Definitely - very nice.clgsamson:
color correction- raw vs. filter vs. manual white balance
- Thread starter CLA
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
RichKirby
Contributor
Picassa seems to work better than most other programs using the auto fix, even for u/w images. At least that's been my experience.
I use Auto, since it's only a relative setting anyway. Typically, with a strobe, and being close to the subject, I find color temps between 4800K and 5300K works well... Play aroundCLA:
If you want to experiment check out these...
here's a photo that I shot in RAW+JPEG so there's 2 images that were written from the same "click" of the camera.
JPEG Version
RAW version
It's not a great shot, but it's good for experimentation purposes. You will need the Nikon .NEF File plug-in for RAW imager.
stillhope
Contributor
The argument to not use a filter because it reduces the amount of light through the lens sounds convincing, but I have heard a convincing argument to the contrary also. What do you think of this?
By reducing the total amount of light using an appropriate filter, one compensates by opening up the aperture, decreasing shutter speed, adding more light or whatever. Any of these coping strategies results in more red energy striking the photosensors, reducing the grain of the red.
If you're seeing more grain than you would expect because the ambient light seems like it ought to be enough to make noise-free pictures, maybe there is plenty of blue and green energy, but the red signal from the chips is noisy because the red level is so low. This cannot be fixed by color correcting software. In this case, reducing the ample blue and green energy won't noticably increase the grain, but increasing the red energy by using a filter and opening up the aperture will reduce the red grain. This is a case in which decreasing the total light going through the lens actually is a good thing.
Obviously, if in your situation you can't afford to reduce your depth of field any or reduce your shutter speed, then this won't work. But in many cases it will actually provide a cleaner signal, something that noise reduction software can only poorly approximate.
By reducing the total amount of light using an appropriate filter, one compensates by opening up the aperture, decreasing shutter speed, adding more light or whatever. Any of these coping strategies results in more red energy striking the photosensors, reducing the grain of the red.
If you're seeing more grain than you would expect because the ambient light seems like it ought to be enough to make noise-free pictures, maybe there is plenty of blue and green energy, but the red signal from the chips is noisy because the red level is so low. This cannot be fixed by color correcting software. In this case, reducing the ample blue and green energy won't noticably increase the grain, but increasing the red energy by using a filter and opening up the aperture will reduce the red grain. This is a case in which decreasing the total light going through the lens actually is a good thing.
Obviously, if in your situation you can't afford to reduce your depth of field any or reduce your shutter speed, then this won't work. But in many cases it will actually provide a cleaner signal, something that noise reduction software can only poorly approximate.
CLA:
RAW means it won't make much of a difference. Here's a quickie explanation: http://www.scubaboard.com/showpost.php?p=2247857&postcount=7
On filters, they have their uses, even when you are shooting RAW. Learn to use RAW first, then add filters, imho.
alcina:
When shooting RAW, it won't make ANY difference. The only difference it makes is what the RAW editor (ACR, Bibble, RawEssentials, whatever) defaults to for that image when editing.
I'm lurking, not yet an underwater photographer, but shoot a lot topside. I can say that topside there are definitely still advantages to using filters when shooting RAW. Nothing like getting the image you want hitting the sensor instead of relying on post-processing ad nauseum. Of course, topside, you can throw the camera on a tripod.
CLA - I'm curious about the grain you're noticing. I'd be interested in looking at the EXIF data for your images. PM me if you're still interested in exploring this, and I'll send you my email to send the originals to.
Jim
GoBlue!:... The only difference it makes is what the RAW editor (ACR, Bibble, RawEssentials, whatever) defaults to for that image when editing.
... I can say that topside there are definitely still advantages to using filters when shooting RAW. Nothing like getting the image you want hitting the sensor instead of relying on post-processing ad nauseum. Of course, topside, you can throw the camera on a tripod.
Jim
I would (and do) have my RAW defaults set to -- just read the photo "as shot" and make my own adjustments -- and I don't let the software I'm using make any decisions.
Filters topside such as a Circular Polarize filter - change the light and create images that can't be re-created with software. Either your image is polarized or not. You can't add polarize with photoshop. As you said - You will lose stops, and generally when I shoot with a polarize filter, I use a tripod, which is obviously hard to use underwater.
So yes, I agree that topside, filters are good photographer's tools, but for underwater, you can easily add the red which is missing at depths with post production tools. Using a red filter on still photographs with strobes and RAW IMO is not beneficial. I'm sure you'll find - as you begin to shoot photos underwater - that there is always some post production required. After doing it for a few weeks, I'm down to about 1-3 minutes per photo of post (including the conversion from RAW to JPEG for posting)
As I've said, I do see the benefit of red filters with video cameras (without lights) and/or still cameras without strobes in bright good viz conditions.
stillhope
Contributor
Gee, my notion is still that a filter can be used in some cases to increase the signal to noise ratio of whatever the weakest color is (e.g. red) but maybe I have a mistaken notion of what goes on inside a digital camera. Before I flog this subject more, please can someone tell me:
Is the aperture optical or a process applied to the RAW signal?
Is the shutter speed a sampling parameter that operates before RAW recording or after?
thanks,
Is the aperture optical or a process applied to the RAW signal?
Is the shutter speed a sampling parameter that operates before RAW recording or after?
thanks,
Similar threads
