Photography
Related: About this forumHow many of you shoot in Raw?
Later on in the spring, my husband and I are going on a little road trip to Arizona. We are going to see Antelope Canyon and the big meteorite crater.
I really want to get some truly superb images of the canyon (the sandstone ones that have been carved out by the rain) and since I've heard of shooting in raw, I thought I might try to do that, now, while I have time to practice.
Any advice?
I just read an article that I found by googling, by Christina Greve. It looks straight-forward.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)You have a bigger file to work with with way more information.
Here's a great article about it: http://www.digitalphotomentor.com/raw-vs-jpg-file-formats/
I used to live in Arizona and the bright sunlight can be quite challenging for getting great shots. I highly recommend a circular polarizer if you don't have one and the Raw files will give you more options for controlling the exposure.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,616 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)I found a circular polarizer to be my best friend when shooting in AZ. Otherwise, the sky was always blown out in order to get the foreground exposed correctly. Raw files will help you make those adjustments, too.
Do you have a photo editor that handles raw files?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)There's really no reason not to shoot in raw these days because memory cards are relatively cheap even for large ones and most DSLRs give you the option of shooting both in raw and jpg.
I don't know if you've been to the places you mentioned, but I enjoyed them both when I was there.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)I don't know if you would be interested or if you've heard of it, but just 26 miles from the crater is Winslow, AZ. The town has the "standing on the corner" set up with a flatbed Ford on a corner designated for photo taking. It may be cliche, but it might be fun.
Well, I'm a standing on a corner
in Winslow, Arizona
and such a fine sight to see
It's a girl, my Lord, in a flatbed
Ford slowin' down to take a look at me
Come on, baby, don't say maybe
I gotta know if your sweet love is
gonna save me
We may lose and we may win though
we will never be here again
so open up, I'm climbin' in,
so take it easy
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The advantage of raw files is in the large amount of data they contain and the amount of room there is to play with the post processing.
If I am shooting well-lit sports, say beach volleyball tournaments, I will shoot JPEG because I can get the shots correct in the camera and don't need much post processing on them. (They still get some processing.) The files are smaller and faster to process.
For photo vacations and other important events, and for poorly light sports, I shoot raw so that I can get the most out of the files. I also get more leeway in case I don't get the photo right at the time of shooting.
In your case of Antelope Canyon, I would definitely be shooting raw files. If you have enough memory cards, there is also something to be said for shooting raw+JPG.
MichaelSoE
(1,576 posts)actually, i do shoot raw. since i take several shots of a subject and i am most likely going to only use one, then i want to be able to have every pixel unadulterated and the ability to tweak the image to my liking ... not the camera's interpretation when it creates a jpeg.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Don't want any Weiner pictures to accidentally show up.
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
groundloop
(11,519 posts)You didn't mention what kind of camera you use, or what you use to process raw files. This may be stating the obvious, but you need to know what you're doing with Lightroom, Canon Digital Photo Pro, etc. to get good results with raw files. With a bit of practice though, raw gives you way more flexibility than jpegs, as you can fix exposure, color temperature, contrast, etc. etc. etc. very quickly with a raw file.
I shoot exclusively raw files, process them with Lightroom, and then add sharpening or whatever else is needed with Gimp.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)NV Whino
(20,886 posts)Also, make sure whatever processing program you are using will handle RAW. Most of the newer ones do. And bear in mind you will have to convert to JPEG to post on the Internet.
I think your best bet would be to shoot both RAW and JPEG. You can play with the RAW files and perfect them, but you'll have the jpegs to post without having to convert them. I'm sure your new camera supports both.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Bracketing shoots three pictures in a row at slightly different exposure levels.
Richard D
(8,754 posts)So much more you can do with a raw file than with a jpeg.
alfredo
(60,071 posts)working with RAW files, you will have the JPEGs. I have an Olympus and they have a very good JPEG engine. Fuji also has a very good JPEG engine.
Take extra batteries, SD cards, and don't forget your charger.
sir pball
(4,742 posts)I shot my first ~100 pictures with my old D70s in JPEG but after realizing that I had to tweak them to suit my eye anyway, I went NEF and never looked back. Realistically, if you open your pictures in an image editor for any reason, you're better off with raw. I hacked up the firmware on my 5100 to output lossless-compression NEFs, I can't really tell the difference but why not.
And yes, there is a noticeable difference between NEF and JPG, especially in delicate tonal gradations like deep sunsets.
geomon666
(7,512 posts)I want complete control of my images.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)groundloop
(11,519 posts)Can't say that I ever have, that would scare the hell out of any person or creature within half a mile.
Mira
(22,380 posts)This very morning I had decided to look into learning about shooting in raw format - and there was your post.
Evidence that if the pupil is ready the teacher appears. I ended up not getting to it today, but as the answers come to you I'm getting excited about it.
Went to the link of the first answer about it (forget now who and name), found it very apropos, and signed up.
It's a start!
I've been to Antelope Canyon. One of the highlights of my life.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,616 posts)And I feel intimidated! All the stuff everyone is talking about is completely foreign to me...gimp etc.
Not sure what I'll do now.
But I don't need to decide now.
I can't wait to see Antelope Canyon!
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)With a digital picture, the idea of an unprocessed image is not what most people think. The image is either processed by the camera, or it's processed outside the camera with something like Photoshop, or it's processed by both. If all you are doing is taking snapshots, processing in the camera makes sense because you get an image suitable for printing or uploading to the web with no extra effort required. If you are processing outside the camera, doing so on a raw image gives you essentially what comes right out of the sensor with little to no manipulation. This gives you the most information to work with in post processing (Photoshop, Gimp, etc.). Photoshop has camera raw built in, which does the initial processing on the raw image for things like sharpening, white balance, contrast, brightness, and a few other things.
The raw image is essentially like the negative or positive you get from a film camera from which you derive your finished image.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)great information. Video interviews with other photographers that address all kinds of issues. The Digital Photography School website has good info as well. And, if you have any Adobe products, you can open an Adobe account and there are all kinds of video tutorials for Photoshop. You can share photos and get feedback on DPS and Digital Photo Mentor.