings could I have used? Longer shutter speed? Larger aperture? Or was ISO the only (or easiest) option here?

(Thanks in advance to anyone who tackles this question. )

 

[InsertWittyNameHere]

Yes, Olympus Master. What do you mean "finish up"? Was there a step I'm missing? I noticed that after editing, the pics were converted to JPEG. How did I manage that?

Maybe someone can answer this too: why did my images look crystal clear in my LCD screen (after taking them) and also when first pulled up on the edit screen, and then they appeared to become noisy, as in, to the extreme? Does this always happen when shooting RAW?

I found that Master is limited in making any final adjustments (noise removal, shapening, adjusting saturation...etc.). I process in Master and then save as a tiff file as opposed to jpeg. I then pull up the tiff file in PSP (poor mans Photoshop) and make additional adjustments as needed.

I might download the trial version of Olympus Studio. It is supposed to have more features than Master but isn't free. I believe it is $100 for Studio

 

[maccagerl]

Nothing much to tackle- to bring the ISO down you'd have to either use a slower shutter speed, or open up your aperture. Opening up the aperture would give you a much narrower depth of field, which wouldn't work well with the subject you were shooting, so I'd use a slower shutter speed and drop the iso down to maybe 100-200.

If you were taking these photos without a tripod, thus needing to use a faster shutter speed to avoid camera shake, then you would need to increase the ISO .

It's all just a matter of letting enough light into your camera to record the photo- and you do that by adjusting the shutter, aperture, and iso depending on what you are shooting.

4) ISO1600
Wow, what was I thinking there?

Dumb question, and maybe really complicated I know (or just incredibly simple, sometimes not sure) - to get the same effect, what aperture and shutter settings could I have used? Longer shutter speed? Larger aperture? Or was ISO the only (or easiest) option here?

(Thanks in advance to anyone who tackles this question. )

 

[Code]

Yes, Olympus Master. What do you mean "finish up"? Was there a step I'm missing? I noticed that after editing, the pics were converted to JPEG. How did I manage that?

I suppose since I helped convince you to try RAW, I owe you a bit more explanation

The RAW file is pretty useless by itself.. it is merely the data that will be used to build a final image.

When you open it in the RAW converter and make adjustments, you aren't changing the RAW itself, only the way the converter interprets the data. The RAW data never changes.

If you are just using the RAW converter to make basic adjustments (WB, exposure, saturation, etc etc) then you will just save the final image out in JPG from the converter software. You'll then have two files, the RAW and the JPG. You can delete the RAW if you want, but unless disk space is a big issue, it's a good idea to keep it in case you want to do something different with it later.

When you want to bring the RAW converted data into Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro or whatever, you have to add a step. Instead of going straight from RAW -> JPG, you should go from RAW to a lossless format such as TIFF, make your edits on the TIFF file, then save the JPG from that. So RAW -> TIFF -> JPG. This is how I do it, but I don't save the TIFF file after I've made the JPG.

 

[Experiment_626]

It probably does, but wouldn't you accomplish the same thing using the timer?

No. The self-timer will enable you to avoid any camera shake from your handling of the camera. The exposure delay is a substitute for mirror lock-up. It is designed to eliminate camera shake caused by the action of the mirror flipping up inside the camera. Normally, this happens just before the exposure is taken. In some cases (especially on long exposures), the residual tiny amount of momentary shake caused by the mirror flipping up can cause motion blur in you photo. Exposure delay, when active, causes the mirror to flip up and hold for about half a second before the exposure is taken, so you avoid that blur.

My night-time tripod shots of Cinderella Castle used to always come out not quite sharp enough. I finally started taking shots like that with Exposure Delay turned on, and it made the difference.

SSB

 

[Pea-n-Me]

The exposure delay is a substitute for mirror lock-up.

Ah, ok, I didn't see the last word in her sentence, mirror. That makes sense, thanks for explaining further.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I suppose since I helped convince you to try RAW, I owe you a bit more explanation

I didn't want to embarrass you, but yes, since you brought it up, this is all your fault.

I think I used the Edit function, not the RAW Converter function, as that was working easier for me. I'm sure that's how I wound up with JPEGs without realizing how I got there.

OK, so it's going to take a while...

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I feel your "pain" Pea-n-Me. Before buying a DSLR nobody said much about RAW - except that it's really great and you'll love it!!! I'm still working my way thru the process and figuring out the steps to take and in what programs to do what.

 

[InsertWittyNameHere]

I didn't want to embarrass you, but yes, since you brought it up, this is all your fault.

without realizing how I got there.

OK, so it's going to take a while...

LOL...you tell him

I feel your "pain" Pea-n-Me. Before buying a DSLR nobody said much about RAW - except that it's really great and you'll love it!!! I'm still working my way thru the process and figuring out the steps to take and in what programs to do what.

I'm finding that becoming more familiar with how a histogram works has made my RAW processing look better. I'm still baffled most times with it but I'm getting better

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I feel your "pain" Pea-n-Me. Before buying a DSLR nobody said much about RAW - except that it's really great and you'll love it!!! I'm still working my way thru the process and figuring out the steps to take and in what programs to do what.

Thanks for letting me know I'm not alone in this, KAT.

 

[ukcatfan]

4) ISO1600
Wow, what was I thinking there?

Dumb question, and maybe really complicated I know (or just incredibly simple, sometimes not sure) - to get the same effect, what aperture and shutter settings could I have used? Longer shutter speed? Larger aperture? Or was ISO the only (or easiest) option here?

(Thanks in advance to anyone who tackles this question. )

Actually, your thinking was not that far off, even if it was an accident. Everyone seems to forget that the moon is always moving! If you did a 30 sec. shot, you almost certainly would have subject motion blur. You probably could have gone more than 2.5 sec. though. Usually people want something else in the shot of the moon, so DOF is a concern. The moon behaves strangely though when it comes to things like that b/c it is sooooo far away. It is not like you have to shrink the aperture down to max, but I do not think f/5.6 will give enough DOF. Take notice that you do not need to focus to infinity for the moon even though it is over 200K miles away!

 

[extreme8]

Maybe someone can answer this too: why did my images look crystal clear in my LCD screen (after taking them) and also when first pulled up on the edit screen, and then they appeared to become noisy, as in, to the extreme? Does this always happen when shooting RAW?

The image you see on the LCD and (initally) in the RAW converter is actually a preview jpg imbedded into the RAW file.

Since a digital capture is nothing but a big 'ol pile of data there is no way to display it without processing it using some kind of converter.
I'm sure you already know much of this...
All digital cameras have a converter built in, and you can change the settings it uses to process your images such as brightness, saturation, sharpness, etc. through the menu system.
If you're shooting jpg this converted image is saved to your memory card, the RAW data is discarded and the job is done.
When shooting RAW the converted image is imbedded into the RAW file then saved.
Now you have all of the original data (RAW) that you can process later on using your PC and your software to your specific preferences (rather than relying on the judgement of some engineer in Japan), and an imbedded thumbnail processed using your camera settings that can be used on your camera LCD, or displayed by your RAW converter software while the full RAW data is being loaded in the background.
Since the RAW files are so big this little jpg is used in quite a number of ways by many applications to save processing time and speed up the display.

Basically, the reason the LCD image and the first image you see in the RAW converter look cleaner is that they've already been processed, including in-camera noise reduction.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Actually, your thinking was not that far off, even if it was an accident. Everyone seems to forget that the moon is always moving! If you did a 30 sec. shot, you almost certainly would have subject motion blur. You probably could have gone more than 2.5 sec. though.

Yes, I guess it wasn't an accident, really. I think I'm finally developing an instinctual feel for what I have to do in many situations. I was playing around with the settings to get the best exposure. One thing I should have done (after re-reading Mark's post below) was turn off the IS since I was using a tripod. Oh well, next time.

BTW, maccagerl, thanks for your feedback. The reason I knew the answer could be complicated is here. But you summed it up nicely.

 

[DueyDooDah]

Maybe someone can answer this too: why did my images look crystal clear in my LCD screen (after taking them) and also when first pulled up on the edit screen, and then they appeared to become noisy, as in, to the extreme? Does this always happen when shooting RAW?

I don't know if I can answer this but if the image started out crystal clear then it should, with few exceptions, result in a clear image. The only times I've seen this not to be true is when the ISO is either too low, which results in the need to over-process causing alot of noise, or when the expose is too long, causing image blur and, at times, alot of noise in darker images.

If these are not the cases in your images, then something else is wrong. Try processing the RAW image again using the RAW converter. Just open the file and save it out either as JPG or TIFF, with no other processing. Ensure you save it out as the best quality image your software will allow. It should be as clear (if not clearer) as the original.

 

[Groucho]

The other thing to remember about the LCD is that it's usually 320x240 or so... while the actual photo is more like 3000x2000 or 4000x3000 or so (depending on your camera's mp count.) It's easy to hide noise in that info!

I usually only glance quickly at the full-size view on the LCD (just enough to check composition), then I start zooming in close to check sharpness, etc.

 

[wenrob]

Since I discovered that PSP will edit my RAW files (but not import them ) I decided that I'll shoot RAW. Now inside I use the "kid mode" because my lens just isn't fast enough to shoot without flash and I'm chasing after little ones. Anyway, my camera tends to under expose and of course I forget to use the exposure compensation. (I hope I don't sound like an idiot, I'm still learning) The jpg shot with the RAW is under exposed but the RAW seems WAY underexposed. Is this normal? So I did levels/curves and eldest DD says my version is now too bright. But if I tone it down at all, skin tone looks grey and it doesn't bring out her hair and eyes. Any ideas? Also, what kind of 'recipe' do you all use for sharpening people on RAW images? And any PSP users, how do you set your white balance? I've been using 'color balance' but I'm not sure if that's right.
Anyway, going to post the jpg and edited version. Any help would be great.
jpg Straight out of the Camera

edited RAW

 

[DueyDooDah]

Actually, I find your RAW version much better than the other. The easiest way to determine if you're getting it too bright is to check the histogram. Make sure you are not clipping the right side. Mark posted a thread about histograms recently. Check it out.

Try to make use of the histogram while you begin RAW editing. It is very useful when you first begin. You don't have to remove all clipping, but enough to ensure you're keeping the details you want to keep.

It would help if we could see the EXIF data in your photos, but as this is not the case, we'll have to wing it.

Try shooting out of auto mode. Aperture priority may give you better exposure than Auto. Try it both ways on the same subject and see if the underexposure issue clears up. I know that my Canon underexposes for certain shots but it's so small I just use Lightroom to compensate.

 

[JR6ooo4]

Ya, it does look a little bright.

that is the geat thing about working with raw. try some adjustments, save a version. THen try it again...

It fell it helps to edit in the same room lighting, all the time. I like night with bright room lights that do not shine directly on my screen.

did you bump up the exposure or brightness? Maybe back down the highlights to bring back the cheek details.

Mikeeee

 

[wenrob]

I'm going to give it another try in the AM. I thought I backed off on the clipping but maybe more. Part of my issue is the curves in PSP is an actual curve, no sliders, makes it difficult to get right.

Thanks so much for your input, I really appreciate it.

Any sharpening tips?

Duey, are you not getting my EXIF data because I'm set to private? I didn't even think about that, I'll take it off private if that's what it is. Or do I have to do something to make sure it shows up? How do I find it to just give to you?

edited to add: on the under exposure, even shooting manual (when forcing oldest DD to go outside a pose for me, lol) I seem to get underexposed wide open. When you all help me figure out the EXIF data thing I'll post those.