Photo editing software that mimic in-camera processing - is there any available?
anir...@gmail.com
images collected by the sensor are manipulated by the built-in
software (the camera engineor processor) to develop a final image.
What I am getting is whether this process can be done (or likely re-
done) "outside" the camera afterward by image manipulation in a photo
editing software. When you take a picture, you can take the image in
manual mode (any combination of f/stop and speed, as long as it is not
too extreme and becoming difficult to manipulate) and select the f/
stop and the speed.
My question is whether there is a photo editing software in the market
today which can guide the user on changing the variation of the f/stop
and speed as it is done in the camera as you automatically set the
image when you take a picture. The EXIF data can tell you what f/stop
and speed that were fired. Using these data, the software then can be
manipulated by changing the speed and the f/stop of its combination.
Example, the EXIF data indicated that the image was taken with F=
5.600 and speed of 1/100 sec = 0.010 sec.
Instead of graduating scales or scale 1 to plus or minus 200 when we
manipulate the editing sofware, is there software that show the F/stop
and speed and as you adjust the image, you do it by , say, typing the
F=5.610 and speed is changed to 0.012 sec. Is there such a software?
What I am aiming is about using a camera manually, and play around
with combination of f/stop and speed outside. Perhaps this is
typically common, but I have never seen a software with that method of
adjusting the image. It would even mid boggling if the software can
also reduce light or add light on portion of the image, so that you
can play around with contrast and sensitivity. I am sure that this is
done, as I have seen my old paintshop software, in which I can add a
beam of light artificially at one, two or many corner... just like
adding studio light in a real studio. Or even better, the software
can start doing sharpening/focusing in the image like the way Nikon
does the 51 point focusing or more. It this can be done, is there any
need to get a fancy camera with all the gizmo, if you can just shoot
the old fashion way (in the old days, an ASA 100 film usually has a
small piece of paper with instruction to take shots at F/5.6 and speed
of 1/100 on cloudy day and increase the speed to 1/200 on sunny day or
something lake that)?. Then, everything else will be done in the
computer at home. Is this too far fetched? That's the way I used to
take photos with my dad's old german camera over 40 years ago and you
do not play much with f/stop and speed combinations (except as shown
in the film box instruction). You just want to make sure that you
focus correctly.
Just want to hear any of your comments. Thanks.
Ofnuts
Manipulating f-stop and speed after the fact is impossible. Choosing
f-stop and speed is more or less making choices about what information
you are going to lose (mostly things going out of focus with large
apertures, or motion blur with low speeds). Once the picture is taken
you can't re-invent the missing data.
At best, one could imagine a stereoscopic view (because distance is
important) with almost infinite depth-of-field, and a software acting on
it simulating focus depending on aperture and focus distance.
OTOH modern cameras support various "bracketing" modes, where the same
picture is taken three times using different settings (usually, exposure
(speed), or focus) and so that a composite image can be generated later
(aka HDR for exposure).
--
Bertrand
ray
Are you talking about jpeg data or raw (my guess is the former)? You
can't really do that much with a jpeg - limited dynamic range. You can do
a lot more with raw data, though I'm not familiar with software that
operates exactly as you describe.
Michael
NO software can do what the OP wants. The shutter speed is the shutter
speed. You cannot alter it in software to either be shorter or longer,
stopping action better or allowing motion blur... and the f stop is
what it is... you cannot change the depth of field it provided. These
are absolute camera parameters, not issues of exposure value or color
balance. Photoshopping the sharpness is a limited tool and introduces
artifacts, and cannot give you perceptibly different depth of field.
Doesn't matter if the image is RAW, JPEG, TIFF or whatever.
--
Michael
anir...@gmail.com
Thanks for the responses and comments.
I am trying to think "out of the box". It may not be a perfect
simulation (or mimic or whatever you want to call).
Could you imagine 20 years ago for a 64GB compact flash card? Or
autofocus cameras that everyone seems cannot "live" without it
nowadays? Or manipulating images without darkroom and chemical
agents?
I created all my HDR images using a single photo. Perhaps the quality
is not as good as using bracketing technique to shoot 3 o5 exposure
variation. However, I consider the result is good enough for me.
Let assume that someone took a photo with f/1.9 and speed of 1/100
sec. Produce the image in JPEG. Then let another person took the same
exact spot, using a different camera, and say under-exposed with f/2.4
and speed of 1/100 sec. Are you sure that he cannot produce an image
in JPEG which has the same exposure as the other guy, using a photo
editing software?
I can understand that the blur or depth of field may be more difficult
to handle, using any photo editing software. But, I am sure on general
photos (as long as it is not too extreme - too dark or too much wash
out), it may work?
Just a kicker.... is it possible in the future that we may perhaps
take a photo of a moment that has elapsed? It is impossible, isn't
it? or is it? When you take photo of a star far away, the image is
not what happened at the time when the shutter clicks. You are taking
photo of the past! So, in fact this is already done as we speak.
Trev
<anir...@gmail.com> anir...@gmail.com bashed on keyboard and typed:
You can adjust the gamma, brightness and contrast but there is no direct
conversion to F stops or even Ev.
Secondly making exposure adjustments to a camera raw image in a Good
Converter is doing it to the raw data on the computer instead of the camera
which does it to Jpeg.
There are limits Its one thing to grab more detail out of dark area's but
over exposed light area's dont have any detail to improve
--
Trev
Nobody is perfect.
But Being a Yorkshire man is as close as you can get.
Nicko
> Just a kicker.... is it possible in the future that we may perhaps
> take a photo of a moment that has elapsed? It is impossible, isn't
> it? or is it?
It is impossible NOT to!
When you take photo of a star far away, the image is
> not what happened at the time when the shutter clicks. You are taking
> photo of the past!
Every time you take a photo you are doing that, however close far away
the subject. Because light has a finite speed.
Every time you look at something, you are seeing it as it was in the
past. It might not be that far in the past, but it is indeed in the
past. Not only is the speed of light involved, but also the speed of
electrons and chemical processes, both in actually seeing something
and recording an image of it.
What is the mystery here?
--
YOP...
Rob Morley
anir...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am trying to think "out of the box".
ITYF the term is "outside the box".
> It may not be a perfect
> simulation (or mimic or whatever you want to call).
> Could you imagine 20 years ago for a 64GB compact flash card?
That's just a bigger faster version of technology that existed then.
> Or
> autofocus cameras that everyone seems cannot "live" without it
> nowadays?
Autofocus was definitely available 20 years ago.
> Or manipulating images without darkroom and chemical
> agents?
That started in the 1980s too.
> I created all my HDR images using a single photo. Perhaps the quality
> is not as good as using bracketing technique to shoot 3 o5 exposure
> variation. However, I consider the result is good enough for me.
Digital dodging and burning - all you're doing is enhancing the
information that was captured in the available range, while "proper" HDR
extends the available range and thus the amount of information captured.
> Let assume that someone took a photo with f/1.9 and speed of 1/100
> sec. Produce the image in JPEG. Then let another person took the same
> exact spot, using a different camera, and say under-exposed with f/2.4
> and speed of 1/100 sec. Are you sure that he cannot produce an image
> in JPEG which has the same exposure as the other guy, using a photo
> editing software?
Depends on the nature of the image - the relative brightness of the
darkest and lightest areas and the detail in those areas.
> I can understand that the blur or depth of field may be more difficult
> to handle, using any photo editing software. But, I am sure on
> general photos (as long as it is not too extreme - too dark or too
> much wash out), it may work?
If different exposures capture the full range of tones in an image then
it will work, it's just the same as varying enlarger exposure and
paper grade. But when the latitude of the recording medium is the
limiting factor you won't get the same results no matter how much post
processing you use.
> Just a kicker.... is it possible in the future that we may perhaps
> take a photo of a moment that has elapsed? It is impossible, isn't
> it? or is it? When you take photo of a star far away, the image is
> not what happened at the time when the shutter clicks. You are taking
> photo of the past! So, in fact this is already done as we speak.
I'm typing this in the present, but when you read it it will be in the
past. Spooky, eh?
Pat
The technology to take a picture after it occurs already exists. It's
just take someone to make a few camera mods.
Take any shutterless camera -- such as a video camera. It is always
recording info. Say you lag the writing by whatever instant you want,
say 1/10th of a second. You look through the viewfinder and push the
"shutter" button to take the picture. Instead of recording what you
see it would be no more difficult to record the image from 1/10th of a
second before. Bam. You have an image from before you pressed the
shutter button. In fact, such an option would be very helpful in
sports photography. Way too many people take a picture of the "big
hit" as it is happening which translated into after it has happened by
the time you react what you see. If you could go back in time 1/10th
or 1/25 of a second they might get better pictures.
Charles
"Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:c02dfc22-4e5e-47cf...@41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 8:40 pm, anira...@gmail.com wrote:
> I wonder if anyone can help me on this issue. In digital cameras, the
> images collected by the sensor are manipulated by the built-in
> software (the camera engineor processor) to develop a final image.
One can shoot RAW and eliminate many of those in-camera manipulations.
Then, one has a lot of latitude in post-processing.
> What I am getting is whether this process can be done (or likely re-
> done) "outside" the camera afterward by image manipulation in a photo
> editing software. When you take a picture, you can take the image in
> manual mode (any combination of f/stop and speed, as long as it is not
> too extreme and becoming difficult to manipulate) and select the f/
> stop and the speed.
>
> My question is whether there is a photo editing software in the market
> today which can guide the user on changing the variation of the f/stop
> and speed as it is done in the camera as you automatically set the
> image when you take a picture. The EXIF data can tell you what f/stop
> and speed that were fired. Using these data, the software then can be
> manipulated by changing the speed and the f/stop of its combination.
> Example, the EXIF data indicated that the image was taken with F=
> 5.600 and speed of 1/100 sec = 0.010 sec.
> Instead of graduating scales or scale 1 to plus or minus 200 when we
> manipulate the editing sofware, is there software that show the F/stop
> and speed and as you adjust the image, you do it by , say, typing the
> F=5.610 and speed is changed to 0.012 sec. Is there such a software?
Yes, it is built into the camera where it belongs. I am sure I am not
understanding exactly what you are trying to do.
Do you want your camera tethered to a computer while shooting? Might be OK
for studio work, but would be a real PITA, generally speaking. There is a
computer in your camera. To minimize its function, shoot Manual and RAW.
anir...@gmail.com
If I am not mistaken, Olympus SP series has this technology, called "
Pre-capture mode", in which the camera already records some frames
seconds before you press the shutter button. I think the moment you
aim and the frame and focusing are set, the camera already capture
some images,...
Check at the specs for Olympus SP-565 UZ or SP-590
anir...@gmail.com
Charles:
Thanks for reading my post. I know that there are a lot of smart
people in this world (excluding me!). What I am thinking about the
"mimic" concept is a off- camera process using a photo editing
software, in which the person can feel how a taken object, light,
camera work together.
No, I am not thinking about connecting the camera with a computer. I
may not be a typical person when dumping a digital image into my
computer. I always end up with play around with a photo software -
crop, adjust image, contrast, sharpness, etc. These are all tools
which is available in modern editing software. However, all of the
buttons/operation that I use in the software is always a graduating
scales or assigned number ( say -100 to 100) to adjust your image.
Is there a software which has built-in program or simlation inside
which can tell at any instant to change exposure, what value of f/stop
or speed the image is changed to.
When I pay around with exposure, gamma correction, brightness,
contrast, etc.. sometime my final result is just identical with the
original image.... but after all of the manipulation. If I used
Microsoft photo editing, there is an automatic button for contrast or
brightness that the software produce.
I want to know if I change the exposure, what is the f/stop and/or
speed combination that it now have.
I hope this clarify my questions. The more I play around with this
photo editing software, the more I am convinced that you can just shot
one image (with one f/stop and one speed/exposure), and you can adjust
it anyway you want it... to make it dark, to make it night shot, etc.
I recall that in the old days, someone (or the film industry) shoot
movies with dark blue (80A or 80B) in the middle of the day to
simulate night photos. I took photos at dusk and can change it into
daylight by gamma correction.
Thanks for your reply!
Pat
I don't think you quite understand some of the posts in this thread.
Let me try to explain.
Forget about your camera as capturing a picture. Think of it as
capturing light. Now think of your sensor as just a series of
individual meters that measure the light in their tiny little
location. For the sake of argument, let's say that the brightest
measurement can be 256 and the darkest can be 0. In a perfect world
you would make it so the brightest spot in any image is exactly a 256
and the darkest spot is exactly a 0. If something was brighter than a
256, you could not differentiate it from a 256 and therefore you've
lost the information (you have a burned out image). This is, in a
nutshell, the old fashioned "Zone System".
Unfortunately, this is not how a camera meter works. The camera looks
at the reading of all of the meters and tries to average them to 18%
gray. It doesn't care about highlight and low lights. Therefore it
is very possible that your brights don't reach the 256 and your black
is not down to 0. Therefore this is some latitude for adjusting
things that you find in PS.
Your ISO setting, for the most part, can adjust the sensitivity of the
little light meters. But once that's set, the camera just goes for an
average meter reading.
Once the picture is taken you can adjust the ISO. You simple slide
the brightness higher or lower. You can also adjust the contrast by
adjusting the histogram. But everything else is physical and you
can't change it afterwards. That is what the other posters are trying
to say. You shutter speed is your shutter speed and their ain't no
changing it.