If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Here's an example of a feature I'm missing in Lightroom. I use curves extensively, it's the holy grail of exposure editing. If you're not using it, start using it! A curves tool does not edit exposure Captain literal strikes again. The fact is that a curves tool does not change "exposure" (brightness is the correct term). It is a tone mapping tool. adjusting exposure is not the same as adjusting brightness. Isn't that rather obvious from what I said. no. exposure does not change brightness or contrast. it changes exposure which is why it's called exposure and not brightness or contrast. "Exposure" can only be changed with shutter speed and aperture, before the picture is taken. in an ideal world, it's correct when taken, but that's almost never the case, which is why can also be adjusted afterwards. Which does not stop several software programs from incorrectly labeling the brightness adjustment as "exposure". maybe some apps do but not all. in fact, adjusting brightness or contrast is rarely needed, since levels & curves do a much better and more effective job. Curves, as I've noted, simply doesn't do that and therefore cannot be "more effective". it does do that, and is more effective because some implementations of brightness and contrast can clip. Until you understand that, all you'll do is make silly statements such as you did for the rest of your post. take your own advice. you don't use the software being discussed, which would be step one. I suppose for someone who doesn't understand it that would seem to be true. It isn't. so far, what you've said does not apply to the software he's using. It applies directly. Your understanding of software is very limited. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
nospam wrote:
In article , Sandman wrote: Floyd L. Davidson: The fact is that a curves tool does not change "exposure" (brightness is the correct term). It is a tone mapping tool. nospam: adjusting exposure is not the same as adjusting brightness. Isn't that rather obvious from what I said. "Exposure" can only be changed with shutter speed and aperture, before the picture is taken. Which does not stop several software programs from incorrectly labeling the brightness adjustment as "exposure". God, you're ignorant. An "exposure" slider in software is *not* a brightness editor. It does *not* edit brightness. A true brightness slider edits all color values uniformly, increasing or decreasing the color value of every pixel. This is how the brightness slider have worked in Photoshop since the dawn of time, until CS5 (I think) where they changed it, but you can still use it if you click the "Use legacy" checkbox. it changed in cs3. The new PS brightness slider spreads the spectrum from the bottom, meaning that darker tones are changed less than brighter tones. greatly simplifying, brightness is levels and contrast is curves, with a single easy to use slider adjust for each. An *exposure* slider focuses on the midrange, trying to emulate (yes, Eric, this is where emulate is the proper word) how the exposure of the camera works. actually it focuses (ahem) on the highlights and shadows by protecting them from clipping. the midrange isn't as critical. it does emulate what would happen in the camera and is effectively the same had you changed exposure in camera. With the base values of rgb(0, 30, 250), these are the results: True brightness +10: rgb(10, 40, 255) New PS brightness +10: rgb(3, 36, 255) Exposure +10: rgb(3, 40, 253) Using curves, you can edit the whitepoint, which works exactly like the new brightness editor in PS, meaning it extends the range beyond the colorspace. eh? what does that even mean? No one wants or use a brightness editor, they're worthless. That's why exposure and curves white point gives you the control needed. I much prefer the curves way, as anyone should. the old style brightness/contrast were broken. they've long been fixed, with the legacy option still there for those who learned the broken behaviour and don't want to learn how it should be. nospam: in fact, adjusting brightness or contrast is rarely needed, since levels & curves do a much better and more effective job. Curves, as I've noted, simply doesn't do that and therefore cannot be "more effective". It does, you just don't know anything about these matters. he's never used the software being discussed. Floyd L. Davidson: Until you understand that, all you'll do is make silly statements such as you did for the rest of your post. nospam: take your own advice. you don't use the software being discussed, which would be step one. I suppose for someone who doesn't understand it that would seem to be true. It isn't. Ironic. isn't it? You two can call it whatever you like, all of it is "brightness" and not a bit of it is exposure. Exposure is how many photons are captured by the sensor... -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: blown out in 8 bit but not in 11, 12 or 14 bits. If this was a Hasselblad shot, there would be even more data hiding in the extended range outside the scope of your monitor. It has nothing to do with color space. When working with the RAW conversion stage, set brightness (or "exposure" if they call it that) correctly. Gamma and other parameters may interact with it to some degree. The primary reason for adjusting brightness and gamma, or in fact for using a curves tool too, in the converter stage rather than later, is because interpolation the RAW data produces a 16 bit depth RGB image. If the image is or has been converted to JPEG it is in an 8 bit format. But, even in a 16 bit format the histogram will almost always show values of 0 to 255 (8 bit depth) even if the actual data set being edited is larger. Captain obvious has emerged again. So, what's the problem here, you can't understand what you read or just don't care? The mere concept of having the information presented via a "curves" tool is what is confusing you. They might well show it to you in that context, but what they are doing is allowing you to go back to the RAW converter and change brightness. If you are aware of that, conceptually, it isn't at all hard to understand. No one is trying to "understand" anything here, ignorant Floyd. You're just posting obvious basic stuff that no one asked about because you can't read to save your life. Same old, same old, ey? Yep, same old ****. It's pretty obvious who does understand it and who does not. something which becomes clearer with each post you make. you're talking about software you've never used and are trying to tell people who have been using it for many years that they don't understand it. that's really ****ed up. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: Perhaps a different example where you didn't have blown highlights might have been better for the purposes of this discussion. The image you used had too many exposure issues (see above) to truly illustrate your point. Not at all. I am not interested in the blown out parts, I am interested in the parts that aren't blown out, but can't fit in a 8 bit colorspace and thus *appear* blown out. Parts that *are* blown out in 8 bit but not in 11, 12 or 14 bits. If this was a Hasselblad shot, there would be even more data hiding in the extended range outside the scope of your monitor. It has nothing to do with color space. When working with the RAW conversion stage, set brightness (or "exposure" if they call it that) correctly. Gamma and other parameters may interact with it to some degree. brightness != exposure. lightroom used to have brightness, but it was removed in the current version since exposure works much better. brightness can be put back by choosing pv 2010 (or earlier), but that's not recommended. I'll tell you a secret: you cannot, under any circumstances, change the exposure of an image with post processing software. nobody expects that it's going to go back and change the f/stop or shutter speed. you can't admit you don't know how lightroom works, so you have to move the goalposts to camera exposure. The primary reason for adjusting brightness and gamma, or in fact for using a curves tool too, in the converter stage rather than later, is because interpolation the RAW data produces a 16 bit depth RGB image. If the image is or has been converted to JPEG it is in an 8 bit format. But, even in a 16 bit format the histogram will almost always show values of 0 to 255 (8 bit depth) even if the actual data set being edited is larger. there is no later stage. everything is done in raw (assuming original raw) using floating point math and prophoto rgb colour space. always. it is never converted to jpeg until the image is exported *after* all adjustments are complete. But if it has been converted, and is now being edited... it hasn't been converted. all adjustments are applied to the raw data. there is no jpeg until the user exports one, and that's if they decide to do that. they might not, which means there won't ever be a jpeg. Also "everything is done in raw" is just not true. you're wrong. it is true. that's how lightroom (and aperture) works. There is not color space for raw sensor data either. the colour space used is pro photo rgb. You are confusing the RGB image with the raw sensor data. i'm not confusing anything. i've been using lightroom since it was beta nearly a decade ago and i know *very* well how it works. you have never used lightroom and do not know how it works. if anyone is confused, it is you. Note that the horizontal scale on an histogram is rarely ever marked in fstops. Cameras generally have a very non linear scale while editors are "somewhat" close. But just because there are 6 or 8 or 16 vertical index marks on a histogram does not suggest the number of fstops of range covered. (Histograms of JPEG images cover about 9.5 fstops.) true but not relevant. True and very relevant, given how confused you and Sandman are. i'm not confused at all, and although i can't speak for sandman, he does not seem to be confused either, other than having a question about this particular issue. again, both he and i have used lightroom. you have not. The mere concept of having the information presented via a "curves" tool is what is confusing you. They might well show it to you in that context, but what they are doing is allowing you to go back to the RAW converter and change brightness. If you are aware of that, conceptually, it isn't at all hard to understand. again, you don't understand how the software works. there is no going back to the raw converter. everything is always done in raw, and in a non-destructive manner. Do you even know what "non-destructive" means? yes. do you? based on what you've posted, you do not. It literally means going back and re-doing the interpolation of raw sensor data with a raw converter. yes it does. did you have a point or are you going to recite the obvious about what's already known? there are specific sliders for exposure (not brightness) and contrast but it can also be done with curves and more work. You can't change exposure with processing software. nobody expects it to go back and change the f/stop. that's just more of your weaseling because you can't admit you don't know how lightroom works. And a curves tool does not change the brightness nor the contrast of an image as such. It remaps which tonal levels are assigned to which already defined levels. It doesn't stretch the range. It technically does not compress the range either, but the effect is the same. contrast is just an s curve. there are a couple of presets but the user can alter it any way they want. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: Until you understand that, all you'll do is make silly statements such as you did for the rest of your post. take your own advice. you don't use the software being discussed, which would be step one. I suppose for someone who doesn't understand it that would seem to be true. It isn't. so far, what you've said does not apply to the software he's using. It applies directly. Your understanding of software is very limited. hilarious. i've been using multiple versions of lightroom for nearly a decade. you have never used it at all. if anyone's understanding is limited about how it works, it would be you. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: Floyd L. Davidson: Until you understand that, all you'll do is make silly statements such as you did for the rest of your post. nospam: take your own advice. you don't use the software being discussed, which would be step one. I suppose for someone who doesn't understand it that would seem to be true. It isn't. Ironic. isn't it? You two can call it whatever you like, all of it is "brightness" and not a bit of it is exposure. i'm calling what adobe calls it, and that's exposure. it is *not* the same as brightness. Exposure is how many photons are captured by the sensor... more of your weaseling. nobody expects to go back and change the f/stop or shutter speed. changing exposure in lightroom looks the same as if the exposure in the camera was changed by the same amount. nothing is perfect, but nobody is going to notice a difference by looking at the results unless it's extreme (and even then, probably not). |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
On 2014-08-12, Sandman wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: But, alas, no extended range here (or with the poorer version of curves) so no way - as far as I can make out - to actually access all that glorious image data from within Lightroom. Anyone knows if I've missed something? Before I comment, I would like to try another approach. Can you post a copy of the original in an editable form? Certainly. http://sandman.net/files/DSC01476.ARW First: thanks for bringing some photo discutions back in this group. I have a few newbie questions. Not criticicsms, no openings for a religious debate, just a few questions from someone with more knowledge in IT than in photo... You put that image in ARW format, which - as far as I can see - is a Sony 'raw' format, right? Now, from my IT point of view (opening, interpreting, converting the file) a 'raw' format is NOT a format. Not in the sense that there is a clear unique data format definition. Every manufacturor has their own 'raw' format, some even different ones in different models/generations of their camera's. Of course, the ARW format seems to be from Sony (even my Linux tells me so), and probably doesn't pretend to be universal. But: 1. is the ARW format that common that you would assume anyone can read it, or do you happen to know that he also has a Sony ? 2. I once saw a definition for a type of an open raw format, supposedly independant from manufactorors: DNG. It had a few flaws, but the idea was there. Is there still no tendency to go to such formats in exchanges, or has everyone just given in and accept that each brand talks it's own language? -- When in doubt, use brute force. -- Ken Thompson |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
On 2014-08-12 21:29:03 +0000, Rikishi42 said:
On 2014-08-12, Sandman wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: But, alas, no extended range here (or with the poorer version of curves) so no way - as far as I can make out - to actually access all that glorious image data from within Lightroom. Anyone knows if I've missed something? Before I comment, I would like to try another approach. Can you post a copy of the original in an editable form? Certainly. http://sandman.net/files/DSC01476.ARW First: thanks for bringing some photo discutions back in this group. I have a few newbie questions. Not criticicsms, no openings for a religious debate, just a few questions from someone with more knowledge in IT than in photo... You put that image in ARW format, which - as far as I can see - is a Sony 'raw' format, right? Jonas didn't put that image in ARW format, he captured it in that format in his camera. Many of us shoot and post process our images in whatever RAW format our cameras use. Now, from my IT point of view (opening, interpreting, converting the file) a 'raw' format is NOT a format. It is absolutely a file format, one a specific purpose, but a file format bone the less. Be it NEF, CR2, ARW, or RAF. As he posted it here it was not meant to be viewed as one would a JPEG, PNG or TIF. He was sharing the unmolested, uncompressed source data for that image. Not in the sense that there is a clear unique data format definition. Every manufacturor has their own 'raw' format, some even different ones in different models/generations of their camera's. Yup! Of course, the ARW format seems to be from Sony (even my Linux tells me so), and probably doesn't pretend to be universal. But: 1. is the ARW format that common that you would assume anyone can read it, or do you happen to know that he also has a Sony ? It's a RAW format and most of us use software which can process RAW files regardless of source. So if asked for original source files a willing photographer might provide them. Recently three of us have have shared RAW files, 2 NEFs and the ARW discussed here. 2. I once saw a definition for a type of an open raw format, supposedly independant from manufactorors: DNG. That is an Adobe RAW file type, and it is in general use. Lightroom can be configured to convert RAW file to DNG on import, and Adobe also provides the free DNG convertor. It had a few flaws, but the idea was there. Is there still no tendency to go to such formats in exchanges, or has everyone just given in and accept that each brand talks it's own language? Yes. Sensors and processors are different so RAW files for cameras supporting RAW will change with each new release, be it NEF, CR2, ARW, RAF, etc. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article , Rikishi42
wrote: I have a few newbie questions. Not criticicsms, no openings for a religious debate, just a few questions from someone with more knowledge in IT than in photo... You put that image in ARW format, which - as far as I can see - is a Sony 'raw' format, right? it is. Now, from my IT point of view (opening, interpreting, converting the file) a 'raw' format is NOT a format. Not in the sense that there is a clear unique data format definition. Every manufacturor has their own 'raw' format, some even different ones in different models/generations of their camera's. Of course, the ARW format seems to be from Sony (even my Linux tells me so), and probably doesn't pretend to be universal. But: each camera has its own raw format, even from the same company. it has to, since it's basically a dump of the sensor, with some extra information, such as the chromaticity of the filters on the sensor plus the usual exif metadata (camera settings, gps if available, etc.). any time the sensor changes, the raw format must also change. a nikon 36 megapixel raw is not going to be the same as a canon 18 megapixel raw. 1. is the ARW format that common that you would assume anyone can read it, or do you happen to know that he also has a Sony ? short answer: yes. long answer: most people have photo software that supports raw, or raw support is built into their operating system, which means just about all apps can handle raw. the raw conversion software knows about all of the camera's raw formats made to date (with rare exception for oddball cameras that almost nobody has). it's a giant list and getting bigger all the time. there is a brief wait from when a new camera is introduced until it's supported in the various raw converters. some converters get support quicker than others. here's what adobe camera raw supports: http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/camera-raw.html another raw converter is dcraw, and the list of cameras it supports is he http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ the exact conversion parameters to make the final image are up to the user. exposure (despite what some people here claim), contrast, white balance, etc., can all be adjusted in software. what was set on the camera does not matter. different raw converters produce different looking results. camera raw is widely considered to be the best for many reasons, but like anything, not everyone agrees. 2. I once saw a definition for a type of an open raw format, supposedly independant from manufactorors: DNG. It had a few flaws, but the idea was there. Is there still no tendency to go to such formats in exchanges, or has everyone just given in and accept that each brand talks it's own language? everything has flaws. nothing is perfect. anyway, some cameras output dng directly. other cameras have a native raw format. some users choose to convert the native raw format to dng (which is lossless) while most users directly use the native raw format since there's very little advantage to converting to dng. it's an extra step. many users don't even shoot raw and just shoot jpeg, which is good enough most of the time and takes up a lot less space. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
On 2014-08-12 22:03:23 +0000, Savageduck said:
On 2014-08-12 21:29:03 +0000, Rikishi42 said: On 2014-08-12, Sandman wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: But, alas, no extended range here (or with the poorer version of curves) so no way - as far as I can make out - to actually access all that glorious image data from within Lightroom. Anyone knows if I've missed something? Before I comment, I would like to try another approach. Can you post a copy of the original in an editable form? Certainly. http://sandman.net/files/DSC01476.ARW First: thanks for bringing some photo discutions back in this group. I have a few newbie questions. Not criticicsms, no openings for a religious debate, just a few questions from someone with more knowledge in IT than in photo... You put that image in ARW format, which - as far as I can see - is a Sony 'raw' format, right? Jonas didn't put that image in ARW format, he captured it in that format in his camera. Many of us shoot and post process our images in whatever RAW format our cameras use. Now, from my IT point of view (opening, interpreting, converting the file) a 'raw' format is NOT a format. It is absolutely a file format, one a specific purpose, but a file format bone the less. Be it NEF, CR2, ARW, or RAF. As he posted it here it was not meant to be viewed as one would a JPEG, PNG or TIF. He was sharing the unmolested, uncompressed source data for that image. Sorry for the omission and typo in the preceding paragraph. The above should read; "...one meant for a specific purpose,..."; and "none the less" not "bone the less". Not in the sense that there is a clear unique data format definition. Every manufacturor has their own 'raw' format, some even different ones in different models/generations of their camera's. Yup! Of course, the ARW format seems to be from Sony (even my Linux tells me so), and probably doesn't pretend to be universal. But: 1. is the ARW format that common that you would assume anyone can read it, or do you happen to know that he also has a Sony ? It's a RAW format and most of us use software which can process RAW files regardless of source. So if asked for original source files a willing photographer might provide them. Recently three of us have have shared RAW files, 2 NEFs and the ARW discussed here. 2. I once saw a definition for a type of an open raw format, supposedly independant from manufactorors: DNG. DNG is an Adobe RAW file type, and it is in general use. Lightroom can be configured to convert RAW file to DNG on import, and Adobe also provides the free DNG convertor. It had a few flaws, but the idea was there. Is there still no tendency to go to such formats in exchanges, or has everyone just given in and accept that each brand talks it's own language? Yes. Sensors and processors are different so RAW files for cameras supporting RAW will change with each new release, be it NEF, CR2, ARW, RAF, etc. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lightroom and Aperture, shared library? | Sandman | Digital Photography | 15 | May 15th 14 05:09 PM |
PhotoShop Elements, Aperture and Lightroom | nospam | Digital Photography | 0 | May 23rd 08 10:09 PM |
PhotoShop Elements, Aperture and Lightroom | C J Campbell | Digital Photography | 1 | May 23rd 08 10:08 PM |
Aperture, Lightroom: beyond Bridge; who needs them? | Frank ess | Digital Photography | 0 | June 4th 07 06:42 PM |
Lightzone/Lightroom/Aperture | D.M. Procida | Digital SLR Cameras | 20 | April 27th 07 07:00 AM |