# little girls (9 pics sorry)



## JimmyJaceyMom (Feb 19, 2008)

First time shooting in RAW and using curves adjustments. What do you think?

1.

2.






3.





4.





5. I need to take the magenta out ofher face, I see that now as I have uploaded it to phootbucket... will do 





6.


7.








9.


----------



## nicfargo (Feb 19, 2008)

These are very nice...you should have tried RAW earlier because these are great.  I like your other stuff too, but I think these bring you up a level in my opinion.  Not because RAW automatically gives you superior photos, but because you leveraged what RAW can do for you.  Great job!


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Feb 19, 2008)

thanks nicfargo, yes I never realized until I tried it how much better RAW can be even after reading it from just about every great photographer around.  lol.  Until recently my computer didn't have enough memory to allow me to put the RAW files on and edit - I've since taken care of that and am SO HAPPY I did!  I'll never go back!!!!!
Thanks for taking your time to comment.


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 19, 2008)

I like 5 and 6 the best, everything seem to fit perfectly.  The color and the expression just kinda match with her friendly face.  I don't know if that make any sense?  Overall, you have a very nice series, I'm not keen on black background and a white dress though.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Feb 19, 2008)

schumionbike - thanks for commenting.  I really dont like black  backgrounds but I didn't want to use white and i was limited in choices, which is why i tried the windowsill.  I'll have to come up with some more options for christening gowns.  Once I used burgandy, that was a good one.  Don't know why I didnt do that again.  hmmmmm.


----------



## NJMAN (Feb 19, 2008)

Beautiful pics!  I agree with nicfargo.  This post definitely brought you up at least a level or 2.  And yes, you found out how to leverage RAW to your advantage. 

The eyes are nice and sharp.  The BW tones are very nice as well.  My only nitpick would be with #2 and #3, there is a little flake of skin by the eye in #2, and by the nose in #3.  Some slight cloning at about 50-70% should take care of that nicely.  I would love to see #3 as a black and white. 

Nice job! 

NJ


----------



## TCimages (Feb 19, 2008)

I like them all.  Great work!!


----------



## Applefanboy (Feb 19, 2008)

Nice Shots! They are all VERY good, but my favorite are 2,3, and 4.


----------



## mstephens (Feb 19, 2008)

im agreeing with njman. the eyes are amazing in all of them except for #8, in that picture it looks a little too overdone and her eyes look a little crazy. but #5 is AMAZING!!! my favorite shot i have seen in awhile. good  job. cant wait to see more with you using raw.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Feb 19, 2008)

NJMAN - as you wish  :





and thanks for the comments I will clear up that skin.

TCIMAGES - thanks!

Applefanboy - thanks to you too. 

mstevens - thanks, what nice things to say.   I will tone down those eyes, LOL I laughed when i looked back at it after you mentioned the eyes, they do look like crazy eyes!


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Feb 19, 2008)

here's another one - too bad about that chopped arm though!  Kids can be tough!


----------



## Stacey (Feb 19, 2008)

I have to say that these are stunning! My faves are 2, 3 and 6! Very sharp, and the eyes are gorgeous! Beautiful little kids! I love the last one you posted...with the baby lying on the girl's back...such a cute idea! Very, very good! I bet the mother is thrilled!


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Feb 19, 2008)

Thanks Stacy - yes mom called me today after she saw them and was pretty excited which is good.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 19, 2008)

It's hard to believe how much you've progressed since you first started posting here.

Lew


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Feb 19, 2008)

The_Traveler said:


> It's hard to believe how much you've progressed since you first started posting here.
> 
> Lew


 

Awe, thanks.  I'm glad you think so.  I've really been trying!


----------



## MichaelT (Feb 19, 2008)

So Kathi, just to be clear on this, what exactly do you see that's different between doing RAW conversions or not?

The reason I ask is that jpeg images, correctly exposed with accurate white balance, yield just as good results as correctly converted RAW images.  If you find that you need to do RAW conversions to get good results, that's an indication that something is amiss with your camera during exposure.

It's always better to eliminate problems at the camera than it is to correct problems in post processing.  So if you can identify what you have to do in the RAW conversion to make your images look better, it will help you backtrack to correct that problem at the camera.

For instance, I have a "perfect color and exposure" image on my computer monitor.  I call it the "index" image and it requires no color correction to yield a perfect print from my lab.  I then make tests, correcting WB and exposure, until I can finally get a jpeg that looks just like the index image.  Those settings are written down and used from then on.  I do this because A. I want the best images possible right from the beginning, and B. I can save SO much time by never needing to do RAW conversions.

Perhaps, if you want to streamline your image-making, we can work out the issues that are giving you problems.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Feb 19, 2008)

You are absolutely correct in saying that a correctly exposed image is extremely important.  My trouble is that #1 I work with children and while I set camera for a correct exposure metering the light on the skin and all that sometimes those little stinkers move quick on you and so you end up with slightly underexposed images or they move to a different area so quick you just don;t have the time to change your white balance.
But mostly some of the PP I do requires a lot of lightening and brightening which isnt the best effect on a jpeg image and sometimes this pp requires trying over and over again to get it right, which is not good for the quality of the final jpeg.
The RAW editing program itself, for these I hardly had to ever even mess with the white balance I left it in it 'shot as' state because I had selected the correct one most of the time, especially with the baby as she of course doesnt go anywhere. 
I still intend to keep improving technical wise, you cant fix everything in RAW and you shouldnt have to but I also know that no matter what  you shoot in you still have to have your comp, lighting, and focus in check or nothing else matters.


----------



## NJMAN (Feb 19, 2008)

MichaelT said:


> So Kathi, just to be clear on this, what exactly do you see that's different between doing RAW conversions or not?
> 
> The reason I ask is that jpeg images, correctly exposed with accurate white balance, yield just as good results as correctly converted RAW images. If you find that you need to do RAW conversions to get good results, that's an indication that something is amiss with your camera during exposure.
> 
> ...


 
Just wanted to chime in here a second time.  You have good points about getting the pic right in the camera first.  But you are missing some other great benefits of using RAW.  It holds much more image information that a JPEG ever could.  The RAW image is not compressed, and it can yield prints up to 25x17 inches with no loss of quality on an 8.2 MP SLR (1.6x crop) for example.    I wouldnt trust even the highest resolution JPEG to do that.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Feb 19, 2008)

Oh I wanted to add to MichaelT thanks for wanting to help me and taking your time to let me know what you are thinking.  You make excellent points.


----------



## Deadeye008 (Feb 20, 2008)

These are excellent! I love #2, I'm a sucker for B&W conversions...


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Feb 20, 2008)

Thanks Deadeye.. I love black and white myself so I'm always happy when the parents like it too because some don't.


----------



## MichaelT (Feb 21, 2008)

One of the techniques I use for the highly active ages is BIG light.  We know from our physics class that in light, falloff is fastest the closer the light is to the subject, so the inverse is true also, the farther away the light is, the less falloff occures.  With a big softbox 6 feet away and 4 feet in the air, I create a fairly good sized area that is equally lit.  I'll do all kinds of things to keep the kids within that area.

Of course, if you can go outside, that's the biggest light there is, so the problem disappears.

Oh, and for NJMAN.  There are no fewer pixels in a jpeg than there are in a RAW image.  RAW images are simply non-processed.  If you get it right in the camera, there is no difference at all between a RAW image processed later and a jpeg image processed in the camera.   They will have the exact same resolution and hold the exact same color information.  What you may be refering to is that some RAW converters allow you to process images as 32 bit or 16 bit images.  However you still have to toss all that extra information away as soon as you go to print, because that's 8 bit - exactly as it comes from the camera in jpeg.


----------



## NJMAN (Feb 21, 2008)

MichaelT said:


> Oh, and for NJMAN. There are no fewer pixels in a jpeg than there are in a RAW image. RAW images are simply non-processed. If you get it right in the camera, there is no difference at all between a RAW image processed later and a jpeg image processed in the camera. They will have the exact same resolution and hold the exact same color information. What you may be refering to is that some RAW converters allow you to process images as 32 bit or 16 bit images. However you still have to toss all that extra information away as soon as you go to print, because that's 8 bit - exactly as it comes from the camera in jpeg.


 
I dont mean to hijack JJM's thread.

My point was simply this.  Completely aside from doing any editing in RAW, you can select a larger size print from the RAW conversion software even before you export it to JPEG format.  If you are shooting just for the largest JPG only, the maximum size at 240 PPI is only 11.6x7.4 inches (3504x2336 px).   The largest size JPEG you can export from a RAW file is much larger at 240 PPI with no loss of quality.  I would not want to print from a JPEG that is only 11.6x7.4 in size if I wanted to print one much larger than that (25x17 for example).  I would want to print a JPEG that is saved as a 25x17 at 240 PPI.  So therefore, a RAW file would be appropriate.  If SLRs allow you to capture in RAW+JPEG, why not take advantage of that opportunity and keep the most information possible on file.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Feb 21, 2008)

MichaelT said:


> One of the techniques I use for the highly active ages is BIG light. We know from our physics class that in light, falloff is fastest the closer the light is to the subject, so the inverse is true also, the farther away the light is, the less falloff occures. With a big softbox 6 feet away and 4 feet in the air, I create a fairly good sized area that is equally lit. I'll do all kinds of things to keep the kids within that area.
> Of course, if you can go outside, that's the biggest light there is, so the problem disappears.
> 
> _________
> ...


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 21, 2008)

MichaelT said:


> There are no fewer pixels in a jpeg than there are in a RAW image.  RAW images are simply non-processed.  If you get it right in the camera, *there is no difference at all between a RAW image processed later and a jpeg image processed in the camera*.   They will have the exact same resolution and hold the exact same color information.



This is _sort of_ true, but not exactly. When a photographer shoots in jpg, the photog makes pre-shot decisions about the contrast, saturation, wb - all post-processing steps that the camera implements without the photographer's further input.  The photog also commits to some amount of compression which may have the  result of losing some fine detail.  JPGs are a lossy compression format. When a JPG is reconstituted for editing, all the original pixel data are not there, the spaces are filled with data that the software program has calculated from the smaller JPG files. The final pixel array may be so close to the RAW file as to make no difference either on image or print, but it is not the original.

There  is no such thing as getting it 'right' in the camera.  There is no 'right', _per se_. The photog can manage the in-camera processing to get what he/she wants but another photog may consider something else to be 'right.'


----------



## MichaelT (Feb 21, 2008)

That's cool Kathi. I've thought about these issues for awhile and it may just come down to the equipment we use.

I've noticed a number of photogs - some very big names - who say you must shoot RAW and learn post processing. They seem to all use Canon (and some Nikon) equipment.

There are others who say, "why waste the time and hard drive space? Just get it right in jpeg." I've found almost every time they use Fuji cameras.

When our studio switched to digital, we started with the Fuji S1, and are now using the S5. We've never tried the other brands, so I'm probably jaded in my experience of what jpgs should look like. I photograph babies and children by the dozens and once I get a camera "tuned in" the images are so sweet that I don't see the point in using RAW.

Just to say, the images you're showing here are top notch, and if you find that post-processing gets you there, by all means don't let me discourage you! I just thought that something technical might have been giving you problems that I could help with.

And for NJMAN, I see what you're talking about. Your RAW converter will apparently interpolate your RAW information to make fake pixels - ones that are not really on the CCD. That's the only way you could get a RAW conversion with more pixels than the jpeg file would have. With my equipment, I've found that the sharpest images always come from native resolution images. If I need to upsample, I get the best results using a "Step Interpolation" action in PhotoShop. The Fuji RAW converter tops out at 12mp resolution which is the camera's native resolution for capture data.

And for The Traveler, I do understand the math, but it is not observable in the photograph. I agree that I work to get it "right" in the camera to my own interpretation. :hail:


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Feb 21, 2008)

I cant wait to have an actual studio one day it would be so awesome.  For now I shoot in houses wheere everything is so varied but when I have great control over the environment I really will hope that I'm so happy with the images as they come.
I'm glad you like the pictures, I've been studying hard and practicing like a maniac.  I'm not able to drive to the grocery store without seeing a cool location or something I would like to take a picture of!  But I do think that RAW also gives me an extra notch of confidence, while I hope I wont even have to mess with it at all at least I can let my nerves cool so I can concentrate on my settings without thinking Oh my gosh what if that was the wrong white balance! and having to 'chimp' and peek at my LCD. (bad habit)  
Thanks for your concerns and it's nice to know there are people wanting to share the things they've worked hard to learn.


----------



## MichaelT (Feb 22, 2008)

Talk about chimping ... I used to do commercial work with film.  We would get all set up and load the camera with a Polaroid back.  Shoot, check the Polaroid, make a change, shoot, check the polaroid ... on and on for hours until the set was just perfect, then load the film and be done in 2 minutes.  Now THAT was expensive chimping!  But that's what it took to get it the way we wanted.  It's so much easier now.

Just to say, I chimp with the best of them, but only on the first few images, just to check the histogram and lighting.  Once I'm happy with that, then I don't look too often.


----------



## emogirl (Feb 22, 2008)

kathi...#2 ROCKS, though they are all beautiful, with some minor colour casts and that fleck of skin flake to change!  LOVELY!  

MichaelT.....jpeg's degrade as you open/close/manipulate them....i never manipulate jpeg images. RAW gives you so much more working room than a jpeg image!


----------



## ~Stella~ (Feb 22, 2008)

I think they are wonderful - no doubt the parents will be thrilled.  I know how fast those little people can move and you've done extraordinarily well capturing them in the few seconds they decide to cooperate.  The baby on the window looks a tad like a pie cooling, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Feb 22, 2008)

MichaelT - good lord yes chinping seems much easier now!  LOL

emogirl - i did change that skinflake and it is better.   I was stumped about the red face in the one with the flower til i remmebered that she had been crying a few minutes before - no wonder her eyes are so vibrant, that happens to me when my eyes water too.  By the way - you had a list of items you take with you to weddings in case of bridal emergencies and I cannot find that thread it was in, could you remind me when you get time what those were? 



Stella - that cracked me up about the pie cooling. hee hee.  Yes it does look like that.   thanks for the nice comments.


----------



## Antarctican (Feb 22, 2008)

These shots are beautiful. My faves are 2, 4 and 6. #3 looks really good in black and white too. I have no doubt the parents are going to love them.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Feb 23, 2008)

Antarctican - thanks.


----------

