Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Camera manufacturers PLEASE: when RAW histograms and an ETTR mode?  (Read 41880 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9162



WWW
« Reply #60 on: July 14, 2013, 11:20:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Lightroom does some dirty tricks to images.

Such as?

If one were to be using LR, with such dirty tricks to process their images, isn't that part of the Exposure + Development process and unless one is using differing raw converters (which would alter this relationship), does it matter? If lab A runs their E6 line minus ˝ stop compared to lab B, and you've tested exposure and development at lab A, does it matter what lab B is doing? Yes if you ran film at both labs (something I'd never do in the old days unless someone, a client but a gun to my head). I'm actually interested in what dirty tricks are done but considering I process nearly all my raws in this product and I understand this part of the equation, I'm as yet not seeing this as a problem. Might be a trick, I'll agree. Is it dirty and is this unique among the other raw converters? Even if we had a true and accurate raw histogram on the camera, would we not still need to understand how each converter affected this data?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
mac_paolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 423


« Reply #61 on: July 16, 2013, 12:58:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Lightroom does some dirty tricks to images. Have you tried to open the images that show the true image like RawDigerr?

Best regards
Erik
I did. A standard exposure straight OOC is always a somewhat underexposed. +0.7 Ev is my default value. Obviously, since I like bright (not burnt) images, tastes may vary.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3672


« Reply #62 on: July 16, 2013, 07:08:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Is it dirty and is this unique among the other raw converters? Even if we had a true and accurate raw histogram on the camera, would we not still need to understand how each converter affected this data?

Hi Andrew,

I would not necessarily call it dirty, but LR does differ in it's approach to Raw conversion compared to other Rawconverters. Besides matters like profiling, it has a very different approach towards the handling of exposure corrections and how that impacts highlight rendering.

There is fortunately a way to create less compressed highlights by pulling considerably (even to -100) back on the highlights slider, but some might consider that a (dirty) trick which is not necessary in other converters. Without that, white clouds and other highlight information looks dull and lifeless compared to other converter defaults.

Of course one can create a default for that, but to adjust the default behavior may also be called a trick.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7487


WWW
« Reply #63 on: July 16, 2013, 07:22:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Sorry, what I meant is that Lightroom seems to do highlight recovery without user intervention, so an image with clipped highlights may show up without any indication of clipping but it would be clipped in a true raw histogram.

I actually like this behaviour but it could be a good thing if got a warning that we have highlight recovery.

Best regards
Erik


Such as?

Logged

bwana
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 183


« Reply #64 on: July 16, 2013, 01:06:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Eric

Can you not go back to the previous process version 2010 to get rid of that 'automatic' highlight adjusting? You'll definitely see more clipping that wasnt there in the 2012 version. Also, I found that if i go from a corrected photo in 2012 to 2010 and then switch back to 2012, the photo requires repeat correction.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7487


WWW
« Reply #65 on: July 17, 2013, 03:11:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Yes, PV2010 shows clipping, but I think the 2012 pipeline is much better. But I feel I cannot judge exposure based on PV2012, so I do frequent excursions into RawDigger that shows the actual raw image.

Best regards
Erik


Eric

Can you not go back to the previous process version 2010 to get rid of that 'automatic' highlight adjusting? You'll definitely see more clipping that wasnt there in the 2012 version. Also, I found that if i go from a corrected photo in 2012 to 2010 and then switch back to 2012, the photo requires repeat correction.
Logged

sharperstill
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #66 on: July 17, 2013, 04:28:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Jon
    I've been using the latest nightly builds. Note, these aren't the official nightly builds as the 5D III and a few other cameras are not yet part of the official distribution but rather there's a thread in the ML forums that contains links to regular builds for the 5D IIi, 50D and some other cameras. I've found them 100% reliable and as mentioned elsewhere, you're not overwriting anything and so removing the battery will leave you back as you were.

    Setup after installation is pressing the trash button to bring up the ML menus, third menu along, SET to turn on the histogram and Q to enter the histogram sub-menu. Switch on the RAW histogram and you're good to go. The RAW histogram is displayed in live mode and when reviewing the image just taken. It will not appear if you go back to look at images later as it uses the data in the current buffer.

    Lastly there is one issue and that is that ML for the 5D III has does not yet support the latest Canon firmware released a couple of months ago. I don't find that a problem.
Thanks for the response. I'll try it out...

Jon
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad