Beginner Editing/processing raw files

stinkypu

stinkypu

Messages
18
Name
Christopher
Edit My Images
No
HI Guys im new to slr photography (i learnt the hard way working through a few bridge cameras)

I managed to get a canon eos 300d and a few lens that i could budget for :) i know its old but its what i can stretch to at the minute.

So this is the first camera ive had with the ability to save the photos in raw format and im still trying to figure everything out.

I have a few programs the canon one and corel aftershot thats what i seem to find the easiest to use but all the settings leave me scatching my head.

The main question i have is whats acceptable in terms of post processing ? Im looking at photos i took earlier and i really have to turn up the contrast and saturation to have a photo that looks i dont know the word for it but id say colourful and lifelike.

I guess i just wonder how much is too much i know most is all down to personal taste but

*how much sharpening and saturation would you typically add to raw files?

Sorry if im a bit confusing im new to this :D
 
The answer in my case is 'not a lot', but I know what I'm shooting and the intended output.

I've no idea what you're shooting, or what you're doing with them, but for balance all those things you're doing will be done by a camera to the JPEGS it exports.

The other thing is, we don't know about the quality of your monitor and you might be compensating for a poor display (it gets complicated).

To give you an idea of what to do, shoot RAW & JPEG, then you can compare your processing to what the camera would do, you should be able to get something close but better.
 
stinkypu said:
The main question i have is whats acceptable in terms of post processing ?
Click to expand...
Whatever you're happy with. Whatever gets you the results that you want. Don't limit yourself by what others might find "acceptable", everyone has different preferences and tastes.

The raw file often looks a bit dull/lifeless (depending on any default/automatic import processing) when first viewed. Adding at least some contrast, saturation and sharpness is usual.
 
stinkypu said:
how much sharpening and
Click to expand...
Most (85%) of my work end up in the publishing field
where there is usually an AD that will take over the
production. I never sharpen my RAWs because the
ADs will largely prefer to get all the freedom in this.
stinkypu said:
saturation would you typically add to raw files?
Click to expand...
This is another thing I extremely rarely use as mid-
tones taming will reveal the natural micro contrast
and saturation of an image.
 
Thanks for the replies, Some things i shot like flowers then when i viewed them on my laptop they didnt seem to have the colour that i remembered (my brain could be playing tricks )

So i think the monitor im using is a good thing to check i think maybe a grey/colour test card and then take a few pics and compare them to screen , im just using a lenovo x220 atm .

As for the camera its a canon 300d and without tinkering with the firmware i dont think it can save as raw+jpeg and until i get either a cf reader or install windows xp on to another laptop :(

Thanks for confirming that raw does lack a bit of vibrancy / colour etc i kind of thought having to tinker so much was sacrilege ;) but i was only doing it so that it seemed to bring out a little more colour to a petal.

The sharpness thing is/was throwing me because it is off by default and i thought the pictures looked ok without it added but i, new i mightnt know what im looking for lol


So the next time im out ill try shooting in jpeg and switching to raw unless i get the firmware sorted.
 
stinkypu said:
i kind of thought having to tinker so much was sacrilege
Click to expand...
Not really, but there are plenty folk that will preach to you that it is..

Photography is an art, it's about your vision and producing the images you want. There's more Art to it than most GWC are comfortable with.
 
Alastair said:
Not really, but there are plenty folk that will preach to you that it is..

Photography is an art, it's about your vision and producing the images you want. There's more Art to it than most GWC are comfortable with.
Click to expand...


I think sometimes its a minefield ,

I guess in most instances i want a photo of what im looking at in the viewfinder at that moment, with adding things i kind of felt that it could be taking it from a digital photo to a digital image if that makes sense.

As if somehow by adding to a photo at some point you go to far and make it unacceptable as a photo, i know personal taste accounts for a lot of how its interpeted.

Part of me thinks someone will say something like youve oversaturated that when what i was doing was just tinkering with the sliders to bring out the details that i thought looked good.

Ive tinkered with these two in corel and resized the output (i probably havent done it exactly right but im trying ;) )


CRW_5002_2 by stinkypu on Talk Photography


CRW_5054_1 by stinkypu on Talk Photography

In this one i remember having to bring up i think saturation but then it showed the little lattice cake looking bit in the middle


CRW_5013_1 by stinkypu on Talk Photography

i used a 50mm pentacon with eos for the flowers and the 18-55efs with a wide angle x0.43 attachment, manual mode because come on whos here to point and click ;)
 
I had a 300D and I took some of my favourite pictures with it :D but early Canon's didn't produce the punchiest of JPEG's around so don't be too phased by a lack of... umph. I think the theory was that it was a camera for enthusiasts and they'd process the shots in the post capture software of their choice. I think that the concept of straight out of the camera and ready for use JPEG's only came to Canon DSLR's later.
 
At the end of the day, PP is very subjective - but gives distinction between photographers based on their own personal style, which will develop as you become more experienced with PP.

It is important not to overlook the importance of PP, as part of your workflow. Whilst you should try and get things right in camera, some carefull PP will take quite a 'meh' image, into something quite special - but don't overdo it!

I don't think you're too far off with your PP looking at the above examples, which is good...

Number 1 looks fine, nice vibrant colours, decent composition and added interest wth the bee - PP looks absolutely fine.

Number 2 is a bit heavy on the saturation, and lacks any real interest as an image, personally.

Number 3 is nice, but looks a bit overly saturated. Possibly colour temperature is out too, as it all looks a bit yellowy to me, or at least on my screen it does. Perhaps cool it off slightly, but boost the saturation of the Reds and greens.

The SW you're using is probably perfectly adequate to do the job, but tools like Adobe Lightroom are quite common now amongst enthusiasts and up, and therefore you will find a wealth of training material online to get you started (I highly recommend 'Photos in Colour' channel on YouTube for LR and PS).

Thanks,
Grant
 
tom24 said:
TBH, I just shoot jpeg for now, I found tweaking a raw file ended up much like the jpeg.
I guess I could make a raw file a little better but i'm happy enough with what i'm getting mostly.
Click to expand...

I mostly shoot in JPEG myself unless I know I will be editing quite a bit in PP then I'll shoot in RAW simply because of the extra headroom that 12-14 bits A-D gives over 8 bits.

This usually avoids problems like "banding" etc which can occur when over editing JPEGS.
.
 
Thanks for the replies :)

I've ordered the cf card reader so hopefully i can update the firmware and save both jpeg and raw.

I guess shooting in raw is what brought me to dlsr and i'll persevere i learned the hard way today using the 50mm 1.8 i took a lot of images with the sun coming towards me and everything turned out soft, im wondering is this why all the kit lenses seem to start around f3.5-f4 (i turned picture review off and doubt id have seen it on that tiny screen anyway) . A rookie mistake but i'll know next time :)

I'll look into lightroom too , i think i seen something about a free copy on here so i'll go searching tonight , it'll stop me looking for cheap lenses and filters on ebay :)
 
stinkypu said:
i know its old but its what i can stretch to at the minute. :D
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what camera you have - any digital camera will produce great images these days as long as you have a reasonable lens attached - the only limitation is your own ability.

With the 50mm f1.8 you should be able to take great images.

My first camera was the Canon 350D which I used for 5 years until I felt I wanted to upgrade.

If you want an editor you can get a FREE copy of PhotoShop 7 here:

http://softlay.net/photo-image/image-editor/adobe-photoshop-7-0-free-download-full-version.html
.
 
stinkypu said:
Thanks for the replies :)

I guess shooting in raw is what brought me to dlsr and i'll persevere i learned the hard way today using the 50mm 1.8 i took a lot of images with the sun coming towards me and everything turned out soft, im wondering is this why all the kit lenses seem to start around f3.5-f4 (i turned picture review off and doubt id have seen it on that tiny screen anyway) . A rookie mistake but i'll know next time :)

I'll look into lightroom too , i think i seen something about a free copy on here so i'll go searching tonight , it'll stop me looking for cheap lenses and filters on ebay :)
Click to expand...

If the pictures appear soft, you were not in focus. This could just be an auto focus mistake, or more likely you are misinterpreting the shallow depth of field, that a 1.8 aperture gives, e.g. Perhaps only the tips of the petals are in focus, whilst the rest of the flower looks smooth and soft....

Kit lenses start at 3.5 - 4 with a variable max aperture throughout the focal length, for no other reason than it is cheaper to produce...

Lightroom is not free, but you can get free trials. Lightroom CC costs around £6 per month for the photography plan, which includes photoshop. This is the most cost effective way of using the most up to date version of Lightroom, and well worth it.
 
petersmart said:
It doesn't matter what camera you have - any digital camera will produce great images these days as long as you have a reasonable lens attached - the only limitation is your own ability.to

With the 50mm f1.8 you should be able to take great images.

My first camera was the Canon 350D which I used for 5 years until I felt I wanted to upgrade.

If you want an editor you can get a FREE copy of PhotoShop 7 here:

http://softlay.net/photo-image/image-editor/adobe-photoshop-7-0-free-download-full-version.html
.
Click to expand...

Thanks , the lens is a pentacon 1.8 50mm but i think that on a crop sensor thats 70mm it takes some nice photos up close but i guess you get what you pay for lol

Turbo-G said:
If the pictures appear soft, you were not in focus. This could just be an auto focus mistake, or more likely you are misinterpreting the shallow depth of field, that a 1.8 aperture gives, e.g. Perhaps only the tips of the petals are in focus, whilst the rest of the flower looks smooth and soft....

Kit lenses start at 3.5 - 4 with a variable max aperture throughout the focal length, for no other reason than it is cheaper to produce...

Lightroom is not free, but you can get free trials. Lightroom CC costs around £6 per month for the photography plan, which includes photoshop. This is the most cost effective way of using the most up to date version of Lightroom, and well worth it.
Click to expand...

Hi ,I Was having a lot of trouble when foucused at infinity it just doesnt seem in focus at all at f1.8 , i've adjusted my diopter and the other lenses i have are in focus so i think its either the lens is out of alignment slightly or im being stupid and need to stop down to achieve focus at infinity. I dont think i used autofocus for many of the pictures, the 50mm is via an adapter manual focus and my sigma zoom has a disconnected flex ribbon so the motor whirs but doesnt do anything at least i got a focus beep when i focus manually though lol

The ones i took that were off were more landscape then an isolated subject so maybe this is a real rookie mistake as you say f1.8 gives a shallow depth of field its probably not ideal for landscapes ,

What i was doing was checking the focus and metering then tried some autobracketing too but i had turned autoreview off just to speed the camera up a bit (i've never had an image buffer before but already i find i want a bigger faster one :confused:) I'll know to check next time :)

With the kit lenses i was just thinking that maybe not having down to those wider apertures would eliminate at least some user error , thanks for the advice i'll go back to my camera books tonight and re-educate myself :D

With mistakes like im making i think i'll stick with aftershot 2 Getting lightroom at the minute might be overkill but i'll definitely check out the trial .
 
stinkypu said:
The ones i took that were off were more landscape then an isolated subject so maybe this is a real rookie mistake as you say f1.8 gives a shallow depth of field its probably not ideal for landscapes ,

What i was doing was checking the focus and metering then tried some autobracketing too but i had turned autoreview off just to speed the camera up a bit (i've never had an image buffer before but already i find i want a bigger faster one :confused:) I'll know to check next time :)

With the kit lenses i was just thinking that maybe not having down to those wider apertures would eliminate at least some user error , thanks for the advice i'll go back to my camera books tonight and re-educate myself :D

With mistakes like im making i think i'll stick with aftershot 2 Getting lightroom at the minute might be overkill but i'll definitely check out the trial .
Click to expand...

Don't worry about your mistakes - that's how you REALLY learn a subject!

I've been using digital cameras for about 12 years and I'm still learning.

And f1.8 isn't really suitable for landscapes - as I said in another thread the sweet spot for most camera/lens combos is about f8-f11 but of course you sometimes have to go wider if the light is low or you're indoors etc.

And the 2 things that can really help your pictures is to use the histogram and "blinkies" on the review screen.
.
 
Ah ok, makes more sense based on your response.

For landscapes, you may want to pick an aperture and focal point that gives you infinity focus (or hyperfocal distance as it's known). To achieve this at f1.8 you would need to focus on something around 150ft in the distance (see http://www.outsight.com/hyperfocal.html#hyper for hyperfocal calculator)... Regardless, you will perhaps find that f1.8 is not the sweet spot for sharpness from your lens anyway.

For landscapes, a good rule of thumb is to start at something around f9-11 for maximum sharpness and depth of field, but it does depend on the lens in question. F1.8 is definately not the optimal aperture of choice for landscapes, irrespective of lens choice.
 
stinkypu said:
Thanks , the lens is a pentacon 1.8 50mm but i think that on a crop sensor thats 70mm it takes some nice photos up close but i guess you get what you pay for lol

Hi ,I Was having a lot of trouble when foucused at infinity it just doesnt seem in focus at all at f1.8 , i've adjusted my diopter and the other lenses i have are in focus so i think its either the lens is out of alignment slightly or im being stupid and need to stop down to achieve focus at infinity. I dont think i used autofocus for many of the pictures, the 50mm is via an adapter manual focus and my sigma zoom has a disconnected flex ribbon so the motor whirs but doesnt do anything at least i got a focus beep when i focus manually though lol
Click to expand...
If you are using an old lens with an adapter and it does not focus at infinity, that is an adapter issue, not lens or you. The problem is that the lens is not quite close enough to the sensor (this could be a fraction of a millimetre).
 
It's not unusual for a manual lens to infinity focus just before the hard stop, and relying on the distance markings for focusing places a lot of faith on the accuracy of the adaptor. So when you say it doesn't focus at infinity, how are you determining infinity? - with manual lenses I generally rely on focus peaking or other EVF/liveview focusing aids.

..and just because a lens opens up to f/1.8 doesn't mean it should always be used wide open.. ;)
 
john.margetts said:
If you are using an old lens with an adapter and it does not focus at infinity, that is an adapter issue, not lens or you. The problem is that the lens is not quite close enough to the sensor (this could be a fraction of a millimetre).
Click to expand...


Bingo!!!!

So the old m42 lens i have im using a m42 to eos adapter , Because it screws in im able to bring it forward those few mm by unscrewing it a small amount and have the ability to focus at infinity , before anyone says it its hardly ideal and it makes twisting the barrel to focus awkward as it will unscrew/screw .

Alastair said:
It's not unusual for a manual lens to infinity focus just before the hard stop, and relying on the distance markings for focusing places a lot of faith on the accuracy of the adaptor. So when you say it doesn't focus at infinity, how are you determining infinity? - with manual lenses I generally rely on focus peaking or other EVF/liveview focusing aids.

..and just because a lens opens up to f/1.8 doesn't mean it should always be used wide open.. ;)
Click to expand...

I know that now ;) just all those old camera books with lenses that are f1.4 f.18 f2 made me think i was missing something , and some of the things on the 300d arent the most user friendly thats why i wanted a 'clicky' aperture and again before someone points out no i hadnt used it this time ;)

Cheers guys theres another thing ive learned today :D
 
stinkypu said:
I know that now ;) just all those old camera books with lenses that are f1.4 f.18 f2 made me think i was missing something
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with the lens, just try it at f/5.6-8 until you get used to manual focusing ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top