Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Camera settings sharpness + saturation in RAW
#11
[quote name='you2' date='30 June 2010 - 02:35 PM' timestamp='1277901356' post='766']

I know it can be turned off in DPP; and it is very easy to do so; just means an extra step for processing the raw. Bit of a pain since I copy images to my linux box raid drive from the camera; then I have to copy the files to local disk on the window machine to process (I shoot raw+jpg so I can use jpg if they are good enough). The problem here is that DPP will not allow me to access the samba (network) drive exported by the linux box (this is the first software I used that would not allow that). Copying the files is not a huge deal but annoying. Anyways for the xsi i was amazed how much detail was lost by the jpg out of camera due to slight (level 2) lum. noise reduction being applied by the camera; on the other hand it wasn't needed in the first place for iso 100 images I was taken. Other than that I'm fairly happy with the xsi. Very tempted to get the 5dmk2 but don't really want to deal with the weight/(and more so) bulk.[/quote]

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />



The latter is what I always thought too. I started with a 350D in dslr-land. Nice and small. although my Pentax analog cameras were smaller <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



Next i needed better high iso performance, and via a set of 400Ds and a 40D I ended up with a 5D Classic. When I saw the images from that camera, I just took the extra bulk and weight for granted. And next there was the 5D II. Even better <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



Kind regards, WIm <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#12
This might be a basic question, but why do raw files look different in different software when using to 'flat' settings (all settings to zero)?



LR and other programmes seem to produce very different results (very dull, low contrast etc.) when set to 'zeroed', compared to Canon's DPP software or a RAW viewer such as Irfanview.



It's an interesting theme/dilemma, because it raises the whole issue of treatment/manipulation of digital images.



I mean, a negative can be manipulated too, but you do have a kind of 'absolute' reference point before you choose the paper/chemicals to do your print.



In the digital world - and this is something I am constantly wrestling with - there is not really a true reference because a RAW file usually (always?) requires treatment to make it resemble the scene photographed. And once you start manipulating, it can be an open-ended process.

On film, I always have certain preferences for film type, process, paper etc. to yield certain tones and to achieve a certain type of contrast etc., but in digital I have to use a series of manipulations to re-create how the image should/would look if shot on film. Well, that may be normal, but it remains that I don't really consider my RAW file a definitive 'negative' of the shot.
#13
[quote name='Pinhole' date='30 June 2010 - 11:23 PM' timestamp='1277933019' post='770']

This might be a basic question, but why do raw files look different in different software when using to 'flat' settings (all settings to zero)?



LR and other programmes seem to produce very different results (very dull, low contrast etc.) when set to 'zeroed', compared to Canon's DPP software or a RAW viewer such as Irfanview.

[/quote]



Eventually, there is something one must accept ... there is no such thing as "all settings to zero".



- The image must be deconvoluted (means rgb-pixels have to be build from the bayer data). Differences

in the deconvolution formula used will produce differences in the resulting image.



- A gamma has to be applied. If you convert raw data without this, the image will never ever look

even anywhere near what you saw with your eye.



- A whitebalance value needs to be selected.



... Each program does it's own decisions, so the results are different.



... and for Irfanview ... it's default setting is to use the jpg-preview-image ...

you need to switch to the raw-data explicitely in the setup. This is at least a possible cause.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)