Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

First RAW conversion - Be kind!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 6:47:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Looking for constructive criticism - I just did my first RAW
conversion, and would love some tips, helpful hints, positive
criticism. I used RawShooter Essentials and Photoshop 7.0.

http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44859488

The lens is a 55MM Nikon MF up close at 2.8. I couldn't get the
built-in flash to work with this MF('n) lens for some reason...any
ideas?

Regards,

Ben

More about : raw conversion kind

Anonymous
June 15, 2005 7:46:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:

> Looking for constructive criticism - I just did my first RAW
> conversion, and would love some tips, helpful hints, positive
> criticism. I used RawShooter Essentials and Photoshop 7.0.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44859488
>
> The lens is a 55MM Nikon MF up close at 2.8.

Poorly chosen plane of focus. Poorly selected f/ratio. Basically, the
entire image (or at least the parts that might be interesting) are
completely out of focus. Use of RAW conversion can not work around
basic technical errors like this.

Advice:

1) for macro work you must position the camera so it's focal plane is
parallel to the subject plane of interest.

2) after (1) is obtained, use a smaller aperture for more depth of
field.

3) get a book on basic macro technique. John Shaw's 'Closeup's in
Nature' is worth a read (see http://www.johnshawphoto.com/books.htm).
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 7:57:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

eawckye...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Poorly chosen plane of focus. Poorly selected f/ratio. Basically, the
> entire image (or at least the parts that might be interesting) are
> completely out of focus. Use of RAW conversion can not work around
> basic technical errors like this.
>
> Advice:
>
> 1) for macro work you must position the camera so it's focal plane is
> parallel to the subject plane of interest.

Gotcha. I'll give it a go tomorrow.

> 2) after (1) is obtained, use a smaller aperture for more depth of
> field.

Ya' know, even at 2.8 the RAW file seemed a little murky. I did shoot
several at lower f stops at ISO 200, 1/60 or so, and they were all but
completely dark. And as I stated in my OP, the flash wouldn't fire in
the D70S w/ this lens. It works fine, as I shot some with the lens I
bought - the 24-120 VR Nikon.

> 3) get a book on basic macro technique. John Shaw's 'Closeup's in
> Nature' is worth a read (see http://www.johnshawphoto.com/books.htm).

Thanks - I appreciate the feedback and the suggested book.

Ben
Related resources
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 9:39:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

<kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118876266.954255.243950@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> eawckye...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Poorly chosen plane of focus. Poorly selected f/ratio. Basically, the
>> entire image (or at least the parts that might be interesting) are
>> completely out of focus. Use of RAW conversion can not work around
>> basic technical errors like this.
>>
>> Advice:
>>
>> 1) for macro work you must position the camera so it's focal plane is
>> parallel to the subject plane of interest.
>
> Gotcha. I'll give it a go tomorrow.
>
>> 2) after (1) is obtained, use a smaller aperture for more depth of
>> field.
>
> Ya' know, even at 2.8 the RAW file seemed a little murky. I did shoot
> several at lower f stops at ISO 200, 1/60 or so, and they were all but
> completely dark. And as I stated in my OP, the flash wouldn't fire in
> the D70S w/ this lens. It works fine, as I shot some with the lens I
> bought - the 24-120 VR Nikon.
>
>> 3) get a book on basic macro technique. John Shaw's 'Closeup's in
>> Nature' is worth a read (see http://www.johnshawphoto.com/books.htm).
>
> Thanks - I appreciate the feedback and the suggested book.
>
> Ben

You had the same problems I did when I started. Not enough depth of field.
The closer you get the more you have to stop the lens down. And, I'm pretty
sure the flash that comes on the camera is made to work with the digital
automatic lenses so it can read the exposure and distance. I'm also working
on close-up shots with an older macro lens and a D70. You can get some
great results, but it takes a bit of planning and small apertures.
June 16, 2005 4:03:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:


>
> http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44859488
>
> The lens is a 55MM Nikon MF up close at 2.8.

You mean you shot this at f2.8? You should never attempt to shoot anything
this close wider than f11 if you expect any DOF. But the RAW conversion
look fine! :-)

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 7:53:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:VPidneKYPvu2IS3fRVn-1w@comcast.com...
>
> <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118876266.954255.243950@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > eawckye...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> Poorly chosen plane of focus. Poorly selected f/ratio. Basically, the
> >> entire image (or at least the parts that might be interesting) are
> >> completely out of focus. Use of RAW conversion can not work around
> >> basic technical errors like this.
> >>
> >> Advice:
> >>
> >> 1) for macro work you must position the camera so it's focal plane is
> >> parallel to the subject plane of interest.
> >
> > Gotcha. I'll give it a go tomorrow.
> >
> >> 2) after (1) is obtained, use a smaller aperture for more depth of
> >> field.
> >
> > Ya' know, even at 2.8 the RAW file seemed a little murky. I did shoot
> > several at lower f stops at ISO 200, 1/60 or so, and they were all but
> > completely dark. And as I stated in my OP, the flash wouldn't fire in
> > the D70S w/ this lens. It works fine, as I shot some with the lens I
> > bought - the 24-120 VR Nikon.
> >
> >> 3) get a book on basic macro technique. John Shaw's 'Closeup's in
> >> Nature' is worth a read (see http://www.johnshawphoto.com/books.htm).
> >
> > Thanks - I appreciate the feedback and the suggested book.
> >
> > Ben
>
> You had the same problems I did when I started. Not enough depth of
field.
> The closer you get the more you have to stop the lens down. And, I'm
pretty
> sure the flash that comes on the camera is made to work with the digital
> automatic lenses so it can read the exposure and distance. I'm also
working
> on close-up shots with an older macro lens and a D70. You can get some
> great results, but it takes a bit of planning and small apertures.
>

How about the actual raw conversion? When I saw all the noise I thought it
must be at iso 1600 or something...I think a lot of it could be jpeg
artifacts?
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 10:26:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44859488
> >
> > The lens is a 55MM Nikon MF up close at 2.8.
>
> You mean you shot this at f2.8? You should never attempt to shoot anything
> this close wider than f11 if you expect any DOF. But the RAW conversion
> look fine! :-)

Maybe this is user error here, but the setup is the D70S with with a
Nikon 55MM MF micro/macro/close-up/whatever-the-hell Nikon macro lenses
are called, reverse mounted directly to the camera. Two things worked
against me here:

1 - The flash would not work with this lens
2 - Anything, even in good light, higher than f/4 or 5.6 was all but
completely dark - 8 was pitch black

I hear what you are saying, and I appreciate the RAW feedback - I was
kind of scared! Anyway, any ideas on what I've got going is
appreciated.

Regards,

Ben
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 10:31:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Dirty Harry wrote:
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> news:VPidneKYPvu2IS3fRVn-1w@comcast.com...
> >
> > <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1118876266.954255.243950@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > eawckye...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> Poorly chosen plane of focus. Poorly selected f/ratio. Basically, the
> > >> entire image (or at least the parts that might be interesting) are
> > >> completely out of focus. Use of RAW conversion can not work around
> > >> basic technical errors like this.
> > >>
> > >> Advice:
> > >>
> > >> 1) for macro work you must position the camera so it's focal plane is
> > >> parallel to the subject plane of interest.
> > >
> > > Gotcha. I'll give it a go tomorrow.
> > >
> > >> 2) after (1) is obtained, use a smaller aperture for more depth of
> > >> field.
> > >
> > > Ya' know, even at 2.8 the RAW file seemed a little murky. I did shoot
> > > several at lower f stops at ISO 200, 1/60 or so, and they were all but
> > > completely dark. And as I stated in my OP, the flash wouldn't fire in
> > > the D70S w/ this lens. It works fine, as I shot some with the lens I
> > > bought - the 24-120 VR Nikon.
> > >
> > >> 3) get a book on basic macro technique. John Shaw's 'Closeup's in
> > >> Nature' is worth a read (see http://www.johnshawphoto.com/books.htm).
> > >
> > > Thanks - I appreciate the feedback and the suggested book.
> > >
> > > Ben
> >
> > You had the same problems I did when I started. Not enough depth of
> field.
> > The closer you get the more you have to stop the lens down. And, I'm
> pretty
> > sure the flash that comes on the camera is made to work with the digital
> > automatic lenses so it can read the exposure and distance. I'm also
> working
> > on close-up shots with an older macro lens and a D70. You can get some
> > great results, but it takes a bit of planning and small apertures.
> >
>
> How about the actual raw conversion? When I saw all the noise I thought it
> must be at iso 1600 or something...I think a lot of it could be jpeg
> artifacts?

I took some unadvised liberties in the workflow - it was literally my
first one, and I thought I was above reading the 72 page tutorial! I
followed along last night and had some luck with a different photo.

Ben
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 11:45:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

dadiOH wrote:
> kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> > eawckye...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> Poorly chosen plane of focus. Poorly selected f/ratio. Basically,
> >> the entire image (or at least the parts that might be interesting)
> >> are completely out of focus. Use of RAW conversion can not work
> >> around basic technical errors like this.
> >>
> >> Advice:
> >>
> >> 1) for macro work you must position the camera so it's focal plane is
> >> parallel to the subject plane of interest.
> >
> > Gotcha. I'll give it a go tomorrow.
>
> As far as DOF goes (never very far in macro:)  the best thing you can do
> is use a small flash so you can stop all the way down.
>
> Because of the proximity of the light source (flash) to the subject and
> it's large size relative to same, the flash won't look like flash...it
> will look like a large, soft source. Which it is in this case. It is
> common in macro to use 2-3 flashes or more...one as a top light, another
> as a "fill", another for the background.

I would LOVE to use a flash, or two or three. However, with the D70S
and the 55MM Nikon MF lens I am using, the flash will not fire. Any
suggestions? Settings I am missing?
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 12:13:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Why aren't you using film?

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> Looking for constructive criticism - I just did my first RAW
> conversion, and would love some tips, helpful hints, positive
> criticism. I used RawShooter Essentials and Photoshop 7.0.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44859488
>
> The lens is a 55MM Nikon MF up close at 2.8. I couldn't get the
> built-in flash to work with this MF('n) lens for some reason...any
> ideas?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ben
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 12:37:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44859488
> >
> > The lens is a 55MM Nikon MF up close at 2.8.
>
> You mean you shot this at f2.8? You should never attempt to shoot anything
> this close wider than f11 if you expect any DOF. But the RAW conversion
> look fine! :-)

Here's another one I did this morning - I'm giving this spider quite
the ego. At any rate, I got a better picture in terms of focus/DOF,
however I am a little upset with all of the noise. I did a gaussian
blur in the a and b channels, because it was worse, if you can believe
that. I bracketed them manually (only option), and I don't really
remember what f-stop this one was...probably 5.6 or 4.

http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44887993/orig...

Regards,

Ben
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 1:04:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Mr. Mark wrote:
> > > 1) for macro work you must position the camera so it's focal plane is
> > > parallel to the subject plane of interest.
> >
> > Gotcha. I'll give it a go tomorrow.
>
> Take the focus advice with a grain of salt - things don't have to be focused
> to be interesting. From where I sit what makes this shot interesting is the
> plain of focus fading fast from the top right to the bottom left of the
> image. That coupled with the motion blur of the web strand on the bottom
> right makes this an unusual shot.
>
> I think you /should/ learn to get focus through out the photo but mostly so
> that you can break the rules /on purpose/ next time. ;) 
>
> Can't comment on the raw conversion as I've never done one.

Thanks, Mark - I really liked the shot as well, but I completely
understood his advice. I like the legs, in particular - they almost
look like chlorphyl reflecting off of translucent blades of grass.

Ben
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 5:31:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> eawckye...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Poorly chosen plane of focus. Poorly selected f/ratio. Basically,
>> the entire image (or at least the parts that might be interesting)
>> are completely out of focus. Use of RAW conversion can not work
>> around basic technical errors like this.
>>
>> Advice:
>>
>> 1) for macro work you must position the camera so it's focal plane is
>> parallel to the subject plane of interest.
>
> Gotcha. I'll give it a go tomorrow.

As far as DOF goes (never very far in macro:)  the best thing you can do
is use a small flash so you can stop all the way down.

Because of the proximity of the light source (flash) to the subject and
it's large size relative to same, the flash won't look like flash...it
will look like a large, soft source. Which it is in this case. It is
common in macro to use 2-3 flashes or more...one as a top light, another
as a "fill", another for the background.

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 7:44:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

> > 1) for macro work you must position the camera so it's focal plane is
> > parallel to the subject plane of interest.
>
> Gotcha. I'll give it a go tomorrow.

Take the focus advice with a grain of salt - things don't have to be focused
to be interesting. From where I sit what makes this shot interesting is the
plain of focus fading fast from the top right to the bottom left of the
image. That coupled with the motion blur of the web strand on the bottom
right makes this an unusual shot.

I think you /should/ learn to get focus through out the photo but mostly so
that you can break the rules /on purpose/ next time. ;) 

Can't comment on the raw conversion as I've never done one.

Cheers,

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 9:31:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> dadiOH wrote:
>> Because of the proximity of the light source (flash) to the subject
>> and it's large size relative to same, the flash won't look like
>> flash...it will look like a large, soft source. Which it is in this
>> case. It is common in macro to use 2-3 flashes or more...one as a
>> top light, another as a "fill", another for the background.
>
> I would LOVE to use a flash, or two or three. However, with the D70S
> and the 55MM Nikon MF lens I am using, the flash will not fire. Any
> suggestions? Settings I am missing?

Not really, don't know the camera. Does it have a sync cord jack
(usually compur type) on the camera body? The norm is to plug cord from
flash into jack, select an appropriate shutter speed and push the
button. Lens used shouldn't matter (unless it were to have an internal
leaf shutter) as the lenses are independant of the shutter (and sync) on
35mm type cameras.


--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 9:40:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

dadiOH wrote:
> kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
>> dadiOH wrote:
>>> Because of the proximity of the light source (flash) to the subject
>>> and it's large size relative to same, the flash won't look like
>>> flash...it will look like a large, soft source. Which it is in this
>>> case. It is common in macro to use 2-3 flashes or more...one as a
>>> top light, another as a "fill", another for the background.
>>
>> I would LOVE to use a flash, or two or three. However, with the D70S
>> and the 55MM Nikon MF lens I am using, the flash will not fire. Any
>> suggestions? Settings I am missing?
>
> Not really, don't know the camera. Does it have a sync cord jack
> (usually compur type) on the camera body?

Apparently not. How wierd and, umm, inconvenient...

"Using a cord in the studio is always a pain and I know someone is going
to trip on it and smash the camera to the ground. Thus I don't care that
there's no PC terminal on the camera. If you do care, no big deal: the
Nikon AS-15 coupler costs $19 and slips in the hot shoe to give you a PC
terminal."
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70flash.htm#flash
--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 10:39:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

UC wrote:

> Why aren't you using film?

I'm just an ant marching in the technological procession.
June 17, 2005 6:43:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> At any rate, I got a better picture in terms of focus/DOF,
> however I am a little upset with all of the noise.

Underexposed is my guess. What did the histogram at no exposure compensation
look like? You're probably going to have to use manual exposure with this
combo you are trying.

Here's an example of the detail of a $5 bill I shot as a test with an
olympus 80mm macro lens on a bellows, no flash at F11.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/full5.jpg

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 1:52:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:

>I would LOVE to use a flash, or two or three. However, with the D70S
>and the 55MM Nikon MF lens I am using, the flash will not fire. Any
>suggestions? Settings I am missing?

Check the manual for custom setting 19. You must change this from
TTL to Manual for the camera to fire in M with a non-CPU lens.

You can get slave flashes that will fire off the main one on
the camera too, for easier setup. Also try using some mirrors
to increase the lighting in sunlight.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 6:03:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

<kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote
> Mr. Mark wrote:
> > > > 1) for macro work you must position the camera so it's focal plane
is
> > > > parallel to the subject plane of interest.
> > >
> > > Gotcha. I'll give it a go tomorrow.
> >
> > Take the focus advice with a grain of salt - things don't have to be
focused
> > to be interesting. From where I sit what makes this shot interesting is
the
> > plain of focus fading fast from the top right to the bottom left of the
> > image. That coupled with the motion blur of the web strand on the
bottom
> > right makes this an unusual shot.
> >
> > I think you /should/ learn to get focus through out the photo but mostly
so
> > that you can break the rules /on purpose/ next time. ;) 
> >
>
> Thanks, Mark - I really liked the shot as well, but I completely
> understood his advice. I like the legs, in particular - they almost
> look like chlorphyl reflecting off of translucent blades of grass.

Yeah, the advice was good and I didn't intend to diminish it's value. What
happened to me this year was that my girlfriend and I started shooting
together. I'm the consummate technologist (software engineer type) and this
translates to my photography. She's the exact opposite. Seeing the photos
she ends up with is teaching me to let loose a bit. Blurry, improperly
exposed, amazing composition, and almost always more interesting to me than
the way I saw the same subject. :) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 4:41:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

In message <jJ6se.1706467$6l.281699@pd7tw2no>,
"Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote:

>How about the actual raw conversion? When I saw all the noise I thought it
>must be at iso 1600 or something...I think a lot of it could be jpeg
>artifacts?

Noise comes mainly from exposure level; not ISO per se. In fact, at the
same absolute exposure level, lower ISOs tend to be noisier, as the
noise is more posterized and therefore, more contrasty.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!