|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-22-2018, 12:18 PM
|
| |
In Aperture, you have contrast and definition, which is micro contrast. I need both in this one. for most image, definition is all you need. Using contrast also means dodging, so you don't have the blacks spreading out into areas where there should be detail, and the area has to be dark enough you don't blast any highlights using dodging and contrast, "definition" doesn't increase either highlights or shadow, contrast can kill you at both ends or the spectrum if you're not careful.
---------- Post added 11-22-18 at 02:20 PM ----------
I'll have something else to post tomorrow. I hate backlogs. :D
I thought of another way to solve the "tree problem". NO tree, no problem. :D
 2018-11-19-no-tree by Norm Head, on Flickr
You gotta love that K-1 crop room. The image is still larger than an *ist D file.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-22-2018, 12:10 PM
|
| |
Sheesh, you can't get away with nothing around here. :D
Tess always points out the dust spots to me, she's away today. :D
After my cataract surgery, maybe I'll see them myself. :D
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-22-2018, 10:37 AM
|
| |
Only if you label yours "technician working to an arbitrary standards meant to optimize data transmission and speed in post processing" point of view. Yours is not strictly technical point of view, infact it isn't at all.The guy who sits with an image and the subject and processes so the image looks the same as the subject would be a technical point of view. Jpeg may not allow you to do that. I also trained in technical photgraphy with 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras. Technical photography without the time element of and transmission elements of journalists is very demanding in terms of accuracy. A level of accuracy that isn't required by news organization. Your adopted standard is neither technical nor artistic, it's "cheap and dirty." You already said, it is journalism standards, so why not say that? I'm just protecting the reputation of some excellent technical photographers who are absolutely meticulous in their raw processing and wouldn't dream of using jpeg.. I'd hate to have people think they'd sunk to the level of journalistic standards.
"
---------- Post added 11-22-18 at 12:38 PM ----------
It took every trick in the Aperture book to get the tree that good, short of saving, reloading, and starting with a TIFF from my previous start to sort of "reload" the adjutments possible.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-22-2018, 08:54 AM
|
| |
And you are welcome to process as if there is a "one standard fits all" approach. Just don't be claiming yours is more accurate or better in some way. It just conforms to a standard acceptable to journalism. But it's not necessarily a more accurate version of reality. part of the standards you quote are standards necessary because of time constraints and in the case of the Olympics, often in such venues images are transferred wirelessly and anything they can do to limit band width will speed up the process.. Olympic photos for news organizations have a short shelf life. A shooter may shoot thousands at a single event. I understand the media standards. Most of their output will be unsellable if it's a day late. It has nothing to do with technical image quality. If you as a personal photographer choose to adhere to standard adopted by those who are often seriously pressed for time, then that is certainly your perogotaive. But then you don't actually shoot to look at your images except for reference (even though you've posted a few on line) so I'm sure that works for you. The best image that conforms to a certain standard is not the same as "the best portrayal of a subject". And standards set by new agencies are almost anti-art.
And that's a constant theme here, shooters who aspire to be technical and reference shooters, and their disdain fo shooters who try to capture the spirit of the subject, not just the nuts and bolts.
-------------------------------------
Previously, I claimed I could pretty much match the jpeg. Not exactly, but I've completely reworked the image with emphasis on the now famous tree, as opposed to the sunset and left off those adjustments that emphasized the blue spectrum. Maybe more to the liking of the 90%
 2018-11-19-Raw-TP by Norm Head, on Flickr
And in my opinion, still much better than the jpeg, even the tree, which was the strongest point in the jpeg is now on par.. The gradations in the sunset are very realistic in the raw. In the jpeg the the gradations in the sunset have been reduced to comic book quality.
 2018-11-20-Youngs_point-5 by Norm Head, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-22-2018, 06:40 AM
|
| |
The same where, the two files looked identical... ti ws what you could do with it after that was different. This was very small sunset but the articulating on the jpeg would have been enough to toss a real sunset.
---------- Post added 11-22-18 at 08:44 AM ----------
I've ben thinking along the same lines. I may go back in and start with the trees right from the beginning, again, (already done that once.)
---------- Post added 11-22-18 at 08:55 AM ----------
The jpeg is an interpretation, you tell the camera how you want the contrast, saturation, etc. before you take the image. The jpeg engine reads that data, tosses what it deems to be non-essential and compresses the rest. But it's still an interpretation. One that is changed by camera settings. The idea that jpeg is some kind of uninterpreted truth just isn't the case. It's a specific interpretation designed to be the best compromise for whatever image you shoot, but, it's not appropriate for every image, and probably wouldn't be even if you went into the menus before every image and adjusted the jpeg settings individually for each shot.
I understand the desire to "snap it and forget it" and there are many applications for that. The case has been made (and dismissed) that there is some kind of "purity" to jpeg images and that is lacking on more processed images. That's simply not the case. Sometimes you have to work hard to get a more realistic impression of what you saw. The jpeg thing is easy, but not necessarily the most accurate.
It is however always more convenient, and that's what jpeg shooters are going for. You can't convince me that given a choice between a dark undercarriage of a steam engine that is all back shadow as opposed to one with the undercarriage rescued from the shadows in raw, the unprocessed jpeg is the better documentary image, nor can you tell me that achieving the closest you can to the real life experience of being beside the actual train isn't the best documentary experience. "I just want an image, any image no matter how bad it is." is not an attitude most of us interested in photography encourage.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-21-2018, 01:55 PM
|
| |
I'm currently gearing all my photos towards display on my 55" 4K TV. But I still prepare like it's for a print. I've also bought my replace current ne when it dies. I go desktop laptop, and the new one is a laptop. I bought a 28" HD display to go with it. I don't find I need to do different processing for printong although when I send out print files I increase the exposure 10% to make up for the no screen lighting.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-21-2018, 12:33 PM
|
| |
Isn't it interesting how the works. You try and figure something out, you get more questions than answers. The big one for me here is why are willow leaves are so much clearer on the jpeg?
We often assume that something is just better. Finding out that better for one thing doesn't mean better for everything is probably not what I was going for. You always hope for a knock out punch where you say "i'm never doing that one thing again.? I've left thinking, well if there's tree like that in the image, maybe I better switch to jpeg. IN this one, I liked everything about the raw, except the trees. The jpeg tress were more realistic, as was that dock, bottom left.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-21-2018, 12:12 PM
|
| |
Cool, this is one image, in the future I'll run a few more when I get decent opportunities. I tend to look more at, "what do i want to hang on my wall", and matching the colour scheme is a large part of that, so for me a huge grey sky is a no go. I do have some that are both colourful and have 3D pop in raw, but this just wasn't one of them. Luck of the draw I guess.
In any case, that's somrhing particular to this set of images, but not normally a raw vs jpeg consideration.
---------- Post added 11-21-18 at 02:17 PM ----------
Interesting how what people like to hang on their walls is not what the guys here on the forum for the most part think is the right way to do it. I guess I'm lucky in that my personal preference seems to sell, even when I go for a more pastel "old masters" kind of look.
Is owning your own DSLR a reaction to not being able to find what you want in the galleries? While I understand the "commercial" label, it's little unfair. Most cannot produce that type of work. So we really don't know, is it taste or lack of ability? If anyone else wants to take arak at this. feel free. (Although prepare yourself for the shock, and maybe post the next day when you're not tired from a coupe hours of post processing.)
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-21-2018, 08:12 AM
|
| |
The whole detail in the red tree branches further down in the frame is certainly interesting. A fair bit of time was invested in trying to duplicate the detail in the jpeg, never really successfully. It's like the jpeg engine did some spot lightening and contrasting my software wasn't able to duplicate. although I could probably get the raw better if that was to be a point of focus. In my mind the willow was going to detract from the image no matter what I did, so I chose to concentrate on parts of the image that had more potential.The big surprise was how that spot contrast darkened the red cabin. To use the cabin as reference, the jpeg ended up a lot lighter than the raw. The original contrast was changed by the jpeg engine, and, if you wanted the same values as the raw, I could find no way to undo the change made by the jpeg engine. The jpeg engine guessed wrong on what my focus would be, and having made the changes and reduced the image from 14 to 8 bit, there just wasn't enough latitude left to change it back.
The willow was going to be a problem with this image no matter how it was shot. The three elements I chose to give preference to were in my mind more important. I'd love to have had a print worthy image to work on with no such weaknesses. Maybe then folks could have focused on the raw conversion vs jpeg, and not become distracted by the tree or other elements of the PP. However, I don't ordinarily keep jpegs from my files. This image was shot for the occasion with the jpeg recorded on the second card.
But my style being so unpopular with thread participants means the raw files are going to be at serious disadvantage no matter how good my starting image is. 90% said, they prefer the in camera processing. Making me a really poor candidate to run this test. If you can't show people something they want to do, you aren't the guy. And what they want to do, I find unappealing. Terms for a mutually agreed upon divorce.
Its really kind of humorous. I said "look what you can do with raw instead of jpeg" and everyone said "we don't want to do that." :D
Bottom line for me, anyone can post a OOC image. And if everyone on the craft show circuit does the same, then there's no incentive for them to buy your work, not the guy in the next booth's. You need to develop a style that differentiate yourself based on your preferences, and stick to it, so the people who buy from you will find something the next time they look at your work. But, I also get it, not many here come from that kind of experience. Many are looking for cheap and dirty, (and apparently colourless.) :D
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-21-2018, 06:50 AM
|
| |
The original is OK, I probably wouldn't post it but it's clearly good enough for some. In PP I like to take something I wouldn't post and make it into something I'm happy with. But this has been the most one sided poll I've ever run, I'm clearly not the one people should be paying attention to when it comes to these issues.
Given that it turned into a vote on my processing style, 91% would actually prefer if i just left it alone. And 60% can't tell the difference between a RAW and a jpeg. That's a good reason, to just stop doing this kind of comparison. Or as Tess said, if you set yourself up, people will shoot you down. But, everything is data.
Again thanks to all who participated, it's been an eye opener.
But from my perspective, never again. :D
It does make me wonder, how many "likes" I'd have if I conformed to the "norm" as defined by this thread. (Multiply my likes by 9.) Apparently, "I could have been a contenda." :D
But I wouldn't have been happy, oh well. You can't win them all. Happiness or approval. :D
I always choose happiness. :D
And here I thought we'd be talking about the differences between working with raw files and jpeg files. Silly me. :D
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-20-2018, 06:54 PM
|
| |
I asked four simple questions. Thanks to all who answered. Carry on.
Number one is the jpeg.
There is more detail in the raw, look at the fir tree.
Looking at the bare tree branches, the raw has more detail, the branches and leaves look reduced in size especially how skinny the tree branches look in the jpeg., likely a jpeg artifact. We tend to focus more on branches that are silhouetted against the sky first. But the raw image just lacked contrast.
Looking at the colours between especially the yellows and reds, the raw is accurate, the colour in the jpeg are artifacts. In fact the bands closest to the trees as far as i can tell are jpeg artifacts, except for the yellow.. There was none of that in the sky. But if you look at the gradations of colour in the raw, the jpeg representation is vastly superior, and that to me is probably the most important part of the image.
Using the red cabin to the left to determine exposure they are pretty much equal, the differences are in the post processing applied in camera to the jpeg image.
Sorry most don't get the blue, but, I prefer colour to black and grey. And for those who don't know, shadows have a much higher concentration of blue light. Having white balanced snow in the shadows would actually be the incorrect rendering in this case if reality has any thing to do with it.. In any case white balance was done on the metallic grey of yjr foremost dock.
I realize many put what is in my opinion an over emphasis on white balance, but this has been quite the eye opener. You guys do know that white balanced shadows are actually unnatural don't you? It amaze me when people use separate white balance on different parts of image, then consider their image true to life.
"I don't shoot how it looks,. I shoot how it feels." Colours can express that. Blue for cold almost always works.
The one thing that the jpeg was better at IMHO was the dock, bottom right. There was nothing I could do to match the metallic grey in the raw, and as noted there was nothing I could do to improve the definition of the tree. But bottom line, I could have made the raw look like the jpeg, I couldn't make the jpeg look like the raw.
It seems to be the consensus here that my processing faked everyone out, that being said, the points I make are clearly visible and I could easily highlight them with a circled image. But for me, the tip offs which one was raw were all there. Richer more nuanced colour, better shadow detail, much of the branches in the raw are just black blotches. on the jpeg.
As for so many preferring the grey image, that's a hard one to wrap my head around. We put so much emphasis on reflection colour, the reflections in the raw in terms of colour are just a whole different class than the jpeg. You don't really get colour contrast from grey. Interesting that so many focussed on the willow tree as opposed to the sunset where I was at a complete loss to both match my selected cabins and also produce any semblance of accurate colour in the jpeg. Nor was I able to darken the jpeg to closer match the raw image, without increasing the size of the black blotches of black shadow among the fir tree branches.
I was quite interested to know how many could actually pick up the signs of raw vs jpeg or understood what kinds of things you can do with raws you can't do with jpeg, and when you might as well shoot jpeg
Thanks again for your participation. It's been informative.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-20-2018, 12:40 PM
|
| |
The best way to look at them is to click on one to open flicker, then toggle back and forth between the two.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-20-2018, 10:37 AM
|
| |
Yesterday was a challenging day for light. Grey, but one strip just over the horizon that looked like a sunset hung around all day. It took a RAW+ jpeg exposure. I did my best to create the best image from both the raw and the jpeg. So did Tess. Here are the results. I wasn't concerned with what I did to eat image, I was concerned with what can I accomplish with a given file using my PP software. (Aperture). Hence, I'm not really discussing what I hd to do to each one. Only what could be accomplished with each one. This is a typical, expose for the sky , rescue the shadows type of image.
2018-11-20-Youngs_point-5 by Norm Head, on Flickr
 2018-11-20-Youngs_point-6 by Norm Head, on Flickr
|
