ext***RAW***ordinary!

[ana.gr]

I was going to throw this shot to the bin, because it was so baaaaddd.... then I decided to give it a second chance, as it was RAW... this is the process:
1: Original image:
[IMG]

De ana.gr

[/IMG]
2:Adjustment of levels of exposure, light, contrast, at Adobe Camera Raw:

De ana.gr

3:Final image, after crop and background correction.

De ana.gr

I think the final result is quite decent, especially from that dark first shot.!
Hope you like it.

[Jim Bryant]

Yup.............one couldn't pull that from a jpeg Once again, shooting RAW is the only way to go

[private]

AND to go one step further, you can run it though a noise reduction software. I am all about RAW, its freedom - in a sense.

[kirbinster]

Well I always shoot raw, so you don't need to tell me of the value. BUT, that said, there really is no excuse for the original shot. Why did you not immediately reshoot it? Did you not look at the display or the histogram. Raw is great, but we all need to concentrate on getting the shot as good as possible to start with.

[Glayva]

I can't remember the last time I shot a jpeg image. RAW for me always

[ttosifa]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

Well I always shoot raw, so you don't need to tell me of the value. BUT, that said, there really is no excuse for the original shot. Why did you not immediately reshoot it? Did you not look at the display or the histogram. Raw is great, but we all need to concentrate on getting the shot as good as possible to start with.

Well, I almost never shoot raw. Why? I am not a pro who absolutely must get a shot perfectly right, who benefits from the extra headroom of raw, and who must deal with lighting variations that might cause 1/3 to 2/3 stops error. I understand its value too. But on my everyday shots, I shoot jpeg just so I have to get it right. I learn more. I throw away shots like this.

I am also not someone who is impressed by bringing a really dark picture up to one where a family member might recognize the kid. What kind of "quite decent" portrait has no eyes? I agree, there is no excuse for the original shot.

[ana.gr]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

. BUT, that said, there really is no excuse for the original shot. Why did you not immediately reshoot it? Did you not look at the display or the histogram. Raw is great, but we all need to concentrate on getting the shot as good as possible to start with.

Originally Posted by ttosifa

I am also not someone who is impressed by bringing a really dark picture up to one where a family member might recognize the kid. What kind of "quite decent" portrait has no eyes? I agree, there is no excuse for the original shot.

First, it's not a family member, it's not even anyone whose shot I could care for. I hadn't fixed my settings, and I realised, but didn't erase the photo.
This said, I didn't bother for a second better shot, as I was not interested at all in it; it was just casual, so no checking for quality or even visibility.
The thing here is the wonderful possibilities of RAW, not saying that you don't have to worry about how your shots are, because I do, I take my time and effort.
This was just a pastime that I wanted to share

[kirbinster]

I was not trying to be too harsh, just wanted to let people know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure - it is soooo much better to get it right first shot. Obviously this is not always the case if you just whip out the camera to capture something that just popped out of the blue.

[Teewinot]

Great save! RAW is really cool that way.

[J.Mitchell-Christian]

I think it's great that you were able to pull this out of that shot. I shoot in .jpg simply because my p&s only shoots jpgs. This is a shot of my daughter Orchid, she has her first two teeth, and none of the hots from this day showed them, so I did a bunch of post on it and pulled out a decent shot,...from a jpg.