![]() Right next to it we have the opportunity to check the over/under exposure option. ![]() Right from the start, the program allows us to separate the four channels of the RGB sensor, or rather RGGB since the green is repeated twice. In Display (2) we find “RGB render” as an option, but not the only one. However, without opening anything else, we immediately see confirmation of what was said before. There is also another mountain of information, useful if you intend to replicate the shot such as exposure and openings. First, we can take a peek at the EXIF (1) to better understand how and when the photo was taken. Once we open a RAW we have the opportunity to understand several things. Unfortunately, the program is not for free, but there is the possibility of doing a free trial, and that it is certainly not an expensive one. Approaching it and understanding its usefulness will be very useful, in particular for analyzing that atypical kind of RAW that is the X3F from Foveon sensors. No fear, because a fundamental program comes to our rescue: RawDigger. We can settle for this or try to investigate in person a little more thoroughly.īut the reader, like the writer, may not be an IT wizard. We will be able to see the result when it is finally converted to JPEG, but not before. The interpretation is never unambiguous: no matter how accurate, it will never objectively reflect the RAW. These, however, will give their understanding of what is underneath. So to understand what is hidden between those 0s and 1s, we just have to rely on the camera or the software. We understand how the preview is there to give us a visual reference instead of a chain of binary code. The pic we have taken for now is nothing more than a series of raw data, the RAW. It is there to give us an approximation of the photo we took. This something is only an approximation made by the camera or by the software. Nevertheless, we are in front of something. What we are looking at, however, are not real pictures, but the base from which we would go to extract our JPEGs. We watch RAW all the time, on the rear camera screen, like in the Photoshop preview. What are we looking at when we look at a RAW? This first point, apparently trivial, brings with it a not insignificant consequence. In themselves, RAWs are not better pictures, because… they are not pictures! They are a series of information from which a photo can be extracted, that final JPEG that we will display on the screen or print. “If you shoot RAW you get better photos” this is one of the mantras that the novice photographer hears himself repeated over and over.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |