Re: RAW dynamic range extraction
- Am 13.07.2013 13:19, schrieb Jeff:
> He does not say to underexpose, quite the contrary in fact.Exactly what I say. And even more: In the wiki article I give hints on
> What he says is to overexpose in camera, then to underexpose in the Raw
> (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.
how much you can overexpose (in camera) before you definitely blow the
highlights, namely raw ETTR and UniWB:
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
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
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.
- 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.
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.
> 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:
>> 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