Mike Chaney's Tech Corner
August 08, 2020, 12:20:39 AM *
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 14031 times)
rayw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 440


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2010, 06:51:01 PM »

Hi Terry,

Quote
The embedded jpeg view is possibly what many folk would strive for
Quote
I'm not sure about that otherwise there's no point in shooting raw

For much of what I see on the web, it makes no difference. For small prints, it will make little difference. For folk who do not want to get into icc profiling (or get it wrong Wink) the jpeg will give a good enough result. If you are happy with default settings for your raw software, or with the limited adjustments in some varieties of  raw converters, then there may be little advantage to shooting in raw. In any case, a jpeg is, as in this case, a useful check.

A bit of a story here...

I recently bought a Sigma dp1s camera. A decision based on what I had read about the Fovean sensor, and Mike's excellent articles on the Sigma dslr, and the important fact that it seemed a reasonable price for a camera with an almost aps-c sized sensor in a small body. However, before I purchased, I wanted to see how the raw files 'looked'. I found a blog with some Sigma raw file downloads. Unfortunately, many raw processors (including Qimage) does not handle the dp1/2 raw files. I downloaded the Fastone viewer, and got some impressive images. I cropped a section, saved as a tif, used qimage to upsize by about ten times, printed on canvas, thought 'twer amazing.

Then, talking to someone re. my thinking that Fastone, which like many (including Qimage) use dcraw, why did Fastone handle raw files, but not Irfanview, Qimage and others? Oops, I had Fastone set to handle the embedded jpeg. Even the small embedded jpeg  - was excellent. Using the Sigma software, on the raw file is something else again.

At the end of the day, it depends on what you want to do. I tend to work on a single image, tweaking this that and the other, to get it to where I want it - although I often give up before I get there. I want the controls that I am familiar with and a raw file, and I'm not wanting necessarily the default of the camera, or the software. These days the camera makers are building in some of these controls in the jpeg processing in camera (modes, white bal, etc.). I have no problem in that many folk want this, and suits their needs (although for me it adds clutter to the camera). In the same way, I expect some folk do not want raw images, either.

Returning to the OP's image - the embedded jpeg was as good as the other images, (at least on my screen), as good as, or maybe better than the Qimage raw default development, with or without a wrong custom profile. I expect, in blind testing e.g. you did not know the processing involved, it would be hard to decide just by looking at someone's images. That is not the same as looking at your own images.

Each to his own. fwiw, Fastone opens Olympus raw files, most cameras, pretty darn quick (but doesn't open the dp1/2 raws), but then it is an image viewer, designed to view files. Although it does more, it does not try too hard to be an image editor or printer.

Best wishes,

Ray

« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 06:54:54 PM by rayw » Logged
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3196



View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2010, 07:06:20 PM »

Hi Ray,
Quote
For much of what I see on the web, it makes no difference. For small prints, it will make little difference.
I find it makes a big difference, not only for good colour but making use of the headroom a raw file gives you. I have a nasty habit of shooting high contrast scenes.  Roll Eyes
I expect cameras do vary in their ability to make a jpeg.
My point of posting the embedded jpeg and the basic QU raw version was to show Qimage does a great job on many raw images without any tweaking, providing the camera exposure and WB were good. You only need a few fluffy white clouds in the sky of a scene and there's a high risk of the in-camera jpeg getting it wrong and the clouds becoming white blobs or the rest of the image being too dark. Raw gets you out of that situation.
Terry
Logged
rayw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 440


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2010, 02:34:01 AM »

Hi Terry,

I agree with you wrt the benefits to you and me and many others in shooting raw, but in all honesty, looking at the image that Dennis posted, (which I don't think was tricky to develop), I am not able to see which is 'better', the jpeg, or a raw default settings processed one, although colours/sharpening/size/etc. will be different. However, If I wanted to work on any image then I would use a raw file if possible as the starting point, and my favourite software, and hopefully convert it into an image that I thought was better than any other, but my main concern would be in producing a largish print, one to be looked at and perhaps studied, not an 800 by 600 pixel image for the web. Broadly speaking, using any software raw processor default settings is only doing what is done in camera to produce its jpegs - in other words you are relying on someone else's ideas of what the image should look like - a bit like getting your films developed and printed by the usual high street places.

The beauty of the digital image, for many of us, is the fact that we can turn a photograph, a mere record of an event, into an image with some artistic merit (at least in our own eyes, if nobody else's  Grin Grin Grin ) . There are plenty of examples of stunning work produced from images taken on mobile phones and p&s cameras, even by folk with no idea about icc colour profiles, raw files, or basic camera functions. It is more to do with the artist in the photographer than the technicalities of the camera/raw processing.

For those folk of 600 years or so ago, who used to paint walls using tempera colours, I wonder if they discussed if the brown or white shelled eggs gave the best medium? Huh

Best wishes,

Ray

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



View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2010, 10:59:47 AM »

Hi Ray,
Sorry if I seem to be disagreeing with you again  Roll Eyes
Quote
The beauty of the digital image, for many of us, is the fact that we can turn a photograph, a mere record of an event, into an image with some artistic merit (at least in our own eyes, if nobody else's. There are plenty of examples of stunning work produced from images taken on mobile phones and p&s cameras, even by folk with no idea about icc colour profiles, raw files, or basic camera functions. It is more to do with the artist in the photographer than the technicalities of the camera/raw processing.
But I agree with you about making images of artistic merit; what that is depends on the viewer as I well know from what competition judges say.  Undecided

However, raw can be used to make a mere record shot into something that is at least more interesting and usable when the lighting conditions are difficult.
Attached are 2 examples where the embedded jpeg is unusable but the raw makes the image viable. I deliberately exposed for the sky, otherwise it would have been pure white.

The background to these images is of interest to Q0SE & QU users. back in 2008 when Q-SE raw was being developed, I sent these to Mike and told him I was having problems in getting detail in the dark areas without making the sky lose detail too. He responded with the improved Fill feature that we now have, see http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/quality/raw.htm
My conclusion: always use raw for every shot whether easy to develop or not.  Cool
Terry
Logged
rayw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 440


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2010, 12:51:48 PM »

Hi Terry,

I don't think we are disagreeing in the basics wrt what _we_ do. However, many folk get what _they_ want by doing something different. Although this is basically a technical forum concerning qimage, I think it would be foolish to disregard other concepts.

fwiw, I think your embedded jpeg is based on the settings that you applied to the camera. If you had shot the scene using the Canon inbuilt fail safe jpeg mode (what I call 'the magic green square'), you may well have been surprised by the result, and for many folk that result may have been good enough. If I am that concerned, for really high contrast subjects, then I exposure bracket, and combine the images using the Mertens-Kautz-Van Reeth exposure fusion algorithm*. Grin

Best wishes,

Ray

" try http://enblend.sourceforge.net/index.htm
Logged
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3196



View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2010, 12:56:33 PM »

Ray,
Quote
If you had shot the scene using the Canon inbuilt fail safe jpeg mode (what I call 'the magic green square'), you may well have been surprised by the result, and for many folk that result may have been good enough.
Been there, done that and always disappointed.
We are way of topic off topic from the original WB query. The end, until next time  Wink
Terry
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!