That RAW Troublemaker Again With Files

Started Sep 2, 2013 | Discussions
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,454
Like?
That RAW Troublemaker Again With Files
Sep 2, 2013

OK I tried to put links to four files, but it led to links to all of my stuff in my computer - or it seemed like.

Still struggling with Google Drive.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Alan_S
Senior MemberPosts: 1,458Gear list
Like?
For what it's worth...
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, Sep 2, 2013

I grabbed two RAW/JPG files from the links you had posted briefly... Here's my quick rendition in Adobe Camera Raw (displayed at left in Photoshop at 100%, along with the same crop of your untouched JPG):

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

 Alan_S's gear list:Alan_S's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
saschamagus
Regular MemberPosts: 196
Like?
Re: That RAW Troublemaker Again With Files
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, Sep 2, 2013

just use

www.wetransfer.com

and choose download link instead of email...

The files would be available for 7 days, plenty of time for interested people to get them...

One would think that transferring a few files shouldn't require advanced skills...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrojMacReady
Senior MemberPosts: 8,526
Like?
Or....
In reply to saschamagus, Sep 2, 2013

saschamagus wrote:

just use

www.wetransfer.com

and choose download link instead of email...

The files would be available for 7 days, plenty of time for interested people to get them...

One would think that transferring a few files shouldn't require advanced skills...

http://www.filedropper.com/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,454
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to TrojMacReady, Sep 3, 2013

Well, ANYTHING has to be easier than Google Drive. I downloaded and printed 22 pages of how to instructions to study. I will try the others.

What I did in Drive was that I finally got the damned things to show up in my Drive folder, then I uploaded a link to my own Email address to see what happened. Then I got a nice Email that said that I had some files to view. I clicked on one, and it showed me the picture, and I copied the URL and used that in my post here.

It says you can share files with people or groups, but I can't fathom how to share it with dpreview in a particular post, so I tried the above. When I opened it it seemed to allow me to delve even deeper than the files I specified to share, so I took it off.

Does anyone else out there use this stupid program?

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,454
Like?
Re: For what it's worth...
In reply to Alan_S, Sep 3, 2013

Alan_S wrote:

I grabbed two RAW/JPG files from the links you had posted briefly... Here's my quick rendition in Adobe Camera Raw (displayed at left in Photoshop at 100%, along with the same crop of your untouched JPG):

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Well, different exposure choices, nice and sharp, but not a big difference from the JPG. Did you catch the 833 file that was the subject of the long thread?

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,454
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to TrojMacReady, Sep 3, 2013

TrojMacReady wrote:

saschamagus wrote:

just use

www.wetransfer.com

and choose download link instead of email...

The files would be available for 7 days, plenty of time for interested people to get them...

One would think that transferring a few files shouldn't require advanced skills...

http://www.filedropper.com/

Filedropper.com! Forehead slap! NOW you're talking! Try this:

http://www.filedropper.com/dsc00833

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,454
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, Sep 3, 2013

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

saschamagus wrote:

just use

www.wetransfer.com

and choose download link instead of email...

The files would be available for 7 days, plenty of time for interested people to get them...

One would think that transferring a few files shouldn't require advanced skills...

http://www.filedropper.com/

Filedropper.com! Forehead slap! NOW you're talking! Try this:

http://www.filedropper.com/dsc00833

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

What the $#^& was that all about? I got to a site that wanted me to download their program, never did see the file.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrojMacReady
Senior MemberPosts: 8,526
Like?
Thanks, works for me.
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, Sep 3, 2013

will play with the RAW tomorrow.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,454
Like?
Re: Thanks, works for me.
In reply to TrojMacReady, Sep 3, 2013

TrojMacReady wrote:

will play with the RAW tomorrow.

You got something? Maybe because you have their program installed? For others that had any problems with that one, try this:

http://we.tl/QGQ8CpPolP

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,454
Like?
Re: Thanks, works for me.
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, Sep 3, 2013

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

will play with the RAW tomorrow.

You got something? Maybe because you have their program installed? For others that had any problems with that one, try this:

http://we.tl/QGQ8CpPolP

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

No dice. That just takes you to my Email ISP. It said it was a download link, but I don't think so. Might make one last try with Yousendit.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,454
Like?
Re: Thanks, works for me.
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, Sep 3, 2013

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

will play with the RAW tomorrow.

You got something? Maybe because you have their program installed? For others that had any problems with that one, try this:

http://we.tl/QGQ8CpPolP

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

No dice. That just takes you to my Email ISP. It said it was a download link, but I don't think so. Might make one last try with Yousendit.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Gary Eickmeier

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alan_S
Senior MemberPosts: 1,458Gear list
Like?
Re: For what it's worth...
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, Sep 3, 2013

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Alan_S wrote:

I grabbed two RAW/JPG files from the links you had posted briefly... Here's my quick rendition in Adobe Camera Raw (displayed at left in Photoshop at 100%, along with the same crop of your untouched JPG):

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Well, different exposure choices, nice and sharp, but not a big difference from the JPG. Did you catch the 833 file that was the subject of the long thread?

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

No, saw the JPG version of the other one, but didn't find the RAW file.

Regarding your image above, this is typical of results I see from an average well lit snapshot (RAW vs JPG), and indicative of my earlier statement that I've always (no exceptions, none) gotten a better image processing the raw myself vs the OOC JPG. No, this is not a particular dramatic difference, but in comparison the OOC JPG is dull and muddy looking -- before processing the RAW I didn't even notice the reflected light on the side of the truck and could barely see the trailer number. Pull it up close and you'll see a lot more detail on the left image in the palm tree, the bricks, the vent grid on the brick wall, even the traffic lights. So, when even rather mundane "good light" samples like this show obvious improvements processed from RAW, I just cannot bring myself to waste the card space on in-cam JPGs. I want each image to look the best that it can, and I've found that the in-cam JPG almost never does that for me.

More challengingly lit scenes will provide even more flexibility to extract dramatically more detail from highlights, shadows and color, as in this example

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

 Alan_S's gear list:Alan_S's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,454
Like?
Re: For what it's worth...
In reply to Alan_S, Sep 3, 2013

Alan_S wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Alan_S wrote:

I grabbed two RAW/JPG files from the links you had posted briefly... Here's my quick rendition in Adobe Camera Raw (displayed at left in Photoshop at 100%, along with the same crop of your untouched JPG):

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Well, different exposure choices, nice and sharp, but not a big difference from the JPG. Did you catch the 833 file that was the subject of the long thread?

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

No, saw the JPG version of the other one, but didn't find the RAW file.

Regarding your image above, this is typical of results I see from an average well lit snapshot (RAW vs JPG), and indicative of my earlier statement that I've always (no exceptions, none) gotten a better image processing the raw myself vs the OOC JPG. No, this is not a particular dramatic difference, but in comparison the OOC JPG is dull and muddy looking -- before processing the RAW I didn't even notice the reflected light on the side of the truck and could barely see the trailer number. Pull it up close and you'll see a lot more detail on the left image in the palm tree, the bricks, the vent grid on the brick wall, even the traffic lights. So, when even rather mundane "good light" samples like this show obvious improvements processed from RAW, I just cannot bring myself to waste the card space on in-cam JPGs. I want each image to look the best that it can, and I've found that the in-cam JPG almost never does that for me.

More challengingly lit scenes will provide even more flexibility to extract dramatically more detail, as in this example

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Yep - that is what RAW is for all right!

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alan_S
Senior MemberPosts: 1,458Gear list
Like?
Re: For what it's worth...
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, Sep 3, 2013

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Alan_S wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Alan_S wrote:

I grabbed two RAW/JPG files from the links you had posted briefly... Here's my quick rendition in Adobe Camera Raw (displayed at left in Photoshop at 100%, along with the same crop of your untouched JPG):

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Well, different exposure choices, nice and sharp, but not a big difference from the JPG. Did you catch the 833 file that was the subject of the long thread?

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

No, saw the JPG version of the other one, but didn't find the RAW file.

Regarding your image above, this is typical of results I see from an average well lit snapshot (RAW vs JPG), and indicative of my earlier statement that I've always (no exceptions, none) gotten a better image processing the raw myself vs the OOC JPG. No, this is not a particular dramatic difference, but in comparison the OOC JPG is dull and muddy looking -- before processing the RAW I didn't even notice the reflected light on the side of the truck and could barely see the trailer number. Pull it up close and you'll see a lot more detail on the left image in the palm tree, the bricks, the vent grid on the brick wall, even the traffic lights. So, when even rather mundane "good light" samples like this show obvious improvements processed from RAW, I just cannot bring myself to waste the card space on in-cam JPGs. I want each image to look the best that it can, and I've found that the in-cam JPG almost never does that for me.

More challengingly lit scenes will provide even more flexibility to extract dramatically more detail, as in this example

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Yep - that is what RAW is for all right!

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Exactly... not for "fixing mistakes" (in my above example I purposely exposed mid-way between blown highlights and darkest shadows, so that I could extract the best of both from the RAW), but for getting the best possible from each image.

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

 Alan_S's gear list:Alan_S's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
saschamagus
Regular MemberPosts: 196
Like?
Re: For what it's worth...
In reply to Alan_S, Sep 3, 2013

Do we even need to bother with Gary's raws after this great example?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
silentstorm
Regular MemberPosts: 353
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, Sep 3, 2013

Filedropper.com! Forehead slap! NOW you're talking! Try this:

http://www.filedropper.com/dsc00833

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Downloaded this & have a quickie check. With everything set at default 0 & WB custom set to 5500K, the full pics look like this:

Photoshop ACR

The one converted with Sony IDC with DRO off & NR off & len correction off

Prelim results is that I see more colour hues from the IDC converted.  Haven't really look deeper into the images, so that's a first glance

Do you have any images with more colour hues?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dsnoir
Regular MemberPosts: 321Gear list
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to silentstorm, Sep 3, 2013

I am not sure that you are getting the best of this situation by underexposing by -0.3ev, a straight shot or even +0.3 would have given more detail in the dark uniform.

As a matter of interest in both Photoshop and Elements you can in fact open a JPEG in RAW, the only thing you appear to lose is the white balance tool, although this can be addressed by using other tools.

The reason I tend to shoot in RAW is because I find it simpler and quicker to make adjustments myself rather than delve in to the myriad of options setting that are available in the camera for just the right setting for the image I am about to take - although I suspect that most users leave the setting at default.

 Dsnoir's gear list:Dsnoir's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Sony SLT-A99 Sony a6000 Sony Alpha 7 II Sony 100mm F2.8 Macro +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alan_S
Senior MemberPosts: 1,458Gear list
Like?
ok, I gave 833 a shot...
In reply to Gary Eickmeier, Sep 3, 2013

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Filedropper.com! Forehead slap! NOW you're talking! Try this:

http://www.filedropper.com/dsc00833

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

First your in-cam jpg (isn't this the one you started that entire other thread on, showing it was "better" than processed from RAW?):

...followed by results after a few seconds of basic slider adjustments in ACR:

which once again demonstrates why I don't waste card space on in-cam JPGs, even with casual snapshots like this one (if nothing else, look at the detail gained in the clouds!). As "good" as in-cam processing may be, I've always seen better results processing to my own liking.

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

 Alan_S's gear list:Alan_S's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,454
Like?
Re: For what it's worth...
In reply to Alan_S, Sep 4, 2013

Alan_S wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Alan_S wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Alan_S wrote:

I grabbed two RAW/JPG files from the links you had posted briefly... Here's my quick rendition in Adobe Camera Raw (displayed at left in Photoshop at 100%, along with the same crop of your untouched JPG):

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Well, different exposure choices, nice and sharp, but not a big difference from the JPG. Did you catch the 833 file that was the subject of the long thread?

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

No, saw the JPG version of the other one, but didn't find the RAW file.

Regarding your image above, this is typical of results I see from an average well lit snapshot (RAW vs JPG), and indicative of my earlier statement that I've always (no exceptions, none) gotten a better image processing the raw myself vs the OOC JPG. No, this is not a particular dramatic difference, but in comparison the OOC JPG is dull and muddy looking -- before processing the RAW I didn't even notice the reflected light on the side of the truck and could barely see the trailer number. Pull it up close and you'll see a lot more detail on the left image in the palm tree, the bricks, the vent grid on the brick wall, even the traffic lights. So, when even rather mundane "good light" samples like this show obvious improvements processed from RAW, I just cannot bring myself to waste the card space on in-cam JPGs. I want each image to look the best that it can, and I've found that the in-cam JPG almost never does that for me.

More challengingly lit scenes will provide even more flexibility to extract dramatically more detail, as in this example

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Yep - that is what RAW is for all right!

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Exactly... not for "fixing mistakes" (in my above example I purposely exposed mid-way between blown highlights and darkest shadows, so that I could extract the best of both from the RAW), but for getting the best possible from each image.

-- hide signature --

- AlanS

Fine, but have you heard about the a77 and a99's auto HDR? Works only in JPG mode.

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads