still confused about editing RAW

[MACollum]

I don't trust the LCD, it's tricked me before. I've turned down the brightness but it's still unreliable so I only use the histogram to see how it was exposed. Maybe I should experiment with EC more. I don't use it much, although I got good results when I used it yesterday. I knew the ice would trick the camera but the light was gorgeous (it was slightly overcast but the ice acted as a huge reflector so I couldn't resist).

 

[Big Mike]

I don't trust the LCD, it's tricked me before. I've turned down the brightness but it's still unreliable so I only use the histogram to see how it was exposed.

:thumbup:

Maybe I should experiment with EC more. I don't use it much, although I got good results when I used it yesterday

That's what I often do...shoot, check the histogram, adjust the exposure then shoot again.

When I'm just shooting casually...I mostly want to make sure that I'm not clipping the highlights...that way I know I can easily make tweaks with Photoshop.

 

[MACollum]

:thumbup:


That's what I often do...shoot, check the histogram, adjust the exposure then shoot again.

When I'm just shooting casually...I mostly want to make sure that I'm not clipping the highlights...that way I know I can easily make tweaks with Photoshop.

Exactly what I try to do.

 

[MACollum]

So if I take a picture using auto mode and then apply the same shutter speed, aperture, WB and ISO in manual mode, the picture will look the same as it did in auto? Unless of course, it was shot in RAW then there would be slight variations. I think auto mode only uses JPG and I've read that in auto the camera processes it and adds saturation, etc.

 

[auer1816]

Yes, you should get the same picture if you turn all your manual settings to those used in an auto-mode capture. Shooting in RAW will typically save an image that may be otherwise over/under exposed slightly in JPEG. The raw image (untouched) will look very bland with not a whole lot of contrast, but this is done on purpose to give you a bit more range.

 

[MACollum]

I'm just now learning that the pictures have a bland look to them in RAW. I was disappointed when I first started using RAW and thought that it was my inferior photography skills that was causing that. Good to know it's not just me messing up, that it's that way on purpose.

 

[Alex_B]

I'm just now learning that the pictures have a bland look to them in RAW. I was disappointed when I first started using RAW and thought that it was my inferior photography skills that was causing that. Good to know it's not just me messing up, that it's that way on purpose.

well, you even never ever see RAW images. what you see is always what the RAW converter translates on the fly from the RAW data into something you can look at and save as a jpeg. and the RAW to visual conversion depends on many parameters you have to set. if you do not set them, images might appear bland since standard settings are often very "neutral".