new to raw Processing

[Cyza]

only started shooting in raw very recently, so please give me your opinions on what I'm doing right and wrong.

I know the processed one is a bit warmer than what is naturally would be but I liked the effect it was giving.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6058/6216350758_e3e7ebf70b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/67654539@N03/6216350758/)
JPEG vs RAW (http://www.flickr.com/photos/67654539@N03/6216350758/) by J Cyza (http://www.flickr.com/people/67654539@N03/), on Flickr

but must say absolutely love the recovery slider <3 for me the most useful thus far.

[bgolds99]

Looks like you are doing things right mate, even though there is not really a right and wrong way to do things. Colours are punchy, darks are nice and dark without losing detail, and nothing of much detail is too blown out. Don't quote me on this, but i think using the recovery tool too much can flatten your highlights a bit.... which in most cases probably wont be noticeable, but something to keep in mind. I usually don't worry about blown highlights unless they are part of the focussed area(s).

The white balance adjustment is one of the most useful tool in ACR i've found. Even if you are doing B&W processing, the WB can change the image alot. Clarity (in moderation) is an amazing tool aswell... this is basically a large USM filter... but it can make an image.

[camerasnoop]

What you might consider now is that you can process the same image in multiple ways and then merge them. The image above would look great with the cat saturated and the background as shown unprocessed. The recovery tool can also induce a colour shift if you're too ham-fisted. Have a play with the curves tool too.

Oh, almost forgot. You can also apply selective adjustments in ACR, so you could alter the saturation in the background using that tool instead of doing two conversions.

[Cam Scott]

Hi Cyza. Beautiful shot of your feline.
Just to clarify, you have put up an 'Original JPEG' and a 'Processed RAW'......
I'm assuming then that you have shot in JPG capture, but processed a copy using Adobe Camera RAW right? SHooting RAW, there is no JPG in the equation until you output, OR, you have chosen to capture in joint JPG+RAW.

What I'm getting to is the available tonal information available in RAW captured file you will be able to able to have a very good play around, without loosing details or tones. Using ACR to process further a JPG capture does definitely help your image, but you're working with a compressed pre-processed image as you're most likely aware.

Can you confirm whether the 'Original JPG' you meant- original RAW capture pre-processing in ACR?

Cam

[Cyza]

yeah I captured in joint JPG+RAW

so image on left is the original JPEG,a and what the RAW file looked like prior to processing in ACR.

Like I said only started shooting in RAW very recently this was like 3rd time, and yet to shoot with it properly just mucking round in the backyard and home, and didn't realise I could shoot only in raw :S can't stress the point I'm new to photography lol

but thanks you'll save me a good couple mb each time I shoot from now om :)

[robz]

Often i think back to when i took the photo and try to remember the colours i saw (eye only) and then decide how i want to enhance the image - if at all.

eg. I assume its a seal point? the camera jpeg looks a little light on the dark fur. The processed raw looks much darker and the blue eyes that i can remember of the siamese.
your decision is if the 'yellowish-brownish' tinge was really present in the lighting at the time and ... do you want it to be there?
As mentioned before, levels and curves may also help bring out the features you want.
you don't have to do everything in the raw processing stage.

Love the cat and the raw photo reminds me of the one i used to know.

[Cyza]

In the past editing photos (jpegs) I would usually do not much more then adjust levels and curves as well as crop/resize/trim etc.
but having adjusted this photo with ACR, I found playing around with it in level/curves just made the photo look completely un-natural and fake, probably just my in experience with PS, but considering what I can and can't do will leave it as is. Ultimately what I would have liked to achieve was an even more intense eye colour but think as is it's quite close to the boundary with natural and "shopped"

Buying the cat we were told it was "tonkanese" a breed quite similar to Siamese but everyone who has seen her is in agreeance with us that she looks 100% siamese.

[Danielle10]

I'm too scared to shoot in raw but I know I should be.
Perhaps I'm not understanding what settings I should be on but I went out and did a whole shoot on raw and when I got hm and went to process them the whole lot were grainy!! So had to delete EVERYTHING! :(
ISO was 100 and images were properly exposed, so what did I do wrong?

[camerasnoop]

Danielle. it really shouldn't make that sort of difference. It is more likely to be something to do with how you were viewing them. What program were you viewing them in, and what were the settings you used?

[Danielle10]

I was in lightroom, can't remember the settings, would of been around f8, 100 iso etc. Weird!

[arthurking83]

Danielle, the settings you've chosen in camera are far more important when shooting JPG, than when shooting raw.

Whatever settings you're used to shooting with for jpg, just keep them the same for raw.. easy.

Where settings can make a difference is in viewing, editing and converting the raw files into jpg files is where you a slightly different approach and understanding between the two formats.

(I think you're using a Canon) For the sake of an easy start to raw file shooting/processing/saving, I'd say you're probably better off starting with a program like Canon's DPP which shoudl display the raw images as if they were shot in jpg mode.

Part of the initial misunderstanding some folks have when shooting raw format, is that the raw processing software doesn't recognise the raw image file, as the camera does.
From my experience, most manufacturer raw processing software will use the camera settings at the time of shooting to render the raw file on the PC .. so at least what you've shot, is what you see on the PC.

I've tried numerous raw file processing software now, and they all render the file, as well as edit the file, differently.

That is, a 10% increase on contrast in Bibble produces a completely different result compared to a 10% contrast increase in Lightroom .. and so forth.
The way they each render the image initially is also confusing and different too.

Where one programs rendering of a raw file may be flat and lifeless, another software product's rendering of that same file may be vibrant, contrasty and probably oversaturated.
Neither one or other is right or wrong. It's simply a different interpretation.

FWIW: my preferred raw file rendering is that of how the camera does it.
My reasoning is that it makes no difference on what program does the rendering as they each end up doing a good job of a final rendering if the user is committed to working at it...
nor am I interested in which one is the absolute best at loading the most number of files in one hit, processing batch lots in the shortest time which is measured in seconds , etc ...
.... as long as I get to see what I shot in camera, in terms of exposure, then I know how to shoot it the next time around too.

[fairy bombs]

Yes,I when I started ,I never use RAW,as time went on I slowly understood a little more,(one never stops learning).Now I use the JPEG/RAW at the same time.I see the JPEG as my 'photo',and the RAW as a 'negative'

Many here just use RAW.The biggest thing to learn is settings in camera and how to adjust for a given situation.

The RAW can really help,when the JPEG looks like a train wreck,Amazing what can be pulled out a RAW with a bit of curves,levels,and a touch of recovery.

Do not be frightened of RAW ,its your friend! (just takes a lot of space) make sure you have a large size card (a few 4 GB is great)