Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: RAW Conversion Snake Oil  (Read 11936 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9010



WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2013, 09:21:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to share with us here ...

My interpretation is: raw is raw and if you could look at it, it would look ugly and all raw converters affect the raw differently, like a piece of digital clay, you can end up with a lovely vase or an ugly ashtray? Nothing earth startling for many of us.
Logged

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

Posts: 1153



WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2013, 10:18:12 AM »
ReplyReply

My interpretation is: raw is raw and if you could look at it, it would look ugly and all raw converters affect the raw differently, like a piece of digital clay, you can end up with a lovely vase or an ugly ashtray? Nothing earth startling for many of us.

That's what I suspected on first read of the OP's topic, but what I couldn't figure out is how this information is beneficial to photographers. I can see its importance to astronomers who want data captured millions of miles away unfettered by software.

I realize CS3 ACR vs CS5 major changes to default noise suppression was employed that allowed more refined noise to appear when sharpening that basically turned CS3's mottled clay like texture to detail viewed at 100% (a few users complained about, me included) into a more evenly distributed fine dithered pattern.

Of course as I've admitted in the past neither of these two texture appearances can be seen in a print but did see how it bothered pixel peepers viewing their images at 100%.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2013, 11:44:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I admittedly never printed this, but I still think the progress is significant:


The image above demonstrates noise reduction in LR2 vs LR3

With LR4 we got perspective correction, lens profiles etc. But the great news is tone mapping, even if it subtle.

Best regards
Erik


That's what I suspected on first read of the OP's topic, but what I couldn't figure out is how this information is beneficial to photographers. I can see its importance to astronomers who want data captured millions of miles away unfettered by software.

I realize CS3 ACR vs CS5 major changes to default noise suppression was employed that allowed more refined noise to appear when sharpening that basically turned CS3's mottled clay like texture to detail viewed at 100% (a few users complained about, me included) into a more evenly distributed fine dithered pattern.

Of course as I've admitted in the past neither of these two texture appearances can be seen in a print but did see how it bothered pixel peepers viewing their images at 100%.
Logged

Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1087


« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2013, 11:57:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Its certainly a lot better. The mild color banding should not be there at all. A noise app would then remove it by further smearing the detail. Then people want more "capture sharpening".
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1087


« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2013, 12:04:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Just found out it's a Sony SLT A55v using a 16MP APS-C sensor. That explains the image quality. ImagesPlus is the converter used.

Their website indicates its use in astronomy.

 

I did not mention the software as the thread is not about promoting a piece of software. It deserves promotion elsewhere.

We are not talking about the hay image from wiki.

The thing about that software is it does a minimal conversion then gives you a variety of algorithms with their real names. It doesn't try to pretend it created magic with terms like "recovery".

Anyway your post is irrelevant to the discussion. The shot is with a 100 macro (150mm equivalent) that is why it is crisp at the pixel level until a converter smears it all out.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9010



WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2013, 12:35:34 PM »
ReplyReply

It doesn't try to pretend it created magic with terms like "recovery".

Pretend how? The data was there, a slider with a name showed it once set as desired.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2013, 12:37:41 PM »
ReplyReply

It doesn't try to pretend it created magic with terms like "recovery".

I don't see all this deception to which you refer again and again.

Are you REALLY, TRULY disappointed with results you can achieve with state-of-the-art cameras with Bayer CFAs and commercial RAW converters?

I'm not.

Ever hear of the Princess and the Pea?
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1087


« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2013, 02:14:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Pretend how? The data was there, a slider with a name showed it once set as desired.

Recovery means something was lost and got back. What is really happening is the data is there in linear. Either the gamma conversion or over-stretching has made it clip. Why not just give people gamma and stretch controls?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9010



WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2013, 02:18:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Recovery means something was lost and got back.

That's one interpretation. But even if the only one, with the current rendering settings, that data was lost. Using a slider called recovery brought back into view, the data that is there IF one properly sets the slider(s).
Logged

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

Posts: 1087


« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2013, 02:35:11 PM »
ReplyReply

This other software uses the term "histogram contrast stretch". I can apply linear, logarithmic, exponential, hyperbolic, Rayleigh, curves, etc. If you don't want to clip the data, don't apply a function that does so. It seems simple.

Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2013, 02:43:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Recovery means something was lost and got back. What is really happening is the data is there in linear. Either the gamma conversion or over-stretching has made it clip. Why not just give people gamma and stretch controls?

no it does not... in a typical raw converter "speak" recovery is not about "data is there" ( in a region with clipped raw channel(s) ), recovery is about postprocessing to paint (note that it is not a part of the raw conversion exactly) that part (where you have clipping) of an image using the data from unclipped raw channels and/or the data from surrounding areas in that image to make that area (where you have clipping) suitable/acceptable to your intended visual objective
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9010



WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2013, 02:45:47 PM »
ReplyReply

no it does not... in a typical raw converter "speak" recovery is not about "data is there"

Typical raw converter speak? Where's the dictionary so I can study up?
Logged

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

Posts: 1320


« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2013, 03:00:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Typical raw converter speak?

Adobe's ACR/LR are typical, they paint areas with clipped raw data to make it visually appealing... that is postprocessing, not raw conversion.
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1087


« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2013, 03:27:25 PM »
ReplyReply

no it does not... in a typical raw converter "speak" recovery is not about "data is there" ( in a region with clipped raw channel(s) ), recovery is about postprocessing to paint (note that it is not a part of the raw conversion exactly) that part (where you have clipping) of an image using the data from unclipped raw channels and/or the data from surrounding areas in that image to make that area (where you have clipping) suitable/acceptable to your intended visual objective

So it's a content fill with created data. Ok.

What about terms like "magic wand"? Isn't it all just "We have secret sauce 1 thru 10! Buy us!"

I prefer terms like USM, wavelets smooth/sharpen, Van Cittert, Richardson-Lucy, Gaussian, Poisson, statistical difference, quantile, adaptive median. You know, terms that you can learn exactly what is going on in your picture processing.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2013, 03:37:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I prefer terms like USM, wavelets smooth/sharpen, Van Cittert, Richardson-Lucy, Gaussian, Poisson, statistical difference, quantile, adaptive median. You know, terms that you can learn exactly what is going on in your picture processing.
everybody understands that software intended to be used by many and be a market leader, can't overload its UI w/ such things... if you want that, by all means go after astro software or the likes of rawtherapee... LR/ACR have quite consistent approach and that approach is not editing by numbers (like you can in the likes of RPP for example) and not overloading the endusers w/ rawtherapee like amount of sliders.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 03:39:48 PM by Vladimirovich » Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1087


« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2013, 03:55:29 PM »
ReplyReply

everybody understands that software intended to be used by many and be a market leader, can't overload its UI w/ such things... if you want that, by all means go after astro software or the likes of rawtherapee... LR/ACR have quite consistent approach and that approach is not editing by numbers (like you can in the likes of RPP for example) and not overloading the endusers w/ rawtherapee like amount of sliders.

I have chosen that route. The interface is pretty simple as can be seen in the attachment.

I did not have to content fill that sky BTW.

Anyway this is all off topic. Do you have any thoughts on color splotches from high ISO conversion?
Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #36 on: January 16, 2013, 05:41:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Anyway this is all off topic.

What's the topic?  Snake Oil?

What is the snake oil again?  The recovery slider that no longer exists in Lightroom and ACR?
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2654


« Reply #37 on: January 16, 2013, 06:13:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote Jeremy.


What's the topic?  Snake Oil?

What is the snake oil again?  The recovery slider that no longer exists in Lightroom and ACR?

Unquote Jeremy.

Jeremy the recovery slider STILL exists in Lightroom. Change to process 2010 and you can play about with it all day long. Grin
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 06:45:00 AM by stamper » Logged

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2785



« Reply #38 on: January 16, 2013, 03:15:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Yesterday I stumbled upon a new raw converter. The default conversion looked pretty good.

Like others, I can't discern the point of the OP's post. It appears to be more inflammatory than illuminating. I would not recommend ImagesPlus for general photographic use, but it is very useful for scientific work and sensor analysis using raw files. See my post in another thread for more details

Regards,

Bill
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1087


« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2013, 05:53:19 PM »
ReplyReply

There is nothing wrong with a bit of controversy. This is not a place to submit dissertations, its a web forum.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad