What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
12 Comments
- GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's not a style...that's like saying, I save my photos in the PNG style.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Now if the big names out there could just agree on a single RAW format... not to mention a single lens mount ;)
- steven401, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why didn't you just reply to the above comment(s) then instead of posting a entirely different comment? ¬_¬
Or press the little green hand gesture. - Sabin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I do work for a pro photographer as well as being a (very) amature photographer myself. I only work in RAW and wouldn't want to work any other way. Adobe Lightroom is a godsend.
- Braxo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm not a photographer nor do I own a digital camera. My understanding of RAW was that it was, well, basically the raw data of the picture taken from the camera.
So if you wanted, you could change a few settings and the picture data is "recalculated" as if the camera re-shot the photo? - steviesteveo, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1I know, it's not fair. My camera uses minolta bayonet mount lenses and a lot of the time I'd love to be able to use some of the exotic nikon and canon lenses that I see without buying a new camera.
To be fair, a standard lens cap design doesn't even exist - there's no way they'll agree on anything more technical. - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Raw image data -> in-camera saturation, tint, color balance -> compression algorithms -> JPEG
Raw image data. Later, computer-edited saturation, tint, color balance - compression algorithms -> JPEG
The advantage being that you can tweak the color balance on the computer much more accurately than on a camera. Your digital camera may have, for saturation, "-2, -1, 0, +1, +2" but Photoshop Camera Raw has saturation ranging from -100 to +100, along with ACR camera profiling, individual color saturation, hue and luminance adjustments, more accurate color balance etc. If you let the camera do the work, it's not going to be the fine-tuned result you're looking for.
Keep in mind that the only advantages of editing exposure with a RAW editor is that RAW files aren't compressed as much, and that the color will be sampled from the raw data. Strictly speaking in terms of luminance, there isn't going to be a huge change. Here are comparison shots from my awful, awful site on the subject.
http://www.shootcameraraw.com/underexposed.html - OverThere, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"...could change a few settings and the picture data is "recalculated" as if the camera re-shot the photo?"
Kind of. Don't expect to be able to refocus on things, or drastically change the color and lighting levels. The main point for Raw is that it includes all of the information the cameras sensor grabs when you take the picture. The more information about the picture you have in the post processing, the better the adjustments can be. While RAW is better than JPEG, it won't let anyone turn a bad picture into a good one. You do, after all, have to know basic photography (composition, focus, lighting...) first. - tbilltthemonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Apocalypse will happen first!
- 11thStudio, on 10/16/2007, -0/+0Great article, have been looking for a good raw workflow article for a bit :) - Thanks
Chris http://www.11thstudio.com - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2^ agreed ^
- AlexWSC, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I'm going to attempt this style. I would definitely be put into the "not"-pro category.
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialogg, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is