Exposing for RAW?

There is an interesting article in 2007 November issue of Digital Photo Pro magazine (which I frequently enjoy) about exposing for RAW. It brings up an unknown to many (including myself) issue of using camera LCD preview and histogram as means of correcting exposure WHILE shooting RAW. What's the problem, one might ask?

Assuming the author is correct (as I have no way of checking that out, but have no reason to believe otherwise), the histogram and LCD preview on ALL digital cameras are based on processed JPEG file, EVEN if you only shoot RAW. This means that one is looking at a (vastly) different data that RAW records. In extreme cases, your RAW will horribly disappoint later on. You may get to thinking: what did I do wrong? everything looked great on the histogram?

One: keep above in mind in such situations

Two: try to adjust your camera JPEG settings to see if you can get preview match RAW more closely (useless if you shoot JPEG also and unlikely to give you exact match)

Three: learn correct exposure techniques so you rely on the technique rather than the preview/histogram

The mentioned article (titled: Exposing for RAW by Andrew Rodney) is about a so called ETTR technique, that's Expose To The Right, or expose for highlights and develop for such. Film shooters may remember the EFSDFH (expose for shadows develop for highlights), which in most cases gave us the most printable negative. However, the bottom line is only one:

expose to ensure detail where it counts most, yet don't lose the highlights (unless this is your wish, of course)

I can't copy the whole article here (obviously), but I do recommend reading it. It might just fix some of your shooting techniques. The whole article is available HERE. You can even print it.

Digital Photo Pro is a bimonthly magazine targeting the digital photographer. It is (in my opinion) a high quality publication, although somewhat uneven issue to issue. It goes at newsstand for $5.99 and can be subscribed to for much less.

More options from Picasa

This image had a "graduated filter" applied, followed by "filtered B&W" and cropped. I'm working on a set of effects for Picasa feature comparison.

Another photo adjusted in Picasa

This photo has been adjusted in Picasa using "focal B&W" and several levels of "sharpenning". Adjustments can be "stacked" or effects are cumulative. Some will get cancelled out, for example if you use "focused B&W" and other B&W modes, the first one will loose color.

JPEG replacement announced (kind of old news)

Well, here we go: a replacement format for the venerable JPEG has been announced last year, but may not get implemented until 2009. It's called (for now anyways) JPEG XR and is based on Microsoft's Windows Media Format also referred to as HD Photo.

JPEG XR was apparently chosen on Microsoft's promise to deliver the technology FREE of charge. JPEG consortium is going to be the governing body of the new format and it says that XR will be available once the "kinks" are worked out so it conforms to standard's specifications.

JPEG XR promises better quality with better compression (not lossless though). Official press release can be found HERE.

I've not been a Microsoft basher for a long time. However, after the Vista release I may just become one. I now begin to question Microsoft's agenda every time they come up with something. WMF has been around (and might well be a better choice for now), but I'm convinced that sticking to a lossy format by the JPEG "officials" is, to me, taking the whole thing into a blind alley. It only tells me that degrading image's information is somehow the ONLY way to go (NOT). Problem is, when you have a near monopolistic giant behind an idea, it just can't be good long term. Is there a chance that giving it "away" will at some point allow Microsoft to "screw" with it? The general tendency to view this is, that it'll be the EXPERTS to govern the new format, not Mr. Gates. Will they?

I think still image format gorillas should slow down and take this issue a bit more seriously (I bet this statement upsets them). Why not think lossless???

What I'd like to see in the digital progress

I'd like to see sensor improvements in noise handling far more than a pixel count (which has already reached an above-needed level, especially in small cameras). Call it "Quality over Quantity".

There should be a focus on cutting down the noise AND some strict standard of testing for such, by which ALL manufacturers would have to go by - well, that's a pipe dream.

I'd like to see serious effort on manufacturer's part, to put some R&D into a DSLR (for starters) that has replaceable guts, especially the sensor, CPU, and buffer, so we stop spending money on the box, instead we upgrade what really counts. And while at it, why not make it an OPEN standard so third parties can come in and HELP along the way.

There should be more focus on file format development, so JPG is scrapped entirely (and ANY lossy format prohibited from ever reaching the market). Here I do believe, that there is no reason to continue with JPG for any longer than necessary. I'm not talking RAW as we know it now (and forget TIFF altogether), I mean a format that does not loose or restrict anything from the original and NEVER will. Here may I mention the OpenRAW effort (which it seems has gone nowhere). What I'd like to see is a format that gives me what film always has - I shoot, I take care of archiving with best methods available, but what I shot is accessible to ME forever, no camera maker, no software developer will EVER have a chance to change that. NONE of these things are currently true.