Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital workflow - need some help please

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:09:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi all,

I'm new here and relatively new to serious digital photography (ie SLR
shooting RAW) and would be grateful for some advice.

I've just started to use RawShooter Essentials as my RAW image
processing software. It came out top in a review of such software in the
UK magazine 'Amateur Photographer' (it is also free to download!). One
of the things the reviewer liked about it were the sharpening
facilities. However this has confused me greatly. I have always been led
to believe that sharpening should be done as the very last step of your
workflow and be specific to the size of the output (ie. any subsequent
resizing should be performed on the unsharpened master and then
re-sharpening done for that size). So under what circumstances would you
want to sharpen at the RAW stage?

Also I'm a great admirer of a guy called Steve Round, a fellow bird
photographer here in the UK. Here's a link to his website:

http://stevenround-birdphotography.com/

Steve's lo-res images are stunning in their quality, ie. he doesn't seem
to have lost much by downsizing from his 8MP RAW captures to <100k
JPEG's. I have the same camera as Steve and a similar lens but my JPEG's
don't look anywhere near as good. Any tips? My workflow goes from RAW to
TIFF to JPEG. In PhotoShop I crop the TIFF and then reduce to 50% or
25%, make any level adjustments and finally sharpen before saving as a
JPEG. Am I missing something?

Many thanks.

--
Paul Flackett

More about : digital workflow

Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:09:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:09:25 +0100, Paul Flackett
<no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I'm new here and relatively new to serious digital photography (ie SLR
>shooting RAW) and would be grateful for some advice.
>
>I've just started to use RawShooter Essentials as my RAW image
>processing software. It came out top in a review of such software in the
>UK magazine 'Amateur Photographer' (it is also free to download!). One
>of the things the reviewer liked about it were the sharpening
>facilities. However this has confused me greatly. I have always been led
>to believe that sharpening should be done as the very last step of your
>workflow and be specific to the size of the output (ie. any subsequent
>resizing should be performed on the unsharpened master and then
>re-sharpening done for that size). So under what circumstances would you
>want to sharpen at the RAW stage?
>
>Also I'm a great admirer of a guy called Steve Round, a fellow bird
>photographer here in the UK. Here's a link to his website:
>
>http://stevenround-birdphotography.com/
>
>Steve's lo-res images are stunning in their quality, ie. he doesn't seem
>to have lost much by downsizing from his 8MP RAW captures to <100k
>JPEG's. I have the same camera as Steve and a similar lens but my JPEG's
>don't look anywhere near as good. Any tips? My workflow goes from RAW to
>TIFF to JPEG. In PhotoShop I crop the TIFF and then reduce to 50% or
>25%, make any level adjustments and finally sharpen before saving as a
>JPEG. Am I missing something?

How are you downsizing when your reduce? Are you using "bicubic"?


********************************************************

"A nice man is a man of nasty ideas."

_Introductions to History of the Reformation_
Jonathan Swift
1667-1745
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 6:28:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <ff9ACqCVsn+CFwxR@rainow.demon.co.uk>,
Paul Flackett <no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In PhotoShop I crop the TIFF and then reduce to 50% or
> 25%, make any level adjustments and finally sharpen before saving as a
> JPEG. Am I missing something?

Sharpen after you convert to jpeg. Trust me.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Related resources
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 10:49:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Paul Flackett writes ...
>
>I have always been led to believe that sharpening should
>be done as the very last step of your workflow and be
>specific to the size of the output ...

Generally true, but ...

>So under what circumstances would you
>want to sharpen at the RAW stage?

Most of the digital gurus are recommending a two pass sharpening
workflow with digital cameras (as opposed to film scans). The first
light pass is to restore the sharpness lost with the anti-aliasing
filter blur and is done when you first open the image, then after all
the editing work and resizing is done you'd sharpen to taste for the
final output size (as you already know how to do). For example, Canon
recommends amt 300% radius 0.3 and threshold 0 as a first pass USM run
for their 1D and 1Ds series bodies. The exact numbers will depend on
your camera model and to some extent the image data, which is why I
turn off the default sharpening on my RAW converters.

So basically the default sharpening in programs like RSE and Capture
One do this first step for you, though to my tastes RSE uses overly
agressive default settings and I have it disabled, preferring to just
run an action in Photoshop to clean up the AA filter blur.

Bill
August 11, 2005 12:11:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Not so according to the pros: it's proper to sharpen your RAW in RSE, AND to
sharpen the TIFF/JPG again in Photoshop as the sharpening algorithm is
different.

It remains true that it should be done last, in both cases.

Jean.

"CFB" <look@u.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
look-55F61E.22281510082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> In article <ff9ACqCVsn+CFwxR@rainow.demon.co.uk>,
> Paul Flackett <no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In PhotoShop I crop the TIFF and then reduce to 50% or
>> 25%, make any level adjustments and finally sharpen before saving as a
>> JPEG. Am I missing something?
>
> Sharpen after you convert to jpeg. Trust me.
>
> --
>
> http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:08:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42faec00$0$22315$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
"JD" <no.spam.jdon@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Not so according to the pros: it's proper to sharpen your RAW in RSE, AND to
> sharpen the TIFF/JPG again in Photoshop as the sharpening algorithm is
> different.
>
> It remains true that it should be done last, in both cases.

I was talking about jpegs for web sites. I agree what you said above.

And who are the "pro's" and why are you doing what they are?

>
> Jean.
>
> "CFB" <look@u.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> look-55F61E.22281510082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> > In article <ff9ACqCVsn+CFwxR@rainow.demon.co.uk>,
> > Paul Flackett <no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> In PhotoShop I crop the TIFF and then reduce to 50% or
> >> 25%, make any level adjustments and finally sharpen before saving as a
> >> JPEG. Am I missing something?
> >
> > Sharpen after you convert to jpeg. Trust me.
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:55:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> Bill wrote ...
>>
>> Most of the digital gurus are recommending a two pass
>> sharpening workflow with digital cameras ...

>CFB replies ...
>
>Who are these digital "guru's". (Appeal to popularity)

Bruce Fraser is one, co-author of such books as "Real World Photoshop"
and "Real World Color Management". Chuck Westfall is another, Sr.
Technical Marketing Manager for Canon USA. Deke McClelland is a third,
author of "Photoshop Bible" and popular Photoshop training videos.

Westfall gave the specific recommendation for pre-sharpening with Canon
Pro bodies (300%, 0.3 radius, 0 threshold) in this PDF (it's about a MB
so will take a while to download but it's worth it if you have a Canon
Pro camera ... he discusses the USM settings in two places) ...
http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf

Fraser has a web article out describing the two pass sharpening
workflow at
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189.html?ori... ... to
quote a bit ... "Several years ago, I started playing with the notion
of doing two separate sharpening passes. The first, pre-sharpening pass
aims simply to restore the sharpness lost when turning the image into
pixels, whether by scanning or direct digital capture. The second pass
is then tailored to the particular printing process that will be used."

You can read Deke's thoughts (which are similar) in his book(s) or
videos if still not convinced.

>> The first light pass is to restore the sharpness lost with the
>> anti-aliasing filter blur and is done when you first open the image,

>Opening the images changes it?

Uh, no ... shooting the image thru an anti-alias filter blurs it a bit
so the first USM pass is aimed at restoring the sharpness lost from the
filter. "Opening the images" has nothing to do with it. Then later on
in the workflow, after all the digital edits and resizing are done, you
sharpen more aggressively for the final output size.

>Can someone help me out here?

We're trying, but judging from your attacks on Roger Clark and your
inability to grasp fairly simple concepts like two pass sharpening it
appears to be a losing battle.

Bill
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 8:01:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Paul Flackett writes ...
>
>You mention the overly-aggressive default settings in RSE.
>I haven't used it in anger yet but the sharpening in my version
>(2005 1.1.3 build 15) seems to be via a slider and totally
>under user control, ie. no default ?

Click the green button on top left of menu bar and then click
'processing parameters' to bring up a group of pre-sets that are
applied in addition to the slider in the task bar you mention. As Ed
and JD mention, even at zero there's some sharpening going on so you
need to set this to -50 to minimize it.

>'Appearance' starting points (eg. outdoor normal) which you
>may be referring to, but again these are optional, the default
>starting point being 'flat look'.

These are color tonal curves.

>you guys are seriously helpful. Thankyou all very much. I shall
>read all these articles and have a play

Glad to help.

Bill
August 11, 2005 8:26:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> And who are the "pro's" and why are you doing what they are?

I don't recall any names (never been good with names!) but I've read it in
various serious publications and on some photographers' sites.

Actually, read Bill Hilton's post in this thread, I think he's got it right.

Jean.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 9:49:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Paul Flackett writes ...
>
>Also I'm a great admirer of a guy called Steve Round, a fellow
>bird photographer here in the UK ... Steve's lo-res images are
>stunning in their quality ... I have the same camera as Steve
>and a similar lens but my JPEG's don't look anywhere near
>as good. Any tips?

Can you post a couple of your jpegs so we can see what you mean, ie,
whether your jpegs are over sharpened or undersharpened or whatever? I
checked Steve's site and a lot of his images look very good but
obviously sharpened aggressively (not oversharpened, just sharpened
aggressively). It's possible he's using one of the plug-ins that auto
sharpens based on file size and structure since these tend to be
aggressive. I'll bet if you emailed him, told him you liked his work
and asked how he did the conversions he'd answer with some useful
details.

I also shoot the occasional bird and here are links to a few images I
took recently (two from my wife). I didn't really hammer these for
sharpness, usually I just converted and perhaps ran my 300%/0.3
radius/0 threshold action on the file, then reduced in size using
'bicubic sharper' without sharpening again. If I did sharpen a second
time on the reduced size file it was usually something like 50-60%, 0.6
radius, 0 threshold but for example I know I didn't sharpen the
hummingbird shots because I did them on the road on a laptop and recall
that I just whipped them out quickly. These were converted in
ImageReady with quality settings between 30-60 to keep the file sizes
small. At any rate perhaps post some jpegs for us to see ... these
were taken with a 500 f/4 L IS, 1.4x t/c and a Canon 1D M II except for
the first one ...
http://members.aol.com/canyonimge/q2.jpg (2x t/c on a 1Ds)
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_wasp_U8647.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_U8507.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/bowl.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/bowl_detail.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/nh.jpg

Bill
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 10:32:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Flackett wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm new here and relatively new to serious digital photography (ie SLR
> shooting RAW) and would be grateful for some advice.
>
> I've just started to use RawShooter Essentials as my RAW image
> processing software. It came out top in a review of such software in the
> UK magazine 'Amateur Photographer' (it is also free to download!). One
> of the things the reviewer liked about it were the sharpening
> facilities. However this has confused me greatly. I have always been led
> to believe that sharpening should be done as the very last step of your
> workflow and be specific to the size of the output (ie. any subsequent
> resizing should be performed on the unsharpened master and then
> re-sharpening done for that size). So under what circumstances would you
> want to sharpen at the RAW stage?
>
> Also I'm a great admirer of a guy called Steve Round, a fellow bird
> photographer here in the UK. Here's a link to his website:
>
> http://stevenround-birdphotography.com/
>
> Steve's lo-res images are stunning in their quality, ie. he doesn't seem
> to have lost much by downsizing from his 8MP RAW captures to <100k
> JPEG's. I have the same camera as Steve and a similar lens but my JPEG's
> don't look anywhere near as good. Any tips? My workflow goes from RAW to
> TIFF to JPEG. In PhotoShop I crop the TIFF and then reduce to 50% or
> 25%, make any level adjustments and finally sharpen before saving as a
> JPEG. Am I missing something?

Looks like sharpening has been covered thoroughly, but if your pix seem
bland compared to SR's, possibly your color space isn't the best for web
photos. I don't convert many of mine from aRGB, in part as I am shooting
a lot in sRGB for a specific purpose (sports photos using a specific
printer process that prefers the sRGB.)

My understanding of the process (minimal)precludes me from describing
more....

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:43:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42fb6007$0$22293$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
"JD" <no.spam.jdon@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> > And who are the "pro's" and why are you doing what they are?
>
> I don't recall any names (never been good with names!) but I've read it in
> various serious publications and on some photographers' sites.
>
> Actually, read Bill Hilton's post in this thread, I think he's got it right.
>
> Jean.

I think you missed the point.

When do you turn a "pro"? And what are "serious publications"? I ask
these things because it highlights your logical fallacies.

Ad Hominem
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Popularity

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

I am not saying you are wrong. Just that you are not making your point
effectively.

And if you do what the pro's do you will be doing what the pro's do.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:46:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1123768164.633051.134480@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

> > Paul Flackett writes ...
> >
> >I have always been led to believe that sharpening should
> >be done as the very last step of your workflow and be
> >specific to the size of the output ...
>
> Generally true, but ...
>
> >So under what circumstances would you
> >want to sharpen at the RAW stage?
>
> Most of the digital gurus

Who are these digital "guru's". (Appeal to popularity)

> are recommending a two pass sharpening
> workflow with digital cameras (as opposed to film scans). The first
> light pass is to restore the sharpness lost with the anti-aliasing
> filter blur and is done when you first open the image,

Opening the images changes it? Can someone help me out here?

> then after all
> the editing work and resizing is done you'd sharpen to taste for the
> final output size (as you already know how to do). For example, Canon
> recommends amt 300% radius 0.3 and threshold 0 as a first pass USM run
> for their 1D and 1Ds series bodies. The exact numbers will depend on
> your camera model and to some extent the image data, which is why I
> turn off the default sharpening on my RAW converters.
>
> So basically the default sharpening in programs like RSE and Capture
> One do this first step for you, though to my tastes RSE uses overly
> agressive default settings and I have it disabled, preferring to just
> run an action in Photoshop to clean up the AA filter blur.
>
> Bill

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:01:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JD wrote:
> Not so according to the pros: it's proper to sharpen your RAW in RSE,
> AND to sharpen the TIFF/JPG again in Photoshop as the sharpening
> algorithm is different.
>
> It remains true that it should be done last, in both cases.

That's what I do; a small amount of sharpening to compensate for
the anti-aliasing filter during RAW conversion and final sharpening
at the output stage.

-Mike
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:49:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <1123793707.779614.315630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Bill
Hilton <bhilton665@aol.com> writes
>>> Bill wrote ...
>>>
>>> Most of the digital gurus are recommending a two pass
>>> sharpening workflow with digital cameras ...
>
>>CFB replies ...
>>
>>Who are these digital "guru's". (Appeal to popularity)
>
>Bruce Fraser is one, co-author of such books as "Real World Photoshop"
>and "Real World Color Management". Chuck Westfall is another, Sr.
>Technical Marketing Manager for Canon USA. Deke McClelland is a third,
>author of "Photoshop Bible" and popular Photoshop training videos.
>
<snip>

Hey, you guys are seriously helpful. Thankyou all very much. I shall
read all these articles and have a play, although that's all I seem to
do just lately :-) I'll report back on my progress.

Could you just clarify one thing for me Bill. You mention the
overly-aggressive default settings in RSE. I haven't used it in anger
yet but the sharpening in my version (2005 1.1.3 build 15) seems to be
via a slider and totally under user control, ie. no default ? There are
however 7 'Appearance' starting points (eg. outdoor normal) which you
may be referring to, but again these are optional, the default starting
point being 'flat look'.

Regards,

--
Paul Flackett
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:49:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:49:14 +0100, in rec.photo.digital Paul Flackett
<no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>Could you just clarify one thing for me Bill. You mention the
>overly-aggressive default settings in RSE. I haven't used it in anger
>yet but the sharpening in my version (2005 1.1.3 build 15) seems to be
>via a slider and totally under user control, ie. no default ? There are
>however 7 'Appearance' starting points (eg. outdoor normal) which you
>may be referring to, but again these are optional, the default starting
>point being 'flat look'.

You have to be cognizant that a zero setting in any of the sliders in RSE
does not necessarily mean no alteration using the algorithm in question.
IE, sharpening set to zero, does not mean no sharpening is applied.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
August 12, 2005 3:03:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I think you missed the point.
>
> When do you turn a "pro"? And what are "serious publications"? I ask
> these things because it highlights your logical fallacies.
>
> Ad Hominem
> Appeal to Authority
> Appeal to Popularity

Let's leave it there CFB. I'm trying to help someone, not to enter into a
useless debate. Go and pick a fight with someone else.

Cheers.

Jean.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:25:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42fbbd03$0$1207$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
"JD" <no.spam.jdon@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> > I think you missed the point.
> >
> > When do you turn a "pro"? And what are "serious publications"? I ask
> > these things because it highlights your logical fallacies.
> >
> > Ad Hominem
> > Appeal to Authority
> > Appeal to Popularity
>
> Let's leave it there CFB. I'm trying to help someone, not to enter into a
> useless debate. Go and pick a fight with someone else.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Jean.

He was trying to help someone too.

--

http://www.4truths.com/
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:25:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:25:53 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Padme
<ohmanipadmehum@suffering.org> wrote:

>He was trying to help someone too.

Really?

From: Padme <ohmanipadmehum@suffering.org>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Digital workflow - need some help please
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X)
Message-ID:
<ohmanipadmehum-D32ED4.20255311082005@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com>
Lines: 24
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:25:53 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.57.11.186
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com
X-Trace: twister.southeast.rr.com 1123806353 66.57.11.186 (Thu, 11 Aug 2005
20:25:53 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:25:53 EDT
Organization: Road Runner - NC


vs

From: CFB <look@u.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Digital workflow - need some help please
Message-ID: <look-5F7F02.15435411082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com>
Lines: 31
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:43:55 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.57.11.186
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com
X-Trace: twister.southeast.rr.com 1123789435 66.57.11.186 (Thu, 11 Aug 2005
15:43:55 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:43:55 EDT
Organization: Road Runner - NC

and guess what one finds searching this IP on google? Do us all a favor
and please just leave it be.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:38:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1123793707.779614.315630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

> >> Bill wrote ...
> >>
> >> Most of the digital gurus are recommending a two pass
> >> sharpening workflow with digital cameras ...
>
> >CFB replies ...
> >
> >Who are these digital "guru's". (Appeal to popularity)
>
> Bruce Fraser is one,

Hey! Look up there! There goes the point!

> co-author of such books as "Real World Photoshop"
> and "Real World Color Management". Chuck Westfall is another, Sr.
> Technical Marketing Manager for Canon USA. Deke McClelland is a third,
> author of "Photoshop Bible" and popular Photoshop training videos.
>
> Westfall gave the specific recommendation for pre-sharpening with Canon
> Pro bodies (300%, 0.3 radius, 0 threshold) in this PDF (it's about a MB
> so will take a while to download but it's worth it if you have a Canon
> Pro camera ... he discusses the USM settings in two places) ...
> http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf
>
> Fraser has a web article out describing the two pass sharpening
> workflow at
> http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189.html?ori... ... to
> quote a bit ... "Several years ago, I started playing with the notion
> of doing two separate sharpening passes. The first, pre-sharpening pass
> aims simply to restore the sharpness lost when turning the image into
> pixels, whether by scanning or direct digital capture. The second pass
> is then tailored to the particular printing process that will be used."
>
> You can read Deke's thoughts (which are similar) in his book(s) or
> videos if still not convinced.
>
> >> The first light pass is to restore the sharpness lost with the
> >> anti-aliasing filter blur and is done when you first open the image,
>
> >Opening the images changes it?
>
> Uh, no ... shooting the image thru an anti-alias filter blurs it a bit
> so the first USM pass is aimed at restoring the sharpness lost from the
> filter. "Opening the images" has nothing to do with it. Then later on
> in the workflow, after all the digital edits and resizing are done, you
> sharpen more aggressively for the final output size.

Dude, I knew that. I was asking the OP to explain. But thanks for
explaining it to him.

>
> >Can someone help me out here?
>
> We're trying, but judging from your attacks on Roger Clark and your
> inability to grasp fairly simple concepts like two pass sharpening

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/posthoc.htm

(This is not an attack. If you read the link you might understand what I
have been talking about. These guys might be, and probably are, very
knowledgable, but what you write in support of them is poor.)

> it
> appears to be a losing battle.
>
> Bill

Maybe you guys should read something more then photography books. I
understand most digital techniques but you don't know what is good until
you do it. And if you treat someone as a guru and attempt to copy you
will never do anything new. See? Wait, maybe I'M a guru?

Anyway, if digital is so great why do you have to do sharpening after
you take the picture? :^P

And ease up man, I'm not attacking, i'm lovin'.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
August 12, 2005 4:39:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Could you just clarify one thing for me Bill. You mention the
> overly-aggressive default settings in RSE. I haven't used it in anger yet
> but the sharpening in my version (2005 1.1.3 build 15) seems to be via a
> slider and totally under user control, ie. no default ? There are however
> 7 'Appearance' starting points (eg. outdoor normal) which you may be
> referring to, but again these are optional, the default starting point
> being 'flat look'.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Paul Flackett
>

Zero sharpening means default (minimum) sharpening. If you want no
sharpening at all, you must move the slider all the way to the left.

There is a help file (if my memory serves me right, I think you can download
it from the RSE site). I found it pretty clear and well worth reading.

Jean.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:40:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <o0O946Caf8+CFwkh@rainow.demon.co.uk>,
Paul Flackett <no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <1123793707.779614.315630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Bill
> Hilton <bhilton665@aol.com> writes
> >>> Bill wrote ...
> >>>
> >>> Most of the digital gurus are recommending a two pass
> >>> sharpening workflow with digital cameras ...
> >
> >>CFB replies ...
> >>
> >>Who are these digital "guru's". (Appeal to popularity)
> >
> >Bruce Fraser is one, co-author of such books as "Real World Photoshop"
> >and "Real World Color Management". Chuck Westfall is another, Sr.
> >Technical Marketing Manager for Canon USA. Deke McClelland is a third,
> >author of "Photoshop Bible" and popular Photoshop training videos.
> >
> <snip>
>
> Hey, you guys are seriously helpful. Thankyou all very much. I shall
> read all these articles and have a play, although that's all I seem to
> do just lately :-) I'll report back on my progress.
>
> Could you just clarify one thing for me Bill. You mention the
> overly-aggressive default settings in RSE. I haven't used it in anger
> yet but the sharpening in my version (2005 1.1.3 build 15) seems to be
> via a slider and totally under user control, ie. no default ? There are
> however 7 'Appearance' starting points (eg. outdoor normal) which you
> may be referring to, but again these are optional, the default starting
> point being 'flat look'.

That's it. The world has just ended. :^P

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
August 12, 2005 6:40:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill

Carolyn's shot of the wasp, particularly the legs is a beauty.

regards

Don from Down Under

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123807784.559136.216080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Paul Flackett writes ...
>>
>>Also I'm a great admirer of a guy called Steve Round, a fellow
>>bird photographer here in the UK ... Steve's lo-res images are
>>stunning in their quality ... I have the same camera as Steve
>>and a similar lens but my JPEG's don't look anywhere near
>>as good. Any tips?
>
> Can you post a couple of your jpegs so we can see what you mean, ie,
> whether your jpegs are over sharpened or undersharpened or whatever? I
> checked Steve's site and a lot of his images look very good but
> obviously sharpened aggressively (not oversharpened, just sharpened
> aggressively). It's possible he's using one of the plug-ins that auto
> sharpens based on file size and structure since these tend to be
> aggressive. I'll bet if you emailed him, told him you liked his work
> and asked how he did the conversions he'd answer with some useful
> details.
>
> I also shoot the occasional bird and here are links to a few images I
> took recently (two from my wife). I didn't really hammer these for
> sharpness, usually I just converted and perhaps ran my 300%/0.3
> radius/0 threshold action on the file, then reduced in size using
> 'bicubic sharper' without sharpening again. If I did sharpen a second
> time on the reduced size file it was usually something like 50-60%, 0.6
> radius, 0 threshold but for example I know I didn't sharpen the
> hummingbird shots because I did them on the road on a laptop and recall
> that I just whipped them out quickly. These were converted in
> ImageReady with quality settings between 30-60 to keep the file sizes
> small. At any rate perhaps post some jpegs for us to see ... these
> were taken with a 500 f/4 L IS, 1.4x t/c and a Canon 1D M II except for
> the first one ...
> http://members.aol.com/canyonimge/q2.jpg (2x t/c on a 1Ds)
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_wasp_U8647.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_U8507.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/bowl.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/bowl_detail.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/nh.jpg
>
> Bill
>
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 3:08:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton wrote:
> I also shoot the occasional bird and here are links to a few images I
> took recently (two from my wife).

> these were taken with a 500 f/4 L IS, 1.4x t/c and a Canon 1D M II
> except for the first one ...
> http://members.aol.com/canyonimge/q2.jpg (2x t/c on a 1Ds)
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_wasp_U8647.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_U8507.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/bowl.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/bowl_detail.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/nh.jpg

Nice pictures.

-Mike
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 5:44:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <otrnf1houm822pe4r02ffbfm2crq91cjcs@4ax.com>,
Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:25:53 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Padme
> <ohmanipadmehum@suffering.org> wrote:
>
> >He was trying to help someone too.
>
> Really?


HE HE HE!

Well "he" was! Good catch! I was only appealing to popularity. :^P
What tipped you off? Was it that you thought no one could be as freaky
as me?

OK, I'll stop. Peace y'all.

>
> From: Padme <ohmanipadmehum@suffering.org>
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
> Subject: Re: Digital workflow - need some help please
> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X)
> Message-ID:
> <ohmanipadmehum-D32ED4.20255311082005@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com>
> Lines: 24
> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:25:53 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.57.11.186
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com
> X-Trace: twister.southeast.rr.com 1123806353 66.57.11.186 (Thu, 11 Aug 2005
> 20:25:53 EDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:25:53 EDT
> Organization: Road Runner - NC
>
>
> vs
>
> From: CFB <look@u.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
> Subject: Re: Digital workflow - need some help please
> Message-ID: <look-5F7F02.15435411082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com>
> Lines: 31
> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:43:55 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.57.11.186
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com
> X-Trace: twister.southeast.rr.com 1123789435 66.57.11.186 (Thu, 11 Aug 2005
> 15:43:55 EDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:43:55 EDT
> Organization: Road Runner - NC
>
> and guess what one finds searching this IP on google? Do us all a favor
> and please just leave it be.
> ----------
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 10:34:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Paul Flackett writes ...
>
>Blimey Bill these are wicked! Did you do something to the background
>on these shots to make the subject stand out more?

No, just tried real hard to set up with a clean background (no broken
shapes with bright or contrasty areas). With a 500 mm and 1.4x t/c the
backgrounds blur out smoothly because of the shallow depth of field
when the backgrounds are 10-15 ft behind the subject (which was shot at
about 15 ft, the close-focus distance on the lens).

>I agree with another poster that the hummingbird and wasp
>shot is superb.

I'll tell my wife since it was her photo, she loves to hear that :) 
Thanks also to Mike and Don for their comments.

>In which application do you run your 300% sharpening action?

Photoshop, but Elements or PSP or other programs will do this step well
also.

>Also what is "bicubic sharper"?

In Photoshop with Image > Image Size you can pick several different
resample options. Adobe added 'bicubic smoother' for upsampling and
'bicubic sharper' for downsampling with Photoshop CS (maybe in V 7,
can't recall for sure).

>I take it ImageReady is a seperate program that
>has advantages over Photoshop?

ImageReady is shipped with Photoshop and has additional features for
creating web images, like generating animated gifs or slices or what
not. In Photoshop if you do Save for Web you'll automatically get
switched over to ImageReady. I like it for generating web sized jpegs
because of the visual feedback.

John McWilliams mentioned one other thing that might be slowing you
down and that's your choice of 'working space' (if you're using a color
managed program). Almost all web browsers are not color managed so
profiles get ignored. If you're working in a moderately wide gamut
space like AdobeRGB or especially if working in a really wide space
like ProPhoto or Ektaspace then the saturated colors can get clipped
badly and look dull on the web, a problem with bird photography. So if
using such working spaces you should convert the profile to sRGB before
generating the jpeg.

Also, in Photoshop you're using a monitor profile to view the images
but this doesn't hold for the web since the browsers don't use monitor
profiles, so you can preview how the images will look on the web on
your computer by doing View > Proof Setup > Monitor RGB, which ignores
the monitor profile. If you don't see a change or the change is small
you're OK but if you see a big change (typically in saturated reds and
similar colors) you might edit the file a bit with this view before
converting to jpeg to get a closer match to the original.

Bill
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 1:05:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:44:03 GMT, in rec.photo.digital CFB <look@u.com>
wrote:

>
>Well "he" was! Good catch! I was only appealing to popularity. :^P
>What tipped you off? Was it that you thought no one could be as freaky
>as me?

Trivial first thing to look at.

----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 2:31:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 12 Aug 2005 18:34:05 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Bill Hilton"
<bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

>> Paul Flackett writes ...

>>I agree with another poster that the hummingbird and wasp
>>shot is superb.
>
>I'll tell my wife since it was her photo, she loves to hear that :) 
>Thanks also to Mike and Don for their comments.

Agreed, all the shots of the hummers are great, I'l struggling to get even
close to something that approaches these.


>Also, in Photoshop you're using a monitor profile to view the images
>but this doesn't hold for the web since the browsers don't use monitor
>profiles, so you can preview how the images will look on the web on
>your computer by doing View > Proof Setup > Monitor RGB, which ignores
>the monitor profile. If you don't see a change or the change is small
>you're OK but if you see a big change (typically in saturated reds and
>similar colors) you might edit the file a bit with this view before
>converting to jpeg to get a closer match to the original.

Unless the viewer is using a calibrated monitor profile to start with, no?
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 5:03:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <rj1lf1tfddohl8bf7tb7mujrg115chaj3u@4ax.com>, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> writes
>On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:09:25 +0100, Paul Flackett
><no_spam@rainow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I'm new here and relatively new to serious digital photography (ie SLR
>>shooting RAW) and would be grateful for some advice.
>>
>>I've just started to use RawShooter Essentials as my RAW image
>>processing software. It came out top in a review of such software in the
>>UK magazine 'Amateur Photographer' (it is also free to download!). One
>>of the things the reviewer liked about it were the sharpening
>>facilities. However this has confused me greatly. I have always been led
>>to believe that sharpening should be done as the very last step of your
>>workflow and be specific to the size of the output (ie. any subsequent
>>resizing should be performed on the unsharpened master and then
>>re-sharpening done for that size). So under what circumstances would you
>>want to sharpen at the RAW stage?
>>
>>Also I'm a great admirer of a guy called Steve Round, a fellow bird
>>photographer here in the UK. Here's a link to his website:
>>
>>http://stevenround-birdphotography.com/
>>
>>Steve's lo-res images are stunning in their quality, ie. he doesn't seem
>>to have lost much by downsizing from his 8MP RAW captures to <100k
>>JPEG's. I have the same camera as Steve and a similar lens but my JPEG's
>>don't look anywhere near as good. Any tips? My workflow goes from RAW to
>>TIFF to JPEG. In PhotoShop I crop the TIFF and then reduce to 50% or
>>25%, make any level adjustments and finally sharpen before saving as a
>>JPEG. Am I missing something?
>
>How are you downsizing when your reduce? Are you using "bicubic"?
>
Yes bicubic resample.

--
Paul Flackett
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 5:06:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <42fbd3a3$0$3119$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>, JD
<no.spam.jdon@wanadoo.fr> writes
>> Could you just clarify one thing for me Bill. You mention the
>> overly-aggressive default settings in RSE. I haven't used it in anger yet
>> but the sharpening in my version (2005 1.1.3 build 15) seems to be via a
>> slider and totally under user control, ie. no default ? There are however
>> 7 'Appearance' starting points (eg. outdoor normal) which you may be
>> referring to, but again these are optional, the default starting point
>> being 'flat look'.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Paul Flackett
>>
>
>Zero sharpening means default (minimum) sharpening. If you want no
>sharpening at all, you must move the slider all the way to the left.
>
>There is a help file (if my memory serves me right, I think you can download
>it from the RSE site). I found it pretty clear and well worth reading.
>
>Jean.
>
Ok, thanks. I probably posted too soon. I had already printed the user
guide but hadn't got around to reading it :-)

--
Paul Flackett
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 5:16:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <1123807784.559136.216080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Bill
Hilton <bhilton665@aol.com> writes
>> Paul Flackett writes ...
>>
>>Also I'm a great admirer of a guy called Steve Round, a fellow
>>bird photographer here in the UK ... Steve's lo-res images are
>>stunning in their quality ... I have the same camera as Steve
>>and a similar lens but my JPEG's don't look anywhere near
>>as good. Any tips?
>
>Can you post a couple of your jpegs so we can see what you mean, ie,
>whether your jpegs are over sharpened or undersharpened or whatever? I
>checked Steve's site and a lot of his images look very good but
>obviously sharpened aggressively (not oversharpened, just sharpened
>aggressively). It's possible he's using one of the plug-ins that auto
>sharpens based on file size and structure since these tend to be
>aggressive. I'll bet if you emailed him, told him you liked his work
>and asked how he did the conversions he'd answer with some useful
>details.
>
I've told him a few times, to his face. He's a nice enough guy but
doesn't seem to answer his e-mails (or doesn't want to give away his
secrets!)

>I also shoot the occasional bird and here are links to a few images I
>took recently (two from my wife). I didn't really hammer these for
>sharpness, usually I just converted and perhaps ran my 300%/0.3
>radius/0 threshold action on the file, then reduced in size using
>'bicubic sharper' without sharpening again. If I did sharpen a second
>time on the reduced size file it was usually something like 50-60%, 0.6
>radius, 0 threshold but for example I know I didn't sharpen the
>hummingbird shots because I did them on the road on a laptop and recall
>that I just whipped them out quickly. These were converted in
>ImageReady with quality settings between 30-60 to keep the file sizes
>small. At any rate perhaps post some jpegs for us to see ... these
>were taken with a 500 f/4 L IS, 1.4x t/c and a Canon 1D M II except for
>the first one ...
>http://members.aol.com/canyonimge/q2.jpg (2x t/c on a 1Ds)
>http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_wasp_U8647.jpg
>http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_U8507.jpg
>http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/bowl.jpg
>http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/bowl_detail.jpg
>http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/nh.jpg
>
Blimey Bill these are wicked! Did you do something to the background on
these shots to make the subject stand out more? I agree with another
poster that the hummingbird and wasp shot is superb.

In which application do you run your 300% sharpening action? Also what
is "bicubic sharper"? I take it ImageReady is a seperate program that
has advantages over Photoshop?

I will post some jpeg links once I've gotten around to uploading them.

Thanks.
--
Paul Flackett
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 11:21:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> Bill wrote ...
>>
>> in Photoshop you're using a monitor profile to view the images
>> but this doesn't hold for the web since the browsers don't use
>> monitor profiles

> Ed Ruf writes ...
>
>Unless the viewer is using a calibrated monitor profile to start with,
>no?

Helps if the viewer has calibrated his monitor, but doesn't fix the
problem entirely. When you characterize a monitor with something like
the Sypder or Eye One the first step is to "calibrate" it, which in
this context means to get a good black point, proper contrast and
define and set the white point. Now it's "calibrated" and all programs
can take advantage of that. The next step is to measure the actual
colors the monitor can display with the puck or colorimeter and then
the software generates an .icc or .icm file that translates the colors
so that what's seen on the monitor is as accurate as possible. But not
many programs take advantage of this, that is, most are not 'color
managed'. Many graphics programs do use the monitor profiles
(Photoshop, the RAW converters, PaintShop Pro, Elements etc) but the
web browser applications do not, for the most part.

So the colors can be different between what you see in your graphics
application and what someone else (or even you) will see with the same
image displayed in a web browser. I learned this with saturated colors
from landscape images shot at Antelope Canyon and other 'red rock'
areas like Monument Valley since it's mainly the saturated reds and
oranges that get dulled down. Here are two bird shots where I see the
same problem in the gorget (brightly colored feathers around the neck),
these neck feathers look much better (brighter, more saturated) in
Photoshop than when displayed on the web.
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/calliope_2108.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/broadtail_1.jpg

Bottom line is that calibrating the monitor helps but when moving from
a program that uses the monitor .icm file (Photoshop, etc) to one that
doesn't (Internet Explorer, etc) some saturated colors don't display as
well, which can be a problem with birds.

Bill
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 6:25:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 13 Aug 2005 07:21:37 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Bill Hilton"
<bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:


>
>Bottom line is that calibrating the monitor helps but when moving from
>a program that uses the monitor .icm file (Photoshop, etc) to one that
>doesn't (Internet Explorer, etc) some saturated colors don't display as
>well, which can be a problem with birds.
>

Got, thanks.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 12:15:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <vnhqf1hohgh5dllhrudf7f2can34nephlo@4ax.com>,
Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:44:03 GMT, in rec.photo.digital CFB <look@u.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Well "he" was! Good catch! I was only appealing to popularity. :^P
> >What tipped you off? Was it that you thought no one could be as freaky
> >as me?
>
> Trivial first thing to look at.
>
> ----------
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...

Ahhh, but you don't do that with everyone! I am sure you're suspicion
was ignighted by thinking there is no possible way for someone to agree
with me, yes?

:^)

You have a lot of equipment info on your first page.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 3:07:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Paul Flackett writes ...
>
>I now encounter another equally troubling one (problem).
>having uploaded these to my web space to show you, I now find
>that they appear COMPLETELY different ... What is the point of
>painstakingly making fine adjustments in RSE when you're up
>against this?

I'm not sure exactly what in your workflow is causing the problem, but
you shouldn't be seeing THAT big of a change from the file on the
screen in Photoshop (or Elements) when converted to jpeg and displayed
in on the web. Have you calibrated the monitor did you generate an
..icm monitor profile?

>Here are a couple of the shots whose web outcome I am certainly not
>pleased with. Both shot using Canon 20D with 400L IS DO f4 lens.
>http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Waxwing%20RSE%20wb...
>http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Fox%20cub%20scratc...
>
>On the fox cub shot there is no detail at all in the dark area to the
>left of the cub. In Photoshop I can clearly see a tangle of branches lit
>by the low sun, abstract but clearly visible.

I broke a couple of international copyright laws and downloaded these
two pics. I loaded the fox image into Elements 3 (since you have
Elements but not Photoshop, right?) and did enhance > adjust lighting >
shadows/highlights at the default settings, then did 'save for web' and
saved it at 50% quality (I also added a copyright notice with your name
on it) ... the shadow/highlight default opened up the shadows quite a
bit, I think ... http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/edit_fox.jpg (looks
a bit choppy because of the 2nd level jpeg compression and because
shadows are noisy to start with, but you see the added details) ... I
take it this is what you meant? At any rate, that info is still there
inherent in the image, I'm not sure why you lost it when you converted
from tiff to jpeg.

The change in the waxwing isn't as dramatic with default
shadow/highlight settings but the rust colored feathers around the tail
and dark areas around the eye and beak are a bit more detailed ...
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/edit_waxwing.jpg ... you could fiddle
with the contrast and saturation a bit more but all I did was the
default shadow/highlight operation.

I'll remove these after you've seen them since they are not my images,
sorry if I offended you by copying them and reposting but to me it
shows that the images were compressed tonally somehow when you did the
jpeg conversion, maybe?

>I have to say chaps, that I am on the point of giving up and going
>back to film :-(

To me scanned film is much harder to work with than digital RAW files
because of noise and flattened tonality ... to each his own :) 

>I can't see the controls you mentioned Bill as I'm only using Elements
>(which came with my 20D). I'm reluctant to go out and buy Photoshop
>CS as I have to draw the line somewhere.

I'm guessing you have Elements 2 with the 20D? I'm teaching a friend
in Holland how to make good edits using Elements 3, if you can get a
copy of that I can explain what to do there, except I don't think you
can soft-proof with the monitor profile turned off like you can in
Photoshop. I'm not sure if E2 has the shadow/highlight feature either.

Did you calibrate your monitor at some point, using Adobe Gamma or
something like that? If you did you shouldn't see these vast changes
in contrast between Elements or RSE and the web browser, just color
shifts in something like the saturated orange colors of the fox's fur
perhaps.

Don't give up, you are close :) 

Bill
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 3:26:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>I loaded the fox image into Elements 3 and did enhance >
>adjust lighting > shadows/highlights at the default settings

Paul, I took this fox edit and made one more adjustment, running
Hue/Saturation with 'saturation' set to +20 because, as you said, the
colors looked a bit anemic ... I like this one better, with more
details and better colors for what I imagine the fox pup's fur looked
like ... can you see these differences between the three fox shots on
your monitor? I'm able to convert to jpeg and save these colors and
also able to see the differences clearly on my monitor in Internet
Explorer.

http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/edit_fox_saturated.jp...

Bill
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 5:15:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <1123942897.493271.231070@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bill
Hilton <bhilton665@aol.com> writes
>>> Bill wrote ...
>>>
>>> in Photoshop you're using a monitor profile to view the images
>>> but this doesn't hold for the web since the browsers don't use
>>> monitor profiles
>
>> Ed Ruf writes ...
>>
>>Unless the viewer is using a calibrated monitor profile to start with,
>>no?
>
<snip>
>
>Bottom line is that calibrating the monitor helps but when moving from
>a program that uses the monitor .icm file (Photoshop, etc) to one that
>doesn't (Internet Explorer, etc) some saturated colors don't display as
>well, which can be a problem with birds.
>
That is an understatement. Having mastered the basics of RSE and to some
extent overcome some of the initial problems for which I came to you for
help, I now encounter another equally troubling one. My initial problem
seems to have been caused by making adjustments to the TIFF file in
Photoshop (mainly saturation & contrast) instead of at the raw stage.
However, having uploaded these to my web space to show you, I now find
that they appear COMPLETELY different. They are darker and lack any of
the 'golden' quality that comes from shooting in evening sunshine for
example. What is the point of painstakingly making fine adjustments in
RSE when you're up against this?

Here are a couple of the shots whose web outcome I am certainly not
pleased with. Both shot using Canon 20D with 400L IS DO f4 lens.

http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Waxwing%20RSE%20wb...
http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Fox%20cub%20scratc...

On the fox cub shot there is no detail at all in the dark area to the
left of the cub. In Photoshop I can clearly see a tangle of branches lit
by the low sun, abstract but clearly visible. The fox looks positively
anaemic. I even went right back to the RAW file and edited using the
supplied Canon editor but it looks no different. The Waxwing was taken
in cloudy conditions (we get a lot of those in the UK!) but I had tuned
it up in RSE. For what?!!

I have to say chaps, that I am on the point of giving up and going back
to film :-( If it wasn't for the fact that I seem to be able to get
decent prints I probably would. I can't see the controls you mentioned
Bill as I'm only using Elements (which came with my 20D). I'm reluctant
to go out and buy Photoshop CS as I have to draw the line somewhere.
Even so, you wouldn't be able to see what the final browser view would
be like when you were doing all your major editing in RSE. Admittedly I
can't see your originals Bill but the shots of yours that you've posted
(I'm thinking particularly of the owls) don't seem to be noticeably
drab.

Hmmph!

--
Paul Flackett
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 11:43:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton wrote:
>>can you see these differences between the three fox shots on
>>your monitor?
>>http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/edit_fox_saturated.jp...
>
>
> Can no doubt see it better once I give you the right URL ... duh ...
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/edit_fox_saturation.j...
>
Ah, yes, it's it. Or, that's it. I was thinking as I was reading the
thread that - I'm guessing here- that a lot of photogs may bump the
saturation for the web?

Looking forward to Paul's reaction, and second Bill's notion that you
seem to be well on your way.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 4:55:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Paul Flackett writes ...
>
>So, seems I need to calibrate. Is there any good freeware that I
>can use?

I'm pretty sure that the Adobe Gamma calibration software comes with
Elements 2 ... go to the Help files and type 'monitor calibration' or
similar and it will explain how to access it. This will do an OK job,
not as good as using a $200-ish colorimeter or puck like the Spyder or
Eye-One since you have to eye-ball a couple of key measurements instead
of having the puck actually measure them, but it should fix most of
your problems.

For grins, check to see what you're using now for the default monitor
profile ... if you have Windows XP or similar right-click on the open
desktop and then left-click Properties - Settings - Advanced - Color
Management and see what's listed in the color profiles box list at the
bottom.

>your last adjustment has rendered it very close to
>what I'm seeing in my Photoshop (Elements) original

Good, we're getting close ...

>So does this mean it's just a simple matter of my not having
>calibrated my monitor?

More precisely, it's probably because Elements and RSE are using the
default monitor profile, which could be almost anything if you haven't
run something like Adobe Gamma to calibrate and characterize the
monitor. So you are editing the image using these two programs but the
results will be poor when viewed by someone else with the same programs
using a properly calibrated monitor or by you yourself when viewed in a
program that ignores the monitor profile, like your web browser.

> I'm having difficulty grasping that I can view an original
> image and it's web equivalent side by side on the same monitor and
>the difference I'm seeing is due to monitor calibration!

This can happen if your system is using a bad profile for your monitor
because the profile changes the RGB values of the image so it looks
"right" on the screen, except here the profile is wrong so it's
changing the colors to look wrong when viewed in a program without a
profile, like your web browser. The profile is used by RSE and
Elements so you probably edited the image based on what you saw with
them and that's the problem. This article explains how the RGB values
get translated for different devices when you use the color-managed
workflow, in this case the translation (the monitor icc profile) was
wrong ... http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/13605.html

>presumably a very rough and ready calibration could be provided by my
>getting the two images to look roughly the same?

Try the Adobe Gamma calibration way first, in the long run you'll be
better off :) 

>Thanks again.

No problem. Let us know if the calibration fixes it. You can email me
direct if you want to take this off-line ... I'll remove the fox and
waxwing edits later today since it's your work.

Bill
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:07:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <ko-dnbIi4YiknJ3eRVn-pw@comcast.com>, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> writes
>Bill Hilton wrote:
>>>can you see these differences between the three fox shots on
>>>your monitor?
>>>http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/edit_fox_saturated.jp...
>> Can no doubt see it better once I give you the right URL ... duh
>>...
>> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/edit_fox_saturation.j...
>>
>Ah, yes, it's it. Or, that's it. I was thinking as I was reading the
>thread that - I'm guessing here- that a lot of photogs may bump the
>saturation for the web?
>
>Looking forward to Paul's reaction, and second Bill's notion that you
>seem to be well on your way.
>
Yes that's it Bill, your last adjustment has rendered it very close to
what I'm seeing in my Photoshop original (Photoshop Elements 2.0 Bill,
you're right). Thankyou for all your time and trouble and of course I'm
not offended by you posting my image, I'm pleased you did.

So does this mean it's just a simple matter of my not having calibrated
my monitor? Because you're right, I haven't. I only got it this time
last week - a nice Samsung 19" 193P TFT. This is awfully confusing
though - I'm having difficulty grasping that I can view an original
image and it's web equivalent side by side on the same monitor and the
difference I'm seeing is due to monitor calibration! Is this because of
the monitor profile (ie. the end result of the calibration) that was
discussed earlier, ie. the browser ignores it? If this is so, presumably
a very rough and ready calibration could be provided by my getting the
two images to look roughly the same? I'm still struggling with this
concept. Why don't browsers work like any other software you run on your
PC?

Incidentally I have had a reply from Steve Round, the bird photographer.
His workflow process is not a million miles from mine (his sharpening
preference is 230, 0.3, 0 but his conversion from RAW is done in the
Canon software with sharpening set to high). However it wasn't until I
saw his workflow laid out that I realised there was a 'save for web'
option in the Elements menu ... duh! Interestingly when I tried this and
it shows the two panes side by side, the one on the left that is
supposed to be the Photoshop original looks like the offending anaemic
browser one - presumably because it turns off the monitor profile in the
whole of that window?

So, seems I need to calibrate. Is there any good freeware that I can
use?

Thanks again.

Paul.

--
Paul Flackett
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 1:28:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Paul Flackett writes ...
>
>SM193P (default monitor profile).

You may be wondering how a default profile from the factory could be so
far off ... it might be moderately accurate if the brightness and
contrast settings on your monitor were exactly at the defaults and if
your choice for white balance (ie, 9300 or 6500 or 5500 Kelvins) was
the same as that used by the factory when they created the profile.
But if these are different on your monitor then the profile will be
off. Because of the high contrast in the fox image I'd bet that your
monitor has very different brightness and contrast settings than they
used at the factory for the default profile. Also, they usually set
the default white balance for 9300 Kelvins but most people set the
monitor presets to 6500 K, which throws off the colors.

Will be interesting to see if Adobe Gamma cleans this up ...

Bill
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 2:15:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <1124135732.402040.160820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bill
Hilton <bhilton665@aol.com> writes
>> Paul Flackett writes ...
>>
>>So, seems I need to calibrate. Is there any good freeware that I
>>can use?
>
>I'm pretty sure that the Adobe Gamma calibration software comes with
>Elements 2 ... go to the Help files and type 'monitor calibration' or
>similar and it will explain how to access it.

Yep, found it thanks. I'll have a go with this a bit later.

> This will do an OK job,
>not as good as using a $200-ish colorimeter or puck like the Spyder or
>Eye-One since you have to eye-ball a couple of key measurements instead
>of having the puck actually measure them, but it should fix most of
>your problems.
>
Just been pricing those up. Spyder 2 is £139 in the UK, ColourPlus is
£89. Might be a good investment if I'm going to recalibrate regularly. I
could even hire out my services :-)

>For grins, check to see what you're using now for the default monitor
>profile ... if you have Windows XP or similar right-click on the open
>desktop and then left-click Properties - Settings - Advanced - Color
>Management and see what's listed in the color profiles box list at the
>bottom.

SM193P (default monitor profile).
>
>>your last adjustment has rendered it very close to
>>what I'm seeing in my Photoshop (Elements) original
>
>Good, we're getting close ...
>
>>So does this mean it's just a simple matter of my not having
>>calibrated my monitor?
>
>More precisely, it's probably because Elements and RSE are using the
>default monitor profile, which could be almost anything if you haven't
>run something like Adobe Gamma to calibrate and characterize the
>monitor. So you are editing the image using these two programs but the
>results will be poor when viewed by someone else with the same programs
>using a properly calibrated monitor or by you yourself when viewed in a
>program that ignores the monitor profile, like your web browser.
>
Ok I understand that.
>
>This article explains how the RGB values
>get translated for different devices when you use the color-managed
>workflow, in this case the translation (the monitor icc profile) was
>wrong ... http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/13605.html
>
Thanks, I'll have a read of that as soon as I get time.
>
>No problem. Let us know if the calibration fixes it.

Will do. Thanks.

Paul.

--
Paul Flackett
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 3:38:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>.
>>
>>No problem. Let us know if the calibration fixes it.
>
>Will do. Thanks.
>
Yes!!! - we have lift-off.

Tried using Adobe Gamma last night but it made little difference.
Probably didn't help when I got the message that the Samsung default
profile was an unrecognised profile. Uh? Anyway at the end of that I was
beginning to lose faith. However I sent my edited photos to my workplace
and viewed them using PaintShop (Photoshop not available) alongside the
browser version from the web. They were almost identical. So my work
monitor must be well calibrated. The faith returned.

Tonight I fired up the Samsung 'MagicTune' software that controls
everything on the monitor (it has no physical buttons). There is a
colour calibration program on there which knocks the spots off Adobe
Gamma. It's a painful process but at the end of it the two photos looked
virtually the same. Result!!

Bill, John - I can't thank you both enough for your advice and patience.
If you lived close to me I'd buy you both a pint.

Anyway I'm going to stick around here as it's certainly the best camera
ng I've come across so far.

So now for the long haul - building my website.

Cheers,

Paul.

--
Paul Flackett
!