If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Here's a shot from the weekend during an organised public fireworks display. I routinely shoot RAW+JPEG at the same time, but this time RAW was soundly beaten by the JPEG (which is reproduced below) - although I didn't spend too much time on it, trying to process the RAW file I couldn't get anywhere near the richness of the colour in the flames that the JPEG did.
Here's a shot from the weekend during an organised public fireworks display. I routinely shoot RAW+JPEG at the same time, but this time RAW was soundly beaten by the JPEG (which is reproduced below) - although I didn't spend too much time on it, trying to process the RAW file I couldn't get anywhere near the richness of the colour in the flames that the JPEG did.
Ian
That's very interesting. I notice you also used auto w/b and still got a better shot with jpeg.
That's very interesting. I notice you also used auto w/b and still got a better shot with jpeg.
Yes, as I was shooting RAW, I didn't bother experimenting with AWB for the JPEG.
I fiddled with the RAW file in Photoshop ACR but it looked rather insipid.
It's an Olympus RAW file and have just loaded it into Olympus Studio and it looks like the JPEG, as I would have expected (Studio being Olympus' own software).
Here's a shot from the weekend during an organised public fireworks display. I routinely shoot RAW+JPEG at the same time, but this time RAW was soundly beaten by the JPEG (which is reproduced below) - although I didn't spend too much time on it, trying to process the RAW file I couldn't get anywhere near the richness of the colour in the flames that the JPEG did.
Ian
Terrific shot ian!
This would look awesome as a big print, I love it, nice detail, and you can almost feel the warmth coming of it!
Hi Ian,
A great shot it does give the viewer the sense of the heat comeing from the fire, I don't know re Raw and Jpeg still learning, but it does show that Jpeg can hold its own.
Hi Ian,
A great shot it does give the viewer the sense of the heat comeing from the fire, I don't know re Raw and Jpeg still learning, but it does show that Jpeg can hold its own.
I'm not entirely sure what Ian was looking for in this thread. However its difficult to make any comparison between raw and jpeg with the picture.
If truth be known the camera processor has adjusted the image to give a best fit type of image. Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) would do much the same if the defaults were applied, though the end result may be a tad different. It seems Ian has used the Oly software too and got a similar result to the jpeg. This of course implies that the jpeg file is being used as a benchmark by which to judge the raw image.
Now its my feeling that this should not be the case.
The camera seems also to have been used on a semi auto mode (TV) with matrix metering. Consequently unless there was user input to apply compensation the flames of the fire have influenced exposure and the camera has pretty well exposed for them
Now its my feeling that this should not be the case.
Probably as a result of this being an organised event it was probably difficult to get a definitive shot, however in an ideal world I think I would have liked to see some of the people illuminated by the light of the fire, and at the very least a few sparklers being used I think I would prefered to see less sharp detail in the flames and more movement created by a slower shutter speed. Perhaps applying a bit of over exposure would have helped to bring out more colour tone in the fire, and more of the ambiance of the event.
Now I'm pretty sure that a Raw file using any software could bring out more detail and colour in the scene, though this can be done with a jpeg too. I used the shadow highlight tool in PS just to try and squeeze a little more detail out the shadows.
I'm not sure if I'm missing the point of Ians intention here, but then he did post in the Critique forum
I'm not entirely sure what Ian was looking for in this thread. However its difficult to make any comparison between raw and jpeg with the picture.
If truth be known the camera processor has adjusted the image to give a best fit type of image. Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) would do much the same if the defaults were applied, though the end result may be a tad different. It seems Ian has used the Oly software too and got a similar result to the jpeg. This of course implies that the jpeg file is being used as a benchmark by which to judge the raw image.
Now its my feeling that this should not be the case.
First of all, I quite like the picture
And the comment about the RAW version (in ACR at least) not working, was out of surprise and some mystification.
I tried the defaults in ACR and the result was very different, which is why I was surprised. I was getting insipid orange colouration rather than the warm and deep orange and yellow tones you see in the JPEG. Even by making basic adjustments of exposure, brightness, colour temperature, etc., I was getting nowhere. I expect with a bit more application it would have come right in the end, though.
Although it's a logical deduction that the JPEG is being used as the benchmark, both in the camera and in the Oly software, this definitely isn't the case. The explanation is very simple: the software uses the same default settings and the same fundamental algorithms as the camera. The software models the camera, in other words. Almost without exception, if you view unedited RAW and JPEG images in Olympus Studio the RAW and JPEG versions look much the same. Of course in ACR the software has to make its own estimate of what the default settings would be. It has less to go on than the manufactuter's software - there is more proprietary embedded data in an Olympus file that is recognised by the Olympus software and this will not necessarily be seen by ACR.
The camera seems also to have been used on a semi auto mode (TV) with matrix metering. Consequently unless there was user input to apply compensation the flames of the fire have influenced exposure and the camera has pretty well exposed for them
Now its my feeling that this should not be the case.
In defence, I was just out with the family for a fun night out, so I wasn't really in 'intensive photo thinking' mode But I did experiment with the settings a bit and had done some bracketing. I wanted to stick to a fast-ish shutter speed in order to get better definition in the structure of the fire. Shutter priority auto served the purpose and I didn't use spot metering because of the variability of the position of the column of flames. I'd certainly recommend using manual settings once the correct expsure had been determined. I did use manual for the picture further down, as it hapens. Auto white balance - as I think I explained earlier, I wasn't too concerned about it because I was recording a RAW version anyway and the on-screen review looked good enough.
Probably as a result of this being an organised event it was probably difficult to get a definitive shot, however in an ideal world I think I would have liked to see some of the people illuminated by the light of the fire, and at the very least a few sparklers being used I think I would prefered to see less sharp detail in the flames and more movement created by a slower shutter speed. Perhaps applying a bit of over exposure would have helped to bring out more colour tone in the fire, and more of the ambiance of the event.
I did do some shots with people in the frame, but in order to get he fire to the right density, the periphery, including the people, have faded into the blackness.
I did get this character in the frame though :
But I'm very happy with just the fire as it is in the first picture. And again, it's a matter of personal preference, but I was deliberately working to achieve the opposite of what you have suggested and so tried to freeze the action of the fire through a fast shutter speed and to preserve detail through under-exposure (-2EV from the nominated auto setting).
Now I'm pretty sure that a Raw file using any software could bring out more detail and colour in the scene, though this can be done with a jpeg too. I used the shadow highlight tool in PS just to try and squeeze a little more detail out the shadows.
I'm not sure if I'm missing the point of Ians intention here, but then he did post in the Critique forum
Normally I would agree with you, but the JPEG delivered exactly what I was looking for in this, admittedly unusual picture, and I see no need to make any RAW adjustments.
I'm not doing down RAW - I shoot RAW+JPEG routinely and invariably use the RAW file in preference to the JPEG one unless I'm in a big hurry. But in this case, the RAW file (in ACR) just simply didn't work well enough to out-do the JPEG for once.
And of course, critique is what this board is all about and it's good to be able to discuss and explain one's thinking behind pictures like this
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalise advertising, and to analyse site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
I think I would prefered to see less sharp detail in the flames and more movement created by a slower shutter speed. Perhaps applying a bit of over exposure would have helped to bring out more colour tone in the fire, and more of the ambiance of the event.
Tweet
Comment