RAW question
tony cooper
I don't have Capture NX. I have Adobe Photoshop 7.0, but I don't have
any interest in upgrading to CS. PS7.0 does everything that I need to
do with this exception.
Before I pop for Capture NX, I'd like to be sure that there's
something to be gained. So many people rave about processing in RAW,
but I've never seen a before and after that shows something that can't
be done in PS7.
Anyone have some examples of a .jpg processed as a .jpg, and the same
shot adjusted in Capture NX and then saved as a .jpg?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Akiralx
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:n4fv54dipih3sljri...@4ax.com...
Can't help you on that - but you may get NX cheaply now as an upgraded
version is coming. True in the UK anyway.
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
Have a look at www.dxo.com
then you will see why RAW is a good idea
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Alan Browne
> Anyone have some examples of a .jpg processed as a .jpg, and the same
> shot adjusted in Capture NX and then saved as a .jpg?
One point about raw is that the one image can be processed for a very
wide range of output imagery. There is no one comparison case / there
is no one "correct" use of a raw image.
It is much more akin to taking a negative into the darkroom and printing
it with a variety of exposure/ paper/ chemical/ timing recipes.
You could DL a free trial of CS3 (or the latest version of Elements) to
experiment with raw import. The trial lasts 30 days or so. (Elements
is more constrained in 16b/color work).
(I'd go with CS3 as it is also less encumbered with a "fits all levels"
user interface that is a bit clunky.)
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Blinky the Shark
> I have a Nikon D40 that is capable of shooting RAW as a .NEF file, but
> I don't have Capture NX. I have Adobe Photoshop 7.0, but I don't have
> any interest in upgrading to CS. PS7.0 does everything that I need to
> do with this exception.
>
> Before I pop for Capture NX, I'd like to be sure that there's
> something to be gained. So many people rave about processing in RAW,
> but I've never seen a before and after that shows something that can't
> be done in PS7.
Take a look at The GIMP (graphics editor) and ufraw (raw editor). Both
free. When you select a .nef to edit in the GIMP, ufraw opens with it,
and when you're finished, clicking OK sends it to the GIMP. Google as
needed.
--
Blinky
Is your ISP dropping Usenet?
Need a new feed?
http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
tony cooper
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:16:52 -0400, in rec.photo.digital tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Before I pop for Capture NX, I'd like to be sure that there's
>>something to be gained. So many people rave about processing in RAW,
>>but I've never seen a before and after that shows something that can't
>>be done in PS7.
>
>Capture has a trial period of 60 days, iirc from a previous post. Why
>not not only try raw conversion, but also the tool you think you might
>pay for first?
I do understand that both Capture and CS3 have trial demos available.
Still, I'd like to see some comparative results linked.
Wilson
You said in another thread that you have PS Elements 5 but rarely used it.
I believe it contains Adobe Camera Raw (I know Elements 6 does) which will
allow you to adjust, save, and convert your RAW image. The RAW format gives
you much greater latitude in white balance and exposure adjustments than
you would have with a jpg in PS7 and that's one of its advantages. Camera
Raw is simple and quick to use. When you are done in Camera Raw then you
open the image in PS7 and finish your processing.
I believe you already have everything you need to process RAW images. No
need to buy anything else if you've got PS Elements 5.
ray
You simply have more to work with. Suggest you try the free ufraw before
you give up on the concept. With my Kodak P850 I shoot raw 95% of the time
or more. When you don't need it anyway, then there is probably not much to
be gained - but if you don't shoot raw and find out that you can't get
what you want from your jpeg, it's too late. I'd say about half the time
the jpeg that is included in my raw file is sufficient.
Cats
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
The only need is to download the latest version of CameraRaw. Seeing
what that can do with an image is the best way of seeing why shooting
RAW is usually a good thing. With my camera (don't ask) there is no
choice as it horribly oversharpens JPGs, and so does the RAW to JPG
utility it comes with. I have also found RAW very useful for water
shots, where it's very easy to burn out the highlight areas.
tony cooper
wrote:
Elements 5.0 will not open a .NEF image from a Nikon D40. There is an
Adobe Plug-In, Camera Raw 4.4.1, that will open some RAW formats, but
the Nikon D40's output has not yet been added. The D40X is on the
list, though. There's a hack that makes Elements think the D40's
output is a D70's, but I haven't tried it.
>I believe you already have everything you need to process RAW images. No
>need to buy anything else if you've got PS Elements 5.
I wish.
nospam
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >You said in another thread that you have PS Elements 5 but rarely used it.
> >I believe it contains Adobe Camera Raw (I know Elements 6 does) which will
> >allow you to adjust, save, and convert your RAW image. The RAW format gives
> >you much greater latitude in white balance and exposure adjustments than
> >you would have with a jpg in PS7 and that's one of its advantages. Camera
> >Raw is simple and quick to use. When you are done in Camera Raw then you
> >open the image in PS7 and finish your processing.
>
> Elements 5.0 will not open a .NEF image from a Nikon D40. There is an
> Adobe Plug-In, Camera Raw 4.4.1, that will open some RAW formats, but
> the Nikon D40's output has not yet been added.
i don't know where you got that idea. the d40 was added to camera raw
well over a year ago, in version 3.7.
> The D40X is on the
> list, though. There's a hack that makes Elements think the D40's
> output is a D70's, but I haven't tried it.
that's not necessary.
Wilson
That's too bad. I paid $50 for Elements 6 at Costco. I use a D40 and there
is no problem with the Camera Raw in PS E6. It seems there are free
RAW converters available, but whether they will work with the D40 NEF files
is a question I suppose.
Skin...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
I will agree and extend this description to behind the viewfinder.
Using camera raw I find that "pushing" my shots is MUCH easier than
it ever was with traditional films. I can under (and less rarely over)
expose a shot and have the ability to easily adjust the exposure and
white balance in RAW format in CS3 without hesitation. It's a
trememnous advantage when you are behind the lense and need that extra
shutterspeed increase to get the action shots.
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
You have more control with RAW, but you need to be able to do proper
processing to use it. You can often rescue a bad exposure with a RAW
file that you could not get good results on if saved in jpeg. Also,
RAW is essential for HDR processing (which is also a lot of work).
If you are satisifed with exposures you are getting, you may not need
RAW. RAW does nothing for resolution, only exposure and tonal
qualities. It is very helpful for a pro who sometimes absolutely HAS
to get the shot, even when lighting and exposure conditions are not
conducive to good exposure.
Essentially the RAW image has a lot more dynamic range. It has far
more range than can appear in a normal print. But this means if you
are making a print you yourself can determine exactly WHAT values from
the original image appear in that print. The jpeg algorithms do a
sort of auto-exposure, even if you are SHOOTING in a manual exposure
mode.
Peter
Tony, I skimmed some of the comments here and there is some pretty good
advice. Your style of shooting may be very different from mine. you may like
yours better, or you may like mine better. Internet scaled photos will not
show to best advantage. Therefore, my best suggestion is to take some shots
for yourself in both raw and jpeg. play with the images and see for yourself
if it is worth the difference. I also realize that you must invest in some
learning curve as few digital manipulation programs are intuitive.
HTH and have fun.
--
Peter
tony cooper
First, thanks to all who made comments relevant to my question, and to
all who offered useful suggestions. No particular thanks offered to
those who just said "RAW is better", because without a useful
explanation of "better" or how to get "better", and without a viable
path to setting myself up to process RAW, it's just a hand-wave at the
question.
I am surprised that no one was able or willing to offer a
before-and-after image of the effects of RAW processing. That seemed
like a simple thing to provide and something that would make the case
for RAW.
After checking things out, I've decided to put RAW processing on the
hold shelf. I found someone locally who has Capture NX and was able
to play with some images. It was OK, but not something that knocked
my socks off.
I can't recall ever shooting an image with the wrong white balance
setting, so that feature of RAW is not something that makes me want to
start shooting RAW. I took an image and increased the sky color
saturation, and that was really great. However, I can get very close
to the same result in Adobe Photoshop.
The downside to RAW is the commitment to space. RAW eats up space.
With two small grandchildren and a general interest in photography of
other things, space becomes a problem. I'm already using one
external hard drive in addition to my internal hard drive, and I'm
always burning disks to clear out my drives. Moving to RAW involves
adding programs and devices and the associated expense.
There's no "never" in my decision, though. Just a "not now".
Alan Browne
> I am surprised that no one was able or willing to offer a
> before-and-after image of the effects of RAW processing.
There is no such thing as a before-and-after image for the effect of raw
processing as any raw image, due to its high dynamic range can yield any
number of correct JPG or other images.
As I said in another post it is analogous to darkroom work where
technical and creative variations in process (at the film or print) can
yield very different, but desired results.
Trial version of Elements and CS3 can be downloaded for trial.
> That seemed
> like a simple thing to provide and something that would make the case
> for RAW.
The case for raw has been made by many people who use it to yield the
highest quality images.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I am surprised that no one was able or willing to offer a
>> before-and-after image of the effects of RAW processing.
>
>There is no such thing as a before-and-after image for the effect of raw
>processing as any raw image, due to its high dynamic range can yield any
>number of correct JPG or other images.
There isn't? It would seem easy to me shooting RAW+.jpg. Post a link
to the .jpg right out of the camera, and then post a link to the RAW
version that has been adjusted to improve the image and saved-as a
.jpg. Sounds dead simple to me.
>As I said in another post it is analogous to darkroom work where
>technical and creative variations in process (at the film or print) can
>yield very different, but desired results.
>
>Trial version of Elements and CS3 can be downloaded for trial.
Yes, yes. I know.
>> That seemed
>> like a simple thing to provide and something that would make the case
>> for RAW.
>
>The case for raw has been made by many people who use it to yield the
>highest quality images.
Certainly. The case for *them*. The case for the undecided hasn't
been made or everyone would be using RAW.
Look...I'm not *demanding* that anyone do anything that they can't be
arsed to do. I'm suggesting that if someone wants to show off their
expertise with RAW, this is a good opportunity to show what can be
done.
Chris Malcolm
> tony cooper wrote:
>> I am surprised that no one was able or willing to offer a
>> before-and-after image of the effects of RAW processing.
> There is no such thing as a before-and-after image for the effect of raw
> processing as any raw image, due to its high dynamic range can yield any
> number of correct JPG or other images.
That's only true if what you want is a general purpose
comparison. It's always possible to do specific purpose
comparisons. For example, take a shot in both jpeg and raw, select a
bit of intricate well focussed detail and process both to extract
maximum detail and compare. The same can be done for recovery of
detail from dark detail and partially blown highlights.
> As I said in another post it is analogous to darkroom work where
> technical and creative variations in process (at the film or print) can
> yield very different, but desired results.
> Trial version of Elements and CS3 can be downloaded for trial.
>> That seemed
>> like a simple thing to provide and something that would make the case
>> for RAW.
> The case for raw has been made by many people who use it to yield the
> highest quality images.
There is a general case for RAW to be made in terms of flexibility of
changing colour balance and exposure compensation. But if you get WB
and exposure nearly correct the case for RAW has to be made in other
terms, such as detail capture. Here the results are extremely variable
depending on how good are the jpegs different cameras produce. Some
camera models lose obvious amounts of fine detail in their best
quality jpegs, others lose none.
It's a very idea to some of your own detailed comparisons, because you
will then learn enough from what you see to be able to dismiss a great
deal of the accepted wisdom about RAW spouted by those who don't
experiment but simply repeat fashionable opinion.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Scott W
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:25:20 -0400, Alan Browne
>
I don't have anything for Nikon Raw images, but I do have a few shots
from a canon.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045031
The top image is the jpeg out of the camera at a good exposure, the
next one down is the jpeg when over exposed by 2 stops, the bottom one
shows how much of the image can be recovered from the raw file.
There is a lot more to raw then just recovering over exposed images,
like way better control of white balance and color space.
Scott
tony cooper
An interesting comparison, and the first I've seen of actual results.
The ability to manipulate an image in post-processing, by whatever
means, is both a blessing and a curse. We can recover what would have
been lost shots, but we pay the price in dollars for the programs and
time to learn and use the programs.
Sometimes I wonder if it's worth it. Glancing through your gallery, I
came across the photo "Family when I was small" (Old Pictures). That
shot was taken when we took one, two a the most, photos of a scene.
That shadow of the person taking the photograph is something that all
of us have in some photo in the family album (a real album with prints
secured in black corner triangles). The shot is memorable just for
that.
Today, though, we take ten or fifteen shots of that group, and we'd
look at the LCD at the last picture before taking the next one and
move so the shadow isn't there. In post processing, we'd find shots
where Audrey and Howard (I think I've picked the right names) were
looking at the camera and smiling brightly, stick it under the
background layer, and use a mask in Photoshop to replace the faces
with posterity-acceptable ones. We all end up with plastic-perfect
shots.
Two weekends ago, I rented a pontoon boat and my family (daughter,
son-in-law, son, daughter-in-law, two grandchildren, my wife, and I)
all spent the day cruising on a river in the Ocala National Forest.
My daughter took over 400 images, and I took just over a hundred.
That's more exposures than I think I ever took in a whole year on
film.
But I digress. And ramble. Thanks for the comparison shots. And, I
*am* impressed that your grandparents met Linus Pauling. Do you still
juggle?
tony cooper
wrote:
There's a certain arrogance expressed in the photography newsgroups
that distresses me. It comes out in the discussions about glass,
camera bodies and their integral parts, post-processing schemes, color
management, and workflow. The idea seems to be that if you have
mediocre photographs that what you are lacking is the mechanical means
to take or process the images.
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:25:20 -0400, Alan Browne
><alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>tony cooper wrote:
>>
>>> I am surprised that no one was able or willing to offer a
>>> before-and-after image of the effects of RAW processing.
>>
>>There is no such thing as a before-and-after image for the effect of raw
>>processing as any raw image, due to its high dynamic range can yield any
>>number of correct JPG or other images.
>
>There isn't? It would seem easy to me shooting RAW+.jpg. Post a link
>to the .jpg right out of the camera, and then post a link to the RAW
>version that has been adjusted to improve the image and saved-as a
>.jpg. Sounds dead simple to me.
The amount of processing a RAW converter can do is very large and all of
it is adjustable.
You can turn out thousands of different JPG, TIFF or DNG images from a
Raw file.
Chris Malcolm
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:12:53 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
> <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Here's an example where the dollar cost was zero, because all the
programs involved are free, and where the amount of processing
involved was so simple and standard that the time involved in learning
to do it was negligible.
I had started to use PTLens for perspective correction. But PTLens
only accepts jpegs, so using it involves an extra step of jpeg
compression, plus there is bound to be some detail lost in the
perspective correction as well. I wanted to know how much.
So I did the same simple processing to two images, one in which I
started with the RAW image, and the other in which I started with the
accompanying jpeg image produced by the camera.
I found that there was very little detail lost in the extra jpeg
compression step plus the perspective transformation, so little that
it was more than compensated for by the very slight extra gain in
detail provided by starting from RAW.
JPEG: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_malcolm/2440484093/
RAW: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_malcolm/2441447204/
I had previously looked for and failed to find any loss of detail
comparing my Sony R1 RAW files with the corresponding JPEGs. In this
particular case the detail was present in an area that was also
overexposed, so the extra dynamic range of the RAW image helped.
Chris Malcolm
> In message <40o564t9vc6r43r6u...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>>On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:25:20 -0400, Alan Browne
>><alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>tony cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am surprised that no one was able or willing to offer a
>>>> before-and-after image of the effects of RAW processing.
>>>
>>>There is no such thing as a before-and-after image for the effect of raw
>>>processing as any raw image, due to its high dynamic range can yield any
>>>number of correct JPG or other images.
>>
>>There isn't? It would seem easy to me shooting RAW+.jpg. Post a link
>>to the .jpg right out of the camera, and then post a link to the RAW
>>version that has been adjusted to improve the image and saved-as a
>>.jpg. Sounds dead simple to me.
> The amount of processing a RAW converter can do is very large and all of
> it is adjustable.
> You can turn out thousands of different JPG, TIFF or DNG images from a
> Raw file.
You can also turn out thousands of different JPG, TIFF or DNG images
from a JPG file. JUst not quite so many thousands :-)
David J Taylor
[]
> JPEG: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_malcolm/2440484093/
>
> RAW: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_malcolm/2441447204/
>
> I had previously looked for and failed to find any loss of detail
> comparing my Sony R1 RAW files with the corresponding JPEGs. In this
> particular case the detail was present in an area that was also
> overexposed, so the extra dynamic range of the RAW image helped.
Chris,
When the "exposures" in the JPEG image are so different, I find this
comparison not very useful. You would have seen more detail in the street
name had you simply turned down the exposure. Perhaps this is why I have
my DSLR pernamanetly set to -1/3 stop!
Cheers,
David
Chris Malcolm
Ah yes. You know you're becoming a good photographer when people tell
you that you must have a very good camera :-)
Chris Malcolm
> Chris,
The jpeg and the RAW were the same shot, set to produce both a JPEG
and a RAW. You can from the EXIF data that they're taken at identical
times with identical camera settings. It's the same shot processed by
two different routes stating with the in-camera JPEG versus the
in-camera RAW of the same shot. I used very simple editing in Picasa
on both aimed at trying to get the best detail I could from each
version. The RAW image ended up darker than the JPEG simply because I
couldn't find a way of brightening it to be more like the JPEG without
losing detail. Perhaps it was possible to have the extra brightness in
the JPEG version simply because the default JPEG processing applied in
camera had laready blown out highlight detail thus permitting more
brightening before detail was lost.
Of course you're right about getting more detail if I simply had used
a lower exposure. I suspect if I'd turned down the exposure enough to
catch all the highlight in the JPEG that I might then not have seen
any more detail in the RAW :-) I've looked for detail differences
before between RAW and JPEG in mid-toned areas and failed to find
them.
Scott W
My Parents switch from film to digital in 2000, their photos are much
better now that they are shooting digit. The image you refer to
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/31445500 is the classic film
shot, every one poised. They still take that kind of group photo, but
they also feel free to take this kind of shot http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/99285923
that shot shows a slice of life and to my mind will have much more
value 54 years from now compared to the fist shot.
In looking back at photos that I have taken in the past I always wish
I had taken more not less. It is hard to know what photo is going to
hold a special value years from now.
I still juggle, just about every week. The canoe club I belong to
has a drinking party every Thursday, I figure if I can still juggle
three beer bottles I am good to drive.
Scott
Scott W
For some images the glass makes all the difference, I take a lot of
photos during canoe races, it is not easy to get close to the boats so
a good long lens is needed, this is a 100% crop from an image taken
with a 300mm lens. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/99286567/original
But most of the time the lighting is more important to the shot then
the equipment. In this case I got very close to the action but I was
using a cheap camera. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/75743838/original
BTW those guys are both in their 60s, the women in the first photo
were all in their 60s but one.
The gear you use can make a bit difference, but so can a lot of other
factors as well.
Scott
Alan Browne
> Look...I'm not *demanding* that anyone do anything that they can't be
> arsed to do. I'm suggesting that if someone wants to show off their
> expertise with RAW, this is a good opportunity to show what can be
> done.
There is only one person who can find the value of raw processing for you.
The various posts from others and myself suggesting _you_ DL PS E or CS3
refer. Of course nobody is demanding that you do so.
The time wasted thus far in this thread could have served you in this
respect, n'est pas?
Alan Browne
> It's a very idea to some of your own detailed comparisons, because you
> will then learn enough from what you see to be able to dismiss a great
> deal of the accepted wisdom about RAW spouted by those who don't
> experiment but simply repeat fashionable opinion.
Thank you for confirming my point and adding additional valuable
information.
Cheers,
Alan
Chris Malcolm
> On 26 Jun 2008 08:10:33 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Chris Malcolm
> <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In rec.photo.digital tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>I had started to use PTLens for perspective correction. But PTLens
>>only accepts jpegs, so using it involves an extra step of jpeg
>>compression, plus there is bound to be some detail lost in the
>>perspective correction as well. I wanted to know how much.
> FYI, Bibble Labs has a raw converter that incorporates PTLens and Noise
> Ninja.
Thanks. The more I learn about Bibble the more I get the impression
that it was devised by some unusually intelligent people. It's
sounding so good I might even be persuaded to spend some money :-)
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> Look...I'm not *demanding* that anyone do anything that they can't be
>> arsed to do. I'm suggesting that if someone wants to show off their
>> expertise with RAW, this is a good opportunity to show what can be
>> done.
>
>There is only one person who can find the value of raw processing for you.
>
>The various posts from others and myself suggesting _you_ DL PS E or CS3
>refer. Of course nobody is demanding that you do so.
>
>The time wasted thus far in this thread could have served you in this
>respect, n'est pas?
The translation of "n'est pas" is easy enough, but the rest of your
post seems to say "I'm a pompous twit, and I have absolutely no idea
of how to provide an example of an image improved by editing in RAW."
I only had a problem with the one word; is it an "i" or an "a"?
ASAAR
paragraph wrote:
> My Parents switch from film to digital in 2000, their photos are much
> better now that they are shooting digit.
> The image you refer to
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/31445500 is the classic film
> shot, every one poised.
> They still take that kind of group photo, but
> they also feel free to take this kind of shot http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/99285923
> that shot shows a slice of life and to my mind will have much more
> value 54 years from now compared to the fist shot.
Poised to flee, because I think that they were trying to avoid
looking into the sun. Yeah, yeah, I know, they're only typos.
Please don't take this as any type of criticism (and I'm not
shooting you a digit). Just wanted to let you know that your
message gave me not just a grin, but a rolling wave of grins! :)
Paul Furman
>
> Before I pop for Capture NX, I'd like to be sure that there's
> something to be gained. So many people rave about processing in RAW,
> but I've never seen a before and after that shows something that can't
> be done in PS7.
Apart from extending dynamic range, I did a test to see if sharpness &
detail was improved by raw conversion. It is slightly improved:
http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg
It is nothing fancy. A contrast enhancing curve was applied to all but
the first to emphasize differences. I fiddled with the raw conversion
settings to try & match the jpeg as closely as possible but it was
impossible to get exactly the same look, especially noise reduction. The
jpeg is cleaner but has a bit less detail.
Here's one that shows better shadow detail in really extreme conditions:
http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/raw-convert
I forget the specifics on that but it was a really strong curve applied.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Alan Browne
When faced with a truth that demands your own action you resort to
insults. I had doubts about your integrity based on past posts where
you seem more interested in debate than the subject itself.
One last time: If you're truly interested in what raw can and cannot do
v. what's left of an in-camera JPG then the best way to find out is by
yourself.
Compared to the day when people spent money and hours and hours of
evenings and weekends to try variants of papers, chemicals, recipes and
techniques in the darkroom and w/o the benefit of the internet to
rapidly share information and ask questions, your laziness with respect
to getting free-to-try software and exploring it yourself is very
telling. Unless you have other motives, of course.
As I was processing some images yesterday in the CS3 raw import, I
noticed some purple fringing in a very high contrast area. This occurs
most often when there is a saturated white area next to a
black/near-black area; esp. at wide apertures.
This is easily controlled in the CS3 raw import with a specific function
in the lens correction/control menu. The in-camera JPG (I record both)
also had the purple fringe. Not so easy to correct the JPG v. in CS3.
I also reduced the blue channel slightly and punched the red.
All of the above occurs at 16 bits/color which of course means I had
more to work with in CS3 (also at 16 bits/color [camera is 12b/c]).
No. I will not post these for you. You can do your own frikkin homework
while I do more productive things.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:24:44 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>> There is only one person who can find the value of raw processing for you.
>>>
>>> The various posts from others and myself suggesting _you_ DL PS E or CS3
>>> refer. Of course nobody is demanding that you do so.
>>>
>>> The time wasted thus far in this thread could have served you in this
>>> respect, n'est pas?
>>
>> The translation of "n'est pas" is easy enough, but the rest of your
>> post seems to say "I'm a pompous twit, and I have absolutely no idea
>> of how to provide an example of an image improved by editing in RAW."
>>
>> I only had a problem with the one word; is it an "i" or an "a"?
>
>When faced with a truth that demands your own action you resort to
>insults. I had doubts about your integrity based on past posts where
>you seem more interested in debate than the subject itself.
Patronizing and unhelpful posts that state the patently obvious bring
that out in me.
>One last time: If you're truly interested in what raw can and cannot do
>v. what's left of an in-camera JPG then the best way to find out is by
>yourself.
And one last time for you: I'm truly interested in the opinions,
experience, and comparative results of others. I *know* that I can
download evaluation programs, and have known that since the beginning.
One of the benefits of a newsgroup, though, is that we can tap into
the knowledge and experience of others before plunging in.
If you read the replies, you will have noticed that there were several
different suggestions offered. Some people actually went out of their
way to provide helpful suggestions. I learned some things, and other
readers of the thread may have picked up some useful suggestions. No
one gained from your comments.
>Compared to the day when people spent money and hours and hours of
>evenings and weekends to try variants of papers, chemicals, recipes and
>techniques in the darkroom and w/o the benefit of the internet to
>rapidly share information and ask questions, your laziness with respect
>to getting free-to-try software and exploring it yourself is very
>telling. Unless you have other motives, of course.
What a self-involved twat you are. My first computer was an Archives
CP/M unit with no internal drive. My first contact with other people
on computers was through BBS's with a 300 baud modem. I've paid my
dues in figuring things out by trial and error. I'm perfectly willing
to be "lazy" now, and ask for suggestions from people who have already
been down that road. One of the reasons we are on the internet, and
post to forums and newsgroups, is to share information.
Alan Browne
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:28:07 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> When faced with a truth that demands your own action you resort to
>> insults. I had doubts about your integrity based on past posts where
>> you seem more interested in debate than the subject itself.
>
> Patronizing and unhelpful posts that state the patently obvious bring
> that out in me.
Wow. I wonder what happens over a serious issue.
>> One last time: If you're truly interested in what raw can and cannot do
>> v. what's left of an in-camera JPG then the best way to find out is by
>> yourself.
>
> And one last time for you: I'm truly interested in the opinions,
> experience, and comparative results of others. I *know* that I can
> download evaluation programs, and have known that since the beginning.
> One of the benefits of a newsgroup, though, is that we can tap into
> the knowledge and experience of others before plunging in.
Precisely. "knowledge and experience". Which is why I (and others)
have told you that since raw processing delivers a very wide range of
possible output, you are the only person who can evaluate raw usage for
your needs. This is the "knowledge and experience" talking. I've been
using raw for over three years.
How long have you been using it? Ah yes zero. So take the hint.
> If you read the replies, you will have noticed that there were several
> different suggestions offered.
Yes, that is what usenet is about. You get different experience, input,
opinions and suggestions. All are welcome. And nobody has to go out of
their way for any reason.
> Some people actually went out of their
> way to provide helpful suggestions. I learned some things, and other
> readers of the thread may have picked up some useful suggestions. No
> one gained from your comments.
That you didn't gain from it is your problem.
People have been gaining from my comments on these photo NG's for nearly
8 years. I am very grateful for all that I have learned in return.
>> Compared to the day when people spent money and hours and hours of
>> evenings and weekends to try variants of papers, chemicals, recipes and
>> techniques in the darkroom and w/o the benefit of the internet to
>> rapidly share information and ask questions, your laziness with respect
>> to getting free-to-try software and exploring it yourself is very
>> telling. Unless you have other motives, of course.
>
> What a self-involved twat you are. My first computer was an Archives
> CP/M unit with no internal drive. My first contact with other people
> on computers was through BBS's with a 300 baud modem. I've paid my
> dues in figuring things out by trial and error. I'm perfectly willing
> to be "lazy" now, and ask for suggestions from people who have already
> been down that road. One of the reasons we are on the internet, and
> post to forums and newsgroups, is to share information.
Oh puh-leeze. You have crashed and burned on this issue and resorted to
name calling like a petulant high school girl.
Over the course of the last few days I've processed 35 raw images
(keepers out of 177 images taken) from Tuesday.
Ya see, while you're wasting your time, I'm using the tool for my
photography.
I guess that really summarizes it.
Cats
<snip>
> >There is no such thing as a before-and-after image for the effect of raw
> >processing as any raw image, due to its high dynamic range can yield any
> >number of correct JPG or other images.
>
> There isn't? It would seem easy to me shooting RAW+.jpg. Post a link
> to the .jpg right out of the camera, and then post a link to the RAW
> version that has been adjusted to improve the image and saved-as a
> .jpg. Sounds dead simple to me.
That is *not* a correct comparison, as the camera has produced the JPG
in whatever way it is programmed to do. When a human processes a RAW
image they will be aiming to produce something they consider better
than the camera's default processing does. It goves you complete
choice about setting white & black points, curves, and so on, choices
which are made for you when the camera produces a JPG/
Cats
> that distresses me. It comes out in the discussions about glass,
> camera bodies and their integral parts, post-processing schemes, color
> management, and workflow. The idea seems to be that if you have
> mediocre photographs that what you are lacking is the mechanical means
> to take or process the images.
To a degree you have a point - but I try to get it right before I
press the shutter and *still* shoot RAW and work on it afterwards.
But at the end of the day, glass is what is the ultimate constraint in
image quality (and most of us can't afford the best glass), camera
bodies are a matter of choice and what fits your hands, and however
one manages post-processing images have a method one always uses (a
workflow) will reduce the time it takes and increase the reliability
of the outcome.
Does any of this matter? It depends what your aspirations are. If
you want to get an FRPS then a lot of it matters. If you want to
capture family moments for posterity then a nice little P&S camera
taking JPGS is probably all you need, and of course there are all
shades inbetween. There are also the people who are simply gear
freaks - they exist in all tchnical hobbies. My own aspirations are
to take images I can print on A3+ paper for camera club entries, and
to get an LRPS, so a lot of this stuff starts to matter. And for the
record, in some groups I belong to where images are put up for
critique, my comment is often that a better initial shot would have
been a much better starting point. I don't have the patience to make
a good job of blurring the background because I forgot to do it when
pressing the shutter - notr do I have the skill to make a good job of
that. But, there are 'critical moment' photos where one only has one
chance or a very few changes of taking the shot, and good post-
processing can make a lot of difference to the quality of the final
image.
Cats
<snip>
> And one last time for you: I'm truly interested in the opinions,
> experience, and comparative results of others.
<snip>
A lot of people are telling you that their experience, opinions and
comparative results all point towards using RAW images, but you keep
saying 'show me'.
tony cooper
wrote:
This is a reiteration of what is written elsewhere about the
advantages of RAW. I'm sure you are absolutely correct and have
offered a neat precis of the features of processing in RAW.
This information, like the information that RAW processing programs
are available for trial downloads, was available to me before I made
my original post and I had already read about all of this.
What I asked in that post was if someone would link to a
before-and-after image that shows how this has worked for them.
I honestly don't understand why this request has created such a fuss.
I would think that the reception would be that people like you who use
and value RAW processing would jump on the chance to show what they
have been able to accomplish.
Every day there are links to finished images in this group, so it's
quite clear that the regulars in this group like to show off their
work. As they should.
You spoke of submitting image for club competitions in another post.
These competitions are often themed...submit an image in black and
white, submit a macro, submit an image of a flower, etc. What if the
competition was "Submit two images - before and after - where you have
improved the original in your RAW processing"? Would this offend you?
Would you be willing to submit an image of a nature study image, but
decline to submit the RAW process image project and say, instead, that
if the competition committee wanted to see examples of what RAW can
do, then the competition committee should do their own
experimentation?
My post was not about what RAW can do and how to obtain the ability to
process in RAW. I had already read up on that. My post was an
invitation to show how RAW has benefited *you*. By example.
If you don't choose to do this, that's quite all right. I would
understand if you are not interested in going to this trouble. What I
don't understand is why you (generic "you") are offended by the
request, though. What I don't understand is why you are willing to
take the time to reiterate what is already known about what RAW
is/does and the "Why?" of RAW, but unwilling to do a one line post
that is a link to an example of how its worked for you.
tony cooper
wrote:
>On Jun 27, 11:05 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Yes. "Show me" an example of how it has worked for you. I'm not
asking for you to "convince me" or to "educate me" or to "train me".
tony cooper
wrote:
>On Jun 26, 5:15 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> There's a certain arrogance expressed in the photography newsgroups
>> that distresses me. It comes out in the discussions about glass,
>> camera bodies and their integral parts, post-processing schemes, color
>> management, and workflow. The idea seems to be that if you have
>> mediocre photographs that what you are lacking is the mechanical means
>> to take or process the images.
>
>To a degree you have a point - but I try to get it right before I
>press the shutter and *still* shoot RAW and work on it afterwards.
My point in this is that too often photographs are criticized by
people who lay the criticism at the door of the taker having an
inferior lens, the wrong brand of equipment, or not using the right
software to manipulate the image when - in fact - the subject and the
composition itself is unworthy.
Take, for example, a photograph of a sparrow. The image is of a
sparrow sitting on a branch. Unless there's something about the bird
and the pose that is of interest, it's just another bird picture.
Yet, someone will say that the feathers aren't sharply detailed
because the lens is inferior or the image needs selective sharpening
or is over-sharpened. Someone will say the blacks aren't black enough
or there's not enough or too much saturation in the sky background.
I look at those pictures, and those comments, and wonder why these
comments are made and why the person critiquing has even considered
these points. The composition is a sow's ear and there's nothing that
could have been done differently to make it a silk purse.
While I've used a sparrow as an example, it's actually scenic shots
that make me think this way the most. A field, a mountain, or
whatever vista we're talking about may be beautiful to the
photographer when he sees it, but the image result may be completely
without interest, and no change in equipment or post-processing will
make it interesting.
That is not to say, of course, that a scenic shot cannot be
interesting if the photographer has captured some aspect that does
result in a good composition.
I won't snip the rest of your comments because they are interesting
even though they don't relate to what I had in mind when I made my
original comment.
>But at the end of the day, glass is what is the ultimate constraint in
>image quality (and most of us can't afford the best glass), camera
>bodies are a matter of choice and what fits your hands, and however
>one manages post-processing images have a method one always uses (a
>workflow) will reduce the time it takes and increase the reliability
>of the outcome.
>
>Does any of this matter? It depends what your aspirations are. If
>you want to get an FRPS then a lot of it matters. If you want to
>capture family moments for posterity then a nice little P&S camera
>taking JPGS is probably all you need, and of course there are all
>shades inbetween. There are also the people who are simply gear
>freaks - they exist in all tchnical hobbies. My own aspirations are
>to take images I can print on A3+ paper for camera club entries, and
>to get an LRPS, so a lot of this stuff starts to matter. And for the
>record, in some groups I belong to where images are put up for
>critique, my comment is often that a better initial shot would have
>been a much better starting point. I don't have the patience to make
>a good job of blurring the background because I forgot to do it when
>pressing the shutter - notr do I have the skill to make a good job of
>that. But, there are 'critical moment' photos where one only has one
>chance or a very few changes of taking the shot, and good post-
>processing can make a lot of difference to the quality of the final
>image.
--
Wilson
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:doec64tb4oc9k6is4...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> What I asked in that post was if someone would link to a
> before-and-after image that shows how this has worked for them.
>
Type "raw vs. jpg" in the Google search box, click search, and you'll have
plenty of comparisons to look over. Takes about 15 seconds to find links to
what you seem to be looking for.
In another thread you wrote:
>>> I do quite a bit of table-top photography under external
>>> lighting. Because I do several shots of several objects, I want
>>> consistent results. So, I set my white balance with a gray card and
>>> use the Manual settings.
If you are doing table top photography for say eBay or something similar and
you are getting your white balance and exposure set correctly then you don't
necessarily need to be shooting in RAW. You should get consistent results
from what you are doing now. So I say JPG away, but in the end you are the
one making the photograph.
Scott W
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:doec64tb4oc9k6is4...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:59:25 -0700 (PDT), Cats <ramwa...@uk2.net>
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > What I asked in that post was if someone would link to a
> > before-and-after image that shows how this has worked for them.
>
> Type "raw vs. jpg" in the Google search box, click search, and you'll have
> plenty of comparisons to look over. Takes about 15 seconds to find links to
> what you seem to be looking for.
What you will find with such a search are threads much like this one,
a lot of words but not much in the way of photos of jpeg vs. raw, I
really don't know why.
> In another thread you wrote:
>
> >>> I do quite a bit of table-top photography under external
> >>> lighting. Because I do several shots of several objects, I want
> >>> consistent results. So, I set my white balance with a gray card and
> >>> use the Manual settings.
>
> If you are doing table top photography for say eBay or something similar and
> you are getting your white balance and exposure set correctly then you don't
> necessarily need to be shooting in RAW. You should get consistent results
> from what you are doing now. So I say JPG away, but in the end you are the
> one making the photograph.
I find raw easier to work with then jpg, it reduces the time I spend
adjusting photos. I much prefer a raw workflow.
Scott
tony cooper
wrote:
>>>> I do quite a bit of table-top photography under external
>>>> lighting. Because I do several shots of several objects, I want
>>>> consistent results. So, I set my white balance with a gray card and
>>>> use the Manual settings.
>
>If you are doing table top photography for say eBay or something similar and
>you are getting your white balance and exposure set correctly then you don't
>necessarily need to be shooting in RAW. You should get consistent results
>from what you are doing now. So I say JPG away, but in the end you are the
>one making the photograph.
My current project in this area is shooting some antique sterling
silver flatware. I'm thinning down the stuff I've collected over the
years and will be selling it on eBay. I sold quite a few pieces a
couple of years ago, and I'll be selling a few more now.
I don't think there's anything more difficult to photograph than a
silver spoon. The bowl is like a mirror. If I use a soft box, the
silver looks flat and dull. If I don't use a soft box, managing the
lighting and glare is tricky. The lights, the photographer, and the
whole area around the set-up is reflected in the bowl. Since the bowl
is round, the spoon can't be positioned so nothing reflects. The best
angle is to shoot straight down on the spoon, so the camera is
reflected in the bowl. I've shot through cloth with a slit in it,
white foam board with a lens opening cut in it, and with the camera
from an angle, and I still can't eliminate the reflection.
I've tried various types of lighting and bulbs, but the spoon wins.
When the bowl is well lighted, the handle is often not well enough
lighted. Since sterling flatware has a pattern on the handle that
makes a difference, this area has to be sharp and clear.
Here's a couple of experiments with lighting:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony213/ Both will be re-shot because
I'm not yet happy with the results. One's with a Nikon P2 and one's
with a Nikon D40.
Some post-processing improvements can be made in Photoshop, but I
don't want the image to look faked.
When I look at ads for sterling spoons on eBay, my worst efforts are
far better than most of what I see. Still, I want to do it right.
I'm glad I don't do this for a living. When I consider the time I
have in experimenting compared to what I'll get for the item, it's a
losing proposition. But, I'm retired and my time is "free" and I
actually enjoy the process.
Wilson
I can see the difficulty of what you are trying to do. I don't do studio
type photography so I have nothing to suggest.
I've done some eBay selling and it is a lot more work than the average
person would think.
And yes I too am glad I don't have to do it for a living.
us...@domain.invalid
> I look at those pictures, and those comments, and wonder why these
> comments are made and why the person critiquing has even considered
> these points. The composition is a sow's ear and there's nothing that
> could have been done differently to make it a silk purse.
>
> While I've used a sparrow as an example, it's actually scenic shots
> that make me think this way the most. A field, a mountain, or
> whatever vista we're talking about may be beautiful to the
> photographer when he sees it, but the image result may be completely
> without interest, and no change in equipment or post-processing will
> make it interesting.
But it may indeed be very interesting to the taker. And that
person may be interested in how to, next time, make a technically
better picture. An esthetically uninteresting picture can be a fine vehicle
for such advice.
Doug McDonald
Cats
> before-and-after image that shows how this has worked for them.
<snip>
Since my camera takes RAW or JGP but not both at the same time I can't
provide that for you. And I'm not about to go out taking photos for
your benefit only.
Cats
> On Jun 28, 5:46 am, "Wilson" <w...@dixiedancekings.com> wrote:
>
> > Type "raw vs. jpg" in the Google search box, click search, and you'll have
> > plenty of comparisons to look over. Takes about 15 seconds to find links to
> > what you seem to be looking for.
>
> What you will find with such a search are threads much like this one,
> a lot of words but not much in the way of photos of jpeg vs. raw, I
> really don't know why.
There is a separate Google Images search that might provide what the
OP wants.
Wilson
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:68258dd0-829f-4de9...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 28, 5:46 am, "Wilson" <w...@dixiedancekings.com> wrote:
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:doec64tb4oc9k6is4...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:59:25 -0700 (PDT), Cats <ramwa...@uk2.net>
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > What I asked in that post was if someone would link to a
> > before-and-after image that shows how this has worked for them.
>
> Type "raw vs. jpg" in the Google search box, click search, and you'll have
> plenty of comparisons to look over. Takes about 15 seconds to find links
> to
> what you seem to be looking for.
What you will find with such a search are threads much like this one,
a lot of words but not much in the way of photos of jpeg vs. raw, I
really don't know why.
Try the 3rd Google link for comparative photos.
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/rawvsjpg/
I find raw easier to work with then jpg, it reduces the time I spend
adjusting photos. I much prefer a raw workflow.
Scott
I also like the RAW workflow and even use it for the jpgs from my point &
shoot digital. But I won't go so far as to say it's a timesaver.
Paul Furman
> ...willing to do a one line post
> that is a link to an example of how its worked for you.
Here's an example from yesterday (comparing crops):
http://edgehill.net/California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/edgehill-garden/Nursery/plants/6-27-08/full-set/raw
full image:
http://edgehill.net/California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/edgehill-garden/Nursery/plants/6-27-08/full-set/pg2pc11
NIKON D200 85.0mm f/3.2 1/500s ISO:400 EC:+1
lens:85mm f/2.8 D No Flash
The result of correcting overexposure in a case like this is a very low
noise ISO 400 shot. If I'd bothered to stop down as in other shots in
the series, it would have made sense but anyways this demonstrates how
raw can help better than the other shots. I should have turned down the
ISO for this particular one, instead I just opened the aperture to
soften the background & forgot. I did intentionally overexpose though
because I could see from the histogram that there weren't any harsh
highlights (cloudy skies) and you get a cleaner image pushing the
histogram to the right. Shooting raw lets you push for the best and
gives leeway for a little over. I shoot raw plus jpeg & usually use the
in-camera jpegs (about half of this set).
tony cooper
wrote:
Interesting shots. Yours usually are.
Alan Browne
> I've tried various types of lighting and bulbs, but the spoon wins.
> When the bowl is well lighted, the handle is often not well enough
> lighted. Since sterling flatware has a pattern on the handle that
> makes a difference, this area has to be sharp and clear.
>
> Here's a couple of experiments with lighting:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony213/ Both will be re-shot because
> I'm not yet happy with the results. One's with a Nikon P2 and one's
> with a Nikon D40.
The example on the right looks fine. The red back is not distracting,
the shadows nicely softened. There is a bit of blown out white in the
narrow part of the handle, so maybe dial back half to 2/3 stop on the
light. This to bring out the fine detail and that I suppose is what
buyers would want to see.
I had trouble with a product shot where a convex surface glared a
little. I was lighting it from a flat reflector on the floor. The
front of the product glared. I put a black strip of cloth on the
reflector lined up on the lens axis and the product and this was enough
to cut the glare and the scattered light off the refelctor filled in
perfectly.
So, try adding some black (or red) strips on your reflector/softbox to
cut the direct path light.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I've tried various types of lighting and bulbs, but the spoon wins.
>> When the bowl is well lighted, the handle is often not well enough
>> lighted. Since sterling flatware has a pattern on the handle that
>> makes a difference, this area has to be sharp and clear.
>>
>> Here's a couple of experiments with lighting:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony213/ Both will be re-shot because
>> I'm not yet happy with the results. One's with a Nikon P2 and one's
>> with a Nikon D40.
>
>The example on the right looks fine. The red back is not distracting,
>the shadows nicely softened. There is a bit of blown out white in the
>narrow part of the handle, so maybe dial back half to 2/3 stop on the
>light. This to bring out the fine detail and that I suppose is what
>buyers would want to see.
>
>I had trouble with a product shot where a convex surface glared a
>little. I was lighting it from a flat reflector on the floor. The
>front of the product glared. I put a black strip of cloth on the
>reflector lined up on the lens axis and the product and this was enough
>to cut the glare and the scattered light off the refelctor filled in
>perfectly.
>
>So, try adding some black (or red) strips on your reflector/softbox to
>cut the direct path light.
Thanks for the comments.
I've got a box full of material for backgrounds for various
projects...cloth, paper, foam board, matte board (used here)...and
various colors. Black is good because it absorbs shadows, but it
makes silver look stark. Antique gold pocket watches look good on
black, though. I just shot over 50 Indian relics on some dark blue
fuzzy cloth. (example added to
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony213/2619890008/ )
You've chided me for being lazy, but the truth is quite the reverse.
I've probably shot 200 images on this project alone to get close to
what I want to show for a piece of silver that will sell for $10 to
$20. It's feeling right about what I've done that counts. Actually
selling the item is incidental to the project.
My set-up's in the garage. I shoot a half-dozen shots, bring the card
in and look at the images, go back and move the lights around, shoot a
half-dozen more...repeat process.
I don't have a laptop, but what I'd like is a laptop in the garage
tethered to the camera so could shoot and look shot-by-shot.
richg99
"digital photo frames" being sold today have a card insert. If you already
have such a frame around the house ( many now do)..and you can pop your card
in, you have a portable picture viewer for no cost at all.
Even if you have a different type of card, there are lots of card adapters
that might make the idea work.
Of course, if you have neither the right card nor own a photo-frame...then
buying an older used laptop might be cheaper for this single purpose use.
regards, rich
tony cooper
<rich...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Tony...It is not a lap-top...but...if you are using a SD card...many
>"digital photo frames" being sold today have a card insert. If you already
>have such a frame around the house ( many now do)..and you can pop your card
>in, you have a portable picture viewer for no cost at all.
Actually, I do. I'll try that tomorrow. Might be quicker than
uploading to my desktop.
Douglas Johnson
>>> Anyone have some examples of a .jpg processed as a .jpg, and the same
>>> shot adjusted in Capture NX and then saved as a .jpg?
Well, this is not exactly what you are looking for, but it is close.
At http://www.douglasjohnson.org/RawOrJPEG/
you will see three pictures. The middle one, titled "JPEG from Camera" is just
that -- the JPEG produced by the camera. The only thing I've done is scale it
down to save your bandwidth. As you can see, the right hand, book, and scroll
is hopelessly blown out.
The left hand shot is the raw picture processed though DXO Optics with the
exposure adjusted down by 4 stops. You can see the hand, book, and scroll quite
clearly.
The right picture is the final Photoshop output from the -4 EV raw and a regular
raw processed through DXO Optics. A little layering and masking gives a pretty
decent picture. I'm not quite happy with the color of the book.
-- Doug
tony cooper
That's a nice example. Both definition of the hand, boot and scroll,
and the overall - what would you call it? - tone of the image.
The Royal Spam
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:26:49 -0500, Douglas Johnson
> <po...@classtech.com> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> Anyone have some examples of a .jpg processed as a .jpg, and the same
>>>>> shot adjusted in Capture NX and then saved as a .jpg?
>>
>> Well, this is not exactly what you are looking for, but it is close.
>>
>> At http://www.douglasjohnson.org/RawOrJPEG/
>>
>> you will see three pictures. The middle one, titled "JPEG from Camera" is
>> just
>> that -- the JPEG produced by the camera. The only thing I've done is scale
>> it
>> down to save your bandwidth. As you can see, the right hand, book, and
>> scroll
>> is hopelessly blown out.
>>
>> The left hand shot is the raw picture processed though DXO Optics with the
>> exposure adjusted down by 4 stops. You can see the hand, book, and scroll
>> quite
>> clearly.
>>
>> The right picture is the final Photoshop output from the -4 EV raw and a
>> regular
>> raw processed through DXO Optics. A little layering and masking gives a
>> pretty
>> decent picture. I'm not quite happy with the color of the book.
>>
Much easier to expose right in the first place, he was posing I presume so
no time pressure. Out of the three, the first one looks better but appears a
bit posterised, as do they all.
Douglas Johnson
>Much easier to expose right in the first place,
Absolutely. But as you can see, the lighting conditions were pretty
challenging. There was daylight from the door (the blue cast behind him) and
the desk lamp. That was it.
>he was posing I presume so
>no time pressure. Out of the three, the first one looks better but appears a
>bit posterised, as do they all.
He wasn't posing, it was candid. I walked into a calligraphy shop in Beijing,
took about 5 shots and walked out, trying not to disturb him. So I get home,
7000 miles away, and find I've got a picture I like that is unusable in the
JPEG, but can be recovered from the raw.
Which was the OP's original question.
-- Doug
tony cooper
And that's why it was an excellent example. Not only are there
perceptible improvements, but it's a good photo that could not be
reproduced by re-shooting.
The Royal Spam
I can't see any improvement, just different emphasis. The blown highlights
are still blown but now they are flat too. It may be better in mono. One
method you may like to try is to produce a jpeg for the highlights only,
then another for the shadows, then combine the 2 in Photoshop using a
feathered brush and painting out/in un/wanted areas.
Paul Furman
>
>> Douglas Johnsonwrote:
>>
>>> The Royal Spam <spam...@dontspamme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Much easier to expose right in the first place,
>>> Absolutely. But as you can see, the lighting conditions were pretty
>>> challenging. There was daylight from the door (the blue cast behind him) and
>>> the desk lamp. That was it.
>>>
>>>> he was posing I presume so
>>>> no time pressure. Out of the three, the first one looks better but appears a
>>>> bit posterised, as do they all.
>>> He wasn't posing, it was candid. I walked into a calligraphy shop in
>>> Beijing,
>>> took about 5 shots and walked out, trying not to disturb him. So I get home,
>>> 7000 miles away, and find I've got a picture I like that is unusable in the
>>> JPEG, but can be recovered from the raw.
>>>
>>> Which was the OP's original question.
>>>
>> And that's why it was an excellent example. Not only are there
>> perceptible improvements, but it's a good photo that could not be
>> reproduced by re-shooting.
>
> I can't see any improvement, just different emphasis.
The jpeg from camera version has zero detail in the highlights:
http://www.douglasjohnson.org/RawOrJPEG/slides/Final%20from%20Raw.html
> The blown highlights
> are still blown but now they are flat too. It may be better in mono. One
> method you may like to try is to produce a jpeg for the highlights only,
> then another for the shadows, then combine the 2 in Photoshop using a
> feathered brush and painting out/in un/wanted areas.
That's what he did. I remember when this was posted here a while back
with the raw file & people tried recovering the blown highlights: it was
really tough to get any detail back & there were a few attempts before
someone got a decent looking conversion. I couldn't get it to come out.
The composite looks pretty good in black & white but the colors in the
hand and book are messed up & can't really be recovered.
Douglas Johnson
>The composite looks pretty good in black & white but the colors in the
>hand and book are messed up & can't really be recovered.
Right, the red and green channels have very little detail in them, but the blue
channel is fine. That means that it is tough to get a real variety of colors in
the hand. But with a little work, I was able to get reasonable detail and a
color that doesn't offend too much.
-- Doug
RoushPhotoOnline.com
> On 26 Jun 2008 00:40:18 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In rec.photo.digital Alan Browne <alan.bro...@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> >> tony cooper wrote:
>
> >>> before-and-after image of the effects of RAW processing.
>
> >> There is no such thing as a before-and-after image for the effect of raw
> >> processing as any raw image, due to its high dynamic range can yield any
> >> number of correct JPG or other images.
>
> >comparison. It's always possible to do specific purpose
> >comparisons. For example, take a shot in both jpeg and raw, select a
> >bit of intricate well focussed detail and process both to extract
> >maximum detail and compare. The same can be done for recovery of
> >detail from dark detail and partially blown highlights.
>
> >> As I said in another post it is analogous to darkroom work where
> >> technical and creative variations in process (at the film or print) can
> >> yield very different, but desired results.
>
> >> Trial version of Elements and CS3 can be downloaded for trial.
>
> >>> That seemed
> >>> like a simple thing to provide and something that would make the case
> >>> for RAW.
>
> >> The case for raw has been made by many people who use it to yield the
> >> highest quality images.
>
> >There is a general case for RAW to be made in terms of flexibility of
> >changing colour balance and exposure compensation. But if you get WB
> >and exposure nearly correct the case for RAW has to be made in other
> >terms, such as detail capture. Here the results are extremely variable
> >depending on how good are the jpegs different cameras produce. Some
> >camera models lose obvious amounts of fine detail in their best
> >quality jpegs, others lose none.
>
> >It's a very idea to some of your own detailed comparisons, because you
> >will then learn enough from what you see to be able to dismiss a great
> >deal of the accepted wisdom about RAW spouted by those who don't
> >experiment but simply repeat fashionable opinion.
>
> There's a certain arrogance expressed in the photography newsgroups
> that distresses me. It comes out in the discussions about glass,
> camera bodies and their integral parts, post-processing schemes, color
> management, and workflow. The idea seems to be that if you have
> mediocre photographs that what you are lacking is the mechanical means
> to take or process the images.
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Raw files are esentially a "digital negative" and in some ways are the
acrhival duplication we save in our files. They also contain the
maximum information that your CCD produces. I'm a pro photographer
and shoot only raw files. When I digitally process them I save them
as Tiffs - being there is no loss of quality in this transfer. Jpgs,
on the other hand will digress in quality as they are retouched and
resaved. I deliver to my customers only Tiffs. Now, that being said,
my images end up being "printed in publications" which your's my not.
For internet use, and personal use the criteria is different for file
types. A photographer who show and displays work on the net as his
primary arena can use jpgs without a problem. However, a photographer
who either sells large prints or sends his images for publication
needs the Raw/Tiff workflow to maintain the level of quality not
expressed in jpg formats.
Also, just a tip - if you have a jpg image file and want to retouch it
- save it as a tiff first / do your retouching - then resave it as a
jpg. This extra step reduces the quality loss inherent to jpg
compression.
If you understand what I've written here there is no need for a
"comparison" of image file types.
Jeff Roush
Photography Instructor
http://www.roushphotoonline.com
http://www.roushstudios.com
John McWilliams
> On Jun 25, 11:15 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 26 Jun 2008 00:40:18 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
> Raw files are esentially a "digital negative" and in some ways are the
> acrhival duplication we save in our files. They also contain the
> maximum information that your CCD produces. I'm a pro photographer
> and shoot only raw files.
So am I, but I happily shoot JPEG for action sports under daylight. RAW
files *are* the digital negatives.
> When I digitally process them I save them
> as Tiffs - being there is no loss of quality in this transfer. Jpgs,
> on the other hand will digress in quality as they are retouched and
> resaved. I deliver to my customers only Tiffs. Now, that being said,
> my images end up being "printed in publications" which your's my not.
> For internet use, and personal use the criteria is different for file
> types. A photographer who show and displays work on the net as his
> primary arena can use jpgs without a problem. However, a photographer
> who either sells large prints or sends his images for publication
> needs the Raw/Tiff workflow to maintain the level of quality not
> expressed in jpg formats.
Actually, with few exceptions, you don't really need the TIFF or PSD
route: The printed output from a well heeled JPEG is indistinguishable
from that of a TIFF. Also, for archival purposes, you can't beat the RAW
file, and keeping it together with edits stored in its metadata, means
you can have your cake and eat it, too; and the storage space is way
smaller for RAW vs. TIFF.
> Also, just a tip - if you have a jpg image file and want to retouch it
> - save it as a tiff first / do your retouching - then resave it as a
> jpg. This extra step reduces the quality loss inherent to jpg
> compression.
If you start with a JPEG and do all your retouching before resaving,
there's no need to "go through" the TIFF making step, as in both cases
the JPEG is being resaved but once.
> If you understand what I've written here there is no need for a
> "comparison" of image file types.
Jeff, since you post from Google groups, a lot of folks won't see your
original, as many have blocked posts from there due to spam floods
courtesy of Google.
Also, I am assuming you're posting from alt.p, but most in this thread
are regulars at rec.photo.
Get a real newsfeed and join us!
--
John McWilliams
Chris H
<66309036-2bbd-4646...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
RoushPhotoOnline.com <jro...@roushstudios.com> writes
>
>Raw files are esentially a "digital negative" and in some ways are the
>acrhival duplication we save in our files. They also contain the
>maximum information that your CCD produces. I'm a pro photographer
>and shoot only raw files. When I digitally process them I save them
>as Tiffs - being there is no loss of quality in this transfer.
That is exactly what I do.
> Jpgs,
>on the other hand will digress in quality as they are retouched and
>resaved. I deliver to my customers only Tiffs.
I do unless they require jpgs
>Now, that being said,
>my images end up being "printed in publications" which your's my not.
>For internet use, and personal use the criteria is different for file
>types. A photographer who show and displays work on the net as his
>primary arena can use jpgs without a problem. However, a photographer
>who either sells large prints or sends his images for publication
>needs the Raw/Tiff workflow to maintain the level of quality not
>expressed in jpg formats.
>Also, just a tip - if you have a jpg image file and want to retouch it
>- save it as a tiff first / do your retouching - then resave it as a
>jpg. This extra step reduces the quality loss inherent to jpg
>compression.
>If you understand what I've written here there is no need for a
>"comparison" of image file types.
I agree... the problem is most do not seem to understand the problem or
the mechanics.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
tony cooper
<jro...@roushstudios.com> wrote:
>Also, just a tip - if you have a jpg image file and want to retouch it
>- save it as a tiff first / do your retouching - then resave it as a
>jpg. This extra step reduces the quality loss inherent to jpg
>compression.
>If you understand what I've written here there is no need for a
>"comparison" of image file types.
>
I "retouch" in Photoshop. Any adjusted image is immediately converted
to a .psd by duplicating the "background" layer. After adjustment, it
is "saved as" a .jpg if I need the .jpg format to use it. The .psd
file is kept and moved to my backup external hard drive if I don't
expect to continue to adjust it.
The request for a comparison was made to see how others have utilized
the benefits of RAW.
I, not you, will decide if I have a need to see the comparison. You,
not me, will decide if you choose to offer one.
Scott W
wrote:
I shoot only raw, and find great advantage in doing so.
I mostly convert to jpeg and find that it is very rare that a jpeg
image can be distinguished from a tiff, assuming the jpeg is save at
the highest quality level. Working with tiffs is the safe and
conservative thing to do, but in reality there just is not much loss
in the jpeg format.
Scott
clandestin_écureuil
This is something that I hear constantly, yet it not actually true. A jpeg
can be saved repeatedly without further compression loss if it is kept to
the right image size.
To quote from Wiki (and for those who disparage Wiki, it is a well
supported quote.)
"Lossless editing
A number of alterations to a JPEG image can be performed losslessly (that
is, without recompression and the associated quality loss) as long as the
image size is a multiple 1 MCU block (Minimum Coded Unit) (usually 16
pixels in both directions, for 4:2:0).
Blocks can be rotated in 90 degree increments, flipped in the horizontal,
vertical and diagonal axes and moved about in the image. Not all blocks
from the original image need to be used in the modified one.
The top and left of a JPEG image must lie on a block boundary, but the
bottom and right need not do so. This limits the possible lossless crop
operations, and also what flips and rotates can be performed on an image
whose edges do not lie on a block boundary for all channels.
When using lossless cropping, if the bottom or right side of the crop
region is not on a block boundary then the rest of the data from the
partially used blocks will still be present in the cropped file and can be
recovered relatively easily by anyone with a hex editor and an
understanding of the format.
It is also possible to transform between baseline and progressive formats
without any loss of quality, since the only difference is the order in
which the coefficients are placed in the file."
So in other words, if you select an original (from raw or tiff) image size
that is divisible by 16, it can be worked on and re-saved in a jpeg format.
The only reason I can think for doing such a thing would be if you needed
to email a number of files to someone who might be considering making
changes to them and need to use jpeg for reduced file sizes. I always shoot
raw and do all my work in Photoshop, only making jpegs with a copy of the
final result.
I have tried opening and re-saving a file of the correct size numerous
times without degrading the image quality, while if I open and re-save a
jpeg in a non-standard size it rapidly becomes an unusable mess.
Try it, it works. But only for me when the original jpeg was created in
either in Photoshop or one of the old Aldus programs, using some other
image programs seems to have problems, probably because they don't start
the image on a block boundary. Even some in-camera jpegs don't allow it,
though the jpegs from the Lumix range do.
> If you understand what I've written here there is no need for a
> "comparison" of image file types.
>
> Jeff Roush
> Photography Instructor
> http://www.roushphotoonline.com
> http://www.roushstudios.com
Secret Squirrel
--
Ingrid Rose
clandestin.ecureuil(insert missing symbol here)gmail.com
Chris Malcolm
> Raw files are esentially a "digital negative" and in some ways are the
> acrhival duplication we save in our files. They also contain the
> maximum information that your CCD produces. I'm a pro photographer
> and shoot only raw files. When I digitally process them I save them
> as Tiffs - being there is no loss of quality in this transfer. Jpgs,
> on the other hand will digress in quality as they are retouched and
> resaved.
It's true that TIFFs permit the repeated saving of possibly edited
files without the loss of quality theoretically unavoidable in
repeated jpeg compressions. I'm not sure how important that is if your
editors are capable of using the highest quality of jpeg compression
(which not all are). I do suspect from careful experiments that the
highest quality of jpeg compression sufficiently exceeds the native
quality of my camera and my best lenses by a sufficient margin that in
practice for me the jpeg caveat is irrelevant if I stick to the
highest quality, and of course keep the original, since even with
TIFFS repeated editing and saving can involve quality loss not due to
the savings but due to the editing.
I'm worried however by the initial translation of RAW to TIFF. Does
not the initial conversion to TIFF inevitably lose some of the
flexibility of the RAW file because it involves some parameter
assumptions?
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Cats
Converting RAW to anything else requires the image to be 'developed'
and that's the stage at which the flexibilty exists. If one doesn't
like the result one can do it again and again.
I 'develop' mine and save as PSD, as I can them preserve all my
editing layers. Saving as a JPG removes the layers. I print from
PSDs but obviously for some uses need a JPG in which case Save As
comes into play (yet) again.
Chris Malcolm
> On Jul 6, 9:30?am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital RoushPhotoOnline.com <jro...@roushstudios.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Raw files are esentially a "digital negative" and in some ways are the
>> > acrhival duplication we save in our files. They also contain the
>> > and shoot only raw files. ?When I digitally process them I save them
>> > as Tiffs - being there is no loss of quality in this transfer. ?Jpgs,
>> > on the other hand will digress in quality as they are retouched and
>>
>> It's true that TIFFs permit the repeated saving of possibly edited
>> files without the loss of quality theoretically unavoidable in
>> repeated jpeg compressions. I'm not sure how important that is if your
>> editors are capable of using the highest quality of jpeg compression
>> (which not all are). I do suspect from careful experiments that the
>> highest quality of jpeg compression sufficiently exceeds the native
>> quality of my camera and my best lenses by a sufficient margin that in
>> practice for me the jpeg caveat is irrelevant if I stick to the
>> highest quality, and of course keep the original, since even with
>> TIFFS repeated editing and saving can involve quality loss not due to
>> the savings but due to the editing.
>>
>> I'm worried however by the initial translation of RAW to TIFF. Does
>> not the initial conversion to TIFF inevitably lose some of the
>> flexibility of the RAW file because it involves some parameter
>> assumptions?
>>
> Converting RAW to anything else requires the image to be 'developed'
> and that's the stage at which the flexibilty exists. If one doesn't
> like the result one can do it again and again.
Exactly. But if you then rely on your TIFF or whatever as your iamge
archive and don't keep the original RAW file you've lost that
flexibility forever. Whereas if you keep the RAW file you don't need
to keep the TIFF. Keeping a TIIF original is a bit better than keeping
a high quality JPEG original, but it's not as good as keeping the RAW
file.
Cats
> In rec.photo.digital Cats <ramwa...@uk2.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> > Converting RAW to anything else requires the image to be 'developed'
> > and that's the stage at which the flexibilty exists. If one doesn't
> > like the result one can do it again and again.
>
> Exactly. But if you then rely on your TIFF or whatever as your iamge
> archive and don't keep the original RAW file you've lost that
> flexibility forever. Whereas if you keep the RAW file you don't need
> to keep the TIFF. Keeping a TIIF original is a bit better than keeping
> a high quality JPEG original, but it's not as good as keeping the RAW
> file.
I *do* keep the RAW files, and I don't use TIFF files for anything.
JPGs are only created where I want to upload something to Flickr or
use it on a web site - otherwise it's RAW and PSD files. And a large
hard disk.
John McWilliams
> "Cats" <ramw...@uk2.net> wrote in message
> news:e49eacef-45d6-47ba...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> I *do* keep the RAW files, and I don't use TIFF files for anything.
>> JPGs are only created where I want to upload something to Flickr or
>> use it on a web site - otherwise it's RAW and PSD files. And a large
>> hard disk.
>
>
Er! Adobe did 'em both.
--
john mcwilliams
George Kerby
On 7/9/08 12:55 PM, in article JIGdnYo-GfIOZunV...@comcast.com,
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
To be "technically absolutely" correct, TIFF was a product of Aldus
Corporation. I used the first versions of PageMaker who used those files,
back in the late 80's, if I correctly recall. Adobe acquired Aldus and did
eventually eliminated PageMaker.
Peter
news:e49eacef-45d6-47ba...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I *do* keep the RAW files, and I don't use TIFF files for anything.
>JPGs are only created where I want to upload something to Flickr or
>use it on a web site - otherwise it's RAW and PSD files. And a large
>hard disk.
Uhm! PSD is a TIFF file with a proprietary format, <vbg>
--
Peter