Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: RAW dynamic range extraction

Expand Messages
  • Erik Krause
    ... Highlight restoration is much improved in the most recent version (8.1). Guy Gowan is talking about version 7 I guess. And of course his goal is a very
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 10, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Am 10.07.2013 16:09, schrieb Jeff:
      > His explanation and demonstrations are convincing evidence, to me at
      > least, that there is currently only one Raw convertor that is worth
      > using. Watch it and see why ACR 2012 is not the best way forward.

      Highlight restoration is much improved in the most recent version (8.1).
      Guy Gowan is talking about version 7 I guess. And of course his goal is
      a very different one. Classical photography doesn't have to cope with
      the problems panorama photography has.

      > It is Mac only, but it does appear to be the best.

      Aperture, I guess.

      --
      Erik Krause
      http://www.erik-krause.de
    • Jeff
      ... Erik, I disagree with this statement, we are all (I assume) trying to achieve the best quality we can from our images, are we not? I cannot perceive why
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 11, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Erik Krause <erik.krause@...> wrote:

        > Highlight restoration is much improved in the most recent version (8.1).
        > Guy Gowan is talking about version 7 I guess. And of course his goal is
        > a very different one. Classical photography doesn't have to cope with
        > the problems panorama photography has.

        Erik, I disagree with this statement, we are all (I assume) trying to achieve the best quality we can from our images, are we not?
        I cannot perceive why you would think that "Classical" photography would require a different level of quality compared to panoramic images. They both have the same starting point, it is just the final output which differs. Or am I not understanding you correctly?

        Sorry nearly forgot - I "assume" he is using ACR 8.1 in his video, as he states he tries all the Raw convertors, and he is usually right up to date, but I could be wrong. I have tried ACR 8.1 myself and it seems to suffer from the same problems, but hey! try it yourself.

        > Aperture, I guess.

        I did not want to start a "slanging" match on Windows versus Apple, I use both, they are simply tools.

        Yes Aperture, your "guess" is correct, it also tells me that you have not watched the video I am talking about.

        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Henrik Tived <tived@...> wrote:
        >
        > Jeff, which Raw converter are you recommending ?

        I did not make the comment to recommend one piece of software over another, I just thought that it may help everyone to understand the differences in Raw convertors, and to come to their own conclusions as to which one is best for them.

        Knowledge is always useful.
        Once we have it, how we choose to use it is our decision.

        Jeff Starley
      • Erik Krause
        ... Not a different level, but different problems. I agree with all he says, only that he doesn t speak about the specific problems we have: We need to expose
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 11, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Am 11.07.2013 15:41, schrieb Jeff:

          > > Classical photography doesn't have to cope with the problems panorama photography has.
          > Erik, I disagree with this statement, we are all (I assume) trying to
          > achieve the best quality we can from our images, are we not? I cannot
          > perceive why you would think that "Classical" photography would
          > require a different level of quality compared to panoramic images.

          Not a different level, but different problems. I agree with all he says,
          only that he doesn't speak about the specific problems we have: We need
          to expose all images for a panorama the same, and we shoot in all
          directions: against the sun, where there likely are deep shadows and
          with the sun in the back where there are no shadows at all.

          A classical photographer won't shoot in those directions if he can
          avoid. And if he does he'll use this as creative effect.

          We want to show anything around, including deep shadows and bright
          highlights. Hence we have the problem to compensate for that. He says
          ACR 2012 is not the best, better use 2010 and underexpose. But if we do
          so we loose shadows we need so much. And if he says Aperture does it
          better, well, why not? I can't judge. Your're welcome to write an
          article about Aperture.

          > Sorry nearly forgot - I "assume" he is using ACR 8.1 in his video, as
          > he states he tries all the Raw convertors, and he is usually right up
          > to date, but I could be wrong.

          Definitely not. The page is from May, ACR 8.1 came out in June.

          > I have tried ACR 8.1 myself and it seems to suffer from the same problems, but hey! try it yourself.

          I didn't find the greying of overexposed skin (or the cyan tones of
          overexposed sky) which is a problem in other raw converters and I was
          very happy about that. What problems are you talking about?

          --
          Erik Krause
          Herchersgarten 1
          79249 Merzhausen
        • Jeff
          ... do ... Hi Erik, I don t think you have fully understood Guy Gowan s explanation. He does not say to underexpose, quite the contrary in fact. What he says
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 13, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Erik Krause wrote:
             
            > We want to show anything around, including deep shadows and bright
            > highlights. Hence we have the problem to compensate for that. He says
            > ACR 2012 is not the best, better use 2010 and underexpose. But if we do
            > so we loose shadows we need so much. And if he says Aperture does it
            > better, well, why not? I can't judge. Your're welcome to write an
            > article about Aperture.

            Hi Erik, I don't think you have fully understood Guy Gowan's explanation.
            He does not say to underexpose, quite the contrary in fact.
            What he says is to overexpose in camera, then to underexpose in the Raw convertor.

            (How much you can overexpose/underexpose will vary, depending on your camera and the Raw convertor used).

            Thus getting more shadow detail to work with, and by using the best "convertor" getting the best highlight detail as well.
            Surely this is exactly what we panoramic photographers, indeed all photographers, want to do?
            Hence the reason for my disagreeing with your original statement about Classical photographers.
            Once you have the best data set you can get from the Raw file you can do whatever you wish with it, knowing that your starting point is as good as you can get it. How you manipulate the image data from here is all down to personal taste and requirements.

            > Definitely not. The page is from May, ACR 8.1 came out in June.

            I will have to bow to your greater knowledge on this point.

            Jeff Starley


          • Erik Krause
            ... Exactly what I say. And even more: In the wiki article I give hints on how much you can overexpose (in camera) before you definitely blow the highlights,
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 13, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Am 13.07.2013 13:19, schrieb Jeff:

              > He does not say to underexpose, quite the contrary in fact.
              > What he says is to overexpose in camera, then to underexpose in the Raw
              > convertor.
              >
              > (How much you can overexpose/underexpose will vary, depending on your
              > camera and the Raw convertor used).
              >
              > Thus getting more shadow detail to work with, and by using the best
              > "convertor" getting the best highlight detail as well.

              Exactly what I say. And even more: In the wiki article I give hints on
              how much you can overexpose (in camera) before you definitely blow the
              highlights, namely raw ETTR and UniWB:
              http://wiki.panotools.org/RAW_dynamic_range_extraction#Shooting

              ETTR is now ten years around. However, until Guillermo Luijk's article
              about UniWB there was no workaround to the problem of most cameras not
              showing a raw histogram. And only after Magic Lantern displaying raw
              histograms, raw ETTR hint and raw zebras there is a really reliable
              technique to use the full power of the sensor of widely used cameras
              without guesswork.

              May be I didn't pay enough attention to best image quality in my
              article. My goal was to demonstrate how to save the maximum from the raw
              data into a stitchable format. Fine tuning to achieve best quality is
              far better done on the stitched panorama, since only there you get the
              complete impression. But hey, it's a wiki! Anyone is more than welcome
              to improve the article!

              Editing and account creation is currently restricted due to heavy
              spamming. But I'll be very happy to create an account for you. Simply
              click on "Log in" in the top right corner and follow the instructions.
              If you don't have an account

              --
              Erik Krause
              http://www.erik-krause.de
            • Isaac Garcia
              Hi Jeff, As both a pano (spheres and mosaic) and classical photographer I can tell you that though I obviously want to get the best shadow/hihglight detail
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 14, 2013
              • 0 Attachment

                Hi Jeff,

                As both a pano (spheres and mosaic) and "classical" photographer I can tell you that though I obviously want to get the best shadow/hihglight detail and best detail, I will avoid "unfavorable" conditions (and even flat out not take certain shots) in my "classical" work that, mostly by definition, I can't in pano work. In other words, I will move my subjects to a more favorable place.

                So yes, "classical" photographers do want to get the best quality but they can usually go around the "restraints" thrown by the environment. What Erik said is completely correct. And I think he never mentioned "quality" per se, just that it´s a different (read wider) set of hurdles to overcome.

                And while I agree with what Guy says, you know what´s the truth? The sad truth is nobody but a photographer cares if in that vertical wedding portrait the sky is blown. Few people will even notice that there IS a sky there.


                Cheers.


                On Jul 13, 2013 1:20 PM, "Jeff" <jeffstarley@...> wrote:



                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Erik Krause wrote:
                 
                > We want to show anything around, including deep shadows and bright
                > highlights. Hence we have the problem to compensate for that. He says
                > ACR 2012 is not the best, better use 2010 and underexpose. But if we do
                > so we loose shadows we need so much. And if he says Aperture does it
                > better, well, why not? I can't judge. Your're welcome to write an
                > article about Aperture.

                Hi Erik, I don't think you have fully understood Guy Gowan's explanation.
                He does not say to underexpose, quite the contrary in fact.
                What he says is to overexpose in camera, then to underexpose in the Raw convertor.

                (How much you can overexpose/underexpose will vary, depending on your camera and the Raw convertor used).

                Thus getting more shadow detail to work with, and by using the best "convertor" getting the best highlight detail as well.
                Surely this is exactly what we panoramic photographers, indeed all photographers, want to do?
                Hence the reason for my disagreeing with your original statement about Classical photographers.
                Once you have the best data set you can get from the Raw file you can do whatever you wish with it, knowing that your starting point is as good as you can get it. How you manipulate the image data from here is all down to personal taste and requirements.

                > Definitely not. The page is from May, ACR 8.1 came out in June.

                I will have to bow to your greater knowledge on this point.

                Jeff Starley




              • Roger D Williams
                It may be inappropriate for me to comment here, as I only have a PC and cannot try the RAW converter he mentions. However I must say how very off-putting I
                Message 7 of 11 , Jul 19, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  It may be inappropriate for me to comment here, as I only have a PC and cannot try the RAW converter he mentions. However I must say how very off-putting I find his video. He comes over as over-opinionated with a low opinion of his listeners and a dreadful style of delivery, rambling, full of non sequitors, and relying on jargon (which he doesn't always use accurately). I am unlikely to watch any more of his videos, and in fact I couldn't watch it to the end.... So I may have missed something more valuable than what I actually heard.

                  I find ACR invaluable for CA removal and convenient for tweaking individual shots. For panoramas I like SNS-HDR.

                  Roger W

                  Sent from my iPad

                  On Jul 10, 2013, at 11:09 PM, "Jeff" <jeffstarley@...> wrote:

                  > Hi Erik, I don't know if you have seen or heard of Guy Gowan, but I think it would be well worth you (and anyone who wants the best from their Raw files) watching his free video regarding Raw Convertors.
                  >
                  > http://www.guygowan.com/ggtv/public.php
                  >
                  > His explanation and demonstrations are convincing evidence, to me at least, that there is currently only one Raw convertor that is worth using. Watch it and see why ACR 2012 is not the best way forward.
                  > It is Mac only, but it does appear to be the best.
                  >
                  > Jeff Starley
                  >
                  > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Erik Krause <erik.krause@...> wrote:
                  >>
                  >> Hello,
                  >>
                  >> I've completely rewritten the wiki article about RAW dynamic range
                  >> extraction with respect to the most recent ACR version. Plus I added a
                  >> section about how to expose for best dynamic range. Please have a look
                  >> and comment: http://wiki.panotools.org/RAW_dynamic_range_extraction
                  >>
                  >> Please have a look and comment!
                  >>
                  >> --
                  >> Erik Krause
                  >> http://www.erik-krause.de
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > --
                  >
                  >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.