It's surely better to realize such problems, so we ought to look at the pictures we actually take. Bad because for example, maybe you are always underexposing a stop or two, but you never see or know it, if the Auto Raw stuff always corrects for you first. You can, but it seems bad because then you will lose sight of the pictures you are actually taking. Which is maybe not the best idea for these to always be automatic default in Raw. Seems better to actually see the image first though, but if in Raw, it can always be backed out later.Īnd the Raw software has a Auto White Balance settings, and even Auto Exposure (Adobe ACR CTRL U, or a Preference menu), same as the camera does Auto. You could even save those settings as the default in Raw, to be automatically applied to all images, same as the camera does it. In Raw, you can simply do the same settings later, at home, at your leisure, after you can see the result, and see what it needs. You probably made most of those camera settings several months ago, they were not even about THIS scene anyway (so it might be good to get rid of them anyway). But you can see it now, so you probably fine tune it closer than that coarse try. If you want Incandescent White Balance, you simply set it now, it does not matter what the camera did (the camera did even not do it to Raw). Otherwise all camera settings are ignored in Raw, but if desired, similar settings are available in the Raw software, so you simply make the settings there, after you see what you've got, what it needs, and if you like it. The camera exposure settings are already done, and Adobe Raw does pick up the White Balance setting from the camera, and these can be used as a starting point (the camera rear LCD shows that White Balance too). You get to see it first, before having to decide what it needs. But that is unimportant, contradictory even, Raw is Raw, what the camera sensor saw, and includes none of those settings. Nikon software sees it, Adobe does not, because I think Nikon considers our image data is its proprietary data. It is true that any settings you make in the camera, like Saturation or Contrast or Sharpening, etc, are ignored, are not implemented in the Raw file. Or, if desired, you can also intentionally add vignetting, next tool tab over. You do have to consider, maybe you are missing out big time. And it is so easy too, it goes extremely fast, during your first inspection of the images, which you have to do anyway. the point is that you CAN FIX IT NOW! The camera is not going to help, human help is necessary. You just see and judge the result immediately, and tweak it if it needs it. Edit is not a scary word, this is totally easy. This is all so easy with the right tools. I decided the black sky and white stars ought to be neutral, so I just lined up the three channels in the histogram. White balance was tough here, there is orange incandescent coming up from the ground in the distance onto thin wispy clouds. I am usually on the first Basic tab, which is absolutely essential - White Balance and Exposure are the most important to get right. Raw has Auto modes for WB and exposure, etc, if you cannot be bothered, but there seems less point then, the camera can do that much. Most lenses have some vignetting and distortion, especially wide lenses. Adobe ACR has a big list of specific lens profiles, seems like all of them, and it already knows what each lens needs in this regard (and you can add others). The correction is made from a stored profile of this specific lens design, what this lens needs at this focal length and aperture. The editing effort here consisted of simply clicking the Enable checkbox at right, no big deal (This feature is not in Elements). The stars around the corners and edges are also moved a bit to correct distortion. Notice the top corners are made full bright again. The picture on top is from the camera (out of the lens), and the copy below it simply also applied Adobes default Vignetting and Distortion controls for this specific lens model, from its profile data base (lens was selected automatically from the Exif). Distortion is present too, but maybe not apparent here (because there are no straight lines to show it), but you know about distortion. This is simply what wide lenses do, and FX is wider and worse. Vignetting in first picture is very apparent (in the top corners, bottom is cropped off). This picture was with Nikon D800, 14-24 mm lens, f/2.8 and 14 mm at ISO 4000 and 15 seconds.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |