Show me the benefits of RAW (with sample file)

[wulf]

From the outset, let me say that I'm emphatically not interested in opinions on whether RAW or JPEG are better choices to shoot with. We've gone round that countless times and, since this is my thread and I've got a senior moderator cape, I'll happily zap any post that falls into that rut, so don't waste your typing time!

However, I am interested to get some ideas from those who regularly capture RAW images. When I was on holiday a couple of months ago, I took a couple of shots of this rusting VW Beetle. Below is the JPEG version, which you can view full size on Flickr:



That is an unmodified image, except for what the camera has done automatically. I rather like it although I suspect I could improve it with a little post-processing. At the same time, I also took an almost identical shot using the RAW mode of my D40, producing a Nikon .nef file. I have put this file online and invite you to download it (5.2MB).

Displayed in iPhoto, I can see that it does have more detail in the shadows. However, if I processed it, I think I would probably bump the contrast and lose most of that additional information anyway. If some of you who are more expert with RAW files could run it through your digital darkroom and share the results (and a note of the choices you made along the way), I would be fascinated to see what you come up with.

I would also be happy if anyone wants to apply some processing to the JPEG version. If we can avoid getting carried away with arguments about what is better or worse and let the results stand for other readers to judge for themselves, that might be a positive contribution to future debates and would certainly assist me in deciding whether I am ready to do start shooting more in RAW mode.

Thanks,

Wulf

[kirbinster]

Your raw file is not a .raw file, it appears to be a .tif.

That not withstanding, I am a little unsure of what you are requesting. Only you know how you want your picture to look. We can edit your picture and change things, but whether that makes it better or worse is a highly subjective matter. What I think is better you might think is worse, and visa versa.

[RLucas]

Wulf, I'll give it a stab. I don't know how this will help, but here it goes. I am happy you picked this photo to test! These are some of my favorite cars.
Now, this my taste which is completely subjective.
This was done using the trial version of Capture NX2, and nothing else.

First, I dropped back the exposure compensation back about 1.5 stops. There seemed to be some blown highlights around the headlight bezel, and the mirror.

Set shadow protection to 30.

Set saturation to 30, and increased the warmth to 4.

Made a slight contrast adjustment, and bumped up the brightness just a tad. I set this layer to overlay, and adjusted the opacity to 50%.

I then desaturated it by 28%

Lastly, I used unsharp mask with the level set to 86, and the radius to 20.

That is about it.

I hope this will give you whatever information you may need.

[nathanbarlow]

willing to do this - just worked on a jeep, actually a LandRover (calling it a jeep would be sacriligous to some haha) which wasnt as dilipidated as this, but wanted the same kind of texturey look.

BUT, i downloaded it, and PS cant open....

[wulf]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

Your raw file is not a .raw file, it appears to be a .tif.

That not withstanding, I am a little unsure of what you are requesting. Only you know how you want your picture to look. We can edit your picture and change things, but whether that makes it better or worse is a highly subjective matter. What I think is better you might think is worse, and visa versa.

It should be a .nef file. One of the complications will be that RAW formats are often quite camera specific.

I know that editing is quite subjective. What I'm interested in is whether any of the suggested edits offer an appreciable advance on what I can get from the JPEG version. For example, I think RLucas's version is too oversaturated for my tastes but I reckon I could replicate that if I wanted (and I appreciate him taking the time to show how he would work it). However, he does seem to have a bit more detail round the headlight area.

Another thing that is potentially interesting is to see the range of results that can be drawn out from the "digital negative".

Wulf

[nathanbarlow]

Originally Posted by wulf

It should be a .nef file. One of the complications will be that RAW formats are often quite camera specific.
Wulf

Doesnt explain why Photoshop cant open it - it can deal with most Raw types. . . .

[wulf]

It should have been transferred by FTP in binary mode and RLucas managed to open it, so I'm not sure quite what the problem is. If geekily inclined, the MD5 hash may help confirm if you what you have is exactly what I uploaded:

MD5 (old_beetle.20090824.nef) = d63dc46f07e6d0cc35e48dfef6ba007e

Wulf

[fletch]

Ohh I like a RAW challenge. I'll try this later when I have my computer with Lightroom in front of me. It does look like their may be an issue with the file though. Although the link says its for a .NEF file when I choose "save target as" it downloads as a .TIFF file. When I open that file in a program that can view TIFF but not RAW it displays a 160x120 version of the image.

It may just need to extension changing back to .nef - I'll try it later.

[vandergus]

Just for the record, I get the .NEF file when I "save link as" in Firefox (Windows XP).

[PrimeTime]

I don't have a raw converter downloaded at work, so here is a full edit of the jpg with gimp............WB layer--Contrast layer--saturation layer--dodge and burn layer--curves layer--sharpening layer.