# Bad Reason to Shoot Raw, but Impressive



## Ysarex (Nov 27, 2014)

First, Happy Thanksgiving. The kids are up in Wisconsin so it's just my wife and me and the dishes are soaking in the sink (my job).

So I figured I'd see if anything was going on out on the Internet.

Here's an interesting one: One of my students brought me this photo last week. Seems a buck had wandered into the yard early evening and he didn't have time to do anything except grab the camera, turn it on and shoot. Buck took off. The camera is an older Nikon D300.







Needless to say the camera wasn't set up right and that's the camera JPEG -- a solid 5 stops underexposed. He told me he did have an NEF and was curious what if anything could be done. So I told him to email me the NEF.

So, not a good reason to save that raw but he's happy he did and I'm impressed with that antique D300.

Joe


----------



## Forkie (Nov 27, 2014)

That's pretty impressive!  I still have my D300s and still use it!  I must admit, I might not have kept that original either!


----------



## Llamapants (Nov 27, 2014)

That is amazing, makes me wonder if some of my oppsies could have been saved...


----------



## Buckster (Nov 28, 2014)

I'm trying to figure out how this shows it's a bad reason to shoot RAW, and why it was not a good reason to save that RAW.

Seems to me that this shows exactly the opposite.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 28, 2014)

Buckster said:


> I'm trying to figure out how this shows it's a bad reason to shoot RAW, and why it was not a good reason to save that RAW.
> 
> Seems to me that this shows exactly the opposite.



Because you shouldn't save raw files just in case you need to pull one out of the fire -- that's all.

Joe


----------



## Buckster (Nov 28, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > I'm trying to figure out how this shows it's a bad reason to shoot RAW, and why it was not a good reason to save that RAW.
> ...


Why not?


----------



## bratkinson (Nov 29, 2014)

In the 12 years or so I've been shooting digital, I've had a handful of times that I had to  'push process' woefully underexposed pictures to get at least an 'acceptable' result.  Shots like the only picture taken of 90 year old Aunt Millie at the family reunion were one of those times when I had to work with what I got.  I also rescued a point-and-shooter friend of mine whose childs' birthday party was underexposed in many of the shots.

After learning about RAW files 3 years ago, my saving RAW files in addition to the JPGs has made my rescue processes give surprisingly better results.  These days, I do all my editing from the RAW and use the JPGs only to make 'first pass' keep/no keep decisions.


----------



## Andrew Houghton (Nov 29, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> First, Happy Thanksgiving. The kids are up in Wisconsin so it's just my wife and me and the dishes are soaking in the sink (my job).
> 
> So I figured I'd see if anything was going on out on the Internet.
> 
> ...


A jpeg is 8bits, a 14bit raw is 8x2x2x2x2x2x2 or 6ev...he lost nothing being 5ev under exposed


----------



## annamaria (Nov 29, 2014)

Glad you were able to rescue the photo.  Amazing to see a buck right in the yard!


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Nov 29, 2014)

You will not be saying that with one of those horns up you keister while you are mowing the grass 

John.



annamaria said:


> Glad you were able to rescue the photo.  Amazing to see a buck right in the yard!


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 29, 2014)

Andrew Houghton said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > First, Happy Thanksgiving. The kids are up in Wisconsin so it's just my wife and me and the dishes are soaking in the sink (my job).
> ...



No, he lost most of the data his camera sensor could have recorded.

It is inappropriate to compare the 8 bits per channel data space in an RGB JPEG with the bit depth of an ADC, and that old Nikon D300 is not equipped with a 14 bit ADC -- probably 10 bit.

Joe


----------



## annamaria (Nov 29, 2014)

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> You will not be saying that with one of those horns up you keister while you are mowing the grass
> 
> John.
> 
> ...



You're so funny, but yea I get it!


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 29, 2014)

Buckster said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


I dunno Joe's reasoning, but for me, (while I may often employ this tactic), RAW should not be used as a crutch for poor photography and you should not be lazy and sloppy with your exposures knowing you can pull them out in post. (Or maybe, Joe just doesn't want everybody to send him their poorly exposed files for his recovery operations.)

Gary

PS- Good job on the processing. I guess the buck stops with you.
G


----------



## Buckster (Nov 29, 2014)

It seems quite a leap to me to think that anybody says to themselves, "Gee, I'll shoot RAW so that I don't have to pay attention to exposure at all ever again!  YAY!!"


----------



## JustJazzie (Nov 29, 2014)

I am curious how these get recovered. In aperture I am limited to two stops. Is there a tutorial?


----------



## Trever1t (Nov 29, 2014)

I've pulled plenty an image but that is extreme. Please do share your basic method. You managed to keep it looking real.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 29, 2014)

Gary A. said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Basically yes. I think it also occurred to me to phrase it that way because I spend too much time on these internet photo forums and when ever the raw versus JPEG topic comes up someone usually throws out the cheap shot; "I don't need to shoot raw to cover over my mistakes. I get it right SOOC." And that really drives me nuts. 

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 29, 2014)

Trever1t said:


> I've pulled plenty an image but that is extreme. Please do share your basic method. You managed to keep it looking real.





JustJazzie said:


> I am curious how these get recovered. In aperture I am limited to two stops. Is there a tutorial?



Adobe (ACR/LR) does provide a 5 stop exposure adjustment and actually does a very good job with this photo. But because of the noise I also looked at both PhotoNinja and DxO as options. DxO touts their new "prime" noise filtering as state-of-the-art but for this image I wasn't sold and I settled on PhotoNinja (includes a 3 stop exposure adjustment) but also includes NoiseNinja which I think edged out ACR/LR but only by a hair -- color noise processing was better with NoiseNinja and although the Luminance noise was splotchier than ACR/LR I thought NoiseNinja made a better compromise detail/noise overall.

So with PhotoNinja's 3 stop exposure adjustment I had to raise the brightness further and white balance the photo -- otherwise it's the noise processing. When I prepared the screen res version to post here I only sharpened to buck and less than normally because of the noise.

Joe


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 29, 2014)

There's a huge difference between, "I shoot raw so I don't have to worry about exposing images correctly" and "I shoot raw, in part, because life comes at me fast and I may not have my camera set up correctly for the shot that presents itself so fast and fleetingly I won't have time to change settings on the camera."


----------



## Derrel (Nov 29, 2014)

You know the old saying: 

"RAW? Did you day RAW? Why, them's* fightin' letters*!! Grrrr!"


----------

