Gamma and brightnes and other things useing two aplications

[spike29]

setup: i use DxO for some "basic stuff" export DNG to Sp7pro (use DNG profile which reads exif of DNG) and then do some extra if needed.

Why two stages? well i know more of SP7pro then DxO and i can recover more highlight/shadow in two steps.

Sometimes i just do nothing other then dng profile and (extra) sharpening off :no sharpnening this is the startingpoint in sp7pro.

But a few things started to notice me,

1- dynamic range: highlight blinkies: in DxO solved and in SP7pro needed some more recovery.

2 if i read the manual about DNG profile it wil use the pixel information made by earlier application. (tone mapping/ contrast) But some how it does change overal color feel.

3 overal the dxo sp7 version is a little brighter.

4 on 100% quality the jpeg of dxo is much bigger then the one from sp7 in highest quality. around twice the size more (8,9MB against 17,9Mb)

So i did some test:




my 1e output average contrast ; standard contrast(should do nothing) ; dxo's jpg export

somehow the micro contrast on the dxo's is more visible. But the feathershears are from my initial jpg sharper i think. But the dxo one has more "punch"

ok i added a fourth: slighty strong constrast in sp7.




see tekst for which is which

much closer towards dxo's jpg. but is start's to over detail, see skin left of the eye.



So ive took a other image as test: colorrendering:




TL dxosp7 ; TR the litle strong contrast, BL standard contrast; BR dxo jpg

orange: nearly the same but dxo jpg just more saturation?

eye's well very clear dxo's is best :sprankle cleaerer.

ok sp7 difference in standard and average is gamma and contrast at 1.00 vs gamma 1.15 and contrast 1.50.

litle strong: contrast is 1.65 and gamma keeps 1.15.

jpg is brighter with gamma 1.15 then 100, so first (note 3) is explained (maybe also the highlight blinkies again in sp7 by 115% gamma.

i was hoping/ thinking that if i use as default contrast STANDARD it would just take over the tonality of the dxo's exif for al pixels when i use DNG profile. (I tested if the contrast made in DxO exported in DNG was showing in SP7.it does.)

So i thought this means no altering of the (micro) contrast in default when loading the DNG using standard (100%)

But this test shows it stil does.

i start to rethink about the plusside of using two step-developement encountering this downgrading of punch.

So long story before questions:

1) am i right about the fact that contrast/tone can't be exactly copied from one to a other?

2) sp7pro has a three types dodge/burn , dodge , burn sliders to alter tonal exposure.

dodge: shadow recovery burn is hightlight recovery. both well shadow and highlight. and this works pretty well and very easy.

DxO has clearview and smartlighting and auto/smart contrast. and some dedicated sliders. Some how less intuitive to balance. Any tips?

3) manual dxo states 90(%) does do some compresion on the Jpeg and be most preverable setting not 100(%). and this would do 4.5Mb

so i did an other test:




it looks like 97-98% is around the same as sp7pro and pse on maximal does 12,5Mb out of a dng.

Which would be best to use as Jpeg quality? high as possible or just around 95% and save some space on the harddrive? Does the 72 ppi or 300ppi do any good? (i have sp7pro set on 300dpi and then 97% 300ppi of DxO is rougly the same file size. So that would be my basic idea of using. 97% and 300ppi.

(i know i ask a lot in one post but i wil redo this years images to get a baseline in my images according to the new knowledge i get from here.)

maybe its better to invest in DxO more and use that as default Jpeg export. and use the SP7pro less and less. and go strait to pse for after processing cloning and such.

thanks in advanced!

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
knowledge is addictive, every time i get some i want more.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(If i can remember 1/1000 of everything i learned/read in the past i will be happy as a monky with........)

 

[spike29]

........

Which would be best to use as Jpeg quality? high as possible or just around 95% and save some space on the harddrive? Does the 72 ppi or 300ppi do any good? (i have sp7pro set on 300dpi and then 97% 300ppi of DxO is rougly the same file size. So that would be my basic idea of using. 97% and 300ppi.

note to my self:

it only differs assumably when printed on paper.

"If you're just printing photos full-page (either on your own printer or sending off for photographic prints) the dpi will make no difference."

and file size don't differ in 72ppi or 300ppi. (checked it)

So if i want to print on occasion a image on paper it needs 300dpi:

found this:

"hough the terms DPI (dots per inch) and PPI (pixels per inch) both describe the resolution (or clarity) of an image, they’re not the same thing. PPI describes the number of square pixels that show up in an inch of digital screen (usually between 67-300). DPI, on the other hand, is a printing term referring to the number of physical dots of ink in a printed document."

https://99designs.nl/blog/tips/ppi-vs-dpi-whats-the-difference/

its al about how many originalpixels of the digital image are squeezed in a square-inch on paper. 72ppi is larger print area then 300ppi on the same printer(resolution).

"Takeaway: DPI is just a technical aspect of an individual printer, like the pixel resolution of your computer monitor."

silkypix manual:

Resolution

The recorded "resolution" in JPEG and TIFF is defined here. The default setting is 300dpi.

Even if you increase the dpi setting, the resolution of an outputted picture does not change at all.
The value set here is recorded in Exif information, and used as a standard to convert it into an actual size when the image is displayed or is printed.
If a software is not compatible with the dpi information, this setting does not have any meaning.
If you do not understand this setting well, please use the default setting.

So to cut the story about dpi and ppi short: just use "fit to paper" zoom on printer and your fine. (most drivers have there own dpi setting and thus convertion i think.)

extra found comment: (72dpi is for web use so 300dpi is around the middle of use. (1200DPI is laser resolution.) and this says :

"An 800×300 pixel image at 72 ppi is the same as a 800×300 pixel image at 300 ppi. Each image contains the same number of pixels. The only difference is when you go to print. PPI = printed pixels per inch."
one tree down!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
knowledge is addictive, every time i get some i want more.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(If i can remember 1/1000 of everything i learned/read in the past i will be happy as a monky with........)

 

[Royi Avital]

Hi,

Since you're into Gamma you may find this 2 resources interesting:

1. Know-How Transfer - In A Gamma da Vida | by Marco Olivotto.
2. Know-How Transfer - The False Profile – Multiply Technique.

I think the second technique was built into False Profile by Davide Barranca .

 

[Kaj E]

dng is a RAW file, it does not have a "profile", it is a data file not an image. The individual RAW converters transform it to an image with a profile. What the result looks like depends on how the dng file is processed, there is no standard for this.

The advantage with RAW is that you have all the original data and can convert it to an image of your liking.

 

[spike29]

dng is a RAW file, it does not have a "profile", it is a data file not an image.

most DnG's are lineair dng's so they are having demosiaced and thus pixalized in RGB-L values. ( they stil have all colors inside the colorspace of the DNG's possibilities (16bit?) but there are some changes already done, depending on the application you use to create the DNG and tone corrections made in the raw converter followed by the processingapplication are stored inside. So in that matter it isn't a rawfile anymore.

The individual RAW converters transform it to an image with a profile. What the result looks like depends on how the dng file is processed, there is no standard for this.

The advantage with RAW is that you have all the original data and can convert it to an image of your liking.

this post is 6mnds old, have to reread meself to see the quest i had. bad memory