Tekforums
Chat => Photography => Topic started by: addictweb on July 12, 2010, 12:35:15 PM
-
Was at a wedding on friday and the official photographer looked like she didnt know what she was doing, had a D40 with a kit lens, taking photos during the ceremony with the on camera flash and the sound on on the camera so it was beeping all the time during vows. So I thought Id be a bit more proactive about my photo taking and Im really pleased with the results.
I also discovered the wonder of RAW and Lightroom. It works wonders on relitively dull photos.
Ill post my results tonight but the important thing is the bride and groom love them. Feeling pretty pleased.
-
sounds like you saved the day :)
:cheers:
-
Lightroom?
Its a shame the bride and groom cant pay you and turn around and tell the professional one to bog off.
-
Lightroom?
Its a shame the bride and groom cant pay you and turn around and tell the professional one to bog off.
Adobe Lightroom, Ive always heard people banging on about it but never shot in RAW so not done much post processing. Its actually unbelievable how much better photos can look with a quick tweak to the black levels, saturation and maybe exposure. Also adding vignetting always helps. Its all so easy in Lightroom, not to mention being able to download loads of pre-set filters online to get specific effects.
You can get a free trial from Adobe (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/), I highly recomend having a play.
I may be wrong about the official photographer, but I cant see her managing anything spectacular the way she went about things. Ill have to wait and see.
Might post some before and afters later as well so you can see how much better lightroom makes stuff.
-
Lightroom is one of the more popular RAW converters, Ive never used it but Ive been told its very good indeed and being an adobe product Id expect it to integrate well with Photoshop.
I use RawTherapee and UFRAW (the latter is less polished but has dark frame subtraction which is helpful for astro shots). Both are free and so offer unparalleled value for money. I find they are more than capable enough for my decidedly amateur needs.
-
lightroom is superb
-
So is lightroom like the full version of Adobe Camera Raw? (or is CR the old version?) From the sounds of things it does the same stuff as lightroom and is also adobe/integrated into photoshop and Adobe Bridge etc.
-
Light room isnt just raw processing it has a lot of editing post processing tools. I dont know about camera raw though.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4140/4787406570_90c95dbe9f.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4100/4786771373_3417fbcf2c_z.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4075/4787434332_a0f6752817_z.jpg)
full set (http://www.flickr.com/photos/27382349@N02/sets/72157624479396878/)
-
Sounds similar, unless you mean it has a UI/tools that allow it to do stuff a bit like in those apps for iphone/android where you click a button and it processes the image to look all old school etc.
Those photos look good, last one looks a bit...brokeback mountain....
-
Sounds similar, unless you mean it has a UI/tools that allow it to do stuff a bit like in those apps for iphone/android where you click a button and it processes the image to look all old school etc.
Those photos look good, last one looks a bit...brokeback mountain....
Thats exactly the extra that lightroom does have - plus clearly a lot more flexibility and control than youll get on the iphone.
Best way Ive come across to process RAW files - quick but good level of control. To be fair, havent tried the free apps though.
EDIT: sexytw - meant to say - really nice set, looks like you did a great job stepping unto the breach. Did you have any lighting gear with you or is pretty much all naturally lit?
-
Lightroom is awesome, its a whole photo suite, you can tweak loads of things about the photo, also allows you to apply the usual effects, but also can simulate lens filters, you can also paint adjustments on to it, so if you want to play with the exposure etc, for one part of the photo you can paint brush a filter on.
It also manages you photos, you can import all your photos from a shoot go through and rate them, helping you to filter out the rubbish shots.
I rarely use photoshop, unless I want to do something PS specific. Also has support for dual monitors if you are say taking pics of people, they can see the final image, and you get all the tools on your screen.
Really great piece of kit, anyone who takes photos get a copy!
-
So all this talk of RAW. Is it better to take pics in RAW than JPEG ?
-
EDIT: sexytw - meant to say - really nice set, looks like you did a great job stepping unto the breach. Did you have any lighting gear with you or is pretty much all naturally lit?
No lighting gear, I was lucky with lots of direct sun on the day. Used the on camera flash for the couple of dance floor pics but I generally try and avoid it as Ive rarely achieved good results with it. Most of the shots were taken with my Nikon 50mm 1.8 and a few with the stock 18-70mm (Nikon D70).
-
So all this talk of RAW. Is it better to take pics in RAW than JPEG ?
This was the first time ive shot raw, I never bothered before because I couldnt be bothered with the post processing. The main advantage I found is because Im trying to always shoot in full Manual I often get the exposure wrong, with RAW I can tweak it back to where it should be. I didnt want to miss a shot because Id got the exposure wrong, this way I can make up for my mistakes after the event.
-
Reading into it, Camera Raw is a plugin, whilst Lightroom makes use of the plugin with presets and a better UI. Will have a look at it!
-
So all this talk of RAW. Is it better to take pics in RAW than JPEG ?
Short answer, yes.
Long answer, that depends.
I know at least 1 professional wedding photographer (and this ones actually good, unlike the one sexytw met above) who only shoots JPG. He contends its always better to get the shot right in the camera, and hes good enough that he basically doesnt miss.
I only shoot RAW for a few reasons, some practical, some theoretical (ie because Im a bit of a geek)
1. Data quality. The camera (all current DSLRs as far as I am aware) produces 12bits per channel of colour data with a Bayer pattern colour filter. To create a displayable image, the image must be "de-mosaiced" and reduced to 8bits per channel by the application of a tone curve. There are a number of algorithms for de mosaicing bayer image data, the better ones require more processor time and so tend not to be used in camera. Hence shoot in RAW and process on a nice fast PC (or dont worry about how long the processing takes) and you end up with a better quality result with fewer artifacts in the fine detail. Also you get to pick which 8bits worth of data you keep, which gives you a little latitude to tweek the exposure after the fact.
2. White Balance. This is linked to the tone curve above. With a RAW photograph I can change the white balance 100 times having got it totally wrong to begin with and still have exactly the same data available I started with. With a JPG if its gone blue because you shot under daylight with tungsten ballence set there is little you can do about it, because the necessary red and green channel data has already been thrown away.
3. Flexibility. I CAN tweek a RAW to my hearts content. I have spent hours on one photo before now when I really wanted it to be perfect. Or, I can batch convert using default camera settings and get exactly the same output I would have got from the camera shooting JPG. Or, of course, any level in between.
JPG limits your options, RAW sets you free.
From what Ive read above, RAWTherapee (http://"http://www.rawtherapee.com/?mitem=3&artid=45") (my converter of choice for most shots) is to Lightroom as GIMP is to Photoshop. That is, Lightroom certainly has a few useful features which RT lacks, but wheather the difference is worth the price is quite open for debate.
Also worthy of note are
Bibble (http://"http://bibblelabs.com/products/bibble5/")
Silkypix (http://"http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/")
CaptureOne (http://"http://www.phaseone.com/en/Software.aspx")
UFRAW (http://"http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/")
-
So all this talk of RAW. Is it better to take pics in RAW than JPEG ?
If you just want some pictures then no, Jpeg is smaller so you can get more of them into a given space. Processing on modern cameras tends to be fairly good so it will normally look OK.
Beyond that in camera processing isnt perfect, you get a significant number of shots where you can improve them over what the camera would do. JPEG is also a lossy format, each time you save you lose data, rather like repetitive photocopying something then doing the same to the photocopy. Eventually it shows.
So you take in RAW then process and if needbe convert to JPEG at the last save.
-
So all this talk of RAW. Is it better to take pics in RAW than JPEG ?
If you just want some pictures then no, Jpeg is smaller so you can get more of them into a given space. Processing on modern cameras tends to be fairly good so it will normally look OK.
This is very true, particularly if you spend a little time setting up the camera contrast/saturation/sharpness settings to produce images the way you like them. Also most modern cameras have pretty good Auto White Ballance and a manual white ballance setting for really hard lighting conditions like indoor sports.
Another potential advantage with JPG comes if youre using "machine gun mode" for sports. For example my K10D can shoot 9 frames in RAW at 3FPS before it fills the buffer and has to slow down, whereas if I select JPG I can hold the button down until the card is full if I so choose (I tested this once, I got bored after 57 frames and decided to just trust it rather than wearing out my shutter)