inohuri

inohuri

Joined on May 3, 2012

Comments

Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 article (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

skytripper: In the comparisons between jpeg and raw, the raw images have obviously been tweaked but it appears that the jpeg images have not been. A much more meaningful comparison would be between tweaked jpeg and tweaked raw. While it's true that one can get more out of a raw image than a jpeg, jpeg's can most certainly be substantially improved with minimal tweaking.

The one other subject is saving the jpeg after editing. I now save at the highest resolution. I know that I could probably not see a difference higher than 10 (Adobe) but what can the printer see?
Also I may want to do a quick edit for something I missed and at 12 I should lose less opening and saving. Storage is cheap. The edited file may be bigger than the original but that is fine with me. For cameras under 8 megapixels (love the Fuji S6000 shot in raw at ISO 100) I double the resolution right after opening from Camera Raw (x1.5 in dimensions) as they edit a little better. Fuji's software for Super CCD did that too.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2013 at 00:08 UTC
On First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 article (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

skytripper: In the comparisons between jpeg and raw, the raw images have obviously been tweaked but it appears that the jpeg images have not been. A much more meaningful comparison would be between tweaked jpeg and tweaked raw. While it's true that one can get more out of a raw image than a jpeg, jpeg's can most certainly be substantially improved with minimal tweaking.

Many of my cameras will not shoot in raw or shoot too slowly in raw for some situations. I edit the jpegs in Camera Raw and they seem to me to get better. Sometimes much better.

Must I do what others do?

"I said the file size makes no difference, and that does not refer to the compression being used."

I don't understand this.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2013 at 18:34 UTC
On First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 article (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

skytripper: In the comparisons between jpeg and raw, the raw images have obviously been tweaked but it appears that the jpeg images have not been. A much more meaningful comparison would be between tweaked jpeg and tweaked raw. While it's true that one can get more out of a raw image than a jpeg, jpeg's can most certainly be substantially improved with minimal tweaking.

I apologize. I didn't think to click on the jpeg and when I did the large file came out, probably the original, I didn't check.

I opened it in Camera Raw and got nowhere with the White Balance Tool on his shirt. Then I saw a bit of white in the upper right and one click did what I thought could be done. Better but not as good as the raw as usual.

Was the camera set to AWB? If it estimated the shirt to be white this could have thrown it off. The exif seems to have been stripped (which is what I would do, my name and phone are in there for security).

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2013 at 06:45 UTC
On First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 article (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

skytripper: In the comparisons between jpeg and raw, the raw images have obviously been tweaked but it appears that the jpeg images have not been. A much more meaningful comparison would be between tweaked jpeg and tweaked raw. While it's true that one can get more out of a raw image than a jpeg, jpeg's can most certainly be substantially improved with minimal tweaking.

Also editing a jpeg in 16 bit will do a better job. Try it, it shouldn't hurt. Adobe doesn't know best, they just think they do.

I use Elements because I can afford it and know the workarounds. That means I open in Camera Raw even if I do no changes there just to force 16 bit editing. I would probably go minus one or two in Clarity because it looks better to me when at 100 per cent or higher.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2013 at 05:41 UTC
On First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 article (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

skytripper: In the comparisons between jpeg and raw, the raw images have obviously been tweaked but it appears that the jpeg images have not been. A much more meaningful comparison would be between tweaked jpeg and tweaked raw. While it's true that one can get more out of a raw image than a jpeg, jpeg's can most certainly be substantially improved with minimal tweaking.

" The size of the JPEG reveals absolutely zero about how much it can be tweaked." As it makes no difference I should reset all my cameras to the highest compression / smallest file size.

Didn't I say "hint"? Of course this is not an absolute. With similar scenes at the same ISO I believe I am correct. You can go shoot black walls all you want. The quality of compression also does indeed vary from camera to camera. For reasons of my own I almost always set the camera to the largest file size.

"A RAW file can be processed to look exactly like the JPEG." Uh, isn't that turned around bacKwards from what was intended? We want the best tweaked jpeg compared to the best tweaked RAW.

I often compare the full size least compressed jpeg to the raw when the camera will shoot raw + jpeg. If the jpeg is better I'm doing something wrong (again). I open the jpeg in DPP and compare side by side with what I (am attempting to) edit in Camera Raw.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2013 at 05:06 UTC
On First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 article (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Interesting that Nikon and Canon are going to battle it out to see who can make the best camera with a sensor that's too small. Although I didn't care for the Sony, assuming the G16 is the same price, I'd definitely take the Sony.

Please Canon, give us an updated G1X. The image quality is already there; it just needs the computer stuff.

Sensor that is too small for what?
This is my favorite size, small enough for deep depth of field, just big enough for quality. My A640 has too often outdone my Xsi/450D with prime Nikkor or Canon lenses especially if shot in dng raw with CHDK.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2013 at 21:44 UTC
On First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 article (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

skytripper: In the comparisons between jpeg and raw, the raw images have obviously been tweaked but it appears that the jpeg images have not been. A much more meaningful comparison would be between tweaked jpeg and tweaked raw. While it's true that one can get more out of a raw image than a jpeg, jpeg's can most certainly be substantially improved with minimal tweaking.

The point was tweaking the jpeg for a more level comparison, not how much you can tweak.
I find in practical application, especially with Camera Raw 7, jpegs can be tweaked quite a bit. The file size is a hint as to how far you can push.
File:Open As:Camera Raw for those who don't know. PS Elements 11 Camera Raw will bring up shadows just the same as PhotoShop or Lightroom as far as I know. Be sure to open in 16 bits, the latest Camera Raw 8 setting looks like a web link, I didn't want to go on the web so didn't click there until I searched the internet. It also sets to 8 bit by default. Another "What were they thinking?" The setting is at the bottom center left.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2013 at 21:33 UTC
On IMG_0245 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Why F2.8? The four photos I looked at were shot at large apertures. My experience with sensors of this size is that they are at their best around F4 or F4.5.
I want to see the best the camera will do. I stayed with the A640 from 2006CE because the G series shots I have seen (except the G15 studio shot) seemed only slightly better to me.
Is this the better camera? I can't tell here. I know the A640 will do better than this.
I live in Seattle, I don't have image stabilization and I routinely shoot around F4.5 at ISO 80.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2013 at 20:16 UTC as 1st comment
On Bad Weather = Good Photography article (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

ironcam: Watch Josef Hoflehner''s work to see some amazing bad weather photos.

http://www.josefhoflehner.com/patience/33.html

I went and looked. Very good stuff.

But I didn't see anything that I would call "bad weather".

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 20:33 UTC
On Bad Weather = Good Photography article (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

Create: Why all the expensive equipment, can't we get nice images with lower end cameras and lenses, that the normal person shoots with, what about waterproof cameras, can't we get just as nice images with some basic equipment. Show the once in a while photographer how to get the results of a pro, i know it's possible.

"once in a while photographer" wants pro results. Not likely to happen. Study and practice are what work for any craft.
Have you studied the manual for your camera and know it's shooting features well? Can you push the right buttons in the dark or with the camera tilted?
There are many websites and books that will try to help you. But "once in a while" doesn't cut it. It takes practice and honest self criticism.
Carry a camera with you always, even if it is a cell phone. Learn how to get the most out of it by actually using it.
I get my best hit rate with older compact cameras. I'm willing to take them with me and they get good results.
I have what should be adequate DSLR stuff, but I don't use it unless I know it will get a better photo and it often won't.
Most shots are with a Canon A640 using CHDK .dng raw at ISO 80.
Second best is the big Fuji S6000FD for higher ISO or wide and telephoto. Usually shot at ISO 100 in raw.
These smaller sensors are sharpest between f4 and f5.6.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 07:39 UTC
On Bad Weather = Good Photography article (77 comments in total)

What a buncha party poopers. The author did OK. Can you do better? Or do you just give up and leave your camera at home?

For those concerned about expense some of my favorite photos were shot with an old Fuji S6000FD on an overcast Seattle day at ISO 100 in raw. In the late evening, hand held, leaning against whatever was handy.

Saturation? Contrast? These are issues? Tastes vary. Easy to change. Oh that's right, you are shooting .jpg aren't you? Learn about raw. Elements 11 has ACR7.

There is also the waterproof case for the classic Fuji F30/F31FD which is intended for diving. Roughly file out a 49 to 52mm filter adapter and it will press fit on the outside. Add a collapsing rubber lens hood to keep the rain off. You can get out and shoot in salt spray without worries. Just soak the whole thing in water then dry it off before opening.

Note to author: Add a rubber lens hood to a polarizer to keep off the rain and make a large grip. Rotate the hood itself to adjust.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 04:27 UTC as 24th comment
On Adobe announces Photoshop Elements 11 news story (68 comments in total)

Elements 11 Tool Options

Kills the gross screen hog at the bottom. Click on Tool Options lower left to get it back temporarily.

Between ?/HELP! and down chevron at the lower right when Tool Options is open: click on Auto Show to uncheck.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 03:27 UTC as 6th comment
On Adobe announces Photoshop Elements 11 news story (68 comments in total)

I was wrong about Navigator, Histogram etc. Found by accident.

Drag the tabs to where you want them

Also I use ZoomBrowser a lot to compare images. It will lock up unless I change preferences to Saving Files: Image Previews: Never Save. Same for Elements 10 but not 5.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 21:09 UTC as 8th comment
On Adobe announces Photoshop Elements 11 news story (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Biinnie: I have been iusing PSE for several latest veriosns, and found PSE9 to be the best so far. I tired the new PSE11 and the new interface is awful--a waste of precious screen space.

BUT, BUT the new "Refine Edge" with Smart Radius, a CS6 feature, is worth the upgrade all by itself. If you need to make really tough selection of hair, tree branches, etc, this WORKS

Thank you much. This is better.

I used the Quick Selection Tool to roughly select a small part of an evergreen tree with cloudy sky behind. Refine edge had a brush I could use to use to refine and expand. At a radius of 366 px I very crudely selected the rest of the tree. Then Shift Edge to about 60. That's it, done. Maybe I won't hate selecting any more - once I find a price I can live with.

Tool Options at the lower left closed the 1.25 inch bin on a 12 inch vertical screen that contained one little slider. The [ and ] keys work better than the slider.
I want a keyboard shortcut to close Tools if it must be fixed and wide.
Also I believe I saved a jpeg from 16 bit which 10 would not do.

H and S has the Alt key options back. Ctrl U, Alt 7 puts me right where I want to be for fringing fixes.

So it functions better but screen economy is really bad and there doesn't seem to be an option.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 18:48 UTC
On Adobe announces Photoshop Elements 11 news story (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

inohuri: I downloaded Elements 11 trial. 16 bit functions about the same so far.
Camera Raw 7 will force me to buy it - once I find it at half price. It is better.

Bigger does not describe the new arrangement. In the way is more like it.
The top bar (Open, Quick, Guided etc) is mostly wasted space. Opening a tool such as Select will open a huge bin at the bottom that used to fit fine in that space at the top. Tools is big and fat and fixed in place.

Panels most used, Info, Histogram etc. are combined with tabs. Info no longer gives pixel dimensions. With 10 I keep 5 panels open on the second screen.

Adobe, enthusiasts like me want 16 bit functions without gimmicks or organizers or networking. I don't even need layers. Make the Healing Brush 16 bit and clean up the Elements 10 interface and I will buy it now for $75. Please be sure to have a way to lock panels in place, 3 ways to reset including Shutdown is annoying when I have to open and place them again.
Maybe call it PhotoShop LE.

I also have a problem with Camera Raw 7. I compared with 6 on a very dark image and it is so much better I may re-edit all images that were shot dark to avoid blowing out highlights. Much unexpected work.

This is effectively a big increase in potential dynamic range which means a lot to me because I usually shoot compacts for the deep DOF.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2012 at 20:54 UTC
On Adobe announces Photoshop Elements 11 news story (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

inohuri: I downloaded Elements 11 trial. 16 bit functions about the same so far.
Camera Raw 7 will force me to buy it - once I find it at half price. It is better.

Bigger does not describe the new arrangement. In the way is more like it.
The top bar (Open, Quick, Guided etc) is mostly wasted space. Opening a tool such as Select will open a huge bin at the bottom that used to fit fine in that space at the top. Tools is big and fat and fixed in place.

Panels most used, Info, Histogram etc. are combined with tabs. Info no longer gives pixel dimensions. With 10 I keep 5 panels open on the second screen.

Adobe, enthusiasts like me want 16 bit functions without gimmicks or organizers or networking. I don't even need layers. Make the Healing Brush 16 bit and clean up the Elements 10 interface and I will buy it now for $75. Please be sure to have a way to lock panels in place, 3 ways to reset including Shutdown is annoying when I have to open and place them again.
Maybe call it PhotoShop LE.

Can't afford PhotoShop.

Don't like Lightroom so far but this is forcing me to take another look. I bet I won't like the sharpening. I use Unsharp Mask twice at diameter 0.5 and 59.8. The large radius is for local contrast. I don't use Clarity except on over sharpened images usually about -2.

I think Adobe could make money selling a minimized 16 bit editor with Camera Raw for around $75. All but Healing Brush are in Elements and that is 16 bit in PS as far as I know. It would mostly be a matter of removing "features".

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2012 at 20:22 UTC
On Adobe announces Photoshop Elements 11 news story (68 comments in total)

I downloaded Elements 11 trial. 16 bit functions about the same so far.
Camera Raw 7 will force me to buy it - once I find it at half price. It is better.

Bigger does not describe the new arrangement. In the way is more like it.
The top bar (Open, Quick, Guided etc) is mostly wasted space. Opening a tool such as Select will open a huge bin at the bottom that used to fit fine in that space at the top. Tools is big and fat and fixed in place.

Panels most used, Info, Histogram etc. are combined with tabs. Info no longer gives pixel dimensions. With 10 I keep 5 panels open on the second screen.

Adobe, enthusiasts like me want 16 bit functions without gimmicks or organizers or networking. I don't even need layers. Make the Healing Brush 16 bit and clean up the Elements 10 interface and I will buy it now for $75. Please be sure to have a way to lock panels in place, 3 ways to reset including Shutdown is annoying when I have to open and place them again.
Maybe call it PhotoShop LE.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2012 at 03:53 UTC as 10th comment | 3 replies
On Adobe announces Photoshop Elements 11 news story (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

Avagadro1: The messages seem contradictory; I ask the following, but with a preface.

PREFACE: The CS version of Photoshop supports 16-bit images, and provides full 16-bit editing capability for most editing including adjustment layers, and certainly for all common adjustment functions such as levels, curves, hue/saturation, color balance, blending modes, etc. And this is true whether one is working in Photoshop “PSD” format or TIFF.

Note: I am not speaking of the 32-bit or 64-bit version of the program as it interfaces with Windows. I am referring to 16-bit (as contrasted with 8-bit) images.

I know that some earlier versions of Photoshop ELEMENTS handled only 8-bit images, and adjustment layers were 8-bit only (even though Corel’s similarly priced PaintShop Pro was all 16-bit long, long ago).

QUESTION: Does the new Photoshop Elements 11, or for that matter Elements 10, provide full support (or mostly so), including 16-bit adjustment-layer editing capability?

Thank you.

Elements 10 and earlier will work in 16 bit for the most important features. The other features can be used by switching to 8 bit so save them for last. Layers are 8 bit also.

To do this:
File; Open As, select Camera Raw.

In Camera Raw at the lower left:
Depth, select 16 Bits/Channel.
Open Image.

I find Camera Raw to be far better than Elements at Recovery, Fill Light and noise reduction but not sharpening. Negative Vibrance and Clarity (usually -2) help overcooked jpegs.

To get out of 16 bit:
Image; Mode, select 8Bits/Channel. This is needed to save jpegs. Tools such as Healing Brush will tell you they need to switch to 8bit. Photomerge will switch without warning.

I stay with Elements because of Camera Raw. I usually do the extra work of opening there because I get a better result.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2012 at 18:30 UTC
On HDR for the Rest of Us article (199 comments in total)
In reply to:

inohuri: "Okay. I know what some of you guys are saying. The contrast range in this middle exposure does not look to be too extreme in the first place. And a skilled digital darkroom expert could have simply used a single raw file to pull out the shadow detail and tone down the highlights.

Well, I made another attempt doing just that using Photoshop's Adobe Camera Raw 6.7."

I would (again) like to have the original raw file to play with. This style of editing is very different from what I do, especially the + contrast on a high contrast image. I did download originalsrgb.jpg and opened it in Camera Raw 6.6. I think it has more potential than is shown with this style of editing from what I did with that diminished file.

Could we have a link to the original raw?

The article is indeed about HDR but also how it is better than single raw alone. One point the author makes is that it is better than editing single raw and then he proceeds to edit a raw file in a way that I believe to be non optimum. This weakens the argument that hdr is superior in this photo to my way of thinking.
Hdr does have its place, I just wonder if it is the best choice for this photo.

I suppose what I am getting at is how to choose when hdr is appropriate might not be well stated here.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2012 at 14:59 UTC
On HDR for the Rest of Us article (199 comments in total)

"Okay. I know what some of you guys are saying. The contrast range in this middle exposure does not look to be too extreme in the first place. And a skilled digital darkroom expert could have simply used a single raw file to pull out the shadow detail and tone down the highlights.

Well, I made another attempt doing just that using Photoshop's Adobe Camera Raw 6.7."

I would (again) like to have the original raw file to play with. This style of editing is very different from what I do, especially the + contrast on a high contrast image. I did download originalsrgb.jpg and opened it in Camera Raw 6.6. I think it has more potential than is shown with this style of editing from what I did with that diminished file.

Could we have a link to the original raw?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2012 at 00:10 UTC as 69th comment | 2 replies
Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »