Fauxtoto
Established Forum Member
Quebec, Canada
Posts: 440
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by Fauxtoto on Sept 3, 2018 14:46:24 GMT
I am an Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) fan. I am posting this Adobe tutorial link for the benefit of those who would still be intimated by ACR. These videos proove that ACR is easy to use and that it can be very usefull even if you are working in jpg format (see the last video on that page). This remains true for older version of Elements that come with older versions of ACR. To Camrera Raw or not to Camera Raw? Of Course, I say, "To Camera Raw." |
|
|
|
Post by Peterj on Sept 3, 2018 17:16:49 GMT
I second "To Camera Raw." - It's a powerful NON-destructive editor.
|
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,359
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Sept 3, 2018 17:58:42 GMT
Forward note: I shot a few dozen raw images this morning because the scene was in tricky light...will post a couple here later today. Raw has advantages. I shot jpeg for many years and started taking raw a few years ago. I was shooting APS-C sensor cameras. A few comments: - under tough lighting raw can be superior - using a good DSLR under good lighting I don't think you can see a difference even when making large prints - in April I purchased a full frame and shot jpg for a few weeks because the PSE 2018 ACR would not accept the ARW files off the new camera (and using the converter was a PITA  ) - the results with jpgs blew me away..the images are mostly noiseless even at high ISO ...see samples. This is a a 7-year-old article by the Minolta-Sony guru Gary Friedman friedmanarchives.blogspot.com/2011/08/where-anti-jpg-bias-came-from.htmlAnd another... friedmanarchives.blogspot.com/2012/08/where-anti-jpg-bias-came-from-part-2.htmlQuote.... Now before the hate mail starts pouring in, let me reassert my position: RAW has tremendous benefits in high-ISO shooting, has greater dynamic range, and is much more malleable when editing. I went over all of this in the talk. But as I demonstrate in my seminars, IF your light is good, and IF your exposure is right for that light, your images won’t benefit greatly from shooting RAW - modern .jpgs are that good. You can't see any .jpg compression artifacts in modern cameras, and those posters are great examples. The point of the talk was that .jpg’s reputation never recovered from the bad rap it developed near the turn of the century, and it’s time to reassess their quality.
Some high ISO jpeg samples from the A7III .. not too shabby.
   So it all depends...and yes, I will continue to shoot RAW for some scenes. Please re-read Friedman's quote...   " before the hate mail starts pouring in, let me reassert my position: RAW has tremendous benefits in high-ISO shooting, has greater dynamic range, and is much more malleable when editing." Happy Labour Day Clive
|
|
|
|
Post by hmca on Sept 3, 2018 18:27:46 GMT
I always shoot in RAW.......it took some convincing to get me to do that years ago due to concern for larger file size. I have never gone back but this discussion is making me want to experiment.
I have heard great things about your camera Clive but seeing the images that it can produce with such high ISO's is very impressive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sepiana on Sept 3, 2018 18:45:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Sept 4, 2018 2:38:07 GMT
I started shooting raw format as soon as I bought my first dslr after using a point and shoot which shot only jpegs. In higher end cameras like Clive's you can shoot very high quality jpegs at high ISO as he has shown.
But with my way of thinking, I will always shoot in raw format because I just don't feel comfortable with the camera making all the processing decisions, albeit according to the in-camera settings I choose.
For example, if you inadvertently choose the wrong white balance setting for the scene, the jpeg could come out looking "blah" (to use a high tech term a member once used to describe one of my posted images ). With raw format (which is largely unprocessed data), the white balance is applied in the raw editor, so it can easily be adjusted to what it should have been in-camera. With jpegs you are starting any post processing with already largely processed data and so depending on the adjustments you want to make, they could be easy or very difficult to achieve. With raw format data you have much more unprocessed data to play with. So unless storage space is an issue (raw files are very much larger than jpegs) I just don't see any advantage to shooting jpegs without raw files as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Sepiana on Sept 4, 2018 2:42:12 GMT
I am posting this Adobe tutorial link for the benefit of those who would still be intimated by ACR. These videos proove that ACR is easy to use and that it can be very usefull even if you are working in jpg format (see the last video on that page).
Fauxtoto, I have added this link to our sticky Adobe Camera Raw -- Resources thread and . . . gave credit where credit is due. Thanks for sharing this information with our members! Your contribution is truly appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Sept 4, 2018 8:49:26 GMT
Another advantage of shooting in raw format is that it is more suited to ETTR (Exposure To The Right) if you use the concept in your metering especially to help reduce or eliminate noise in low light situations.
You then have much more data to play with in ACR, or any other raw editor, to recover/maintain detail in your photos while having at least minimised if not totally removed noise in your original captured image.
|
|
Fauxtoto
Established Forum Member
Quebec, Canada
Posts: 440
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by Fauxtoto on Sept 8, 2018 11:32:54 GMT
Thanks for sharing this information with our members! Your contribution is truly appreciated. Thank you Sepiana, Compared to what I receive from the others, my contribution remains modest. Glad it helps. |
|
) 
