Mike Chaney's Tech Corner
September 30, 2020, 11:27:39 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  

Professional ICC Profiling Software for Windows
Create custom ICC profiles with
Profile Prism for accurate color!
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: v2010.122 issues/comments  (Read 17314 times)
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3135



View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2010, 09:29:16 PM »

For my rendition above, all edits were done in Qimage Ultimate:

In Raw Refine:
  WB on clouds
  Fill +20
  HDR 35

In Image Editor:
  Contrast +10
  Shadow noise checked
  TTS with shadow of center shrub/tree selected, RGB targeting, 90% TTS slider, radius 8, strength -100

That last one acts as a selective noise filter, removing noise from only the parts of the image that have noise (there was a LOT of noise as this example is pretty extreme).

Mike
Logged
Ken
Newbie
*
Posts: 36


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2010, 07:20:31 AM »

Thank you very much Mike. Just got back to the PC. Hope tomorrow I can experiment a bit more.

Just looking at your settings will get me out of my, "confined thinking" using QIU. I never imagined using a radius of 8.. for anything. I'm going back to the photos I have already played with and will start again. Conservative by nature I suppose...must expand the use of the tools you have provided.

Can see that QIU can probably be used to extended softening of portrait backgrounds when required. Some of my best portrait shots have been unintended....then the PP softening is required...bokeh effect.

I am always fearful of checking "shadow noise" after using TTS. Does it soften the photo after sharpening? You seemed to use it effectively combined with, -100 strength.

I am still amazed at how well this program works. You never (or at least I have not) experience the "photo shopped" look. The corrections all blend.. just as you remember when taking the photo.

Thank you again. Will gladly attempt to absorb QIU advice from the experts.

Ken
Logged
Jeff
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 733



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2010, 10:38:55 AM »

Hello all

Mike's result is, lets face it, much better than mine, if only because the sky is blue.  This was probably achieved in the Raw Refine, I would think I used the WB on clouds with a fill +18 and hdr 31.

The Image Editor adjustments I made do not now show, god knows why, but from memory I increased the contrast and I always try +5 to +10 first, shadow noise checked.  My camera (Pentax K20) seems to create shadow noise even at iso 200 or probably it is the processing.  I certainly did not use anything like Mike's  TTS settings, I would never have thought of rad 8 and -100 etc

Qimage raw processing is so good that you tend not to realize how bad the actual image is, I sometime put a 'bad' image through Elements Raw just to see and often as in this case the image is so 'off' that I would just discard it.  I purposely set out to take an image at the extremes of light and shade, and think it was a hell of a test and a bit unfair.

So all in all a nice thought provoking and instructive thread.

Jeff  g   



   
Logged

Grumpy
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5326



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2010, 10:48:29 AM »

Quote
Mike's result is, lets face it, much better than mine, if only because the sky is blue.  This was probably achieved in the Raw Refine, I would think I used the WB on clouds with a fill +18 and hdr 31.
Jeff,
Mike's rendition is very close to yours. Only the White Balance is the glaring difference.
His noise reduction approach is unique. I didn't think of doing that -100 sharpening either.
Nevertheless, there is more than one way to set the controls to get a fine image result.
Mike will tell you himself, that his numbers are his way of getting the most out of the image, but other settings work as well too.
Was the sky blue when you took that shot?
I have shots with a morning pink, even with a purplish hue sky. You could have gone subjectively with your sky.
The rich blue is beautiful, but your job was also fine.

Fred
Logged
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3135



View Profile Email
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2010, 01:52:56 PM »

Just in response to questions...

The shadow noise filter remains one of the most effective noise reduction filters and I tend to use it a lot when I see noise.  That's usually my first check and if I don't get acceptable results, I try something else.  Most noise tends to reside in the shadows and it is a very useful tool when doing TTS sharpening and fill light.  It's the perfect match for those since fill light and selective sharpening can bring out the noise in shadows.

The K20D camera seems to be a little more prone to shadow noise, so I just created a custom sharpening/NR setting for that camera in QU's raw format options and it works so well that even this extreme sun/shadow shot doesn't need any additional NR!  At that point, I just used TTS to sharpen the brighter green of the trees.  Now I have a printable photo!  Jeff, you might want to create a custom NR setting for that K20D.  I used 6 notches to the right of default on the NR slider and it removes almost all the noise from that photo.  Just test that to see if it's too much on normal photos.  I bet it'll be OK.

Mike
Logged
MelW
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 289


View Profile Email
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2010, 02:17:11 PM »

Would like to see some examples with people and backlighting.  Normally, outdoors - especially just shooting "snapshotty" kinds of things, I wouldn't be shooting raw - but I could change if this would work.  Always have problems if I get photo I really like because by the time I have gotten facial featues to the proper exposure and flesh tones, I have often blown out the backgrounds and in fact everrything that's not part of the face.  So, if anyone has fooled around with this enough to have some of those examples - please post.

Mel W
Logged
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5326



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2010, 03:04:50 PM »

Quote
especially just shooting "snapshotty" kinds of things, I wouldn't be shooting raw - but I could change if this would work.  Always have problems if I get photo I really like because by the time I have gotten facial features to the proper exposure and flesh tones, I have often blown out th

Mel I am emailing 3 versions of a famous image that appears on the web site of Qimage. It illustrates how much better results you can get from Raw. There's a jpg made from the Refined raw, and a jpg that used the same image and was processed using FILL, and another JPG processed using Curves.
This is the same problem that backlit faces offer. The exposure was set by the brighter part of the image leaving the subject (face or snap shot) in deep darkness.)

I wish I could make the file sizes under 128K so I could post them here, but I leave that to you if you know a good way to do it.
I am not well versed in forum posting methods.

Fred
Logged
Jeff
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 733



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2010, 03:55:33 PM »

It just goes to show how seemingly small adjustments can effect the result.  I think you are all being kind to me Smiley

Thanks Mike for suggestions, Raw default noise setting now under test.

Jeff

   
Logged

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



View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2010, 04:06:50 PM »

Hi Mel,
Here is an example.
Not exactly back lighting  but the band members were in deep shadow with a very bright background.
Shot in raw with about level 15 of Fill.
See attached for untouched version.


There are other similar shots in that gallery too.
Terry
« Last Edit: October 02, 2010, 04:26:12 PM by Terry-M » Logged
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3135



View Profile Email
« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2010, 09:16:02 PM »

I searched through my folders to find the most extreme example I could come up with.  This is my most extreme example of salvaging a backlit raw.  Not great but I could produce a photo that I could at least post in my basement to keep the rats out.  Wink

Standard exposure:


Fill +20, no other mods:


The new fill (in v2010.122 and later) was redesigned to make sure you still get a near-linear tone curve no matter how hard you push the fill light.  Prior versions (and the fill lights in most other software I tried too) tended to give garish skin tones once you reach +15 or so.  In the latest QU, you can push the fill to ridiculous levels and you'll still get accurate color.  Took me two weeks to solve the math for that one!  But it works.

Mike
Logged
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5326



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2010, 09:24:04 PM »

I like the upper picture better!!
Fred
Logged
MelW
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 289


View Profile Email
« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2010, 02:20:02 AM »

You guys all have a lot more raw talent than I do.  But seriously, I like both examples.  And I'll get there but it will take a while. 

When I first started using qimage in 2003, shooting raw was the last thing I would have thought of - in fact probably did even know what it was at the time as I was still trying to get used to this whole digital thing.  At the time my trusty Mamiya TLR and Pentax 6x7 were still sitting close by awaiting their next use. It never came, and this past winter, I finally packed up my enlarger, analyzer, and most of my darkroom, in the silly thought that someone might want the stuff. 

So I gradually developed my own workflow and techniques with qimage and jpegs, and by the time I bought my D200 I had consistency in my results.  Sometime last year - when Qstudio first introduced raw, I started slowly to experiment with it, and now use it for a lot of the pictures I take in my "studio" (Rube Goldberg version).  Now with Qimage, I can do in about ten minutes, what might have been a half day darkroom session - or more - since you really had to wait for prints to dry to evaluate them. The only darkroom technique I have really missed is the ability to dodge and burn in - and maybe - just maybe - this latest improvement to the fill light gets me closer than I have yet been to having that at last. (By the way - I hate the PSE dodge/burn - you have to select highlights, shadows or midtones - and the darn thing never really looks right).

Just from my little bit of experimenting tonight, even the improvements to the fill light in the image editor are significant.  But in any case, I will now be shooting even more raw and seeing what I can do woth it.
Logged
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5326



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2010, 10:26:51 AM »

Quote
I will now be shooting even more raw and seeing what I can do with it.

I finally had some time to post three samples.
One is the original image, very dark, due to the photographer exposing for the clouds, or in many cases, bright backgrounds, fool the camera.
I am showing the original, the image after Qimage Ultimate spent 30 seconds processing it.
The third image which will be a second post (too many K to make the forum software happy) shows what the image looks like had you shot this in JPG mode and developed it as a snapshot.
Just interesting to see why, I too was converted from a devout JPGer to a devout and Bar Mitzvah'ed Raw shooter.

:-)

Fred
Logged
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5326



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2010, 10:28:51 AM »

and the image processed as a JPG

Click the Images to enlarge.
Logged
MelW
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 289


View Profile Email
« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2010, 12:26:43 PM »

By the way - meant to include in my previous post - thanks Fred for sending me those images - as I said there - I am looking forward to this.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  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!