My first try at raw

[rlcphotos]

using the Canon 30D with the nifty fifty 50mm 1.8

 

[Derek Zoolander]

is there a difference between the two? excuse my novice eyes.

 

[rlcphotos]

no there was a glitch some where?? another attached some hows

 

[K1MB3RLY]

wow very colorful

 

[Derek Zoolander]

looks great! I still don't really know what to do with RAW unfortunately...

 

[DSLR noob]

good job. I think it would have helped to stop the lens down a hair to maybe 2.8 or 4.0 so you would have gotten more sharp flowers in the frame, and the saturation seems a tad bit high for my taste, but good job.

 

[Johnboy2978]

I think it would have helped to stop the lens down a hair to maybe 2.8 or 4.0 so you would have gotten more sharp flowers in the frame

Opening up the aperture would create a more shallow depth of field, thus making the focal point sharp, but the surrounding flowers which were not on the same focal plane out of focus.

 

[Joe&Caroline]

no there was a glitch some where?? another attached some hows

i am also a rookie and dont shoot in raw yet do to the fact i dont have editing software yet....... but isnt this attachment that he speeks of not a glich but the actual RAW file .....??

 

[Johnboy2978]

No I think he accidentally linked the image twice. Neither Internet explorer nor firefox could display the actual raw file. It was converted to jpg or some other type.

 

[DSLR noob]

Opening up the aperture would create a more shallow depth of field, thus making the focal point sharp, but the surrounding flowers which were not on the same focal plane out of focus.

yeah I know. I said stop it down to put more sharp flowers in the frame, not Sharper flowers, just more of the flowers to be sharp in a deeper depth of field. The blurry flowers at the front of the boqet bother me, but it's just my opinion.

 

[DSLR noob]

i am also a rookie and dont shoot in raw yet do to the fact i dont have editing software yet....... but isnt this attachment that he speeks of not a glich but the actual RAW file .....??

your browser wouldn't be able to display a RAW file. Only RAW editing software can, then it needs to be processed as a Tiff, J-peg, or Bitmap to bee seen by other programs.

 

[Joe&Caroline]

No I think he accidentally linked the image twice. Neither Internet explorer nor firefox could display the actual raw file. It was converted to jpg or some other type.

oh ok sorry