Feedback on first processed photo using RawTherapee

[Gshockneo]

Hello there,

Based on suggestions from my first post (First post - What's the difference between technique in these two pics) I got a tripod and finally got to try it out. Also I switched to RAW mode and just starting to learn processing. Below is the pic that I took using Nikon D3300, Exposure 15S, F: F5.6, ISO 200 and processed using RawTherapee and some more color/contrast adjustment using IrfanView.



Looking for some feedback (of any kind) on above photo.

Other questions I have is:
1- When I open a RAW file in RawTherappe, it does some auto processing before opening the file and the opened file looks a little weird. Almost towards purplish side while the original thumbnail of the raw file looked like what I originally took. Is that normal? Are there any good tutorials on photo processing?

2. Should I instead use Capture NX which seems to more suited for Nikon cameras according to some blog posts? I tried it for a while but it seemed very slow and weird UI to me.

Thanks

[jcuknz]

Nothing to do with your question as I do not shoot RAW so would not know but a little thing to try .... dodging the moon .... this is a darkroom trick and you hold back the light with a continuously moving flag obscuring the moon from the camera for a good part of the exposure which I see was 15 seconds which I would have thought was way too much. If that is what the camera told me was the exposure to use I would cut it back to 3 seconds for a second shot, five at the most

[IzzieK]

I do my NEF conversion via On One and it also makes some of my shots weird. My NEF capture is not recognized by Photoshop CS5 because it is from the new D810 so I have to have another one. It is the same complain as you have here with your Raw Therapee so I would be interested to know the answer to your question too. I am guessing that we both have to adjust the sliders the other way to be able to get to the real image colour (original).

[Manfred M]

Jitu - let me speculate as to what is likely going on with your RAW conversion.

First of all, as this is a night shot, it is effectively a mixed light shot with all kinds of different colour temperature light sources. You used auto white balance on the shot, which means in the jpeg (which is passed on in the metadata), your camera tried to come up with a colour temperature / white balance reading. 100% guarantee that this calculated value is not going to look quite right. After all, one of the reasons you are shooting RAW is so that you can set your own WB in post without having to rely on what the camera has decided for you. I know that the Nikon software does this, but have never used RAW Therapee, so can't offer an opinion on what it does. Other RAW converters do this for sure. This means that there is no "right answer", especially in this type of lighting situation. Pick a WB that works for how you want this scene to work while working with the RAW converter.

The second issue is exposure, which can also result in some bias, if it is not correct. I see that you shot on manual, which means you have decided what the right exposure is, If you miss, your sky won't necessarily show up as black because this part of the image could be underexposed and any white balance miss will be accentuated. By the way, I also see that you had a +2 exposure compensation set. This function should be OFF when you are shooting on manual (as it won't impact your settings in any way).

As for the clunky interface of Capture NX, yes it is there. I use a number of different RAW converters (all commercial and not free like RAW Therapee), I find that I will revert to View NX in difficult lighting situations, because often the results are better. After all, Nikon is the only group that knows the idiosyncrasies of your camera and hopefully, these are built into he product they produce. I've found that I get better conversions with Nikon software some of the time.

[Krawuntzel]

Looking for some feedback (of any kind) on above photo.

Hi Jitu
as you most certainly have seen for yourself the use of a tripod has already greatly improved the quality of your picture. Adding to what others have said: I personally would exclude the very bright building to the right. Then, I think, you have the eyes of the beholder wandering between the moon and the tower discovering more and more details of the skyline.

Other questions I have is:
1- When I open a RAW file in RawTherappe, it does some auto processing before opening the file and the opened file looks a little weird. Almost towards purplish side while the original thumbnail of the raw file looked like what I originally took. Is that normal? Are there any good tutorials on photo processing?

Every RAW converter opens a file with some default settings as a starting point (some programs are more to my liking, some are less). It then is open to (i.e. it is the task of) the photographer do adjust these settings to his/her liking. In most programs you can even define your own starting (preset) development parameters for your RAW-files. I personally think that RAWTherapee is a overwhelmingly feature rich tool; most of them I did not touch when beginning to "develop" RAW-files, because I either did not see or did not understand what these tools do.
But try out the many possibilities to match the processed to the thumbnail.

2. Should I instead use Capture NX which seems to more suited for Nikon cameras according to some blog posts? I tried it for a while but it seemed very slow and weird UI to me.

Nothing to that (not using it).
Erin

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured and processed. Regarding the software, have you checked to see if it has a profile for your camera?

[rpcrowe]

IMO, this image is a quantum leap forward in comparison to the non-tripod supported image you originally posted.

One bit of a problem is that you have lost all detail in the tower. I would suggest that you bracket your exposures, especially bracketing towards less exposure because, IMO, over-exposure is the bane of most night cityscapes.

[dje]

Hi Jitu

That's a much better image than your first IMO. As others have mentioned, the highlights are a bit blown in the tall white building and moon. I tried reducing them a bit in pp but they are a bit far gone to rescue properly. I also think you need some more sharpening. Here's my version to show how these changes affect the image.

A separate exposure for the moon alone would have been another way of avoiding it's over-exposure but you would have to then have the pp skills and software to blend the different moon exposure into the main image.

I'd also suggest you try using View NX for processing the image. It should have come with your camera. RawTherapee is fairly comprehensive but it quite complex to use properly.

Dave

[DanK]

To follow up on Richard's comments: open the image and enlarge it a lot on screen. then move to the tower. You will see two things. First, as Richard said, there is no detail at all in the tower. It is mostly pure white. That means it is overexposed. Second, it's clear that the other buildings are blurry. This could either be that they are out of focus or blurred by motion. Given the long exposure, I am guessing that the problem is motion blur.

One thing that might help would be to buy an inexpensive remote release. That way, when you trip the shutter, you don't move the camera. I never do any night shots without one. You can get them for very little on eBay. You may also need to weight down your tripod.

I don't use either of those raw processors. However, I doubt that the big issue is the choice of software. One package may make it easier for you than others, but any of them should allow you, with enough work, to get to roughly the same place. I would instead focus on technique.

[rpcrowe]

Here is another thought. I am confident in shooting either of my two favorite lenses (Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS) wide open because of their very decent image quality at those apertures.,,

However, there are some lenses in which the image quality will improve (sometimes drastically) when stopped down one or two stops from wide open...

BTW: when shooting night shots on a tripod and if I don't have a remote release with me, I will use the self-timer to trip the shutter. That way, any movement incurred by pressing the shutter button should have dissipated before the image is captured. Some cameras have two delays for the self timer, my 7D has 2-seconds and 10-seconds. The 2-second delay is great for use in night shots while the 10-second delay is more for allowing you to get into the picture...

[Gshockneo]

Nicely captured and processed. Regarding the software, have you checked to see if it has a profile for your camera?

Thanks!

I had tried looking for it earlier but didn't find it. As I am just beginning to explore the software, I am hopeful to find it.

[Gshockneo]

IMO, this image is a quantum leap forward in comparison to the non-tripod supported image you originally posted.

One bit of a problem is that you have lost all detail in the tower. I would suggest that you bracket your exposures, especially bracketing towards less exposure because, IMO, over-exposure is the bane of most night cityscapes.

You are absolutely right about the lac of details in the tower. I had manually set the exposure to 15 seconds so that I can capture little less bright buildings in the background. Histogram in camera did warn me about the high exposure but I ignored it because of same reason. I guess the lesson is underexposure is easier to fix than overexposure so go with prior.

[Gshockneo]

Hi Jitu

That's a much better image than your first IMO. As others have mentioned, the highlights are a bit blown in the tall white building and moon. I tried reducing them a bit in pp but they are a bit far gone to rescue properly. I also think you need some more sharpening. Here's my version to show how these changes affect the image.

A separate exposure for the moon alone would have been another way of avoiding it's over-exposure but you would have to then have the pp skills and software to blend the different moon exposure into the main image.

I'd also suggest you try using View NX for processing the image. It should have come with your camera. RawTherapee is fairly comprehensive but it quite complex to use properly.

Dave

Thanks for taking the time for coming up with your version (I was secretly hoping someone would do it. ). It certainly does look much sharper and better.
Technique you described of shooting at different exposures and blending is a bit beyond my skills as of now. I'll give View NX a try as you recommended.

[Gshockneo]

Here is another thought. I am confident in shooting either of my two favorite lenses (Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS) wide open because of their very decent image quality at those apertures.,,

However, there are some lenses in which the image quality will improve (sometimes drastically) when stopped down one or two stops from wide open...

BTW: when shooting night shots on a tripod and if I don't have a remote release with me, I will use the self-timer to trip the shutter. That way, any movement incurred by pressing the shutter button should have dissipated before the image is captured. Some cameras have two delays for the self timer, my 7D has 2-seconds and 10-seconds. The 2-second delay is great for use in night shots while the 10-second delay is more for allowing you to get into the picture...

Thanks for tip on shooting at a couple of stops below wide open.

For avoiding motion blur, I had used self timer with 10 seconds. But given the exposure time was 15 seconds, It still happened. At least for the buildings on right. Or Maybe my focus technique was not correct. I am going to try to improve on it next time.

[Aeros]

Nothing to do with your question as I do not shoot RAW so would not know but a little thing to try .... dodging the moon .... this is a darkroom trick and you hold back the light with a continuously moving flag obscuring the moon from the camera for a good part of the exposure which I see was 15 seconds which I would have thought was way too much. If that is what the camera told me was the exposure to use I would cut it back to 3 seconds for a second shot, five at the most

+1 and the moon will move significantly over 15 seconds.