A bufflehead duck and different processing options.

Left:  photograph taken from original file with no post processing;  notice that the extreme values causes blowout highlights and dark shadows with no details.]

Center:  the same image from a raw file with no processing other than four different exposures were made:  -5, -2.5, 0, +2.5  The four images were combined using Photomatix software into a single HDR image and show details in both dark and light areas.

Right: the raw image was processed using Photoshop's Camera Raw (v.15) software and attention was given to both shadows and highlights.  A rigorous treatment of the image resulted in a modestly contrasty final photo with softer extremes.  

Although photography is the art of capturing light, there is something to be said about the art of processing the image into its final form.  Ansel Adams was a renowned black and white photographer that pioneered a system of exposure and development to extract the absolute maximum amount of definition possible from the media he worked with.  Although we do not have to go through the exacting process that he used, it is nice that there are options available to us for working with images.

The above photos come from the same original image.  A single RAW (nef) photo I captured of a male bufflehead duck.  I was surprised to see the enormous range of darks and highlights; the whites of the sides had lost all detail and the duck's back was pitch black.  The JPEG (left image) shows you those extremes.  To get a better idea, click on the image itself to open it at full size and enlarge it further if desired.  You'll see what I mean.

RAW images hold details even when they don't appear at first glance.  Using the Camera Raw program, I opened four versions of the image.  Using the exposure slider, I set the first one at -5 stops to bring out details in the highlights that couldn't initially be seen.  I did the same at -2.5, 0, and +2.5 stops.  I then used the program Photomatix to coalesce them into a single image and played with the results until I got what I considered to be a reasonable image (center).  If I had taken 10 images at 1 stop apart instead of 4 at 2.5 stops apart I probably would have had better results.

The image on the far right was processed using Photoshop's Camera Raw by adjusting the various sliders until I could extract the maximum details.  I find this is usually the best and quickest way to improve a RAW image.  If I wanted to get even more details out of it I could have masked certain parts and brought them into the editing program to combine manually.  Such methods require a great deal of time and effort and, unless I have something really amazing, is generally not worth the effort.

It is important to understand that there are many ways to post process an image; in-camera processing is also possible.  Each method has its pros and cons, but the general idea is that there is great variation possible after the image is captured.  RAW images have the greatest ability to correct for exposure error and to extract details from overly dark and light areas though; this is by far your best bet if you are to capture the best image you can.

Thanks for reading.

Eric Svendsen     www.ericspix.com