Mike Chaney's Tech Corner
September 26, 2021, 12:48:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Feb 2013: Qimage Ultimate Challenges... have fun and explore features!
 
  Home Help Search Login Register  

Download and develop photos from your flash cards with one click!
Get a trial of
FlashPipe today and stop fumbling with explorer windows to transfer photos and videos
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22
1  Technical Discussions / General Photography Discussion / Re: Not Convinced: Raw vs JPG? on: September 17, 2010, 12:29:35 PM
BTW, I don't want to give the impression that I "invented" something here by doing HDR with a single raw file.  It's being done all over the world.  Many sites have tutorials on how to do it.  Here are just a few:

http://www.aguntherphotography.com/tutorials/raw-hdr-processing.html
http://tutorvid.com/photoshop-tutorial/creating-an-hdr-image-from-a-single-raw-file/

These are the only two I looked at but, EXACTLY what I said/did.  Use multiple variants of the same RAW!  (In the above case I had to use your JPEGs.)  My point exactly. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Wink Grin  I have been doing that for years.

It is what I was explaining to folks.  However, that is NOT was proposed.  Thanks for backing me up.
2  Technical Discussions / General Photography Discussion / Re: Not Convinced: Raw vs JPG? on: September 16, 2010, 02:35:17 PM
Hmmmm.  Now keep in mind I am at a disadvantage since my second image is Mike's already "worked" JPEG.  (Each took only 3-4 minutes).  BTW- These are worked in Adobe RGB so look a little less in sRGB here.
Your original worked:

PS CS5 on just this using ACR Recovery and some Sat.  The cloud info is still there:

PS CS5 HDR Pro using your two JPGs:

Photomatix HDR.  Yes, looks surreal, but would be better with two RAW files:

Photomatix Fusion setting.  Your two JPEGs.  Looks natural, saves both areas.


As I said, if I took the 10 minutes, they would be better.  Of course, a polarizer might have solved much of this from the get-go. 

YMMV.  Roll Eyes
3  Technical Discussions / General Photography Discussion / Re: Not Convinced: Raw vs JPG? on: September 16, 2010, 12:41:28 PM
It'd probably look a bit "odd" keeping the sky and clouds from the first shot.  Might look cool though.  The short answer is no: the current fill in Qimage was designed to remap everything so that it remains "connected".  Obviously the data is there to do it though because both renditions came from the same raw file, so with the right tone mapping it can certainly be done.  Hey maybe that'll be the next big thing in Qimage Ultimate: tone targeted contrast mapping.   Grin

Ahhhhhhh!  You mean tone mapping like the HDR software does.  Huh Roll Eyes
4  Technical Discussions / General Photography Discussion / Re: Not Convinced: Raw vs JPG? on: September 16, 2010, 12:39:25 PM
Seth, you just repeated everything I just said.  But I think you are trying to place requirements on HDR that do not exist.  There are a number of methods of achieving HDR and taking multiple shots is not a requirement.  Some people do it that way but it is not always necessary: and the point of my post here, not as necessary as some people believe.  You could take several JPEG's and run a contrast reduction on them to create an HDR image.  When you do that, you are simply taking the dynamic range that exceeds that of a "standard" photo (one designed to be displayed on your monitor/printer) and compressing it so that it now fits into the smaller space of your monitor/printer.   Now a raw image has several stops more range than a JPEG to begin with so I could do the same thing with one raw and get the same results.

The dynamic range of the sensor is irrelevant.  And you are dead wrong that you can't expose for sky and still get good detail in the backlit landscape from one raw.  I do it all the time, and so do many others.  Here's a quick example first with standard processing and then with HDR done simply by using the fill light in Qimage's raw refine.  This is from a single raw, all processing done in Qimage Ultimate:

I have to respectfully disagree!!  No it is not always necessary, I agree here.  "Adjusting" your first image got your foreground at the expense of the clouds.  Two images (minimum) at 2-3 EV spread might have captured both.  Photomatrix or CS5 or Picturenaut would give you all.  Running gamma on the mid and shadows had to leave noise and a lesser rendition of all the greens in that landscape--they are compressed already.  Denoising is still "de-sharpening" to some degree. And, you lost the sky to get the foreground(?!?!)

Quote
It really doesn't matter how you got there!  Think about it this way.  You have a point and shoot that doesn't even offer raw and I have a Canon 5D Mark II.  You take five JPEG shots on your point and shoot and you end up with a decent landscape/sky shot that you call HDR because you merged multiple photos and "crunched" the dynamic range.  
.
   Oh, no. Not the point-and-shoot.  Their sensors cannot capture what the larger sensor can.   That's another story.   

And, how can you say sensor range is irrelevant?  That is like comparing the latitude of chrome film to the latitude of color neg.  It is a matter of physics.
5  Technical Discussions / General Photography Discussion / Re: Not Convinced: Raw vs JPG? on: September 15, 2010, 08:44:06 PM

Technically, raw by itself is not even a photo.  It needs to be processed but you can process a raw in such a way that you get HDR imaging... from a single raw file.  Multiple separate exposures are not a requirement of HDR.  HDR simply refers to any technique that can give you a higher dynamic range than you would get from "standard" processing methods. 

Sure, RAW is not a photo--neither is a JPEG. It's a binary file.  You couldn't get HDR from film with standard processing either.  Either under expose/over develop or vice versa.  Or contrast masking and sandwiching.  You can tone map a RAW to get more dynamic range; that's a given.  

Still, you cannot put back what is not there!  An extremely high contrast RAW will not have all the values you need.  Sensors have EV range limits also.  In order to get a bright cloudy sky over a dark, backlit subject you need at least two images.  (RAW has a wider range than JPG, so you can get by with fewer.)

All sensors have saturation points.  You still cannot get what you missed.  (That's one reason pros use fill flash.)
6  Technical Discussions / Articles / Re: May 2010: Sour Apples on: September 15, 2010, 02:01:17 PM
That Apple uses a more general description for the method his program uses is common patent strategy. There are lawyers to see whether that isn't in conflict. I'm sure Apple has the better lawyers but I wouldn't call this story a hype yet.

Ernst-
"Better lawyers" brings a flashback to when Apple sued MS for infringement on icons they (Apple) "owned."  That was until MS proved that Aplle stole them from DEC.  Roll Eyes
7  Technical Discussions / General Photography Discussion / Re: Not Convinced: Raw vs JPG? on: September 15, 2010, 01:48:15 PM
To be honest, on the railway station I think the QU processed (one raw) is a clear winner over the HDR.  Maybe that's a bad example?  The HDR of that railway station just looks a bit "odd": almost like a painting. 

You have hit the nail on the head.  That is the biggest gripe about over processed HDR.  They get surreal.  Kind of like "super real" paintings.  This is where less is more!
8  Technical Discussions / General Photography Discussion / Re: Not Convinced: Raw vs JPG? on: September 15, 2010, 01:45:21 PM

To me, raw files are already HDR.  They capture (at a minimum) four thousand times the number of colors than you can display on your monitor or in print, so in a case like this one below, you can easily just meter for the sky and then use Qimage's fill light to push the shades on the ground.  That alone (with one shot) gives you "HDR" without needing true HDR. 

Other than knowing the technical details behind HDR, I don't have much experience with it as I haven't found much real need for it.  So educate me if you will.   Wink  Anyone have any good examples of stuff you've shot that really required HDR (in the multi-shot sense)?

Here is my little non scientific test

Raw is really not HDR.  It is just all the sensor data without the JPEG interpolation and compression.  HDR is done with two or more DIFFERENT exposures.  I think sme are using "tone mapping" and calling it HDR.
Likewise, exposing for highlights then "pulling out" the under exposed shadows with ANY program can result in a lot of shadow noise. 
9  Technical Discussions / General Photography Discussion / Re: Not Convinced: Raw vs JPG? on: September 15, 2010, 01:38:06 PM
Jeff,
Just tick the grid box where the blown cloud resides, and QU will reset the exposure knowing that you want the cloud marked as the main interest.
Fred

Hi Fred-

You cannot get what you don't have.  Only a bracket and HDR or merge will recover a bright sky behind an overcast foreground.  Of course you could burn in, but it would be unnatural.
10  Technical Discussions / General Photography Discussion / Re: Not Convinced: Raw vs JPG? on: September 15, 2010, 01:35:41 PM
Here is my little non scientific test

1st camera jpeg
2nd Ultimate conversion - no adjustments
3rd  Ultimate - with human adjustment
4th HDR - Photomatix default and adjusted in Elements

Comments - Ultimate without adjustment gave a blown cloud, camera jpeg avoided that.  Ultimate with adjustment (exposure on top right blown area and 9 on the fill) gave better result than the camera jpeg

HDR chucked in for good measure, I don't like the 'greens' and don't know how to correct it with the Sel.!!


Number four is not the same shot as the other three.  The clouds have moved.
11  Technical Discussions / Computer Software / Re: operating camera from laptop on: September 08, 2010, 08:13:09 PM
Hi all have just purchased a nikon  d5000 and was wondering if there was any software that will enable me to operate the camera from the laptop. have previously used a canon eos 1000 and that came with the software. But if i want to use the nikon software it is going to cost me another 1000 +.
Any ideas
Cheers Del.

Try fast picture viewer pro at www.fastpictureviewer.com.  It includes tethered for most recent Nikons as part of the package.  Currently $40 (USD).
12  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Some grumbling going on over here... on: August 17, 2010, 08:56:31 PM
I received a email from Adobe yesterday - offer upgrade my Elements 7 to CS5 at a 50% discount over 300 -  now that is still real money considering they will be offering another costly upgrade to CS6 soon.

Jeff--

I don't think the key to that was the cost.  The offered you "50% discount."  It sounds as though that's one of the rubs with the QU plan.
13  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Tone Targeted Sharpening. WAY OT on: August 12, 2010, 04:23:18 PM
Where is that site background from?  It looks like Kuwait or Iraq.
14  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Tone Targeted Sharpening. on: August 12, 2010, 03:29:50 PM

I dunno.  Is it picking up subtle tones and sharpening anyway?  The strawberry definitely worked well, but the lad's hair took on some sharpen also, especially where it crosses his earlobe.
15  Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: Problem with Profile for Oly E300 in Qimage Ultimate. on: August 12, 2010, 03:06:08 PM
Once is a while on my 20D Canon, if I am shooting too fast in RAW mode, I get the odd washed out ghost image in a frame, like it didn't recharge fast enough.
Fred

Were you joking, Fred?  What speed will a 20D do in RAW?  No joke, I think the camera needs servicing if that happens.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!