Thanks, I'll take a look at both of those.
How do you process RAW images?
- Thread starter gustafson
- Start date
Thanks, I'll take a look at both of those.
Was browsing through some of my recent pics when I found one that was a good example for this thread. It is a portrait of my kiddo with my recently acquired 105 f2.5 Nikkor-P (Sonnar type). As the lens is manual, I didn't expose the image adequately on first try. As I was tinkering with the RAW file in the Photos App on OSX, I thought it would be cool to see what some of you RAW processing ninjas could do to get the best out of this image. Consider this a RAW processing contest of sorts and we'll see who wins 
The link to the RAW (.NEF) file on Google Drive is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwHUC4c0c9niTG9WTFdKZkp0ZFE/view?usp=sharing
The link to the RAW (.NEF) file on Google Drive is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwHUC4c0c9niTG9WTFdKZkp0ZFE/view?usp=sharing
Thanks, nice rendition! Did you have to use any sharpening or noise reduction? I found that when I brightened up the image in the Photos app, it introduced some noise that I wasn't able to eliminate successfully. Other question is do you use the histogram at all during PP? I have tended to go by the image thus far, but am trying to pay closer attention to the histogram to balance things out.
In that edit I took 11 clicks of clarity out of the image but that was just to make the transition between hair and background less sharp.
I never look at the Histogram, either on the back of the camera or in Lightroom ... Don't get me wrong the Histogram gives you a good base of where to go with the photo but that's its problem, its generic, it doesn't take into account my editing style to say yours or John from up the street.
My Histogram is my eyes, I edit the photo to where I think it should be not what a computer tells me
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I'm going to have to disagree with much of this.I never look at the Histogram, either on the back of the camera or in Lightroom ... Don't get me wrong the Histogram gives you a good base of where to go with the photo but that's its problem, its generic, it doesn't take into account my editing style to say yours or John from up the street.
My Histogram is my eyes, I edit the photo to where I think it should be not what a computer tells me
The histogram doesn't need to take into account anyone's editing style because it does not give you, "a good base indicating or where to go with the photo." The histogram is a graphical representation of distributions of the tonal range of an image. That information is a valuable asset to those who know how to take advantage of it, but it comes with no guidance or suggestion regarding what to do, or where to take a particular image. It's certainly not a computer telling you to do anything. The histogram simply... Is.
.....
I have watched tutorials on it and it has not changed the way I edit, looking at a photo and how it looks to the eye is more valuable than looking at graph of colours, when was the last time you looked at a photo and thought "Thats a nice photo, I wonder if the Histogram is spot on".
You are entitled to disagree with my opinion but i'll stick with not using it, i'm happy with how my photos are
You are entitled to disagree with my opinion but i'll stick with not using it, i'm happy with how my photos are
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Here's my quick take on your photo. So much processing to do tonight... Yikes!
.....
.....
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
You are free to process in any way you wish; I have no concern with how you, or anyone else, processes their photos.I have watched tutorials on it and it has not changed the way I edit, looking at a photo and how it looks to the eye is more valuable than looking at graph of colours, when was the last time you looked at a photo and thought "Thats a nice photo, I wonder if the Histogram is spot on".
You are entitled to disagree with my opinion but i'll stick with not using it, i'm happy with how my photos are
What I do disagree with is your portrayal of the histogram itself, its purpose and use. I think your explanation is factually incorrect and is potentially misleading for someone who does not understand what histograms are or how they should be used.
Cheers!
....
Last edited:
Sorry, didn't mean to start a war on the histogram issue. I'm very new to using the histogram, but is it fair to say it has greater utility in getting the optimal exposure in-camera so you have the best possible image data to work with. I'd be interested to hear how folks use the histogram during post-processing. I feel that the characteristics of the histogram have less criticality in post processing than they do during exposure.
Awesome PP job, Paul!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Awesome PP job, Paul!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I don't mean to sound like I'm waging a war, I just disagree with part of what Daz was saying... No big.
As for histograms, I find them useful while I'm shooting for getting the exposure profile I want. During post processing I find individual RGB histograms help with things like correcting skin tones and removing color casts.
....
No war here either
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions if we all had the same one or thought the same way the world would be a boring place 
Thanks Ajoy, nice work.
My takeaway from this PP assignment is that PP is an inherently subjective process influenced by the aesthetic preferences of the practitioner, among other things. Thus good PP can yield images that are not identical but otherwise perfectly acceptable. My other takeaway is that there is such a thing as bad or inadequate PP, as my own submission clearly shows.
Got some work ahead of me!
Thanks for your efforts @Daz, @horoscopefish, @aroy!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My takeaway from this PP assignment is that PP is an inherently subjective process influenced by the aesthetic preferences of the practitioner, among other things. Thus good PP can yield images that are not identical but otherwise perfectly acceptable. My other takeaway is that there is such a thing as bad or inadequate PP, as my own submission clearly shows.
Got some work ahead of me!Thanks for your efforts @Daz, @horoscopefish, @aroy!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I use PP, because I am lazy in getting the settings right in camera, and then there is also a case for shooting in harsh sunlight without paying the penalty of harsh shadows. One good thing of RAW is that you can set all in-camera adjustments - NR, Distortion, WB etc OFF. The camera then shoots faster. Once you shoot RAW you have to PP.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I definitely think there are two sides to the "coin" of post processing: technical accuracy and artistic expression.
Technical accuracy, to me, primarily rests on accurate color reproduction: whites should be white and blacks should be black for instance. Set your white-point, set your black point and most everything else will fall into place. Or, you can use the White Balance tool, for instance, to find a neutral grey and balance color from that one point. I like using all three points but sometimes that's just not possible.
Artistic expression is great but to be totally frank with you, I've seen too many people use that as an excuse for not knowing how to fix something. If the skin tones in your portraits are three shades of blue, for instance, and you tell me that's your artistic expression? Well that's just fine and dandy! But be prepared for my curiosity to be piqued and too explain you artistic vision in deeper terms. Perhaps you're going for a Fauvist look? That's fine... We can discuss that.
More to the point, I think the best place from which to start being expressive with one of my images, is from the solid foundation of what is a technically accurate image. But, that's just me and as I've said before, I have no dog in anyone's post-processing race.
....
Paul, thanks for adding to the discussion and for sharing your insight on the technical aspects of post processing, point well taken. Your comment about the Fauvist look made my day, haha! I'm going to retract my admission of doing an inadequate PP job. I was going for a "natural shadowy glow"
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I do tend to pick on Fauvism... And I'll confess right now, I don't know why. LOL...
....
On a related note, what workflow do y'all use for downsampling your images for posting to the web? Reason for asking is that I tried directly uploading a couple of my post-processed images from the Photos App to Facebook, which results in Facebook doing the downsampling, and I wasn't too happy with the results. I got better results downsampling the image using the Export feature in the Photos app (Maximum Quality, Large Size).