Tonights sunset...

jimharri said:
Stunning. Where's that?
Click to expand...
Navarre beach in FL, a couple of minutes after sunset last night.

Handheld at f.63, 1/60th, ISO2500. I shot it in RAW, and it's been through Lightroom for basic adjustments (a minor tweak in exposure, shadows & highlights, black & white points, and a tiny tweak in saturation), and a little bit of de-noise. Apart from the de-noise, it's not far off the the camera's (Sony A7) neutral colour profile.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Navarre beach in FL, a couple of minutes after sunset last night.

Handheld at f.63, 1/60th, ISO2500. I shot it in RAW, and it's been through Lightroom for basic adjustments (a minor tweak in exposure, shadows & highlights, black & white points, and a tiny tweak in saturation), and a little bit of de-noise. Apart from the de-noise, it's not far off the the camera's (Sony A7) neutral colour profile.
Click to expand...
You lost me after "last night".

:-(
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
He just said he cheated.
Click to expand...
Nope.

I processed a RAW file. No different to having a jpeg profile set in camera, which is something iPhone and Andriod camera's do automatically. I removed a few tiny lens dust spots, but apart from that is as it would have been straight out of camera as a jpeg.

It's not really any different to processing a print from a negative. Some of the most famous analogue images were heavily dodged and burned, and had the contrast adjusted. Dust spots were removed using pigment and a paintbrush (I've done it myself when I used wet film).

Was that cheating?

This is one of the more famous examples of such.

1728868450666.jpeg

Here's a straight copy of the RAW file (in jpeg format so I can post it on here) in its original 6000x4000 size. The finished image is in 16:9 crop.


Sunset RAW copy-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Nope.

I processed a RAW file. No different to having a jpeg profile set in camera, which is something iPhone and Andriod camera's do automatically. I removed a few tiny lens dust spots, but apart from that is as it would have been straight out of camera as a jpeg.

It's not really any different to processing a print from a negative. Some of the most famous analogue images were heavily dodged and burned, and had the contrast adjusted. Dust spots were removed using pigment and a paintbrush (I've done it myself when I used wet film).

Was that cheating?

This is one of the more famous examples of such.

View attachment 134893

Here's a straight copy of the RAW file (in jpeg format so I can post it on here) in its original 6000x4000 size. The finished image is in 16:9 crop.


View attachment 134894
Click to expand...
I point and click.
It’s a lovely pic even if you did draw it yourself.
Keep em coming.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
I point and click.
It’s a lovely pic even if you did draw it yourself.
Keep em coming.
Click to expand...
I point and click also if I'm using my phone or my compact zoom, but if I'm using my mirrorless camera I shoot RAW files.

A RAW file is essentially a digital version of a wet film negative with all the information on it. Compact camera sensors capture the same data, but the camera processes the data, depending on what you have selected on the camera (consider it like an Instagram filter). It then it compresses the data into jpeg format, and essentially throws the unwanted data away before saving the file.

Even in the old days when you took your films to Supersnaps, they altered your images without you even knowing, applying colour correction, contrast and exposure compensation (within the latitude of the film).

This image is a straight jpeg from my phone (Android) that I took last night. It's done a fairly crap job of recreating what I saw with my own eyes in terms of colour and saturation, and certainly in contrast and brightness, but that's more down to the dynamic range of the sensor. It's also got some halo effects in the sky that definitely were't there in reality

20241013_184445.jpg

This is a flat RAW image from my A7 (jpeg rendered so I can post as the actual RAW file is around 26MB). The dust spots are more prominent on this one.

untitled-1-2. Low Res (1mb)-2.jpg

All I do when I process RAW files is try and make it look how I saw the scene with my own eyes.

processed-1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top