Show me the benefits of RAW (with sample file)

[Murkar]

Here's my version, alot of selective contrast increases, high pass sharpening, curves edits for both contrast and colour, filters, etc.

Didn't download the raw version, I hardly ever use raw (except for landscape photography - good for capturing colours because of it's lossless nature); I just copied the jpeg and did this in photoshop.



EDIT: Forgot, I also added a light vignette in adobe lightroom 1.3.

[Mr Guy]

It occurred to me while thinking of Halloween self portrait ideas that this may, in fact, have been an EVIL bug, dripping with the blood of the innocent. This is what it's possible to pull off with RAW, when you totally decide the change the premise of the entire shot, but don't want to lose any detail in the highlights, color depth, or shadows, and want to have flexibility in boosting colors (note how well the ivy avoided too much color cast by selectively boosting tones):



RAW is easier to play with if your camera doesn't have a "cheesy horror movie" color palette and white balance setting.

[tamcry]

I'm new so put up with me. I downloaded and opened in Eliments. Ste recovery to 39, balcks to 20 contrast to 42, clarity to 46, vibrance to 27 luminance to 20 and colour to 32

[ryder]

As a newby to photography, but a pretty good computer guy, I would try loading the file on the server AFTER packing as a .zip file. By zipping it up, you tell the browser to leave it alone! And all combinations of browser/operating system should handle a zip file the same way.

[suu]

You said you liked it fairly subtle. This is jpg edited in Topaz Adjust (many variations possible within topaz but chose this one.) I think this keeps it within the real-feel range.

[weezerisrock]

I haven't been here in a while, but I don't know if anyone you talked to would have any idea if you shot raw one way or the other. I shoot in raw because I still make a lot of mistakes while taking pictures, (wrong white balance, over or under exposed, etc)

If you are a better man than I behind the camera, and can get all your ducks on a row in your shot then shooting jpg is great! I've seen a couple of people who shoot exclusively in jpg and still come back with better exposed shots than some of my raws

[Jezzer]

OK here's mine (Nice shot Wulf!)...



Using Lightroom 2, started with a preset x=city+scapes (Credit where credit is due, The X Equals presets are great ways to see your picture with various treatments quickly). I then adjusted the settings to better match the photo, increasing the recoverery, and reducing the warmth added by the preset in the Split tone section. You can see all the exact settings if you click on the 'more properties' link on flickr, next to the photo. Hope you like it.

And, just for the hell of it...Here's a B&W version. I think I prefer this one...

[daddyoproductions]

My faves of the edits so far: murkar, moakadoors and the first one robbiemckay posted. And yeah, they're kind of different styles!

We've dabbled in RAW a bit, and have started shooting our assignments for here in RAW, but I still find myself pping in CS4 after anyway cause I haven't mastered the controls in RAW yet. Can the expert eye tell the difference? Probably? But again, who's to say which is the best pp...it is all too subjective

[naeno]

Here's my 2cents for what they are worth. I started shooting RAW a couple weeks ago after shooting exclusively in jpg. Yes, you get a LOT more flexibility in RAW, but I found I was doing just as many adjustments as I did with jpg and the pictures didn't seem as sharp. (I know you're supposed to do the sharpening yourself, but that's just an extra step to me). I'm going back to jpg, personally. Like I said, take it for what it's worth.

[rexfuge]

I'll take a stab on this one. BTW, I had no problems opening the raw (.nef) file from Photoshop or Lightroom...

here's my version... played around with the Reds, Greens and Blues from the Levels Palette to simply make the colors pop... not too much...



using an HDR effect