Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-13-2007, 11:20 PM   #31
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 184
Isn't the continuing development of RAW converters another good reason to shoot RAW ?

I see there's a new version of a popular RAW converter that applies noise reduction "before" demosaicing the RAW data resulting in arguably cleaner and more detailed images.

You can't go back and reprocess jpegs with this new software but you can reprocess your RAW files.

Similar thing happened with ACR V3.6? I think it was when they introducing a new demosaicing algorithm that slightly optimised RAW conversions.

bazz.

10-13-2007, 11:48 PM   #32
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 259
QuoteOriginally posted by stewart_photo Quote

Next, you might understand this "thing" a little better by noting some RAW-only advocates continue to post misleading information to support this position. For example, you made the claim above that JPEG is more difficult to post process than RAW, which is clearly utter hogwash. Once a RAW file is converted into either JPEG or TIFF with the conversion software (a necessary step since no graphics editing software can edit a RAW file directly), there is absolutely no difference between the two images from that point on. Both can be saved in lossy or lossless format, with the exact same post processing tools used for each.

At that point, there is very little else remaining to debate about.

stewart
I do not agree at all what you jpeg advocats has here. You can do such operations to RAW file that cannot be done or are very difficult to do to jpegs.

Of course pictures are saved in the end to jepgs or tiffs or psd:s depending what you going to do to them in future. But: you cannot get 16 bit tiff traight out of camera, which is needed to achieve best results in color adjustments. Adjusting 8bit jpeg:s causes many cases in color shifts very visible steps and rifts.

WB adjustments in difficult situations is no go with jpeg but doable with RAW:s. You shoud try to adjust colors in picture taken in sports hall or school gym illuminated with non-continuous spectrum of fluorite lamps....

All in all I think you do not even know what you are talking about or never used those possibilities or encountered those situations and so this discussion is meaningless.

And I agree that we can continue this when you have encountered the limits of jpegs and/or print regularly to A+ size
10-14-2007, 12:13 AM   #33
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by JamesD Quote
(snip) I'm looking right now at the current issue of Popular Photography and the article is: Why Raw Works. Here are a few quotes from that article: (snip)

The Popular Photography author is obviously trying to sell you on an idea and apparently using a used-car salesman's tactics to do so. Adjusting WB in Photoshop involves just a single tool (curves). If that is too confusing, you can always use one of the plug-ins available on the internat to make that adjustment. Colorstich, for example, part of the Power-Retouche Photoshop Filters, uses the same simple sliders used in Adobe Camera RAW to adjust WB. Contrast, saturation, and so on, can be modified using the one-step auto adjustment features in Photoshop. And, of course, manual adjustments are also available for even greater control.


QuoteQuote:
Question: When my new camera arrives (k10d) will the software that comes with it, allow me to make RAW conversion to JPEGs? Will this software also allow me to do post processing like changing white balance?

Yes, your camera will arrive with the basic software needed to convert RAW files. And, yes, that software will allow WB and similar adjustments. However, once your camera arrives, visit the Pentax website to make sure you have the latest versions of that software.

stewart
10-14-2007, 12:33 AM   #34
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by Harald Quote
(snip) WB adjustments in difficult situations is no go with jpeg but doable with RAW:s. (snip) All in all I think you do not even know what you are talking about (snip)

Harald, I just explained in the message immediately following yours how simple it is to adjust WB in Photoshop (and similar graphics editing programs). So before you start accusing someone of not knowing what they're talking about, it might be a really good idea to know a little bit more yourself. Of course, the best way to do that is to ask instead of making assumptions and accusations.

And that's enough for me in this converstion. When the comments towards me start getting personal, it's time to move on before I say something that most here would probably not want to hear.

stewart

10-14-2007, 02:15 AM   #35
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 259
steward_photo, this is nothing personal, and you know it . We just do not agree. If you take it personally, I cant help.

But, lets have an practise: here is two pictures. Both are jpeg:s, one without adjustments, one adjustments made in Silkypix. It took less than one minute for me to adjust this in RAW converter because I knew what to do. In photoshop just curves (forgot to do it in converter) and slight smartsharpen are added. I didnt do anything to sharpen them properly or crop etc. because this is an WB adjustment practice...

You can show us with the second picture how you do it in Photoshop. I have tried it but after long session I coudnt get it right. I hope you are better than me. Colours in first one are almost correct , so you can compare your results to it. I have taken pictures in that kind of rinks quite a lot and there is no proper setting for in camera jpegs. Second picture is more or less best you can get with straight out of the camera jpegs. All other settings give us even worse starting point. First pictures starting point in Silkypix was similar as it is in the second picture, I am not cheating here. There is not any proper preset setting for WB in this job in Silkypix either. I can tell you what I did if needed and even send you the original RAW-file....

I hope you are succesful, because then you could teach me your methods then and I would have an possibility to learn something.

But use only Photoshop, not RAW converter. Whole idea of this discussion is lost if you load this jpeg to Silkypix and adjust it there. It is possible, but actually it is then same as RAW workflow.



10-14-2007, 06:58 AM   #36
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
Okay, this is extremely simple, Harald. I'm using Photoshop CS2, but it should work the same with CS3. Do you have either? If so, I'll walk you through the steps needed to adjust the colors, so you can see for yourself and know I'm not playing any tricks. Others can download the files and follow along as well. All that is required is four simple steps.

1. Open the two files, select the file with the green tint (the other is for comparison), and then open the "Curves" tool under "Image/Adjustments."

2. Directly under the "Options" button on the far right, select the far right pickup tool (if you hover the cursor over each tool, a popup will show the names). This one is your white point selection. Using this tool, click about one quarter of an inch onto the ice directly above the helmet of player 21 (a decent mid white area).

3. Select the middle pickup tool. This is your gray point. Select about an eight of an inch under the "o" and "m" on the bottom of the shirt of player 21 (a good mid gray area).

4. Select the far left pickup tool. This is your black point. Select the black area on the shoulder of player 25 (a fine mid black area).

At this point, your colors should be entirely normal - no green tint, with good grays and blacks. Now, under the same adjustments menu, adjust your brightness, contrast, saturation, and so on, to your own personal taste. I had to turn them all down to match your first image.

By the way, you can play around with selecting other areas of the image with the tools described to see the various results. My selections were an attempt to match your first file, but I feel the image can be improved significantly by selecting other areas.

Now, having said all that, when you start suggesting I'm ignorant ("you do not even know what you are talking about") simply because my viewpoints differ slightly from yours, it is indeed personal. I would certainly never say the same about you, at least not without direct provacation. As I said earlier, it's time for me to move on from this discussion. Take care.

stewart
10-14-2007, 07:49 AM   #37
Veteran Member
JamesD's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 536
Hey, thanks for the clear explanation. Yes, it makes a great deal of sense.
10-14-2007, 08:51 AM   #38
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 259
QuoteOriginally posted by stewart_photo Quote
Okay, this is extremely simple, Harald........
stewart
Could you upload the picture you made, so that we can compare

Edit:

Ok, here is results when I made all my efforts to follow your steps . And I have tried some other spots than those you mentioned, but I think that result were not better than from points you gave us. In this picture I didnt adjust brightness, saturation or contrast.



Comments: you say that next phase is adjust brightness, saturation and contrast. It is interesting because with standard adjustments with sliders I cannot get it right:

- blacks are too black, featureless, compare to the the other picture and/or see the Photoshop info tool CMYK readings: large areas are burbt to complete white in the ice or black in the uniforms, they are well beyound any adjustment capability of tools you mentioned AFAIK
- picture has way too much contrast, adjusting it with those tools you mentioned doesnt produce acceptable results to me
- there is still yellow cast in many places: left upper corner side panel, slightly other places of panels too , ice just under the side panels, socks of the players, large area of ice in the bottom left corner ... and I cannot get this away without adjusting yellow/green color and then all other colors are again out of balance.

Of course one can use masks or feathered area selections, but it is quite laborous task and I have never got good results this way either. It is very much simpler make correction in RAW converter and get it right at once.

By adjusting it this way you can actually get some results in the area you took those measurements. But with some consequencies: original dynamic range is severely compressed and after this copression originally light areas are completely burnt to pure white and originally dark areas are completely black, contrast is very high and there is not enough room to adjust it properly, there still is colour casts in the areas your adjustments didnt touch.

I hope you end your example and show me how easily correct these remaining issues too?

As you can see, this method was not new to me at all, but results are unacceptable to me.


Last edited by Harald; 10-14-2007 at 01:23 PM.
10-14-2007, 10:14 AM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,713
Harald, this image was a JPG shot in an indoor curling rink, so if anything even worst conditions than a hockey rink.

I used full manual, with the exception of auto white balance.

10 seconds later, if that with my photo software.


To me it doesn't mater if you shoot RAW or JPG. The post processing isn't what makes the photo, it's the person behind the camera.

I'm done with this thread.
10-14-2007, 10:41 AM   #40
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 259
QuoteOriginally posted by little laker Quote
Harald, this image was a JPG shot in an indoor curling rink, so if anything even worst conditions than a hockey rink.

I used full manual, with the exception of auto white balance.

10 seconds later, if that with my photo software.

To me it doesn't mater if you shoot RAW or JPG. The post processing isn't what makes the photo, it's the person behind the camera.

I'm done with this thread.
It is good that you are satisfied. Then this technique is just proper for your use. But this result is not something what I would like to have at regular basis.

There are visible all those issues I mentioned in my last posting:
you still have an red cast in the right side of the picture obviously due to a colour cast of non-continuous spectrum lamps. You corrected it partly in your main subject, but cannot correct completely.

Because of your main subject correction technique you got some side effects:

Picture is very contrasty and compressed; white shirt is almost burn and black trousers are, well really black, featureless.

These are not something your camera actually recorded but something you got due to a jpeg processing and your own PP.

I do not know why it is so, just telling my own observations.
10-14-2007, 01:51 PM   #41
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 77
QuoteOriginally posted by CJCram Quote
I just received my K10D a week ago. The most useful setting for me is the Raw + Jpeg setting. I bought a 4gb card for $55 and I can save 188 raw + jpeg images on it. For the pictures that turn out nicely and I want to make sure I maintain full image quality or to do a few minor manipulations, I work with the raw images. All others I leave as Jpegs that were processed in camera. Right now my image processing kind of sucks- I have Adobe Photoshop CS, which doesn't support DNG or PEF and so I convert my images into 16 bit tiffs (with the Pentax software) and then use photoshop to process. Eventually my husband plans on getting a Linux image processing system set up using Gimp. As a bonus, we have over 500 gb of hard drive space to save our images on
CJ - PS CS can read DNG files, you need to update your camera raw file to 2.4 from Adobe's website. Just ran into the same problem myself. I generally shoot PEF in the field and convert into DNG on the puter because the Adobe converter saves the DNGs to a smaller size.

Cheers,

Eric
10-15-2007, 04:37 AM   #42
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by Harald Quote
Ok, here is results when I made all my efforts to follow your steps. (snip) but results are unacceptable to me.

If you don't like the whites produced, Harald, simply undo and select another area of white in the image until you find the degree of whiteness you do like. Each white selection, even two right next to each other, will produce different results. The key is finding and selecting a white area that provides good colors, without blowning out the highlights (the whites are obviously blown out here). Try selecting one or two of the white spots on the tops of the helmets, or bright areas of the white shirts.

The same process works with the grays and blacks. Of course, if you're satisfied with something (blacks or whatever), don't change it. Just adjust what is needed to get the colors you want, watching carefully that you don't lose the highlights or shadow details (such as the overhead lights reflecting off the helmets or details in the black pants).

All this is a simple click, undo, click method, taking almost no time to try many different combinations. Once you get close to the colors you want, fine tune them using the "Color Balance" tool. And, of course, don't forget to adjust the brightness, contrast, and saturation afterwards.

Don't use the "auto" tools for any of this, since those are almost always too extreme for a quality photograph. Instead, use the manual controls and make small adjustments, again watching carefully that you don't lose the highlights or shadow details. And, by the way, I wouldn't really use the Silkypix results as a guide for any of these adjustments since that image really isn't very good.

If you work at all this for a few minutes, I'm sure you'll end up with a usable image. It may not exactly match the results produced by whatever program, but it will be acceptable. And that (one can easily adjust the white balance in a JPEG file) was the claim you disputed when all of this started. You've done that, even in the extreme example you provided.

Of course, I never claimed the results would be perfect in every case. If you wanted perfect, you should have been more observant when taking the images, adjusting the WB to better match the situation (even using the custom WB option if necessary - that's what it's for). At that point, adjusting the final image would have been much easier and quicker, and the results much more ideal.

Now, once again, I bid you a fond farewell. Enjoy using only the RAW mode and I'll enjoy a bit more of a smorgasbord of mixed JPEG and RAW. As I said earlier, each method is just fine.

stewart
10-15-2007, 05:13 AM   #43
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 259
"auto" tools..... where in my post I said that I used "auto" tools?

"If you work at all this for a few minutes...." I have been workin with this and similar pictures so many hours that it is enough for me. It cannot be done.

Why you cant admit that result are different and all cannot be done to jpegs? Jpeg have its place but when you say that all adjustments can be done to jpegs and results are always as good as manually adjusted RAW compilations can do, you are talkin bullshit...

This conversation is over and your opinion has lost, unless you can prove it showing to us similar quality picture made from my example number 2 as the first one is.

You are just talking much how easy and quick it is... well, prove it and show us the results. If you dont do it, it is proven that despite your bold talking you cant do it.

I will not continue this conversation untill I see the picture 2 version you have done. Sorry.

This was an good dispute. Thanks. :-)
10-15-2007, 07:10 AM   #44
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by Harald Quote
(snip) unless you can prove it showing to us similar quality picture made from my example number 2 as the first one is. You are just talking much how easy and quick it is... well, prove it and show us the results. (snip)

Look, I wasn't born yesterday and I'm not an idiot. You're not going to like ANY image I put up, not matter what the outcome. You verified that suspicion when you criticized Stu's image above (user id "little laker"). And, if the image is too good, you'll simply claim I cheated in some manner, which is why I've explained to others how to do it themselves without my involvement in any way. They can prove all this for themselves, so there is nothing for me to prove.

And all of that is exactly why I won't waste my time posting image after image in a vain attempt to satisfy you. I don't have time for such games. You messed up the image, so you fix it. If you're satisfied with the outcome of the Silkypix image, than more power to you.

However, you're flat wrong about the limits of JPEG. It's extremely flexible and here to stay for the foreseeable future - virtually every digital camera, from the cheapest to the most expensive "pro" models, are sold with JPEG as the default, with many hundreds of millions world-wide (photographers and others) using JPEG on a daily basis. If those facts bother you, then you're going to be a very unhappy camper for a long time to come. The end.

stewart
10-15-2007, 07:23 AM   #45
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,713
I wasn't going to post anything else on here but what the hay

Believe it or not I started off with this JPG

Trust me it wasn't a RAW file when I got it.
And I ended up with this picture in less than 30 seconds.


I'm just heading out the door on a holiday, so I won't be able to respond

edit, if my post here draws too much heat I hope that the mods feel free to either delete it or modify it as they see fit.
I don't mean to stir up the pot too much, I just wanted to prove a point.

Last edited by little laker; 10-15-2007 at 07:47 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, images, jpgs, k10d, photography, shot, software
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5... Wow wow wow wow wow!! Hugely impressive. 65535 Pentax K-5 85 11-08-2010 08:45 PM
Does lens make a huge difference? phuey Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 28 07-20-2010 09:23 AM
LBA: I have a huge huge gap in my line up!! Nubi Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 29 02-14-2010 06:44 AM
Huge difference a focusing screen does metroeloise Post Your Photos! 16 07-19-2009 08:41 AM
Wow - What a difference a flash makes :) cputeq Post Your Photos! 7 08-14-2008 10:10 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:33 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top