-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
RAW Troublemaker Again
- Thread starter Gary Eickmeier
- Start date
Ed at Ridersite
Forum Pro
Something seems very wrong here. That's just about the worst RAW editing I've ever seen. If that's a corner crop, I guess it's possible that an uncorrected file could look so bad, but this just isn't my experience with RAW files.
Seems to me you could run it through the Sony IDC and get something reasonably close to the jpg, but these two results don't even look like they came from the same shot (however, I see the EXIF is the same).
Seems to me you could run it through the Sony IDC and get something reasonably close to the jpg, but these two results don't even look like they came from the same shot (however, I see the EXIF is the same).
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
And always use a Mac + a Windows computer. And always wear a belt + suspenders. And always drink coffee + tea. And always take a shower + a bath.
Or, decide which works best for you and do that.
Jamie and Paul,
Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, since all of my PCs are WinXP, I'm still using LR3. It doesn't seem to have the controls that you mention, so I assume you are using 4 or 5.
But I did play around with the simple CA control in LR3 along with the targeted color correction section. I was able to get rid of most of the CA. I also found that the NEX 7 I was using (with some legacy MF lenses) doesn't do as well with auto WB as my a-mount cameras and was actually giving the sky a slight purple tint. So in LR I used the WB tint control to reduce the overall purple tint, which helped with the fringing as well as improved the overall color in the shot.
One other method I have tried was after exporting a processed raw as a Tiff (140MB file :^( to load it into Paint Shop X2 and use the magic wand tool to select the color of the fringe with low tolerance and non-contiguous selection. So that way it picks all that color in the image. With the right tolerance it only picks the fringing. Then I reduce the saturation. That's the tricky part, not leaving a gray fringe. I think that's where using layers and blending would be useful, but with the very large Tiff adding layers really slows down the computer. I should just reduce the Tiff to a manageable size, but I still have a prejudice against throwing away data even though I will never print that large. (I have to re-educate myself in the era of 20+Mp images).
tom
Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, since all of my PCs are WinXP, I'm still using LR3. It doesn't seem to have the controls that you mention, so I assume you are using 4 or 5.
But I did play around with the simple CA control in LR3 along with the targeted color correction section. I was able to get rid of most of the CA. I also found that the NEX 7 I was using (with some legacy MF lenses) doesn't do as well with auto WB as my a-mount cameras and was actually giving the sky a slight purple tint. So in LR I used the WB tint control to reduce the overall purple tint, which helped with the fringing as well as improved the overall color in the shot.
One other method I have tried was after exporting a processed raw as a Tiff (140MB file :^( to load it into Paint Shop X2 and use the magic wand tool to select the color of the fringe with low tolerance and non-contiguous selection. So that way it picks all that color in the image. With the right tolerance it only picks the fringing. Then I reduce the saturation. That's the tricky part, not leaving a gray fringe. I think that's where using layers and blending would be useful, but with the very large Tiff adding layers really slows down the computer. I should just reduce the Tiff to a manageable size, but I still have a prejudice against throwing away data even though I will never print that large. (I have to re-educate myself in the era of 20+Mp images).
tom
Chet Meyerson
Well-known member
Gary,
I'M WITH YOU!
You knew you were asking for trouble when you started this thread. I don't shoot RAW and I certainly can on my a77 and my a99. The RAW fanatics on this forum really show their ignorance to the JPEG format-of today.
Years ago we had to shoot RAW to avoid the JPEG artifacts that came along with the compression. But those days are over...long gone. Not only have the JPEG compression algorithms improved, but IMHO no software can correct in camera problems better than the manufacture can with hard coded corrections in the camera! I just get a huge kick watching all 3 of my Sony products do that magic. You know, that split second you see the 'raw' image before it gets corrected right after you take the picture. Pure magic!
So, I've learned my lesson with the people on this forum (and that a kind way of putting it) and don't ever get involved with such topics...you will never get answer, only biased opinions.
OH, yes the JPEG image is far superior to the RAW image in your example. Anytime you shoot both, the comparison is valid. How could it not be? Identical exposures, one processed one not! Could be a lousy picture but so what. We all take good one and lousy ones!!!
Chet
I'M WITH YOU!
You knew you were asking for trouble when you started this thread. I don't shoot RAW and I certainly can on my a77 and my a99. The RAW fanatics on this forum really show their ignorance to the JPEG format-of today.
Years ago we had to shoot RAW to avoid the JPEG artifacts that came along with the compression. But those days are over...long gone. Not only have the JPEG compression algorithms improved, but IMHO no software can correct in camera problems better than the manufacture can with hard coded corrections in the camera! I just get a huge kick watching all 3 of my Sony products do that magic. You know, that split second you see the 'raw' image before it gets corrected right after you take the picture. Pure magic!
So, I've learned my lesson with the people on this forum (and that a kind way of putting it) and don't ever get involved with such topics...you will never get answer, only biased opinions.
OH, yes the JPEG image is far superior to the RAW image in your example. Anytime you shoot both, the comparison is valid. How could it not be? Identical exposures, one processed one not! Could be a lousy picture but so what. We all take good one and lousy ones!!!
Chet
Clayton1985
Veteran Member
than the ability of the person processing the raw file
JamieTux
Veteran Member
This is a very weird and skewed argument! The raw file contains much more information than the jpeg, regardless of compression. The draws are 14 or 12 bit colour depth files for a start instead of the 8 bit that jpeg allows. If you want the same corrections as the camera does then use the Sony software that came free with your camera and get the same result if you can't improve on it yourself.
The point I am making here is that the jpeg cannot be better than the raw!
It's not valid for the reason I just gave, the raw is just that, an unprocessed raw data set that you can cook or develop into an image, if on a particular image you want "in camera" processing then run it through the Sony software and you'll get the same result.
So in which way is the raw file inferior?
I'm not trying to say that you personally should shoot raw or pretend that the Sony raw converter is a great solution if you always want to end up with Sony jpegs. Just that the jpeg is never "better" than the raw in case other people read this thread and get swayed by your incorrect understanding.
JamieTux
Veteran Member
Hi Tom,
Glad it helped a bit but yes thinking about it now the tool came in at LR4. Skies are often an area that weird me out in my head that would be the easiest way to set the white balance but in early digital days the would range from cyan to purple in the midday sun!
Glad it helped a bit but yes thinking about it now the tool came in at LR4. Skies are often an area that weird me out in my head that would be the easiest way to set the white balance but in early digital days the would range from cyan to purple in the midday sun!
Allan Olesen
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 3,391
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 1,586
You have also stated that we are seeing 100% crops.
And yet there is very large difference between the sizes of objects in the two photos.
So either the in-camera lens correction profile has made some rather large magnification changes at the corners, or the crops are not 100%.
Anyway, I agree with the others. This is a comparison of JPG and raw, where you haven't given the raw the same treatment as the camera did. That is your fault, not the raw format's fault.
If you want to compare an in-camera lens corrected JPG to a raw, you should at least use a raw converter with lens correction (and a correction profile for that particular lens model) for the comparison.
Ron Poelman
Veteran Member
How's that turning back the tide thing going for you ?
Next you'll be telling us the manufacturers are right,
there IS only one way to process a shot.
Let's not go confusing convenience, laziness
or agenda driving with the simple truth, please.
Next you'll be telling us the manufacturers are right,
there IS only one way to process a shot.
Let's not go confusing convenience, laziness
or agenda driving with the simple truth, please.
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran Member
Is there a way to post a RAW file on the dpreview site? I also subscribe to Vimeo if that might help - and, I believe, pbase.com if that would work. Anyway, I have it at the office only right now, so will have to wait until I get back there.
Is it true that the Sony Image Data Converter software works just like the camera's processing including lens correction? I, too, am a Windows XP sufferer, and am limited to LR 3.6, if that is a limitation.
I am admittedly a RAW beginner, and have found working in RAW a little cumbersome. Gary Friedman says in his book that sometimes a pro working under a deadline needs to rely on the in-camera processing and ease of JPG. I thought I was making somewhat the same point.
Big mistake.
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran Member
Yes thanks Chet. That was the idea of the title anyway. I was converted to the RAW religion in the last thread, and was schooled on the majority view about all that, so I was just trying a little humor with this time, but they are coming for me.
If I might interject my innocent opinion once again to a friendly member, I am still amazed at the difficulty and amount of work processing RAW is. I have seen how it has a greater dynamic range and can rescue a blown out image from disaster. I have seen how it can correct exposure and white balance. But all of the other controls need to be balanced against each other, such as sharpening (two different kinds) and noise reduction (many different kinds), and then there are those crazy Vibrance and Clarity sliders - wtf is that all about? Seems like if your exposure is anywhere near correct a little Levels and Unsharp Mask and "Remove Color Cast" work like magic.
Some of these wedding shooters shoot 2000 images that they then have to go through and process afterwards. Think about it.
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran Member
Holy crap - starting to look like the Shiites vs the Sunnis - lighten up here!
Gary Eickmeier
Veteran Member
And who are you?
saschamagus
Well-known member
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 47
Point is, learning to process raw with e.g. lightroon takes a ton of effort, which will hopefully be rewarded with superior results...
If you're not willing to put in the hours, then there is no doubt jpg is the better option.
Since you mentioned wedding photographers, you might consider Jared Platt, an extremely efficient lightroom guru who recently taught a course on Ultimate Lightroom workflow (on Creative Live)... That's a 3 day course where ideally you already have a base knowledge of lightroom...
As I said, there are no shortcuts
If you're not willing to put in the hours, then there is no doubt jpg is the better option.
Since you mentioned wedding photographers, you might consider Jared Platt, an extremely efficient lightroom guru who recently taught a course on Ultimate Lightroom workflow (on Creative Live)... That's a 3 day course where ideally you already have a base knowledge of lightroom...
As I said, there are no shortcuts
RichV
Veteran Member
I hope you'll do things differently. Of prime importance to me is the lens you used and Kurt Monger's review that indicated diffraction rears its ugly head at f/11 - you shot at f/16, which is tantamount to inviting the image to be kicked (moral of this section: know the best performance range for your lens/camera); as well, you might have used one of the weaker areas for that lens (i.e. non-center) for your crop. PS Elements 11 may or may not have the best RAW converter out there, either, and you're admittedly "soft" (my impression and quotes, not yours) in your skills in that area.
As with music, different people have different perceptions of things. None of us registers exactly the same color or shade, and there are different levels of detail we perceive. If the Sony JPEG's make you happy, nobody can argue with that (I did look into my files at some KM and Canon JPEG's, and they definitely blow the Sony's out of the water!) - so if your post was truly tongue in cheek, I'd work on portraying that more accurately in the future.
--
Rich
As with music, different people have different perceptions of things. None of us registers exactly the same color or shade, and there are different levels of detail we perceive. If the Sony JPEG's make you happy, nobody can argue with that (I did look into my files at some KM and Canon JPEG's, and they definitely blow the Sony's out of the water!) - so if your post was truly tongue in cheek, I'd work on portraying that more accurately in the future.
--
Rich
Last edited:
VirtualMirage
Veteran Member
Just do a little bit of reading about each of the settings and you will get a far better understanding as to what they do. It can be overwhelming at first, if not a bit daunting. But a little patience, a little reading, and it will all make sense. When you achieve this, working with RAW photos doesn't become so much of a chore.
Just to help get you started:
- Clarity affects the contrast in the midtones. This is done by increasing some of the edge detail in the midtones giving a general sharpening. This can aid in giving some punch or even bit of a 3D/separation effect with some images. This is why a lot of clarity can create a very thick/defined edge throughout your picture and may even give it a gritty look. Whereas negative clarity gives that glamour shoot kind of look.http://digital-photography-school.c...e-and-saturation-in-lightroom-2#ixzz2dYeEZwTA
- Saturation works like it does everywhere else, it increases/decreases the saturation of all the colors. I rarely use this, but when I do it is sparingly.
- Vibrance is like saturation, but with better control. It only increases/decreases the saturation in the least saturated colors in the image. I much prefer using this.
- Luminance noise reduction is used to reduce light noise, the graininess you see in an image that may look similar to film grain. Increasing this will reduce the grain, but too much will make the image look too smooth. I don't use this that much. A film grain look doesn't both me in most circumstances.
- Color noise reduction reduces just that, noise that appears in the form of colors. This can be seen as splotches in the image, color dots or blots in parts of the image that don't belong, etc. Very easy to use, has little to no negative impact on the image.
This is where batch processing comes in handy as well as creating presets.
--
Paul
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum