If I had, the histogram would go all the way to the right. In this case you'll see that I haven't exposed right to the limits of the raw file. You can pull around the active points on the curve to achieve the output you want. The X-axis represents raw values, the Y-axis represents output (lightness) values. A more direct way of achieving it is the Tone curve tool, down on the bottom right. As I said that's all a bit over complex task for me. You can achieve this with some combination of the 'Exposure compensation', 'Highlight compression', 'Highlight compression threshold', 'Lightness' and 'Contrast' controls. What you're trying to do is to ensure that there is no 'spike' right at the right hand of the histogram, which indicates that a lot of raw values are getting mapped to white levels. It shows the distribution of levels in the processed image. You can see the histogram at the top right. It is too complex form my taste, but you can still do what you want. You want to be setting up the processing tool, not the post processing tool. PS can work on files processed by ACR, and Adobe has made the transition seamless, form an operational point of view, but the fact remains that the manipulations are being done on processed data, wherein the highlights are already clipped, unless you made the appropriate settings in ACR. 'Post processing' is performing manipulations on already processed files. The difference is this, 'processing' is the task of converting the raw file to something viewable, technically in a perceptual colour space. Tools like CaptureOne and RawTherapee are primarily 'processing' tools, whilst PS is primarily a 'post-processing' tool. There is 'processing' and 'post-processing'. For a start, best to understand what these different tools do. Is a lot better than PS (maybe I am not using the correct settings in PS): A raw file is essentially a file of numbers which represent exposure on a pixel by pixel basis. A lot of photographers have come to confuse the two, and that's one reason that they find it hard to answer the question that you are asking. What you are referring to here is 'lightness', which is a completely different thing. 'Exposure' means the light energy density at the sensor (a bit of a mouthful, which is why we have a special word for it) and is fixed when you press the button. Just a note here, neither processing nor post processing tools can affect exposure. Update: Capture One with linear response (and - exposure) I tried what Mark said (in Photoshop, Camera raw) but this happened:Ī decrease of the exposure control brings the clouds closer to the raw file, but now some portion of the sky (above the sun) is not clipped (it should be). For viewing of raw files I used RawDigger and Iris. Your writing riders after each instance makes it even harder for you to write and blocks the flow of text.įor raw editing I tried Rawtherapee, Photoshop, Capture One, etc. My main objection to 'RAW', is that it is unnecessary, and makes the text harder to write and read (as for instance, phrases like 'RAW headroom'). Incidentally, I suspect that it is I that have caused your conundrum on how to write 'raw'. Unfortunately, they have become very complex, offering myriads of controls for which it's impossible to understand the underlying rationale. Exactly how you do that depends on the tool. RawDigger just visualises the raw data, and doesn't care about ISO settings.Įssentially, you need to raise the while level. If you look at DxOMark's tests, the figure that they wrongly call 'Measured ISO' is actually a measure of the saturation exposure for that sensor, or if you like, the raw headroom. The reason for this is that the default processing parameters in raw processing software generally follows the manufacturer's ISO profile, that is, it places the white level some way short of the raw saturation level, and since there can be no level above 'white', clip everything else. What Iris shows (clouds looking fine for the most part): Why is that? Can it be changed to suit my demands? Can I make my own conversion, manually (RAW -raw- to some file format that contains a lot of info)? Thanks! I noticed that RAW (some forum members prefer to say raw) converters (tried a lot of them) tend to blow highlights that are perfectly fine in the original RAW (raw) files, even with neutral/lineal/etc.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |