[Phot] RAW issues. White on white - new version.

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> While I'm sure you're all sick and tired of
> http://www.aliasimages.com/images/ [...] rkSnow.jpg
> That was a med-quality JPG out of the camera. I had Elements 2.0 with
> no RAW plugin, no 16 bit capability.
>
> So, I reloaded it using Elements 3.0 in 16 bit mode (from the raw).
> I adjusted the color temp (about 7500K) in the RAW interface of E 3.0
> and saved as a 16 bit TIF.
>
> From there, I made no further color changes. Just crop, USM and 8 bit
> conversion to JPG.
>
> Here's the new, much nicer version. Note the yellow glow in the snow
> near the bark.
> http://www.aliasimages.com/images/ [...] now_II.jpg
>


Very nice.

Go ahead if you've got more. I'm collecting these to make a canoe.


--
Frank ess

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

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:18:42 -0800, Slack
<slacker7_remove_this@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Is this the normal workflow: RAW >> TIF >> JPG ?

Normal to Alan or normal in general?

I did that for a bit, but lately I've been doing RAW -> PSD -> JPG.
I don't think the middle step matters that much as long as it's
something which can store 16-bit image data in layers. But I just
started with this stuff, and maybe there are considerations I don't
know about.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news1qqod$c0n$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
> While I'm sure you're all sick and tired of
> http://www.aliasimages.com/images/ [...] rkSnow.jpg
> That was a med-quality JPG out of the camera. I had Elements 2.0 with no
> RAW plugin, no 16 bit capability.
>
> So, I reloaded it using Elements 3.0 in 16 bit mode (from the raw).
> I adjusted the color temp (about 7500K) in the RAW interface of E 3.0 and
> saved as a 16 bit TIF.
>
> From there, I made no further color changes. Just crop, USM and 8 bit
> conversion to JPG.
>
> Here's the new, much nicer version. Note the yellow glow in the snow near
> the bark.
> http://www.aliasimages.com/images/ [...] now_II.jpg
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>

Amazing what a little extra data can do for you, isn't it. Very nice
comparison.

Now, I have a digital newbie question for you. Would a polarizer have had
as much of an impact on this digital image as it does on a film image?

Walt

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

David J Taylor wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
> []
>
>>Here's the new, much nicer version. Note the yellow glow in the snow
>>near the bark.
>>http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM7D/BirchBarkSnow_II.jpg
>
>
> The different coloured border is extremely distracting when trying to
> compare the two images. Given that, I prefer the bluer one for colour,
> although the yellow one appears sharper. Will depend how I have my
> monitor set, I guess!

I was wondering if the border change would distract anyone. Still the
color change is so different in any case. It's not a subtle change.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> I was wondering if the border change would distract anyone. Still
> the
> color change is so different in any case. It's not a subtle change.

This one looks more "natural" to me. That's a good example of what I
meant by my tendency to "adjust to make it SEEM right" as opposed to
"what it actually might have been". The yellow reflections under the
bark are a very nice touch.

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

In message <slrnd422o0.ptj.br@panix5.panix.com>,
Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:18:42 -0800, Slack
><slacker7_remove_this@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> Is this the normal workflow: RAW >> TIF >> JPG ?
>
>Normal to Alan or normal in general?
>
>I did that for a bit, but lately I've been doing RAW -> PSD -> JPG.
>I don't think the middle step matters that much as long as it's
>something which can store 16-bit image data in layers. But I just
>started with this stuff, and maybe there are considerations I don't
>know about.

The only time I save in a 16-bit file format is when I have to do
further editing, at another time, or in another program.

Doing something like using ACR, editing in 16-bit, and saving as a JPEG
does not involve any TIFFs or PSDs, unless you specifically save them as
such. Data in photoshop is not in a file format! It's just RAW
photoshop data.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> Doing something like using ACR, editing in 16-bit, and saving as a JPEG
> does not involve any TIFFs or PSDs, unless you specifically save them as
> such. Data in photoshop is not in a file format! It's just RAW
> photoshop data.

Agree. As stated my intermediate saves and archives are in TIF, however.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.