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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
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! So here it is in Apertu http://sandman.net/files/aperture_curves.png On a slightly (deliberately) overexposed image from Gotland. See the "Range:" popup? It can be set to "extended", and it looks like this: http://sandman.net/files/aperture_extended.png It shows a larger spectrum of image data than can be displayed on your monitor, i.e. a higher dynamic range. This is only populated if you're shooting with RAW files of course. You then have more bits of image data than JPG or your display can show. Using this, I can move the qhite point *up*: http://sandman.net/files/apterture_extended2.png And you can instantly see the result. You suddenly have more image data in the monitor-visible spectrum! Amazing, isn't it? Now, this may have been a poor image to show this with since we don't have all that much *useful* data in the upper range either way. But it's super useful for a lot of bright images to get more data from the file. Unfortunately, Lightroom doesn't seem to support this. Default it shows you a poor-mans version of curves: http://sandman.net/files/lightroom_poorcurves.png And at first I wondered what the hell this curve was on about, it had these stupid limits and regions. So you have to click the bottom right icon to get to the real curves: http://sandman.net/files/lightroom_curves.png 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? -- Sandman[.net] |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
On 2014-08-11 14:17:06 +0000, Sandman said:
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! So here it is in Apertu http://sandman.net/files/aperture_curves.png On a slightly (deliberately) overexposed image from Gotland. See the "Range:" popup? It can be set to "extended", and it looks like this: http://sandman.net/files/aperture_extended.png It shows a larger spectrum of image data than can be displayed on your monitor, i.e. a higher dynamic range. This is only populated if you're shooting with RAW files of course. You then have more bits of image data than JPG or your display can show. Using this, I can move the qhite point *up*: I am not going to get into a major Aperture vs. Lightroom argument here, but why on earth would you want to move the white point "up"? All that is going to do is clip the data on the right. http://sandman.net/files/apterture_extended2.png And you can instantly see the result. You suddenly have more image data in the monitor-visible spectrum! Amazing, isn't it? Now, this may have been a poor image to show this with since we don't have all that much *useful* data in the upper range either way. But it's super useful for a lot of bright images to get more data from the file. I can see that this might be beneficial in an image with deep shadows and you might want to artificially stretch the DR, but with the example you have used all you achieve is clipping. There is no additional image data visible to me, and I would guess anybody else. Unfortunately, Lightroom doesn't seem to support this. Default it shows you a poor-mans version of curves: http://sandman.net/files/lightroom_poorcurves.png And at first I wondered what the hell this curve was on about, it had these stupid limits and regions. So you have to click the bottom right icon to get to the real curves: http://sandman.net/files/lightroom_curves.png 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? From what I can see you are calling the Lightroom implementation of a Tone Curves adjustment a "poorer version of curves" because it doesn't have this extended feature. However, it doesn't really do what you claim on the right of the histogram where it leads to clipping. It can help in the shadows and mid-tones, but for the most part there are other tools which can deal with those issues. They are two apps with similar goals, but different implementation, don't expect them to mirror each other in every way. They won't. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article 2014081108430694198-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:
Sandman: 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! So here it is in Apertu http://sandman.net/files/aperture_curves.png On a slightly (deliberately) overexposed image from Gotland. See the "Range:" popup? It can be set to "extended", and it looks like this: http://sandman.net/files/aperture_extended.png It shows a larger spectrum of image data than can be displayed on your monitor, i.e. a higher dynamic range. This is only populated if you're shooting with RAW files of course. You then have more bits of image data than JPG or your display can show. Using this, I can move the qhite point *up*: I am not going to get into a major Aperture vs. Lightroom argument here, but why on earth would you want to move the white point "up"? All that is going to do is clip the data on the right. Uhm, what I meant was to move the white point to the right, i.e. increase it, to span a greater range, hence the "up". Might have been a bit ambigous yes, but the screenshots showed what I meant. Sandman: http://sandman.net/files/apterture_extended2.png And you can instantly see the result. You suddenly have more image data in the monitor-visible spectrum! Amazing, isn't it? Now, this may have been a poor image to show this with since we don't have all that much *useful* data in the upper range either way. But it's super useful for a lot of bright images to get more data from the file. I can see that this might be beneficial in an image with deep shadows and you might want to artificially stretch the DR, but with the example you have used all you achieve is clipping. There is no additional image data visible to me, and I would guess anybody else. Huh? Look again, when moving the whitepoint to the right, I get *more* data into the visible range, and you see the horizon, which was blocked out in the earlier image. More data, not blocked. The opposite of blocked. Sandman: Unfortunately, Lightroom doesn't seem to support this. Default it shows you a poor-mans version of curves: http://sandman.net/files/lightroom_poorcurves.png And at first I wondered what the hell this curve was on about, it had these stupid limits and regions. So you have to click the bottom right icon to get to the real curves: http://sandman.net/files/lightroom_curves.png 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? From what I can see you are calling the Lightroom implementation of a Tone Curves adjustment a "poorer version of curves" because it doesn't have this extended feature. No, limited feature, where it sets limit on how much you can edit the curve. It's like a "Curve for beginners" with safe limits so you won't ruin your image too much. However, it doesn't really do what you claim on the right of the histogram where it leads to clipping. It can help in the shadows and mid-tones, but for the most part there are other tools which can deal with those issues. They are two apps with similar goals, but different implementation, don't expect them to mirror each other in every way. They won't. All I am saying is that Aperture has a way to access image data that is outside the 8 bit scope of your monitor, like any HDR tool also can. The Sony A7 has 11 bit color depth information in the raw file, which your monitor can't show, so compressing that dynamic range down to 8 bit allows for that, which Aperture supports in its Curbes implementation, but as far as I can make out, Lightroom has no way for me to access that data. -- Sandman[.net] |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
On 11 Aug 2014 14:17:06 GMT, Sandman 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! So here it is in Apertu http://sandman.net/files/aperture_curves.png On a slightly (deliberately) overexposed image from Gotland. See the "Range:" popup? It can be set to "extended", and it looks like this: http://sandman.net/files/aperture_extended.png It shows a larger spectrum of image data than can be displayed on your monitor, i.e. a higher dynamic range. This is only populated if you're shooting with RAW files of course. You then have more bits of image data than JPG or your display can show. Using this, I can move the qhite point *up*: http://sandman.net/files/apterture_extended2.png And you can instantly see the result. You suddenly have more image data in the monitor-visible spectrum! Amazing, isn't it? Now, this may have been a poor image to show this with since we don't have all that much *useful* data in the upper range either way. But it's super useful for a lot of bright images to get more data from the file. Unfortunately, Lightroom doesn't seem to support this. Default it shows you a poor-mans version of curves: http://sandman.net/files/lightroom_poorcurves.png And at first I wondered what the hell this curve was on about, it had these stupid limits and regions. So you have to click the bottom right icon to get to the real curves: http://sandman.net/files/lightroom_curves.png 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? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
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 -- Sandman[.net] |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
On 2014-08-12 11:47:45 +0000, Sandman said:
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 After looking at that RAW file I can see the problem came from a need for a -4 Grad ND filter. Shooting wide open at f/1.8 & ISO 100 didn’t help. It looks as if you metered on the tree or roof in the center, and that led to those exposure settings and the blown highlights. If anything this might have been a case for HDR, or at least some exposure bracketing to play with. There is no getting away from the serious clipping. You were correct there was data further to the right in the histogram, but it was useless as the clipping had mostly blanketed it. I tried a rendition and came up with this: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/DSC01476-Edit-1.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
On 2014-08-12 13:38:07 +0000, Savageduck said:
On 2014-08-12 11:47:45 +0000, Sandman said: 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 After looking at that RAW file I can see the problem came from a need for a -4 Grad ND filter. Shooting wide open at f/1.8 & ISO 100 didn’t help. It looks as if you metered on the tree or roof in the center, and that led to those exposure settings and the blown highlights. If anything this might have been a case for HDR, or at least some exposure bracketing to play with. There is no getting away from the serious clipping. You were correct there was data further to the right in the histogram, but it was useless as the clipping had mostly blanketed it. I tried a rendition and came up with this: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/DSC01476-Edit-1.jpg ....or perhaps this one; https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/DSC01476-Edit2-1.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article 201408120638074435-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-12 11:47:45 +0000, Sandman said: Sandman: 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? Eric Stevens: Before I comment, I would like to try another approach. Can you post a copy of the original in an editable form? Sandman: Certainly. http://sandman.net/files/DSC01476.ARW After looking at that RAW file I can see the problem came from a need for a -4 Grad ND filter. Shooting wide open at f/1.8 & ISO 100 didn’t help. It looks as if you metered on the tree or roof in the center, and that led to those exposure settings and the blown highlights. If anything this might have been a case for HDR, or at least some exposure bracketing to play with. There is no getting away from the serious clipping. You were correct there was data further to the right in the histogram, but it was useless as the clipping had mostly blanketed it. The topic is not this image and what is truly clipped from it or not. The topic is accessing image data that is outside the 8 bit spectrum of the Lightroom histogram, which can be done in Aperture. This was not a thread about how I save this one image, the image is irrelevant to the topic and was just an example. You're focusing on the wrong thing. There is data in that image not represented by the Lightroom histogram. Or the Aperture histogram. There is a method in Aperture to *access* that data by shrinking the 11 bit actual histogram to fit a 8 bit histogram. As far as I can make out, there is no way to do this in Lightroom. Correct? -- Sandman[.net] |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
On 2014-08-12 14:21:28 +0000, Sandman said:
In article 201408120638074435-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-08-12 11:47:45 +0000, Sandman said: Sandman: 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? Eric Stevens: Before I comment, I would like to try another approach. Can you post a copy of the original in an editable form? Sandman: Certainly. http://sandman.net/files/DSC01476.ARW After looking at that RAW file I can see the problem came from a need for a -4 Grad ND filter. Shooting wide open at f/1.8 & ISO 100 didn’t help. It looks as if you metered on the tree or roof in the center, and that led to those exposure settings and the blown highlights. If anything this might have been a case for HDR, or at least some exposure bracketing to play with. There is no getting away from the serious clipping. You were correct there was data further to the right in the histogram, but it was useless as the clipping had mostly blanketed it. The topic is not this image and what is truly clipped from it or not. The topic is accessing image data that is outside the 8 bit spectrum of the Lightroom histogram, which can be done in Aperture. OK. This was not a thread about how I save this one image, the image is irrelevant to the topic and was just an example. You're focusing on the wrong thing. OK. There is data in that image not represented by the Lightroom histogram. Or the Aperture histogram. There is a method in Aperture to *access* that data by shrinking the 11 bit actual histogram to fit a 8 bit histogram. Well there is little point in showing data which is blown beyond the WP clipping spike. It is useless no matter what you do or what magic you blow on it. As far as I can make out, there is no way to do this in Lightroom. Correct? Correct for LR on its own, but your extended histogram is visible if you take the round trip to PS. However, that is irrelevant in the case of this image, beyond the clipping spike, that data is blown anyway. When opened in PS and the curves histogram is checked you will see it extended beyond the clipping spike and it is beyond recovery. 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. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |