jfrancho Cream of the Crop  6,341 posts Joined Feb 2005 More info | Tee Why wrote: BTW, why do people use automatic correction settings in RAW? Because by default, it is enabled in ACR. Most of the time it boosts contrast quite a bit and looks really good on the surface, but you can get more midtone shadow details by lowing the contrast and applying a more aggresive curve without clipping too much in the shadows.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jfrancho Cream of the Crop 6,341 posts Joined Feb 2005 More info | Titus213 wrote: Is it possible to get to a jpeg from raw without processing? .....Opinions are like thumbs, most people have at least two. Some have nothing but. Nope, unless you are somehow extracting the <pun>thumbnail</pun> - and my thumbs are opposable.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TeeWhy "Monkey's uncle"  10,596 posts Likes: 5 Joined Feb 2006 Location: Pasadena, CA More info | jfrancho wrote: Because by default, it is enabled in ACR. Most of the time it boosts contrast quite a bit and looks really good on the surface, but you can get more midtone shadow details by lowing the contrast and applying a more aggresive curve without clipping too much in the shadows. I use RSP 2006, I didn't know ACR has an auto feature that by default does this. To me this seems counter intuitive but who knows. The only auto feature in RSP is elimination of CA, now that I really like as I've never said to myself, "Hmmmmm, this shot needs more CA." Gallery: http://tomyi.smugmug.com/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Hellashot Goldmember 4,617 posts Likes: 2 Joined Sep 2004 Location: USA More info | Apr 14, 2006 20:59 | #19  Permanent banIt's cause by trying to "push" the exposure of a heavily under exposed image. There is banding because the image did not get enough light. Properly expose the image next time. 5D, Drebel, EOS-3, K1000
LOG IN TO REPLY |
lostdoggy King Duffus  4,787 posts Joined Aug 2004 Location: Queens, NY More info | Radtech1 wrote: There is no evidence that that is the case here. When a RAW is pushed that far, color veracity and contrast is sacrificed. For example, I would have expected the white (beige, actually) behind the dog to have been completely blown, especially where the fur of his right ear and cheek overlay the beige. That did not happen here. Also, the brightness and contrast subtleties on his face and eyes are appropriate. Nothing blown. Again, if it were pushed, don't you think the highlights would have been blown? Exactly just how "very high" is 100? Boy, I am glad that we have that absolutly [Sic] figured out. But still, I wonder how can you call this "an under exposed image" - any more exposure and the highlights would have been blown. Does this much noise really seem appropriate at 100 iso? tantalus1662, remember this, if you ask 3 different people the same question, you're gonna get 5 different answers. AND, the advice you find on the Internet is worth exactly what you pay for it, nothing! So do your own testing. Same setup, same technical factors, same parameters, then switch one factor (shutter speed, aperture, iso) one at a time, then switch one parameter (Tv, Av, Full Manual, Auto Focus, Manual Focus) and keep track of the changes. If it is a banding issue, (caused by interference from the on-board computer) a parameter change will affect what you see because the interference is expressed only under a specific set of circumstances. If is it a common noise issue, is will disappear with a technique change - specifically a technique that gives you a higher exposure - IE, longer exposure time or wider aperture. But if it is noise, that is way too much noise for 100 iso and you have a bollocksed up sensor. Rad Dude take a B12 and relax a little!!! The sky ain't falling!!!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2055 guests, 97 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
