Mike Chaney's Tech Corner

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. 

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   8)

Terry

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.

 

Hi again,
I assumed you were using Q-SE for raw as you had asked for a change to the Raw Refine controls  ???
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.  ::)  ;)
Terry

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

Please do soon, something very strange has been done to that image in Qimage  :o
With the original raw, I'm sure we can sort it out.
Terry

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.

Hi,
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!  :-\
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

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

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  ;D
Terry

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.

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  ;D

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. 

Hi Ray & Dennis,
I'm not sure about that otherwise there's no point in shooting raw  ;D
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

I like this one best!
Opinions?

Fred

Hi Terry,


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 ;)) 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

Hi Ray,
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.  ::)
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

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  ;D ;D ;D ) . 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? ???

Best wishes,

Ray

Hi Ray,
Sorry if I seem to be disagreeing with you again  ::)
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.  :-\

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.  8)
Terry

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*. ;D

Best wishes,

Ray

" try http://enblend.sourceforge.net/index.htm

Ray,
Been there, done that and always disappointed.
We are way of topic off topic from the original WB query. The end, until next time  ;)
Terry