post processing

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Nige Danton, Mar 13, 2014.

  1. Nige Danton

    Guest Guest

    there is no additional delay with raw. the workflow is identical.
    no.
     
    Guest, Mar 16, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Nige Danton

    Guest Guest

    because you're ignorant.

    for a plug-in to exist, it must be created.
    no it's not.

    approval, otherwise known as a mutually beneficial agreement between
    adobe and a plug-in creator, is *optional* and *both* sides must agree
    to the specifics.
    not based on what you've written. you know *nothing* about software
    development or the industry.

    this all started when you came up with the 'photoshop plug-in' versus
    'plug-ins for photoshop' idiocy.

    you haven't *any* idea how a plug-in goes from idea to product.
    only if the vendors are interested in marketing with adobe. some might
    be, others are not. it is absolutely not required at all.

    as i said, 'approval' is just another word for 'mutual agreement' and
    has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with creating a plug-in.
     
    Guest, Mar 16, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Nige Danton

    Eric Stevens Guest

    A more accurate interpretation might be that they use RAW images
    because of the scene's wide dynamic range.

    I will use JPG for snapshots but not for images where I might want to
    print them to a reasonable size. In that case I prefer my own image
    massaging to whatever might be done by the camera.
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 16, 2014
  4. Nige Danton

    PeterN Guest

    Not your fault, it was probably mine. Raw allows more room to correct
    errors, and play.
     
    PeterN, Mar 16, 2014
  5. Nige Danton

    Tony Cooper Guest


    You are insisting on adding the creation step, and I never mentioned
    that. What I asked was whether or not Adobe approves of certain
    vendors of plug-ins. You didn't know the answer, so you added the bit
    about creating a plug-in as a weasel fart to cloud the issue.

    Of course it's "later". Adobe can't very well approve of a vendor's
    output until they've seen it.

    You don't think this is beneficial to the plug-in creator? To be
    featured on an Adobe website?

    Nor did I say it does.
    Who asked about it being "required"? Now, you admit that the
    "showcase" is a marketing thing. It's not surprising that you didn't
    initially recognize it as a marketing tool since you don't
    understanding what marketing is.
    What? Where do you get that? "Approval" is one-sided, not mutual.
    More weasel talk. You are the only one who brought up "creating".

    My original question could have been answered "Yes, Adobe does approve
    some vendors". Simple and accurate, and no need for further
    discussion.
     
    Tony Cooper, Mar 16, 2014
  6. Nige Danton

    PeterN Guest

    \the Nik plugins, will not work in LAB mode. What I suggested is that a
    lof of the work that in done with plugins, can be done in LAB, although
    it is a lot more work. You can do noise removal in LAB or RGB using
    surface blur a gentle hand, and masking. However, you have more control
    in LAB. Sharpening on the luminescence layer allows more aggressive
    sharpening, with more realistic results. etc.
     
    PeterN, Mar 16, 2014
  7. Nige Danton

    PeterN Guest

    If David is satisfied with his images and workflow, that is great.
    unlike others here, I will nly state my reasons why i do things a
    certain way. If my way doesn't work for them, so be it.
     
    PeterN, Mar 16, 2014
  8. Nige Danton

    Sandman Guest

    Wow, you just dug yourself even deeper. Now you're saying "Adobe Plugin",
    but this is what you said before:

    Tony Cooper
    03/14/2014 <>

    "A "Photoshop plug-in" would be a plug-in authored by, and
    offered by, Adobe."

    Do you see the difference, and the hole you dug yourself into yet?

    Contrast it with:

    Tony Cooper Re: post processing 03/13/2014
    <>

    "Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins."

    In fact, the first time the word "Adobe Plugin" has ever been used in this
    thread - or in this group even - is just now by you. No one has talked
    about, or mentioned "Adobe plugin".
    Trademark infringement? What are you on about? Infirngement on *what*
    exactly? They're clearly stating on their web page that they provide a
    Photoshop plugin, as do most or all plugin developers because - that's what
    they do!

    Are you under the impression that "Photoshop Plug-in" is a trademark and
    that plug-in developers refrain from using it?

    <http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/assetDownl...SEL-asset-160563$original&dimension=original>

    "Adobe Photoshop Plug-in Module"

    Must be authored by Adobe. Or in the process of being sued by them, right?
     
    Sandman, Mar 16, 2014
  9. Nige Danton

    Guest Guest

    a plug-in doesn't appear out of thin air. it must be created.
    of course not, because you don't understand how the software industry
    works.
    nope. i explained how a plug-in is created because you don't know and
    you stubbornly refuse to learn. there is no approval *period*.

    a developer can call it a photoshop plug-in if they want, another one
    of your mistakes.

    a developer does not have to submit anything to adobe if they don't
    want to. there may be benefits if they do and there may also be
    drawbacks. adobe's approval (which is as i said, a mutual agreement,
    not really an 'approval') is purely marketing and it's really there to
    help sell more copies of photoshop than anything else.
     
    Guest, Mar 16, 2014
  10. Nige Danton

    Sandman Guest

    Looks interesting. Actually reminds me a bit about the intensify function
    in Instagram, which they've now given control to the user over (i.e. the
    strength of the effect).

    I'll download the demo version and try this one out.
     
    Sandman, Mar 16, 2014
  11. Nige Danton

    Tony Cooper Guest


    Yes, it's a typing error on my part. The mind said "Photoshop
    Plug-in" and the fingers said "Adobe Plug-in".
     
    Tony Cooper, Mar 16, 2014
  12. That is part of what RAW processing is about, and not an
    insignificant part either!
    That is an insignificant part.

    The raw sensor data is of course always processed to get an
    image. If it is done in the camera there are some unavoidable
    negative effects. One is that it cannot be done by inspection,
    but rather all adjustements (critical or otherwise) are set by
    pre-shutter release estimation of what will probably be close
    enough. A second major problem is that granularity for
    adjustments is large for any on camera adjustment compared to
    post processing. A third problem is the referenced "good
    conditions", because normally on camera processing can only be
    immediately validated by reviewing the result on camera, and
    when inspected later using more sophisticated hardware it is too
    late to change the camera configuration and reshoot.

    The ultimate point should always be that "room to *correct*
    errors" is never the primary purpose of post processing, though
    one might well say that *avoiding* the creation of errors is.

    The idea should always be to get it right in the camera. What
    should be "right" is that the best data for creating a
    photograph should be recorded. The RAW file records that, and
    no other format can.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 16, 2014
  13. Nige Danton

    Sandman Guest

    So you're still on record with the hilarious comment that only Adobe can
    call a plug-in a "Photoshop plug-in"?

    So, are thesde your statements, then:

    1. Only Adobe can make Photoshop plug-ins
    2. Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins

    I'm just trying to find out the depth of the hole you're sitting in.
     
    Sandman, Mar 17, 2014
  14. Nige Danton

    David Taylor Guest

    On 16/03/2014 19:50, Eric Stevens wrote:
    []
    It's both - you can plan on using RAW if you know that the scene /needs/
    it, but the impression I get from reports here is that often it is the
    saviour of inappropriate exposure.

    As printing needs here rarely exceed 30 cm (12 inches), and most images
    are for HD TV or Web display, my requirements are fortunately less
    stringent than yours. My Nikon and Sony cameras do a good job in-camera.
     
    David Taylor, Mar 17, 2014
  15. Nige Danton

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I'm exploring what I can do with A2 or thereabouts. :)
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 17, 2014
  16. A young lady who is 16 years old asked me to shoot a passport
    picture for her a couple weeks ago. She a neighbor that I've
    been photographing since she was 2 years old and I have
    literally a tens of thousands of pictures of her.

    We shot the passport photo, and of course I also shot a dozen or
    so more than that, just because people pictures are what I do.

    It turned out one of them has been printed at A1 size, both in a
    color version and in a BW version. I like the BW, but showed
    her mother an 8x10 in color too and she wanted a big one in
    color. Right now I'm willing to say that it is perhaps the most
    gorgeous photograph I've ever done of a young woman. It's a
    basic head shot, with a lot of emotional impact, of an extremely
    attractive young lady.

    That's why I shoot everything, even simple 2"x2" passport shots,
    in RAW mode. I think it is obvious that an image that good
    deserves a lot better processing than is even remotely possible
    if one starts with a JPEG out of the camera.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 17, 2014
  17. Nige Danton

    David Taylor Guest

    On 17/03/2014 09:12, YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:
    []
    Same here, generally, but I also like the "flashing highlights" display
    to indicate potential over-exposure.
     
    David Taylor, Mar 17, 2014
  18. Nige Danton

    David Taylor Guest

    Yes, I can appreciate that for what used to be called "artificial light"
    white balance can sometimes be rather incorrect, not to mention
    fluorescent light sources! I do sometimes need to correct that and can
    easily do so the the JPEG.

    Oh, now, with the Nikon 5200, ISO 3200 is quite OK. The D60 which I
    used for that image is a rather old model, but what I had at the time.
    Movement of the actors or performers can be another issue, requiring
    careful timing. I was lucky to be able to hand-hold at 1/30s with 200
    mm, but that's another advantage of having VR lenses. Interesting how
    we have ended up with different choices to meet our different
    photographic and operational needs.
     
    David Taylor, Mar 17, 2014
  19. Nige Danton

    David Taylor Guest

    On 17/03/2014 09:47, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    []
    An interesting story, Floyd! You are lucky to have a good model.

    Nevertheless, if the image content is of sufficient interest, even one
    taken on a phone may be good enough....
     
    David Taylor, Mar 17, 2014
  20. But this isn't something where "sufficient" is good enough. I
    do see it as one of the best photographs I've ever produced.

    What came out of the camera just had potential, and only because
    I had the RAW data from a Nikon D800. To realize the potential
    required significant post processing to make it more than good
    enough, and instead extend towards the best it could be. What
    it was out of the camera is only potential, and the "real thing"
    is on paper at 24"x36".

    The BW version is currently on public display. I can't imagine
    displaying a print that large taken on a cell phone...
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 17, 2014
    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.