Mike Chaney's Tech Corner
August 07, 2020, 11:46:30 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
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: RAW Conversion- White Balance settings.  (Read 14030 times)
DdeGannes
Full Member
***
Posts: 169


Retired Banker; Golf; Photography; Travel.


View Profile
« on: July 30, 2010, 03:29:41 PM »

Feature request. At present I shoot raw and have my camera WB setting to auto, so I quite often have to make changes. I would like to see the option of choosing "as shot; incandescent; fluorescent; sunny; cloudy; shade etc" in addition to the eyedropper netural picker and the WB slider. This would certainly help in creating a good starting point. 
Logged

COMP EQP: iMac 27" mid 2015 5K Retina macOS 10.15.5, 24GB Ram; Scan Elite 5400 film scr.
CAMERA EQP: Oly OMD EM-1, Digital Zuiko & OM lenses.
Imaging Apps: PS CC 20; LR Classic CC 9.3; Qimage U & One; VueScan.
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3196



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2010, 07:01:10 PM »

Hi,
I would agree with you that White Balance is very important to get the best from an image and necessary to get it right at an early stage in raw processing. Colours "pop" when it is right.

I seem to recall that Mike once explained that to do raw WB correctly using colour temperature, which is what sunny, cloudy etc.implies, he would need a profile for every camera. Something very difficult & expensive for him to do. That is why the WB dropper and grey area assistance was provided in Qimage. He has now improved that with the addition of a simple but effective Warm to Cool slider.

Regarding the sunny, cloudy etc. settings, they vary for each camera and raw converter. Just check what as-shot colour temperature is reported with different programs and you'll see. That is why they usually have a colour slider too.

My approach to WB is this:
- set the camera WB to the nearest for the scene being shot, I've never trusted auto, especially on my Canon.
- try to take several grey card shots during a session, see attached example of my home-made grey card in a lens cap, printed with a custom profile.
- I have one in very lens cap, not perfect but usually very close; there are fancy gadgets you can buy but more bulky and you may leave it at home.
- the new W to C slider fine tunes as required or gets me out of a hole when I've no WB shot or nothing in the image.

Did you know the new WB slider is cumulative? Make an adjustment and then close & save. Open the raw refine screen again and the slide will be zero again; all the previous setting has been recorded "in the WB button" so to speak and the full range of the slider is available again   Cool

Terry
Logged
DdeGannes
Full Member
***
Posts: 169


Retired Banker; Golf; Photography; Travel.


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2010, 07:57:49 PM »

Terry-M, thanks for the informative post. However I have been shooting in the auto wb mode for over 6 years and not about to change. Its one thing less that I have to adjust when I am shooting casually and on vacation, focus exposure and composure are my main concern. I have a Whibal netural card for inclusion when its convient and I agree that it helps in some situations.
I also have profiles for my two cameras which were purchased through ddisoftware and I am generally very happy with the results delivered by Qimage Studio. My printing is done exclusively with Qimage which I have been using since 2001. Started shooting raw in 2003 and presently use Lightroom, Bibble Pro 5.1 and SilkyPix 4.0 for the processing of my raw files. I am an amateur and do not have time constraints so I enjoy being creative with my files.

 
Logged

COMP EQP: iMac 27" mid 2015 5K Retina macOS 10.15.5, 24GB Ram; Scan Elite 5400 film scr.
CAMERA EQP: Oly OMD EM-1, Digital Zuiko & OM lenses.
Imaging Apps: PS CC 20; LR Classic CC 9.3; Qimage U & One; VueScan.
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3196



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2010, 08:46:34 AM »

Hi again,
Quote
and presently use Lightroom, Bibble Pro 5.1 and SilkyPix 4.0 for the processing of my raw files.
I assumed you were using Q-SE for raw as you had asked for a change to the Raw Refine controls  Huh
Quote
I am an amateur and do not have time constraints so I enjoy being creative with my files.
So am I, and retired, but life has been busier than ever since retirement - it just means I have more choices about my schedule - except when I working on my PC and the lady of the house complains I'm spending too long in the office.  Roll Eyes  Wink
Terry
Logged
DdeGannes
Full Member
***
Posts: 169


Retired Banker; Golf; Photography; Travel.


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2010, 11:05:39 AM »

This is an example of a problem file where the camera auto wb was off. Picture was taken a couple days ago. I did processing in LR as usual and also tried Qimage Ultimate. The screen capture shows the resulting jpeg from LR on the left at default settings, the center image is with wb changed from as shot to daylight in LR. The image on the right is the Qimage rendition, which shows some problem areas in the background which I am not sure how to correct within the raw refine window. I am also posting a link to the original raw file.  (will post link shortly)

 http://www.yousendit.com/download/T1VsZGlsaTFVVGxFQlE9PQ
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 11:47:33 AM by DdeGannes » Logged

COMP EQP: iMac 27" mid 2015 5K Retina macOS 10.15.5, 24GB Ram; Scan Elite 5400 film scr.
CAMERA EQP: Oly OMD EM-1, Digital Zuiko & OM lenses.
Imaging Apps: PS CC 20; LR Classic CC 9.3; Qimage U & One; VueScan.
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3196



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2010, 11:46:39 AM »

Quote
I am also posting a link to the original raw file.  (will post link shortly)
Please do soon, something very strange has been done to that image in Qimage  Shocked
With the original raw, I'm sure we can sort it out.
Terry
Logged
DdeGannes
Full Member
***
Posts: 169


Retired Banker; Golf; Photography; Travel.


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2010, 11:58:28 AM »

OK I have posted the link for the raw file in the original post.
This is another screen capture from Qimage which shows another shot of the same plant from a slightly different angle moments later. The only change to this file is a wb click on the light fixture at the top right.

Logged

COMP EQP: iMac 27" mid 2015 5K Retina macOS 10.15.5, 24GB Ram; Scan Elite 5400 film scr.
CAMERA EQP: Oly OMD EM-1, Digital Zuiko & OM lenses.
Imaging Apps: PS CC 20; LR Classic CC 9.3; Qimage U & One; VueScan.
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3196



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2010, 12:34:36 PM »

Hi,
Quote
which shows another shot of the same plant from a slightly different angle moments later. The only change to this file is a wb click on the light fixture at the top right.
If you think that looks right for the scene, you can copy that WB setting to the other image.
However, see attached below for my interpretation of the image conversion & WB.
The QU raw settings are shown and a jpeg conversion.
The blue fringing on the background tree look like lens aberration to me, sorry!  Undecided
I would have normally added a little extra USM with a filter to that image but my default raw preference settings are probably not suited to your camera.
Edit: just for fun I done that, see attached
Terry
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 12:46:46 PM by Terry-M » Logged
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5303



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2010, 12:59:33 PM »

Dennis,
I took the liberty of downloading your ORF and my findings go like this:
I right clicked the thumbnail and opened REFINE.
I looked for some gray areas.
I held down the ctrl key so REFINE could sort the shades for me.
T the upper part of the stem, the upper leaf area are some really good gray areas.
The readings say, (depending on the exact pixel) 246, 248, 250    252, 252, 249   246, 242, 242,
I would have to say I would leave it alone. According to those readings the White balance is so close.

Any adjustments by the photog on that image has to be pure individual taste.

Looks like a fine shot Dennis.

Fred
Logged
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3196



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2010, 01:07:49 PM »

Quote
the upper part of the stem, the upper leaf area are some really good gray areas.
Fred, I looked at those areas too but thought the image looked better being warmer, but of course, only Dennis can judge that as he was there.
However, some Fill seemed to lift the image to me.
Dennis, you are giving us some fun today  Grin
Terry
Logged
DdeGannes
Full Member
***
Posts: 169


Retired Banker; Golf; Photography; Travel.


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2010, 01:17:03 PM »

Thanks for the tips everyone. I will continue to experiment with the raw conversion in Qimage.

OK I was able to figure my problem with the particular image. It appears to be the specific profile I got for the camera Olympus E 300.
I unchecked "enable custom profiles" in the Raw Image Options dialog and the problem went away.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 01:38:20 PM by DdeGannes » Logged

COMP EQP: iMac 27" mid 2015 5K Retina macOS 10.15.5, 24GB Ram; Scan Elite 5400 film scr.
CAMERA EQP: Oly OMD EM-1, Digital Zuiko & OM lenses.
Imaging Apps: PS CC 20; LR Classic CC 9.3; Qimage U & One; VueScan.
rayw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 440


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2010, 01:41:01 PM »

Hi Dennis,

If you get a copy of fastone image viewer - http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm - it's free for home users, you can quickly see a pretty good raw converted image for your camera, and also the embedded jpeg. Instantly you can see a full size view, and scroll around to your problem background areas, view full exif's, etc. I was going to post an image of your embedded jpeg, but you can do that for yourself, nothing wrong with the image/camera as far as I can see. The embedded jpeg view is possibly what many folk would strive for  Grin

Best wishes,

Ray
Logged
DdeGannes
Full Member
***
Posts: 169


Retired Banker; Golf; Photography; Travel.


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2010, 02:27:51 PM »

Hi Dennis,

If you get a copy of fastone image viewer - http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm - it's free for home users, you can quickly see a pretty good raw converted image for your camera, and also the embedded jpeg. Instantly you can see a full size view, and scroll around to your problem background areas, view full exif's, etc. I was going to post an image of your embedded jpeg, but you can do that for yourself, nothing wrong with the image/camera as far as I can see. The embedded jpeg view is possibly what many folk would strive for  Grin

Best wishes,

Ray

Thanks for the further advice, your earlier post and those who also downloaded and processed the raw file assisted me in isolating my problem, which was the special profile for my camera. See my earlier post. 
Logged

COMP EQP: iMac 27" mid 2015 5K Retina macOS 10.15.5, 24GB Ram; Scan Elite 5400 film scr.
CAMERA EQP: Oly OMD EM-1, Digital Zuiko & OM lenses.
Imaging Apps: PS CC 20; LR Classic CC 9.3; Qimage U & One; VueScan.
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3196



View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2010, 05:17:30 PM »

Hi Ray & Dennis,
Quote
The embedded jpeg view is possibly what many folk would strive for
I'm not sure about that otherwise there's no point in shooting raw  Grin
I did extract the jpeg from Dennis's file (with QU of course), see attached. I've also attached the non-refined converted file from QU. Not a lot of difference, except perhaps in brightness. My preference would be for something a little brighter, hence me adding Fill for my first go with it.
Back to WB, out of interest I opened the file in SilkyPix. It said the as shot colour temperature was 4635K. I would think SP "Fine" 5200K or "Daylight" 5000K would closer the the actual conditions. OK. I know different converter will give you different deg K values, but just for comparison purposes. It also indicates the problem with auto WB, it is never quite right, a good reason for using raw.
It looks like my initial conversion made the image too warm but it definitely needed some warming up IMHO.
Thanks again Dennis for sharing your image and providing us with an interesting post, I'm pleased to hear you solved the problem of the of appearance initially.
Terry
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 05:32:45 PM by Terry-M » Logged
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5303



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2010, 05:58:08 PM »

I like this one best!
Opinions?

Fred
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!