J
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Sharpening Raw photos
- Thread starter secret1122
- Start date
MPetrich
Forum Enthusiast
Spaz,
Am I missing something? Jeff makes it sound as though he is opening the RAW images in PS directly from the camera. I am using PS 6.x and I don't see anyway to do that. When I shoot in RAW there are two files saved for each pic, neither of which can be opened with my version of PS.
What am I missing/doing wrong?
-Mickey
Am I missing something? Jeff makes it sound as though he is opening the RAW images in PS directly from the camera. I am using PS 6.x and I don't see anyway to do that. When I shoot in RAW there are two files saved for each pic, neither of which can be opened with my version of PS.
What am I missing/doing wrong?
-Mickey
secret1122
Active member
secret1122
Active member
Nothing, that was my fault for not explaining in detail. I first use Cannon FileViewerUtility to convert the RAW to a 16 bit TIFF. Then as I was saying, if I open the 16 bit TIFF in Photoshop, it won't open the menu bar for sharpening, as it is all greyed out. I have to use an 8 bit TIFF to be able to use Unsharp Mask, or any type of filter program. Hope that makes more sense.
Jeff
Jeff
MPetrich
Forum Enthusiast
No problem.
What really confused me is that PS does have a filter for opening RAW images. I'm still new to this RAW thing.
When I was shopping for a DSLR the reviews talked about being able to save files in .RAW format and PS had a .RAW import filter.
Can you save a RAW image from the Cannon FileViewerUtility as a .RAW? If not, what kind of file is PS wanting?
-Mickey
What really confused me is that PS does have a filter for opening RAW images. I'm still new to this RAW thing.
When I was shopping for a DSLR the reviews talked about being able to save files in .RAW format and PS had a .RAW import filter.
Can you save a RAW image from the Cannon FileViewerUtility as a .RAW? If not, what kind of file is PS wanting?
-Mickey
secret1122
Active member
That's beyond my knowledge as I am a newbie around here. I do know that I tried opening a RAW file by using the .raw extension in Photoshop, but obviously it's not the same thing as it showed no photos that could be opened.
I haven't tried using FileViewerUtility to save as a .raw, not sure if it works or not. I can't believe I never thought of trying that. From what I understand though, the Photoshop CS version on its way to me will convert my RAW files without having to use FileViewerUtility.
Jeff
I haven't tried using FileViewerUtility to save as a .raw, not sure if it works or not. I can't believe I never thought of trying that. From what I understand though, the Photoshop CS version on its way to me will convert my RAW files without having to use FileViewerUtility.
Jeff
MPetrich
Forum Enthusiast
McTheKnife
Forum Enthusiast
Boo
Veteran Member
That tip uses the fade tool, which I assume is specific to PS. You can do the same trick in other applications, as long as they support layers. I mentioned it as a tip higher up, but it's timely to repeat it here.
If when your image is open in your application (I use PSP and it works well in that), duplicate the layer and apply the sharpening to the duplicate image layer, not your original - this tutorial recommended USM levels of Amount at 500% (the maximum setting), Radius 0.5, Threshold 4 - that works well enough, but can be any figures you prefer.
At this point the image looks over-sharpened, just as in the tutorial - now adjust the opacity of that layer so that it gradually blends with the original, unsharpened copy below as it becomes more transparent - at the point where you're satisfied with the effect, blend the layers together back as one image. It's simply more subtle than the trial and error of trying different levels of USM to get the desired result.
This same technique can be used when making any adjustment to an image - these days I rarely make any adjustments to the original image layer as doing it to a duplicate layer is so much more powerful and gives you much more control - you can do this with saturation, colour tinting for sepias etc., noise reduction, softening, sharpening, contrast boosts, historgram adjustments etc. etc. Simply duplicate the layer, apply the adjustment to the layer - usually more so than you would to the original and then adjust the opacity of the layer to blend the adjustment with the original underneath, to taste.
If you're handy and confident working with masks and layers, you can blend the two versions through masking for localised adjustments rather than ones applied globally to the entire image. In that case, I would probably adjust the lower layer and leave the top one as the original and mask it so that the adjusted version shows through the mask within the un-adjusted original above. A mask is basically a hole of transparency in an image to allow another version to show through from below - thereby allowing local adjustments where perhaps the entire image doesn't need it. It's a very powerful technique as you can adjust the amount of transparency by the 256 tones available on the mask layer - i.e 256 degrees of transparency.
--
So many photos, so little time . . .
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio & tutorials
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music portfolio
http://imageevent.com/boophotos/ - most recent images
Please do not amend and re-post my images unless specifically requested or given permission to do so.
secret1122
Active member
Ok, time to open this up again. I have a RAW and a JPEG photo here, and I have worked my tail off to try to get the RAw as sharp and as good looking as the JPEG photo. I can't do it. I tried all the techniques that you have all offered, including 10D Finisher, and all the USM suggestions. Am I just using bad examples here or am I going to pull my hair out finding that I'll never be able to match the quality of RAw with JPEG? If so, I'll never be able to use RAW for anything important with this camera. This is SO frustrating! Anyway, hopefully I can successfully put the photos on here (it's my first attempt at that)
Please help me to figure this out.
Thanks,
Jeff
Please help me to figure this out.
Thanks,
Jeff
secret1122
Active member
When I am testing them for differences, I find it's best to look at it at 100% while viewing the books on the bookshelf. The words on the bindings make a great example of how sharp the photos are. Thanks for any help you can offer.
Jeff
Jeff
Colden
Well-known member
I certainly see some differences in contrast and saturation, but at reduced size, it's pretty hard to judge sharpness. Pick out some interesting portions of the image and post some 100% crops, then someone might be able to help out.
Colden
Well-known member
A couple of questions: What software are you using for the raw conversion? What sharpness/contrast/saturation settings are you using when you do the conversion? Are you just using the shot settings, or are you changing them?
As a test, I just took two pictures of the same subject (a bookcase full of DVDs and books), one in JPEG and one in RAW. I converted the RAW using Canon's EOSViewer Utility, using 'Shot Settings' for everything, so that sharpness, saturation, etc. were the same params as the JPEG was created with. Both shots were taken on 'Parameter 1'. I've been looking at the two shots side by side for the past 15 minutes, and for the life of me I can't see a difference in sharpness. If you'd like, tomorrow I can re-do this a little more scientifically (i.e. use a tripod) and post some crops, but it's 3am now and I need to get up for work in just a few hours.
By the way, in case you're unfamiliar with it, Canon's EOSViewer is a utility similar to the FileViewerUtility. You can download it from Canon's website. RAW conversion sharpness doesn't seem much different between the two; the EOSViewer might be a smidge sharper, but from looking at the output now I can't tell if there's really a difference or if I just can't see straight anymore
Moral of my story: try using FVU or the EOSViewer to do your RAW conversion. Don't muck with the shot settings when you do the conversion (specifically, leave sharpness on 'Shot Settings' -- don't turn it to 'Off'!). And let us know what happens.
As a test, I just took two pictures of the same subject (a bookcase full of DVDs and books), one in JPEG and one in RAW. I converted the RAW using Canon's EOSViewer Utility, using 'Shot Settings' for everything, so that sharpness, saturation, etc. were the same params as the JPEG was created with. Both shots were taken on 'Parameter 1'. I've been looking at the two shots side by side for the past 15 minutes, and for the life of me I can't see a difference in sharpness. If you'd like, tomorrow I can re-do this a little more scientifically (i.e. use a tripod) and post some crops, but it's 3am now and I need to get up for work in just a few hours.
By the way, in case you're unfamiliar with it, Canon's EOSViewer is a utility similar to the FileViewerUtility. You can download it from Canon's website. RAW conversion sharpness doesn't seem much different between the two; the EOSViewer might be a smidge sharper, but from looking at the output now I can't tell if there's really a difference or if I just can't see straight anymore
Moral of my story: try using FVU or the EOSViewer to do your RAW conversion. Don't muck with the shot settings when you do the conversion (specifically, leave sharpness on 'Shot Settings' -- don't turn it to 'Off'!). And let us know what happens.
Ok, time to open this up again. I have a RAW and a JPEG photo here,
and I have worked my tail off to try to get the RAw as sharp and as
good looking as the JPEG photo. I can't do it. I tried all the
techniques that you have all offered, including 10D Finisher, and
all the USM suggestions. Am I just using bad examples here or am I
going to pull my hair out finding that I'll never be able to match
the quality of RAw with JPEG? If so, I'll never be able to use RAW
for anything important with this camera. This is SO frustrating!
Anyway, hopefully I can successfully put the photos on here (it's
my first attempt at that)
Please help me to figure this out.
Thanks,
Jeff
S
SelfMadeMan
Guest
Two shots Raw + JPG, Both pictures taken under same conditions:
Lens: Sigma 105mm 1:2.8 DG Macro
Mode: Manual, Tv 8, Av 22, ISO 100.
Both pictures opened in PSCS. No postprocessing (no sharpening) except adjusting tone levels with same parameters and then downsize the pictures for posting here.
As we can see the image captured as RAW shows a little more detail (look at grain from printing) even in this resized version. Generally I obtain better results from RAW though the JPGs from the Rebel are surprisingly good. Nevertheless it's definitely worth it to get familiar with the possibilities of RAW IMHO. Concerning post-sharpening there's absolutely no disadvantage in RAW, in contrary!
RAW version:
JPG version:
Greets
Reto
--
Check out my music site: http://music.1to1-success.com/
All my songs for free. My first EOS fotos: Click logo at the bottom of the page.
madirect
Forum Enthusiast
nice. will give it a try. i will be shooting a wedding soon later this month. had tried RAW, but images are soft........so, will give all this tip and trick a try so that i can shot RAW on the wedding day.
thanks guys& gals
thanks guys& gals
ioannis
Veteran Member
To the untrained eyes of newbies like you and I it can be hard to spot the difference.
Firstly judging downsized pictures takes away some of the difference, as does the critiquing on screen rather than on paper. Secondly, the difference will not be apparent in all photos. Thirdly, you have to look at the edges of areas of high contrast to see the oversharpening effects on neighbouring pixels. It often results in halos. To see the difference of what i m talking about use the USM slider aggressively and compare with your previous unsharpened image. This will not be obvious in all pictures but it gets your eye trained. Fourthly you can spot the differences if you print using a good printer and good paper, the difference is banding in and in the mix-up of colors that are oonly slightly different, in my case this was after-sunset blue sky with purple looking clouds and I only realised it once I compared it with a 16-bit TIFF printout.
Yiannis
' Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need--not as a call to battle, though embattled we are-- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, 'rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation'--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.'
http://www.pbase.com/ystasino
Firstly judging downsized pictures takes away some of the difference, as does the critiquing on screen rather than on paper. Secondly, the difference will not be apparent in all photos. Thirdly, you have to look at the edges of areas of high contrast to see the oversharpening effects on neighbouring pixels. It often results in halos. To see the difference of what i m talking about use the USM slider aggressively and compare with your previous unsharpened image. This will not be obvious in all pictures but it gets your eye trained. Fourthly you can spot the differences if you print using a good printer and good paper, the difference is banding in and in the mix-up of colors that are oonly slightly different, in my case this was after-sunset blue sky with purple looking clouds and I only realised it once I compared it with a 16-bit TIFF printout.
Yiannis
' Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need--not as a call to battle, though embattled we are-- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, 'rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation'--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.'
http://www.pbase.com/ystasino
secret1122
Active member
I did a search on their website and came up with nothing. Where exactly do you find it?
Jeff
secret1122
Active member
Ok, here are three new examples. One is the RAW converted using Canon's FVU, the next is a RAW converted using PS CS, and the last is the JPEG from the camera . None of the converted RAW photos have been changed in any way, just direct conversions. What I'd like to know is if anyone here can take one of the two RAWs and make it look identical to the JPEG. For the life of me, I can't do it. If you want any other conversions with certain changes made during the conversion, let me know. I have been using the words "Airline Pilot" on the one book as a reference point to compare. Here they are:
RAW converted using Canon FVU
RAW converted using PS CS
JPEG from camera
Thanks for any help or suggestions you can provide. Like I've said in previous posts, if I can make these look the same, I'm using RAW from now on.
Jeff
RAW converted using Canon FVU
RAW converted using PS CS
JPEG from camera
Thanks for any help or suggestions you can provide. Like I've said in previous posts, if I can make these look the same, I'm using RAW from now on.
Jeff
Colden
Well-known member
Went to http://www.canoneos.com , clicked on "Download Library" from the menu bar at the top of the page, select EOS SLR Camera Systems, then Digital EOS Cameras, then EOS Digital Rebel. Click the "Click here to download" under "Software Applications and Updates", pick your language, then click the EOS Viewer Utility for your operating system. I know it says it's an update, but it's really the full application. It does, however, require that the FileViewerUtility be present on your system.
JediBear
Leading Member
Can I introduce something that nobody has mentioned - it may not be relevant: The mode of conversion. Those pics look to me to have been converted in linear mode. Flatter C1 has a couple of modes: Linear, Shadow enhanced film, normal film and high contrast film. I have an old version of C1 convert to 16-bit tiff without sharpening and then USM sharpen in Lab mode usually in PhotoBrush. I only go to Photoshop if I get it badly wrong and need a session of extreme penence. I aim for 3 phase sharpening but generally only sharpen a couple of times in the work flow.
If the ISO is high I use a larger radius works better for me.
Many of the sharpening actions in photoshop have made my penence bearable these include Mike Finn's actions - He shows the consitency of a genius in his actions but Sheri has impressed me and msoo does it with subtle elegance.
If the ISO is high I use a larger radius works better for me.
Many of the sharpening actions in photoshop have made my penence bearable these include Mike Finn's actions - He shows the consitency of a genius in his actions but Sheri has impressed me and msoo does it with subtle elegance.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum