FA+
Shop
144
Views
Views
1
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Photography / Scenery
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 857
File Size 1009.7 kB
Report this content
More from MTI
Listed in Folders
Angles everywhere in the moonlight.
I was pleased how this one came out, you can even see little bit of the mist along the hillside.
It's also nice and quiet at this hour, very little traffic on the roadway.
Niles canyon in California. Niles Canyon Railway Magnetic Flagman (Pre-Griswold) Wig Wag and pole lines.
Shot RAW with no tweaks whatsoever.
I was pleased how this one came out, you can even see little bit of the mist along the hillside.
It's also nice and quiet at this hour, very little traffic on the roadway.
Niles canyon in California. Niles Canyon Railway Magnetic Flagman (Pre-Griswold) Wig Wag and pole lines.
Shot RAW with no tweaks whatsoever.
Category Photography / Scenery
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 857px
File Size 1009.7 kB
The big difference between JPEG and RAW is bit depth. JPEG, while technically has million of colours you never have such depth in a image, it's closer to 8 bits. And since data is dropped/compressed out, information in the low and high brightness areas that could otherwise still be used is lost
RAW, as the name somewhat implies is the raw data from the CCD (Very simplified!!) so every pixel gives you it's data, it's kept and it's bit depth is much larger. In my case, the Nikon D200 has a depth of 12, newer cameras have 14 and even more. This means that overexposed areas, and underexposed areas most likely still have data in them.
If I take a picture of a nearly dark room and try to tweak a JPEG of it odds are you'll not get a useful image in the end up with poor colour, JPEG artifacts and poor contrast.
Do the same with a RAW image and it's very likely you can rescue the image as if it was properly shot from the getgo.
The significant difference in the end result are images that can have far greater ranges of light to dark and can be manipulated much more effectively. This image for instance with it's VERY gradual change in light value would look awful as a jpeg after editing. The stars would likely get lost to the compression algorithm and bit depth since they are so faint otherwise.
You might be confusing RAW with HDR though, where you take several shots in succession with slightly different stops. You then take these images and meld them together to take the best of the exposures. I find HDR is often poorly done and flattens the contrast and colour. It can be done well, but I find as you appear to have that the ability to tweak a RAW image in Aperture or Lightroom gives you much the same results without the hassle.
RAW, as the name somewhat implies is the raw data from the CCD (Very simplified!!) so every pixel gives you it's data, it's kept and it's bit depth is much larger. In my case, the Nikon D200 has a depth of 12, newer cameras have 14 and even more. This means that overexposed areas, and underexposed areas most likely still have data in them.
If I take a picture of a nearly dark room and try to tweak a JPEG of it odds are you'll not get a useful image in the end up with poor colour, JPEG artifacts and poor contrast.
Do the same with a RAW image and it's very likely you can rescue the image as if it was properly shot from the getgo.
The significant difference in the end result are images that can have far greater ranges of light to dark and can be manipulated much more effectively. This image for instance with it's VERY gradual change in light value would look awful as a jpeg after editing. The stars would likely get lost to the compression algorithm and bit depth since they are so faint otherwise.
You might be confusing RAW with HDR though, where you take several shots in succession with slightly different stops. You then take these images and meld them together to take the best of the exposures. I find HDR is often poorly done and flattens the contrast and colour. It can be done well, but I find as you appear to have that the ability to tweak a RAW image in Aperture or Lightroom gives you much the same results without the hassle.
Thanks Rocket_Arctic_Wolf! That was deliberate. I was fiddling with getting an exposure that would allow the night haze to show (The hills in the background) and still use the moonlight to an advantage. I have a few other exposures that have the moon exposed in the same frame, but this one looked the best when it was all said and done. The moon adds an almost ethereal glow which you picked up on.
Comments