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

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Alan Browne, Mar 23, 2005.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    While I'm sure you're all sick and tired of
    http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM7D/BirchBarkSnow.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/KM7D/BirchBarkSnow_II.jpg

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 23, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    Frank ess Guest


    Very nice.

    Go ahead if you've got more. I'm collecting these to make a canoe.
     
    Frank ess, Mar 23, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    Slack Guest

    Is this the normal workflow: RAW >> TIF >> JPG ?
     
    Slack, Mar 23, 2005
    #3
  4. 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, Mar 23, 2005
    #4
  5. Alan Browne wrote:
    []
    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!

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Mar 23, 2005
    #5
  6. Alan Browne

    Walt Hanks Guest

    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
     
    Walt Hanks, Mar 23, 2005
    #6
  7. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Oof! In a very large nutshell, yes. It can end at the TIF for printing.

    You can (in the RAW plugin) load it into E 3.0 (PS) as 8 or 16 bits per
    color. From there you can save as any format that suits you. (Need to
    resample down to 8 bit/col for JPG).

    I prepared 1 JPG for the web (the one you saw), another much larger
    (without the 'frame') to send to the photostore for printing. Each
    USM'd at its size and for its use.

    The TIF version (16 bit/color) is saved withoug sharpenning (USM) for
    archive).

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 23, 2005
    #7
  8. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    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
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 23, 2005
    #8
  9. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Film v. digital, same effect.

    Wrt this image, not entirely sure. It may have been useful to cut the
    'glint' from the snow, but that's part of the image, IAC.

    As most of the light here is difuse from the blue sky, a polarizer would
    have reduced the light considerably, but the color would have remained
    as it would continue to come from other unfiltered directions. A pol
    may or may not have had an undesirably effect on the yellow reflections
    on the snow (from the bark).

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 23, 2005
    #9
  10. Alan Browne

    Greg Evans Guest

    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.
     
    Greg Evans, Mar 23, 2005
    #10
  11. Alan Browne

    JPS Guest

    In message <[email protected]>,
    There is no need to have a TIFF in there, although you can display a
    TIFF instead of the JPEG, but most people display JPEG, as a matter of
    convenience and efficiency.
    --
     
    JPS, Mar 24, 2005
    #11
  12. Alan Browne

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    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.
    --
     
    JPS, Mar 24, 2005
    #12
  13. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    I display in JPG, archive in TIF.

    One printer (verb) I use want the phots in Mac-TIFF; the other wants JPG.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 24, 2005
    #13
  14. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Agree. As stated my intermediate saves and archives are in TIF, however.
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 24, 2005
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.