Total RAW Workflow

[jgaddy]

I entitled it this way because there seems to be a habit of people leaving out the entire process. For example, the way in which you expose my play into your overall workflow.

I would be very interested, as I think many would, on hearing from many people taking a little time on exlaining/showing the entire workflow with some examples.

How many times have you heard these types of statements, but only in print: "set correct exposure", "get the WB right", "expose to the right, then pull exposure down until it is correct".

"Pull down the exposure until it is correct" - AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH - what is correct?

I am either the most stupid person in the world or I have a point when I say, can someone Show their entire workflow? It really does not matter what converter you are using as the principles are/should be the same, maybe just different ways of getting to the same place.

I have read many books on photography, digital/film, exposure, etc...and laugh when these terms are used so loose as the photographer who shot the image diplays his masterpiece with footnotes only showing Shutter, aperture, ISO.....What does that really tell you? Especially with digital?

What would be truly useful to everyone is examples of:

*The RAW capture and how and why it was exposed the way it was (This is very easy to show with digital. Not only the un-processed image but the histogram as well
*Next step would show specific corrections and why they were done (this will vary with each converter but the principles are the same)
*Typical color corrections when WB does not get you all the way there.....How and why

I hope that you see my point....For the non experts out there (myself included) too many images are posted within instructional forums that are truly awesome. Exposure and color are spot on.....When you inquire how this person does it consistently, you get and answer like "well, I just get my exposure right and set WB accordingly.....If any exposure adjustments need to be made, I make them in the RAW converter and save the color tweaking for PS". Yes, this is an answer but really tells most nothing at all.

It would be nice for this thread to take off and get some serious feedback as I know it would not only benefit me, but others out there in the same boat.

Topics such as:

*the ones I mentioned above
*getting correct color
*understanding digital exposure and how to achieve it
*truly understanding histograms...

If anyones points me to "Luminous Landscape, I will vomit :) In many ways, Luminous Landscape is exactly what I am stating here. For example: Understanding histograms - Michael gives you examples of ideal histograms. Properly exposed images should span the entire histogram, All levels used, etc.....I can show you many images that I have shot that are mainly mid tone images that "do" span the entire histogram......and they look like crap...

It would be great if we could get into some specifics and example here....

Thanks for your help!

[adam7731]

that's very true if your image spans the whole history gram it can look bad.

you have to have more detail or exposure in certain areas. IE toe and shoulder. Highlights and mids and shadows.

when you graph the history gram as a curve which we as photographers should be looking at since that is what we used to look at all the time back in the film days. You are tring to get a nice S curve from left to right with about a 45 degree tilt to it....

you can take the whole zone system or better yet just placing your exposure. IE if you take a incedient reading of a model. That would make her 18 percent grey. your curve goes up and down with little slant. (would be nice to have graphs) Now if you under expose that you are flatting the curve but adding length to the toe and shoulder you have now moved your exposure from 18 percent zone 5 to a zone 7 you now have a perfect skin tone. just by adding a stop to your 18 percent inciedent meeter reading.


when you move the points one your history gram you are placing your exposure. I have read this one essay where some one overlaps film densitromary and historygrams. IF i can find it by the sounds of your post you would really understand everything that is going on.

I

[Gordon]

When I shoot for JPEG is very different from how I shoot and expose RAW.

For JPEG, I'd follow more normal film guidelines, and try and get the correct exposure.

For RAW, I try to (over)expose as far as I can, without clipping any of the highlights (switch on highlight clipping on your camera to see where that is)

This will lead to a typically overly bright RAW file - this is good. Due to some funkiness on how camera sensors work (which we can talk about but is largely irrelevant technical detail in this context), there is a lot more detail in the highlight capture areas than in the shadow capture areas. As a result, capturing it too bright and then dialing back the exposure in RAW conversion gives much better final results. If you under expose and try to recover, you'll have a much noiser image, than if you exposed correctly (good) or over exposed and reduced it later (least noise, cleanest end result, most info)

Now, your question 'what is correct?' is fairly fundamental. There is no 'right' exposure, other than the one that you want to use, that captures the parts of the image you wanted at a particular tonality, at that tonality. Nobody is going to be able to tell you 'right' or 'wrong' for exposure (though plenty of people claim to). It depends entirely on what you want to achieve - there are certainly plenty of 'normal' exposure values you could aim for.

But, to answer your question in another way - with a properly calibrated display (with hardware calibration, not done using your eye and adobe gamma and/or a website) you adjust the exposure until it is as bright as you want the image to be. That is then 'correct' for your own personal opinion of what correct is.

For landscape shots, I'll shoot, look at the histogram and adjust the exposure based on the histogram until I've moved the highlights over to the far right (again, without clipping)
Basically I shoot in aperture priority, so I can select an appropriate aperture, for the sharpness I want, depth of field I want and lens features I want to exploit (stars on point light sources when stopped down, sweet spot of the lens, etc)

This might be adjusted for an appropriate shutter speed too, but I'll typically just change the ISO to get that, while using the aperture I want to use.

If I'm particularly concerned about a scene, I'll bracket (heavily) to expose certain parts of the scene correctly, in the highlight region of the capture. For sunsets with split light, this can sometimes lead to 5 or more exposures for the full range.

As for correct colour/ colour balance - again, this is a matter of personal taste. For most images if you correct it 'perfectly' you remove a lot of the reason for shooting in that particular light in the first place. E.g., shoot in the sweet light around sunset - it'll be a lot warmer than it 'should' be, so if you correct for it, you remove the point of shooting in the sweet light. If you want correct though, you can just use the eye dropper on a bright area (not blown highlight) that should be neutral toned.

But I'm rambling - there's an entire book possible just for your questions above - if you had specific questions, it would be easier to answer.

[Clint_Smith]

Gonna try to answer in real short terms.

Proper exposure - good light meter.

proper color - I use a color card when I can, but knowledge of the kelvin scale and exactly how we see different color temperatures helps. I good explaination about WB can be found at http://www.warmcards.com. .

for me I have found that a histogram that does span the entire graph is not always perfect either. You can see how I do the first part of my workflow minus the photoshop touchup by reading this link http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...ad.php?t=11494 As you can see I adjust my histogram to taste.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by Clint_Smith

Proper exposure - good light meter.

I think good interpretation and understanding of the histogram gives far, far more information than a good light meter ever can. Shoot - look at the histogram - adjust accordingly (now learning what 'accordingly' means is a big discussion) but with a decent SLR, I don't actually see the value of a good, bad or indifferent light meter any more. It takes many, many readings with a light meter to build up the information captured in a single exposure and looking at the histogram - even more so with cameras that show the lightness and R,G,B channel histograms.

[Clint_Smith]

Originally Posted by GordonMcGregor

I think good interpretation and understanding of the histogram gives far, far more information than a good light meter ever can. Shoot - look at the histogram - adjust accordingly (now learning what 'accordingly' means is a big discussion) but with a decent SLR, I don't actually see the value of a good, bad or indifferent light meter any more. It takes many, many readings with a light meter to build up the information captured in a single exposure and looking at the histogram - even more so with cameras that show the lightness and R,G,B channel histograms.

I respectfully disagree. Especially when using studio lighting.

When I say use of a light meter I don't just mean what you set your camera body settings to. you can meter infront of, behind of, ect ect of the subject and KNOW what the light is doing all around your subject. Use the light meter to measure the amount of light around your subject not to just set your f/stop or shutter speed on your body....however this is very important also.

Know your light and you will know your shadows. Because is it is not always about the light...a good chunk of the time it is about the shadows.

[Gordon]

yup - I'm just suggesting you can see all that in the image and adjust accordingly - particularly in a studio and tethered/ shooting on a computer.

I've seen very experienced people working both ways. Increasingly folk seem to be moving away from using a light meter and just using the histogram/ live view. I've seen professional architectural photographers working with 10s of lights working this way for example.

[Clint_Smith]

Originally Posted by GordonMcGregor

I've seen very experienced people working both ways. Increasingly folk seem to be moving away from using a light meter and just using the histogram/ live view. I've seen professional architectural photographers working with 10s of lights working this way for example.

There is no one way. Knowing your equipment is certainly another part of this equation.

But I am one of those that wants to know what the heck is going on and for me it takes longer to dial in exposure using only the histogram. I get it done faster with a meter. But that is just me.

[Gordon]

Yup, absolutely there are many ways of doing it. After a while though, the extra info from a histogram becomes really useful and it becomes faster. There is certainly an additional learning curve over and above using a meter within the scene.

Mastery of both is a big help

[jgaddy]

This may sound crazy but why not use it if we all have it?

This would go out to anyone that really knows they have a handle on the whole ball of wax....

I would love to be able to shoot some test images, post them for the other party to pull down to there machine. That party could then evaluate the image and give suggestions on how to improve.....To help assist with the post processing with any of the prefered converters, a NetMeeting session could be established and a I could then have that person walk me through it? Sure would beat talking our way through things....

Any takers?

Thanks

[Gordon]

Feel free to shoot and post your RAW images to a server (probably not this server) then give us the link.

I can certainly show you the steps I'd go through. If it came to the bit, I could even meet you in a starbucks and walk you through it too.

[adam7731]

Originally Posted by Clint_Smith

There is no one way. Knowing your equipment is certainly another part of this equation.

But I am one of those that wants to know what the heck is going on and for me it takes longer to dial in exposure using only the histogram. I get it done faster with a meter. But that is just me.

I agree clint you should know your equipment. I know people that can take a spot meter and scan the area telling you where everything is falling and compress the image to enable details to fall where they should. The histogram isnt going to pick up everything that a one degree spot will. Then you can use your historgram to fine tune the complete image.

again you are still placing the exposure on the curve. For the pros out there that did a lot of this with film it becomes easy with digital. when we over expose the highlights and push the RAW neg up a stop or two you are changing the curve.

You all are more then welcomed to meet up at ACC when we dont have a class and check out whats going on. or we can just use my computer in my office some evening or Sat.