Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Can Someone Explain Pro/con Of RAW Editing?  
User currently offlinecanyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 441 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5753 times:

I see RAW editing as an option on my photo editing software but don't completely understand the pros/cons of it. Can someone offer their 2 cents on whether this type of editing can really help and under what circumstances it would be the most helpful? Thanks in advance for the advice. I continue to learn a ton from this site.

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9789 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5753 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting canyonblue17 (Thread starter):

It generally allows more flexibility than JPEG editing. The RAW file from your camera preserves all the data that the camera recorded. You can then modify the settings on your computer with all the data available, before exporting to JPEG (once you export to JPEG, you won't have all the data anymore, and therefore it can be more restrictive for editing).

If you shoot JPEG, in essence the camera is choosing the settings for you and exporting to JPEG before you even upload the shots.

With that said, if you get your shots spot-on straight out of the camera, it probably won't benefit you as much. For someone like me, who is still practicing getting images the way I want them when I take the photos, it's useful for tweaking things like exposure, contrast, white balance, etc.

It's also quite useful for doing HDR images from a single exposure.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinenairda10 From Switzerland, joined Sep 2010, 1 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5718 times:

As vikkyvik has already mentioned, RAW allows more flexibility. If you trust your camera to get the white balance and the exposure correct, then shoot JPG. Today's cameras (DSLR or not) aren't to bad at getting exposure and WB right on "standard" daytime (daylight) shots. Unfortunately, cameras (at least my Panasonic FZ50) are absolutely unreliable when it comes to exposure and WB for night shots and under tungsten lighting.

One drawback of RAW is the larger file size. Luckily for us, hard disk space is nearly for free nowadays, so that shouldn't be a problem. The reason for the larger file size is the higher bit depth, which means that RAW can still contain information when a JPG would already be pure white or black (good for scenes with high contrast). The higher bit depth also means that you can get the exposure (slightly) wrong and still get a not to over- / underexposed image after transformation to JPG.

Another thing to consider is that due to the larger file size of RAW, it may take longer to save it on the card (When I shoot RAW, I can take about one shot every 6 seconds, compared to about 1/sec for JPG). Due to this, you can lose opportunities to take a certain photos and / or take less photos in a series.

A further drawback of RAW is that each camera manufacturer has his own RAW format, and you (may) need special software to develop (RAW is a digital negative) and do further editing on the images. Do to the number of different RAW formats from each manufacturer, future support is not as sure as with JPG's, which has become the de facto standard for the internet.

I have the mentality to use RAW for night shoots, when I take my time anyway (due to the tripod and the longer exposure times) and because the camera doesn't deliver the results I want. For normal, daytime shots, I use JPG.



Current equipment: Panasonic FZ50 and Canon A-1
User currently offlineNicolasRubio From Argentina, joined Sep 2005, 584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5693 times:

I've never shot a single JPEG since I got my first DSLR, I see absolutely no disadvantages at all in shooting RAW. Of course it may be related to my shooting style and workflow, but I see no point in shooting JPEG.

[Edited 2011-09-28 14:35:22]


Gripped 7D + Sigma 10-20mm + 17-40L + 50mm f/1.8 II + 70-200mm f/4L IS + EF 400mm f/5.6L + 580EX II
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5650 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NicolasRubio (Reply 3):
I've never shot a single JPEG since I got my first DSLR, I see absolutely no disadvantages at all in shooting RAW. Of course it may be related to my shooting style and workflow, but I see no point in shooting JPEG.

That hardly answered the question posed by the OP.

Do you have an explanation of why RAW suits your shooting and workflow style?

I Shoot RAW under some circumstances, when conditions are tricky or a particular result is required but also trust my experience and equipment in many situations.

RAW processing involves extra steps in the workflow that are not really required much of the time.

[Edited 2011-09-28 20:20:18]


If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlinedarreno1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5645 times:

I'm a RAW man myself. I guess like many things it comes down to personal preference. I like to have full control during post processing and I see the camera as merely the image data capture device. I also enjoy editing and I believe that surely plays a big role in people's format preferences.


Nikon D7000 / Nikkor 105mm AF f2.8 / Nikkor 35 f1.8G / Nikkor 50 f1.8D / Nikkor 85mm / Nikkor 300mm f4 AF
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5605 times:

RAW does offer some quality benefits - it is, for example, possible to get perhaps a stop or two extra dynamic range over a jpg which may be important for highlights or dark shadows.

More importantly though, RAW offers much more lattitude for editing.

The thing to keep in mind is that each stage of processing an image involves throwing away data - a jpg is smaller than the RAW file simply becuase data is being destroyed - data which is not needed to produce the jpg as determined by the camera's programming is simply discarded and can never be recovered. This means you have much less to work with if, say, you want to adjust the exposure or colour balance in post processing. If you like, you can think of an image produced from RAW as a 1st generation copy, whereas an edited jpg is a 2nd generation copy.

With regard to sharpening, jpgs are generally sharpened in camera, and although you have some control on how much sharpening is applied to the image, the sharpening is global and of course can't be undone. So if you end up with jaggies in your jpeg, you're pretty much stuck. The RAW image is not sharpened which allows you to tune your sharpening to the individual image - or indeed parts of the image.

Of course you can add further sharpening to a jpeg if required, but this is a second pass, and is not going to produce as good a quality as a correctly done first pass.

Looking to the future, I have found the successive releases of RAW processing software have allowed for improved quality (better highlight recovery, improved noise reduction etc.) With RAW I have been able to take images I took back in 2002 and create new versions of higher quality than were possible with either the in camera jpeg processing or RAW convertors of the time.

Quoting nairda10 (Reply 2):
Do to the number of different RAW formats from each manufacturer, future support is not as sure as with JPG's, which has become the de facto standard for the internet.

This is true, however, you can convert RAW images to the DNG format (free utility from Adobe) which is not manufacturer specific and can be handled by a wide variety of convertors - I have been able to process RAW images from new model cameras before they were supported by the RAW convertor by converting them to DNG first.

Jpeg is of course the current defacto standard, but I'm not sure this will always be the case - as monitors and browsers improve, there could well come a time where an 8 bit jpg is just not sufficient (I think most cameras now natively produce 14bit image files) and, in years to come will seem to lack in tonal range and depth.

Having said all that, no doubt about it, RAW is more work and more memory. Most cameras offer the ability to save both a RAW image and a jpeg. I would suggest you shoot both for a while and see for yourself if you can gain some benefit from RAW - then you can decide if its worth the extra effort.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineStil From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 345 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5533 times:

Hi all.

AFAIK RAW format takes advantage of one of the issues with dynamic range of digital sensors. Digital sensors hasn't got the same sensibility through all the histogram range, they work way much better on the lighten right side of the histogram. I don't have the figures here, but a digital sensor is capable of 'seeing' a larger number of different tones on the light side, but only a few tones on the dark zone of the histogram. In other words... is gives a much richer picture -tone relating speaking- if you 'darken' a right end aligned histogram than a 'lightened' image from a left adjusted histogram because the sensor works better on the right side of the histogram, defining much more different tones.
Having said that, is much better to meter the light to adjust it to the right side of the histogram; but if you shoot JPEG, you can easily burn your picture off by overexposing. If you took your picture on RAW data, it will be possible to recover the possible blown zones and give your picture a better histogram distribution.

Quoting NicolasRubio (Reply 3):
I see no point in shooting JPEG

JPEG images gives a bigger maximum burst because files are smaller and requires less time for card writing.

Hope it helps, I've tried to explain in english some words I can barely state on my native language.

Stil



....... Gueropppa! ......
User currently offlinecliffak From Sweden, joined Aug 2011, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5522 times:

I shoot RAW when I want more editing latitude, and JPG when I just want images and maximum quality isn't a goal.

That said, Lightroom makes handling RAW files just as simple as handling JPGs which is a big plus for me since I personally can't stand the incredibly convoluted workflows some people seem to have. So, here's my take on it:

Pros
* Higher dynamic range (better ability to compensate for exposure errors)
* Better control of white balance in post-processing
* Noise reduction independent of in-camera algorithms
* Better control of final output

Cons
* Larger files (which is why shooting RAW for 500 party snaps destined for FB doesn't make sense)
* Higher processing power requirements makes editing slightly more time consuming
* Rumored to be more sensitive to "digital rot"


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9789 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5512 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stil (Reply 7):
it will be possible to recover the possible blown zones

Just to add, it won't always be possible to recover blown out areas, even in RAW. You can blow out an area in RAW just like you can in JPEG. It just might have more headroom, so you can recover up to a "higher level" of blown-out-ness.

Quoting cliffak (Reply 8):
* Rumored to be more sensitive to "digital rot"

I haven't heard of that before - can someone explain what it means?



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4771 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5512 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Here's the thing...and I'll speak in Canon terminology because that's I'm most familiar with.

One thing about jpeg is when you have internal parameters set, for example Canons Picture Styles settings, those effects are embedded in the jpeg and cannot be undone in post processing. With RAW, not only can you remove those effects, you can switch to other picture styles.

Same with in camera sharpening, white balance, contrast etc. When those are set in camera they have permanent effects on the final jpeg, but can be removed or changed in editing for RAW files. So if shooting in jpeg it's often a good idea to make sure not to use those in camera settings.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1369 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5469 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 9):
Just to add, it won't always be possible to recover blown out areas, even in RAW. You can blow out an area in RAW just like you can in JPEG. It just might have more headroom, so you can recover up to a "higher level" of blown-out-ness.

From what I have heard you can recover upto 1 stop, if it is blown more the too bad. The same cannot be said about jpgs.


User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5468 times:

Quoting Stil (Reply 7):
RAW format takes advantage of one of the issues with dynamic range of digital sensors. Digital sensors hasn't got the same sensibility through all the histogram range, they work way much better on the lighten right side of the histogram.

That's quite true - on the darkest side (before pure black) of the histogram a sensor (with 12 bits per pixel site) can record only 32 tone values, but at the lightest side (before pure white) it can record 2048 tones. This is why noise appears in the shadows before the highlights. Basically there is a lot more info in the bright side of the image.

If you are careful, you can use this to your advantage - in theory you can obtain a better quality image by overexposing the image and then adjusting the exposure in postprocessing ... eg. record near blacks as grey, and then adjust them back to near black in post. The dark areas will then have a greater tonal range. The catch is that you can only do this if you can avoid blowing the highlights - but RAW does give you a bit more head-room to play with.

The extra head room comes from the fact that RAW processors can often reconstruct highlight detail from just 2 (or sometimes just 1) of the color channels. When we blow the highlights, its often only the Red Green or Blue channel that has been blown.

Quoting cliffak (Reply 8):
Rumored to be more sensitive to "digital rot"

That's a new one on me too - I've only heard it in the context of camera deprecation or the life expectancy of CD media - though I guess it is possible that RAW files are more sensitive to file corruption than jpegs (ie if a few bytes are corrupted a jpeg may be readable and a RAW file not?).


In any case, we all have backups ... don't we??  

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinestevemchey From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 365 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5461 times:

Quoting ckw (Reply 12):
If you are careful, you can use this to your advantage - in theory you can obtain a better quality image by overexposing the image and then adjusting the exposure in postprocessing ... eg. record near blacks as grey, and then adjust them back to near black in post. The dark areas will then have a greater tonal range. The catch is that you can only do this if you can avoid blowing the highlights - but RAW does give you a bit more head-room to play with.

I know that night photographers (astro photography) use this method. If you expose your shot of the Milky Way to the right of the histogram and then lower the exposure in post, you get a much greater detail of the colors of the stars.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9789 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5442 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting trvyyz (Reply 11):
From what I have heard you can recover upto 1 stop, if it is blown more the too bad. The same cannot be said about jpgs.

Right. I was just clarifying the other poster's comment - it's not always possible to recover blown areas, even shooting RAW.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineviv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5412 times:

Pro: It gives you more control and possibilities in post-processing.

Con: It gives you more possibilities to ruin a shot in post-processing. Also, the files are much larger.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5405 times:

Quoting viv (Reply 15):
It gives you more possibilities to ruin a shot in post-processing

One thing I find quite useful with difficult shots is to apply the various "auto" features in photoshop (auto colour, auto contrast) - these will seldom provide the optimum result, but can sometimes point you towards a look that you might not otherwise have tried.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineDJdeRidder From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5399 times:

Quoting viv (Reply 15):
Con: It gives you more possibilities to ruin a shot in post-processing.

On the other hand, Raw files are non-destructive. You can never ruin a shot forever, there is always a way back. If you ruin a JPEG in Photoshop and you press Save, there is no way back.


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4771 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5373 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ckw (Reply 16):
One thing I find quite useful with difficult shots is to apply the various "auto" features in photoshop (auto colour, auto contrast) - these will seldom provide the optimum result, but can sometimes point you towards a look that you might not otherwise have tried.

Exactly. I always click auto first as a starting point or a hint as to the proper tweaks to be made.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5364 times:

Quoting ckw (Reply 12):
If you are careful, you can use this to your advantage - in theory you can obtain a better quality image by overexposing the image and then adjusting the exposure in postprocessing

I actually used to use this method but found it of no real benefit for much of what I do. If anything, these days I prefer a slight under-exposure.

Quoting ckw (Reply 6):
So if you end up with jaggies in your jpeg, you're pretty much stuck

I think that's applicable to resized images as I can't imagine a full-sized, fine, 15mp image having default jaggies - even at the higher in-camera sharpness settings. Don't quote me on that though.....

Quoting DJdeRidder (Reply 17):
On the other hand, Raw files are non-destructive. You can never ruin a shot forever, there is always a way back. If you ruin a JPEG in Photoshop and you press Save, there is no way back

If it suffers motion blur, camera shake or OOF, it's impossible to rescue it whichever format you shot it in! You still have to be careful at times using RAW.

By the way, I thought you could successfully salvage a RAW file so long as it isn't more than +/-2 stops either way?

Karl


User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5353 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 19):
You still have to be careful at times using RAW.

Not sure I follow this point, there is no difference in motion blur, camera shake or OOF, shooting in RAW or Jpeg has no bearing.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineNicolasRubio From Argentina, joined Sep 2005, 584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5350 times:

Quoting stealthz (Reply 4):
Do you have an explanation of why RAW suits your shooting and workflow style?

The most common disadvantages people find in RAW are larger files and longer post-processing.

The larger files are not a problem to me because both CF cards and HD storage are very cheap these days, and my camera handles a longer burst of RAW shots at 8fps than I ever needed or may need.

And regarding the longer post-processing, with Adobe Lightroom I've solved all the possible "problems", It's fast, I can handle batches, order my files, etc.



Gripped 7D + Sigma 10-20mm + 17-40L + 50mm f/1.8 II + 70-200mm f/4L IS + EF 400mm f/5.6L + 580EX II
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9789 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5345 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 18):
Quoting ckw (Reply 16):
One thing I find quite useful with difficult shots is to apply the various "auto" features in photoshop (auto colour, auto contrast) - these will seldom provide the optimum result, but can sometimes point you towards a look that you might not otherwise have tried.

Exactly. I always click auto first as a starting point or a hint as to the proper tweaks to be made.

  

For me, I mostly do that for color casts, because I don't always see them otherwise.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 19):

By the way, I thought you could successfully salvage a RAW file so long as it isn't more than +/-2 stops either way?

+/-2 stops above blown out (and below black)? Or +/-2 stops away from whatever exposure you were trying to get?

With careful editing, I've salvaged shots where I completely screwed up the exposure accidentally (usually by forgetting to change whatever settings I had dialed in). If it was too dark, it's usually a matter of controlling noise.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5296 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 19):
By the way, I thought you could successfully salvage a RAW file so long as it isn't more than +/-2 stops either way?

Hmm 2 stops is a bit extreme - depends on the image I guess. Certainly if you are 2 stops over exposed in one channel, then recovery would be possible, but in general I find 1 stop either way the practical limit (though still worth having!)

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 19):
I actually used to use this method but found it of no real benefit for much of what I do. If anything, these days I prefer a slight under-exposure.

If your subject already utiliises the full dynamic range of the sensor, then no, not much room for manoeuver - and this would apply to many sunlit outdoor shots - but in dull conditions, night shots, interiors etc. where the scene does not use the full range, then you can take advantage of the sensor's properties.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinecliffak From Sweden, joined Aug 2011, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5190 times:

Quoting ckw (Reply 12):
That's a new one on me too - I've only heard it in the context of camera deprecation or the life expectancy of CD media - though I guess it is possible that RAW files are more sensitive to file corruption than jpegs (ie if a few bytes are corrupted a jpeg may be readable and a RAW file not?).

In any case, we all have backups ... don't we??

Well, there's this notion that support for older camera models will be dropped from future versions of image editing programs. I don't really see the problem as there is no particular reason to drop support and if that happens someone will surely come up with a little utility to convert the files to DNG.

Media life expectancy is an entirely different beast where file format doesn't really matter. Still, it is one reason you may even want to take some photos of your family and friends on b/w or slide film - properly developed it's much simpler to store and, of course, retrieve. I don't know where to find a disk drive to read all those old 5.25" diskettes but my 25 year old negs are still perfectly usable without having to be transfered to newer storage technologies regularly.


25 DJdeRidder : I meant to say Raw files are impossible to ruin in post-processing. You can overdo exposure settings, oversharpen the image, crop it very badly and m
26 xenon : Quick question regarding RAW; I only shoot RAW at night. Just for the easy correctable whitebalance. But I'm thinking of swapping completly to RAW. Ho
27 cliffak : Unless you run Lightroom, which simply saves all your edits in a database and never overwrites anything.
28 vikkyvik : Even if you save? Does PS have a similar function? Although it has the history, so you can always go back, that's limited by when you click "Save". F
29 cliffak : You don't save, everything is shown to you in real time and you can step backwards whenever you want. It is also possible to create "virtual copies"
30 vikkyvik : That is interesting. So if, say, I finish editing a JPEG, export it and close it, I could then open it again and undo my changes? Like, the same way
31 Post contains images cliffak : Yes, as long as the Lightroom Catalog (the database where all changes are stored) remains intact you can do that. Please note that you don't really "
32 spencer : I'm also finding LR amazing. All images readily available and all viewable via tags. Spence
33 Dehowie : Another otion is to use DNG which in general is around 20% smaller than RAW. Its non propiatary so will never become obsolete over time and also any m
34 sulman : One thing I would add with raw files is that dependant on the platform you use (POSIX , OS X, or Windows) you need the right editor - it makes workflo
35 cliffak : I have to use GIMP at work (it's either that or Paint.net) for some simple JPG editing and find it a royal pain to use. It's obviously not geared tow
36 darreno1 : I gave Lightroom 3 a try but I must say, other than the cataloging and non-destructive benefits (which is indeed impressive), it left me wanting in te
37 vikkyvik : Thanks much for your input! Very useful for future consideration. Wait, does that mean that LR doesn't have layers?
38 darreno1 : Nope. You can download a free 30-day trial from Adobe and check it out yourself.
39 DJdeRidder : You shouldn't compare Lightroom to Photoshop. Lightroom is more like a (very) advanced version of a Raw editor. Yet still, many people are able to ed
40 vikkyvik : They may be geared towards different crowds and have many different functions, but at the end of the day, if I'm considering replacing PS with LR, of
41 JForbes : vikkyvik - You may or may not be able to replace PS with LR, but they're meant to work together. If you can't do what you need to do in LR, you just e
42 vikkyvik : Thanks much for the info. Yes, per Darren's suggestion, I was going to download the trial (I never think of that on my own, for some reason). While I
43 cliffak : Not only that, you simply select "edit in photoshop" and most of the time you'll want it to do the default, which is create a copy with the LR adjust
44 soon7x7 : Just shot a Global Express interior with almost white side panels, ceiling panels, white sidewalls, and seats...along with a rich reddish neutral wood
45 spencer : Why couldn't you have masked? Spence
46 ckw : You could - in theory, but that assumes opening the image in PS in a 16bit format in with a wide colour gamut (eg. ProPhoto). If you open the image a
47 HarryImp : Sorry to dig up an old thread but I currently shoot RAW but often find myself filling the buffer with just 6 in the buffer at 3fps. Should i shoot RAW
48 vikkyvik : Take fewer photos. Seriously. My camera buffer fills up usually at 3 photos at 1.5 fps RAW. That means I have to be very selective when shooting. I c
49 ckw : Keep in mind that for the majority of the history pf photography, people worked with single shot only. The key is, and always has been, to anticipate
50 Psych : Colin - I find myself in complete agreement with you again (a common occurrence). So far in all my days photographing aircraft I have never used conti
51 ckw : Of course there's nothing wrong with using continous mode as long as its not hindering you - on my 1D3 I do tend to leave it on continous (low speed)
52 stealthz : Oh dear.. would have wasted a lot of money once.. now only fills mem cards.. and adds to the frustration!! I believe this is the essence of photograp
53 ckw : Exactly - when I got my 1D3, I thought capturing a Red Arrows cross using a high speed burst would be simple. After 2 or 3 attempts, I realised this
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Can Someone Explain This To Me? Pixel Question posted Thu Dec 28 2006 20:54:00 by B737-112
Can Someone Explain Why This Was A Quality Reject? posted Sun Oct 1 2006 18:20:48 by AIRBUSRIDER
Can Someone Explain This To Me Please? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 04:00:23 by Qantas077
Can Someone Explain This posted Tue Feb 3 2004 21:15:49 by Espion007
Rjxn For "Editing": Can Someone Please Explain? posted Thu Nov 23 2006 18:56:06 by D L X
Can Someone Please Explain The Queue? posted Mon Sep 10 2001 03:09:06 by Brownphoto
Can Somebody Explain This Rejection posted Sat Sep 6 2008 09:57:16 by Carlos
Can Someone Help Me To Improve The Below Pictures? posted Wed Aug 27 2008 11:11:07 by AirMalta
Can Somebody Explain Me These Rejecting Reasons? posted Thu Jul 24 2008 03:28:24 by Extrabine
Can Someone Edit This One? posted Sun Mar 2 2008 03:17:21 by Lufthansi