Mike Chaney's Tech Corner
August 03, 2020, 05:17:30 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  

Professional Photo Printing for Windows
Print with
Qimage and see what you've been missing!
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: v2013.119 issues/comments  (Read 13076 times)
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3108



View Profile Email
« on: March 04, 2013, 05:27:50 PM »

http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u

v2013.119    03/04/13

Priority: Low

v2013.119 includes a codebase update and adds Image Examiner to auto-instaview options.

Mike
Logged
DdeGannes
Full Member
***
Posts: 169


Retired Banker; Golf; Photography; Travel.


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2013, 10:05:35 PM »

Wow we have now had seven updates in seven days. I cannot remember this happening before.
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.
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5299



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2013, 10:45:09 AM »

Quote
Wow we have now had seven updates in seven days. I cannot remember this happening before.

Dennis,
It has been chilly here this past week. It barely made it to 72.
So he keeps busy indoors.
Fred
Logged
DdeGannes
Full Member
***
Posts: 169


Retired Banker; Golf; Photography; Travel.


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2013, 12:15:48 AM »

I am very impressed with the development of Qimage Utimate raw processing capabilities and other features.

I have been a user of Qimage as my printing software of choice since 2001 or 2002 I believe. When I got involved in shooting raw with my cameras in early 2004 Qimage was not involved in providing further development of raw file processing.
I have kept abreast of further developments and upgraded to Qimage Studio and eventually to Qimage Ultimate.
I presently use the following for my processing of raw files. Lightroom 4.x is presently used as my first choice, but I also use several other raw processing software including QU..

Since 2004 I have shot in raw mode with my cameras Olympus (4) and recently a Panasonic m4/3. My normal procedure is to set my camera to Auto WB and make adjustments as necessary when processing the raw files.

While the majority of my files do not normally require major adjustments to WB, it is very help full to use the choice of selecting automatic adjustment settings to correct to "daylight, cloudy, shade, flash etc" with other software there is no similar option in Qimage "Raw Refine" mode.

The auto default setting are normally very good but if the auto setting from the camera is "fooled" by the scene its is easier to get back close to reality by selecting one of the auto settings from other software than having to adjust the WB slider from cool to warm in QU. Also there is no kelvin numbers to indicate where you are at in terms of the expected WB (e.g 5300 or close for sunny conditions)

I would appreciate some options for WB adjustments included.   
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 #4 on: March 07, 2013, 11:25:23 AM »

Hi Dennis,
I would agree that getting the white balance right for an image is crucial and is always the first step in the refine process.
Quote
Also there is no kelvin numbers to indicate where you are at in terms of the expected WB (e.g 5300 or close for sunny conditions)
I understand that there is problem with showing the colour temperature value accurately, a profile for every camera is required. I've noticed that different software gives different values for the same image. Where I am in the UK, 5500K is about right for Summer sunny day WB but my camera set to daylight says it's 5200K.
I usually find the WB tools in raw refine quite adequate and using the CTRL key to highlight areas on an image that are near grey and possible areas to correct WB; it can involve a trying a few sites.
I've never liked using auto WB on my camera and always set to one of the fixed settings, daylight, cloudy etc.
To get WB as close as possible to being correct, I now nearly always photograph my mini colour checker card, see attached - it's kept in an old credit card wallet as it's an valuable item! Here in the UK, ambient colour temperature can change by the minute due to passing clouds etc. so I may takes several shots of the colour checker while out with a camera. Although I try to set the camera to the nearest ambient conditions, it does not matter if it's the wrong one, as long as I have a checker image. If I'm not able to use the colour checker, there's plenty of samples from previous sessions as well as the QU Refine tools.
There are some images where a true white balance is not required, such as an early morning or late evening shot, where the warm ambience need to be retained or enhanced.
Terry
« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 11:27:42 AM by Terry-M » Logged
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5299



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2013, 11:31:19 AM »

Quote
The auto default setting are normally very good but if the auto setting from the camera is "fooled" by the scene its is easier to get back close to reality by selecting one of the auto settings from other software than having to adjust the WB slider from cool to warm in QU. Also there is no kelvin numbers to indicate where you are at in terms of the expected WB (e.g 5300 or close for sunny conditions)

Hi Dennis,
First of all, White Balance is a very subjective thing, scene and moment dependent.
I, frankly see no value in knowing the Kelvin reading. I am not setting to a time of day or what I think the color temperature is at high noon .
I find REFINE to be very adaptive. Many scenes that I shoot have no obvious white or gray to use as a standard. I do a lot of Roses, or water scenes.
The CTRL key in refine will pop up all the spots that will work as a gray standard, and also all the whites that have one or all channels exceeding 255, and block them out.
So I have the ability to click a spot as a standard, and even tweak the result by a tick or two to "warmer" or "cooler"

That having been said, let's have some discussion on what is "right" for WB.
Here are three samples...

006 is a bridge I shot close to noon; clear day.
007 is same bridge, shot when I got there before 8:00 am
008 is 007 with a couple of clicks to the cooler side..

So that's why I say is doubly subjective; subjective by the light at the time you shot it, and what was the scene you wanted to capture, plus  the technical Kelvin Temp.
The correct WB is the one YOU like best.

On the other hand, there are shots that need the White Balance corrected just because the lighting fooled the camera!  That's different from the camera actually capturing a warm morning color.
Screen snap 009 shows a really badly lighted scene where the shooter's camera was fooled by the mixed lighting.

There are a number of locations in that shot which might appear to be useful to use as your White Balance standard, but in truth, the ghastly skin tone is what we want to repair.
The proper approach would be to find something white which is lit by the same light that lights the faces.
You will not get the same result by using the salt shaker on the table, lower right as your white standard, as you will get using the collar of the lady on the left just below the little pendant.
This was a JPG and the same  principle applies as did in REFINE. 
Even after you do the WB in the Editor, you can try a few spots for a better sample, or adjust the numbers manually in the WB boxes.
As you can see, in my examples, I have no need to know the color temperature, nor would having a slider instead of a clicker make it work better.

Thanks,
Fred

Logged
DdeGannes
Full Member
***
Posts: 169


Retired Banker; Golf; Photography; Travel.


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2013, 01:15:57 PM »

Thanks Fred and Terry for your clear and informative posts. I am well aware of all the points you have raised and they are quite valid. I developed my photographic skills and techniques in the film days of the 70's and 80's when there was no settings for WB available an one would decide on what film to use for a particular shoot. I am sure you both also remember those days.
When I started to shoot digital I found it a real pain to remember to set the WB to match the changing scenes, which was important when the files were saved as jpeg. My second digital camera (2003) had the option to save the raw files to disk and I quickly aborted the practice of doing this in camera since the raw converters I used all had the same type of options as the camera. This made it simple to change in post processing if the camera Auto WB was fooled. My more recent camera models do a very good job for Auto WB but if it is fooled and the raw converter software displays a kelvin it signals a "red flag" for me that adjustments may be necessary. I have therefore become accustomed to use the selective WB options to get me in the ball park and then I would manually adjust as necessary. That said my cameras auto WB probable fine for 90% of the shots.  What can I say old habits die hard.
QU has developed a first rate raw processing pipeline. Keep up the great work you both do on this forum to inform and support other users.

Thanks, Denis.
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.
msadat
Newbie
*
Posts: 28


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2013, 12:48:22 AM »

i just downloaded some sigma dp2m raw files from this site http://pond.org.uk/galleries/DP2M/ and both the preview and the finial image have the wrong color balance, everything is green
Logged
DdeGannes
Full Member
***
Posts: 169


Retired Banker; Golf; Photography; Travel.


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2013, 01:34:25 AM »

They look fine on my monitor. You may need to check your Monitor profile.
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.
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5299



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2013, 10:46:11 AM »

Quote
i just downloaded some sigma dp2m raw files from this site http://pond.org.uk/galleries/DP2M/ and both the preview and the finial image have the wrong color balance, everything is green

Good morning,
I did as suggested, and the RAW file (I just took one) I downloaded has an .X3F suffix.
Yes I confirm that is it a greenish aquamarine coolor here. The JPGS look fine.
But I ask a question. Is a DP2 M the same camera as a DP 2 MERRILL?
I am not familiar with Sigma.
Does anyone have a DP2 M? What is the suffix of your RAW file?

Fred
Logged
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3108



View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2013, 03:01:38 PM »

i just downloaded some sigma dp2m raw files from this site http://pond.org.uk/galleries/DP2M/ and both the preview and the finial image have the wrong color balance, everything is green

Thanks for the link.  Sigma DP2 support is relatively new in DCRAW and I believe some fixes are needed.  I've sent a bug report up through the chain so that it can be fixed in DCRAW in a future version.

Mike
Logged
rayw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 440


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2013, 07:46:35 PM »

Hi Fred,

sigma dpXM is 'M' for 'Merrill' - the inventor of the Foveon X3 sensor. So far there is a dp1M, dp2M, dp3M which all have the larger sensor area, compared with the earlier dp1, and dp2 cameras. As well as these fixed lens cameras, there are also slr's, but afaik all sigma foveon sensor cameras have a raw file extension of X3F, but it seems that only Sigma's own software is capable of reading all the raw files within the x3f type extension.

Best wishes,

Ray 
Logged
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5299



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2013, 08:23:54 PM »

Quote
but it seems that only Sigma's own software is capable of reading all the raw files within the x3f type extension.

Thanks Ray.
I found out that Photo Shop wont open it at all.
I get this!
Fred
Logged
rayw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 440


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 08, 2013, 09:43:26 PM »

Hi Fred,

When Sigma produced the earlier dp1's and dp2's they worked closely with photoshop, and adobe bridge could open the files OK - debatable if they got the best out of the files, though. I'm not sure if they have done the same with the M's. Perhaps it works fine with the latest version's of bridge - it used to be free upgrades for bridge, iirc - not sure about now. cs5 is a few years old.

Best wishes,

Ray
Logged
rayw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 440


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2013, 09:52:35 PM »

Just checked - http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.html   no Merrill support in Bridge or lightroom. Does dcraw/quimage  now support the earlier dp1's etc?

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!