Title: How good is QU's Default Raw Processing ? Post by: MelW on June 14, 2013, 06:17:58 PM Let me tell you! True story.
Thanks to QU, over the past 3 years or so, I have evolved from a mostly jpg based workflow, to a mostly raw workflow - although I capture both jpg and raw - but now mostly don't use the jpegs except for unusual situations. Anyway, about 6 weeks ago I set up my Rube Goldberg studio and did a session with 2 of my grandchildren. Lasted less than 15 minutes - got about 75 shots - that's about how much patience 2 year olds have. When I got finished, I was chagrined to find that I had not connected either of my auxiliary battery packs and feared that I would have many seriously underexposed pictures. because I tended to shoot in bursts once I got the children positioned. and was not sure if my flashes had adequate recycle time. So I dumped the raw images into QU, didn't see any serious problems with any of the images and within a few days had a dozen or so frame-ready 8x10s, then moved on to other stuff. Of course I made slight adjustments to exposure, balance etc - usual tweaks for each one - but none of them seemed out of normal range and I didn't have any thoughts that there were any exposure issues related to the session. A couple of days ago - for reasons not worth getting into - I dumped the jpegs of that same session into QU. I was shocked to see that exactly every third picture was almost completely black! The raw versions of some of these are already in frames. The jpegs - even after exposure correction, fill light and all of the usual adjustments, would not make acceptable prints. My raw exposure settings are just the QU defaults. I seldom have to do a refine of those. So how good is the default raw processing? Let me just use a gentle expletive and say Darn Darn good! :D Mel W. Columbia, Md. Title: Re: How good is QU's Default Raw Processing ? Post by: Terry-M on June 14, 2013, 06:53:32 PM Hi Mel,
Quote So how good is the default raw processing? Let me just use a gentle expletive and say Darn Darn good! Thank you for sharing that story, great stuff.So who needs a whole bunch of sliders now? ::) ;D Terry Title: Re: How good is QU's Default Raw Processing ? Post by: MelW on June 15, 2013, 01:02:28 AM I should add - although I guess it's obvious - that without the raw files and QU's ability to handle them - that is if I just had the jpegs - I would have been missing about a third of my pictures.
Title: Re: How good is QU's Default Raw Processing ? Post by: Fred A on June 15, 2013, 11:40:21 AM Quote although I capture both jpg and raw - but now mostly don't use the jpegs except for unusual situations. Not sure if you are aware of this, Mel, but maybe others are not. There is a JPG carried inside the RAW image. To extract it if you ever need/want it, just put the raw into the queue, right click on the preview image, and select Extract Embedded image. It's a few pixels smaller than the Raw, but you have a good size JPG. So no real need to shoot both and eat up the memory card. Fred Title: Re: How good is QU's Default Raw Processing ? Post by: MelW on June 15, 2013, 03:00:19 PM Thanks Fred - I guess I knew that - but old habits die hard. When I first went to a digital camera, I would pull the flash card from the camera and throw it into some D-76 followed by hypo. Couldn't figure out why I never got any good pictures. ;D
|