Shooting in RAW

[bigtwinky]

We always hear that a picture is worth a thousand words... so here is a straight out of camera image from the Bloc Party show a few weeks ago I shot, while they had some strobes going off.



This was shot in RAW on a 5D2 and a 70-200 f/2.8 lens.
After sending images to my media, I then went back and played with the image and managed to pull out this....



A little more artsy and not something that is portfolio worthy, but a good example of why I shoot shows in RAW and what you can do.

I also photoblogged about the images --> Q&A: Why shoot RAW? - Pierre B Photo and included the LR settings used.

 

[snerd]

Is it that the strobes blew out the image and you got something back in LR? A total newb here.

 

[hirejn]

I'm not sure what this is a good example of, blowing a shot? That's not what RAW is for and it's not why any pros use it. I recommend RAW as a better starting point for developing an already-good image, not as a way to fix what you should've done in camera. An image is good or not from the moment it's taken.

 

[480sparky]

I'm not sure what this is a good example of, blowing a shot? That's not what RAW is for and it's not why any pros use it. I recommend RAW as a better starting point for developing an already-good image, not as a way to fix what you should've done in camera. An image is good or not from the moment it's taken.

I disagree to an extent. Yes, you should shoot raw to give yourself a good start. But I've had similar shots where I've gotten something usable out of a raw Giles where a SOOC JPEG would be sent to the recycle bin.

 

[The_Traveler]

I like the first one better. :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

[bigtwinky]

I'm not sure what this is a good example of, blowing a shot? That's not what RAW is for and it's not why any pros use it. I recommend RAW as a better starting point for developing an already-good image, not as a way to fix what you should've done in camera. An image is good or not from the moment it's taken.

This is technically a missed shot. If you ever shoot concerts, some bands love to have strobes, which go off way faster than your shutter can click. In this situation, shooting in manual, my exposure is set to get the drummer nicely exposed when the bright strobes are NOT going off. It is not humanly possible to adjust for a strobe AND the non-strobed instances. Sorry, should of been more specific on that, figured people would understand.

So I got my shots without the strobes, but happened to grab a few WITH the strobes going off, which end up killing my shot.

I totally agree that shooting in RAW is not something to lean on to bring back all your shots, but the purpose of this is to show that to an extent, you can bring something back IF you have all the image data in the RAW.

 

[bigtwinky]

Is it that the strobes blew out the image and you got something back in LR? A total newb here.

Your first part is correct. As I'm waiting to get a good shot of the drummer (sticks up and all that), the strobes started going off, thus throwing off my entire exposure. I shoot in manual, so I can't adjust for the quick strobes. I'm sure if I shot in automatic, then this might not of happened. Actually... not convinced that the camera would react quick enough either.

 

[Derrel]

RAW is great when you THINK the camera is set to aperture priority automatic, but it's actually in Manual, and you get back and see white-ish images and say, "Gosh... golly gosh darn, I do think I might have made a wee bit of a blunder there...oh silly me!"...

Been there...done that too...the "new" sensors are quite forgiving in this respect. I call this the "OTL SOO IT" maneuver. Pronounced "oat'll so it".

(That stands for Over-exposed The Living Chit Out of It.)

 

[bratkinson]

Rather than shooting everything in manual, I think you would have had better luck in Av or Tv modes. That way, whether you click just as the strobes are flashing or just as they are fading, the camera 'has a chance' to react and adjust the exposure, all in 1/1000ths of a second.

As mentioned above, shooting raw isn't a way to pull a picture out of the trash. But the results you did get demonstrate why raw is better than JPGs...more information to work with. However, it's always far easier to work with something 'close' than to 'work miracles' to get a finished picture.

 

[Gavjenks]

I'm not sure what this is a good example of, blowing a shot? That's not what RAW is for and it's not why any pros use it. I recommend RAW as a better starting point for developing an already-good image, not as a way to fix what you should've done in camera. An image is good or not from the moment it's taken.

I'd argue that's pretty much exactly what RAW is for. It helps you recover shots that are not so wonderfully exposed, and it lets you be a little more off with your fill lighting, WB, etc. Neither benefit should be relied on intentionally, and it's not a miracle worker that lets you just slack off and not care, but RAW gives you a useful safety net for when you are a BIT off.

Other than a safety net, what are you suggesting it is used for? You already have to convert it at some point into a jpeg to send it off for prints or to post it online, so it's not a display format. It only gives you latitude in deciding which information goes into the jpeg. But if you did everything right in the camera and with your lighting, the right information will already be in the jpeg.

 

[e.rose]

I'm surprised at you, Pierre.

Coming back here and all...

 

[bigtwinky]

I'm surprised at you, Pierre.

Coming back here and all...

hehe, I wonder sometimes as well. The purpose was not to get into my shooting style (with the ever changing regular lights in a show, I much prefer M over AV or TV), but simply what I found an interesting example of one of the benefits of shooting RAW. Not really thinking that people would assume I miss all my shots and use the magic of RAW to be able to pull out 20-30 images per show I shoot for my medias.

Ah well.

 

[Centropolis]

Actually, I've had better results using M mode in these situations. You go to these events that have changing lighting situations, but more than 95% of the time, there is enough consistencies to get the shot you want by doing a few test shots in the beginning and adjust the settings accordingly. If you leave it to the camera to meter every time based on the funky lighting every time, there will be more changes for something like that to happen. Another thing is, the autometering will sometimes take out the mood of the lighting intended by "properly" exposing it brighter than what you see.

With the 70-200 2.8, i usually try taking a few at f/4, 1/250 ISO 1600 and see what happens. Then if I have good exposure....then depending on what you're photographing, I may slow the shutter by a bit and bring down the ISO to get less noise.

As for shooting RAW, it really doesn't matter what the intended purpose of RAW is. You can salvage garbage exposed photos to something useable, but you should really spend that time perfecting your skills rather than playing with curves and levels in LR or PS.