RAW photo files

[brett8883]

I'm all for shooting in RAW, it's all I use.
It's just that in this particular example the adjustments made have introduced a lot of noise and artefacts that are just unnecessary.
RAW gives the user full power to edit the image with ALL the available information in the captured image.
It's just that I'm seeing the wrong type of editing on this example.
Take a look at the side by side comparison and how much noise has been introduced for the sake of adding a little contrast.
There are better ways of handling RAW files.



View attachment 64704

So right there is not "noise" in the way you mean, that's fractal output sharpening. Its dynamic sharping based on the size of the screen or print and how far away the viewer will be from the image when viewing. If you go back to my original processed image, make it full screen and then step back so you are 3-4 feet from the screen you see the image comes into focus and the noise is indistinguishable, it makes it sharper than if it wasn't there and isn't meant to be viewed up close like that. Here's the new one and I've done just traditional sharpening.

 

[brett8883]

And that image isn't the one I actually used from this shoot it was this

 

[Wakamula]

Brett you don’t have to defend your image. That’s not what this thread is about. Your original post made the point perfectly.

 

[Thomas B]

Good review guys. I use RAW to allow production that looks good on my 80” plasma. I use images in a screensaver.

 

[CJH92474]

ok I have uploaded a folder of all DNG(RAW files) to google drive and anyone can access them here. You can download play with them and use them however you'd like but please don't take credit for them. If you post them please give me, Brett Burkhart, the credit for being the photographer
DNG folder Google drive

Wow! Nice shots brother!

 

[Bigbird48]

is there a free or cheap program that can process raw. I'm not a pro and just take pictures for fun but would like some of my shots to look better.

 

[brett8883]

Brett you don’t have to defend your image. That’s not what this thread is about. Your original post made the point perfectly.

Thanks! Haha I did have self conscious moment moment there for a sec so I appreciate it!

 

[Treeofliberty]

Raw is always more work than JPEG, but always more data and freedom of movement. I shoot all my cameras in RAW and sometimes RAW+JPEG if I want a quick image in the interim. I've even found a couple of camera apps for my phone that shoot in RAW. So much more image to pull from the shadows and recover from the sky. So much better gradient filtering and touch ups. And when I'm lazy, a quick click of the "Auto" filter in Lightroom makes the basic editing simple.

Here is the other thing. I always store Raw now too. Used to do the editing, generate the JPEGs, and store them. Then I discovered that software always improves, and you can go back and pull more from old Raw photos, making old pictures even better. Never throw away pixel data.

 

[Johnmcl7]

Raw is always more work than JPEG, but always more data and freedom of movement. I shoot all my cameras in RAW and sometimes RAW+JPEG if I want a quick image in the interim. I've even found a couple of camera apps for my phone that shoot in RAW. So much more image to pull from the shadows and recover from the sky. So much better gradient filtering and touch ups. And when I'm lazy, a quick click of the "Auto" filter in Lightroom makes the basic editing simple.

I resisted raw for a while for the convenience of jpegs but when I bought a FF camera that didn't have a great jpeg engine I finally sat down and started working with raw files. It takes a little time to get into it but once you do it doesn't take long to work on the files and you appreciate how much more you can bring out of the files.

Here is the other thing. I always store Raw now too. Used to do the editing, generate the JPEGs, and store them. Then I discovered that software always improves, and you can go back and pull more from old Raw photos, making old pictures even better. Never throw away pixel data.

Agreed and also you may want to come back to an older photo and process it in a different way, the raw files give you that choice to produce a very different image.

 

[The Flashman]

Hello,
i'm searching for RAW photo files, I want to buy an M2P myself but I am curious about the RAW photos
Can anyone help me?
Regards Dion

Bill (The Flashman) Here: NOT just sure what your question is about Raw files, BUT IF?? this can help, I recently purchased the Mavic 2 Pro and as well the Smart controller, and LOVE BOTH!!!!!

I use them both to video and photograph waterfalls here where I live in Western North Carolina.

There is an option inside of the controller once you get connected to select either or both Raw or JPEG.

I myself select both, so I can review with the jpegs first then once I decide which image I like I select the DNG/Raw file for editing.

With DJI the raw files are referred to as DNG files and that is what you will see when accessing them for editing.

NOT sure if this helps answering your question, but if there is anything else I can help with just drop it in here.

Bill

 

[Meta4]

is there a free or cheap program that can process raw. I'm not a pro and just take pictures for fun but would like some of my shots to look better.

Playing with raw images is OK but don't feel that you have to shoot raw images to get better looking photos.
You can also process jpg images and get very nice results.

 

[Northern_Bob]

Playing with raw images is OK but don't feel that you have to shoot raw images to get better looking photos.
You can also process jpg images and get very nice results.

That is true in most cases, it’s just that RAW images have more latitude to push/pull tonal values around before the image shows degradation.

NB

 

[53-63-6f-74-74]

is there a free or cheap program that can process raw. I'm not a pro and just take pictures for fun but would like some of my shots to look better.

RawTherapee is open-source (aka free) and excellent for processing RAW/DNG images. Affinity Photo is not free, but very inexpensive (about 55.00), and has many advanced functions similar to PhotoShop.

 

[sar104]

RawTherapee is open-source (aka free) and excellent for processing RAW/DNG images. Affinity Photo is not free, but very inexpensive (about 55.00), and has many advanced functions similar to PhotoShop.

For initial RAW processing I prefer DXO PhotoLab 2. Affinity is excellent for subsequent work though. And in my opinion, Topaz Studio's sharpening algorithms currently beat anything else that I've found so far.

 

[Meta4]

That is true in most cases, it’s just that RAW images have more latitude to push/pull tonal values around before the image shows degradation.

I'm well aware of that.
I'm also aware that people without experience in photography and image processing can get the idea that they must shoot raw if they want to get good results when that simply isn't the case.
You can get excellent results from jpg images and you can post-process jpg images.
I know I'm swimming against the current with this but jpg is probably all most drone flyers need, most of the time.

And if anyone wants to tell me that's not true, all of the images in this gallery were shot in jpg only: Shipping Photography Examples - Above & Beyond Photography

 

[sar104]

I'm well aware of that.
I'm also aware that people without experience in photography and image processing can get the idea that they must shoot raw if they want to get good results when that simply isn't the case.
You can get excellent results from jpg images and you can post-process jpg images.
I know I'm swimming against the current with this but jpg is probably all most drone flyers need, most of the time.

And if anyone wants to tell me that's not true, all of the images in this gallery were shot in jpg only: Shipping Photography Examples - Above & Beyond Photography

You are completely correct that JPEG is often fine - most notably when the dynamic range of the scene is sufficiently limited to be captured in an 8-bit image mode. Well-lit outdoor scenes often satisfy that criterion.

 

[brett8883]

I'm well aware of that.
I'm also aware that people without experience in photography and image processing can get the idea that they must shoot raw if they want to get good results when that simply isn't the case.
You can get excellent results from jpg images and you can post-process jpg images.
I know I'm swimming against the current with this but jpg is probably all most drone flyers need, most of the time.

And if anyone wants to tell me that's not true, all of the images in this gallery were shot in jpg only: Shipping Photography Examples - Above & Beyond Photography

If you intend to post-process might as well shoot in RAW. It’s much easier to process a RAW then a JPEG though the steps are basically the same. If you don’t intend to post process then sure JPEG is fine I guess but Mavic creates a DNG raw file.

DNG is a special type of RAW file. It was developed by Adobe to make RAW files easier to work with and more accessible to a wider audience. A DNG file contains a full resolution JPEG preview and when you edit the RAW file contained in the DNG it will update the JPEG preview. This effectively gives you the best of both worlds.

Also since a JPEG is a raster file any time you edit a JPEG you do so in a distructive manner meaning that onecr it’s done there’s no way to undo. When you edit a DNG you you do so non-dustructivly meaning you can always hit the “reset button” and undo changes.

It doesn’t make any sense if you plan to post process to shot in JPEG. The only reasons you’d shoot in JPEG is because you know you aren’t going to post process and know you never will, or because you are short on storage space and JPEG takes up a fraction of space than a DNG.

A reason to shoot in JPEG and RAW would be because you can download JPEGs directly from the aircraft and on to your phone/device which you can’t do with the DNGs.

If you download your images to an Apple computer or phone then your choice is easy. Shoot in DNG(raw). When you import photos into the Mac Photos app it converts the images to DNGs anyway. Might as well get the higher quality DNG produced by the AC.

 

[Meta4]

It doesn’t make any sense if you plan to post process to shot in JPEG. The only reasons you’d shoot in JPEG is because you know you aren’t going to post process and know you never will, or because you are short on storage space and JPEG takes up a fraction of space than a DNG.

So you didn't look at the images in the link in post #35?

Might as well get the higher quality DNG produced by the AC.

Have a look at those images and tell me how much higher the image quality could have been.

 

[brett8883]

So you didn't look at the images in the link in post #35?

Have a look at those images and tell me how much higher the image quality could have been.

They are great photos I’m not saying otherwise. In fact if you able to take perfect pictures every time then you don’t need to post process at all.

I’m not even saying you can’t edit JPEGs and make them look great. I’m just not sure why you’d WANT to. The amount of information recordered in a RAW file is many many times higher than a JPEG. That’s not debatable. Information about the scene, the lighting, the gamma, tonal width, and the color depth is precious in post. If you know how to edit a JPEG you know how to edit a raw and it will be much easier.

If at any point you got the impression I said you can’t take good pictures using JPEG I’m sorry, never meant that and I don’t believe I said that.

 

[Meta4]

If at any point you got the impression I said you can’t take good pictures using JPEG I’m sorry, never meant that and I don’t believe I said that.

That's the impression that many new to photography get from forums.
They feel that they must shoot raw to get good images but it's just not correct.
I would suspect that the number of flyers that would get any benefit out of shooting raw is <10%.