Adventures in RAW

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Gary Eickmeier, Oct 16, 2005.

  1. I just shot an auto show in RAW. It was a lesson in how RAW works.

    I use Photoshop Elements 3, which works substantially like Photoshop in
    the RAW importing. The first thing you notice is that the import program
    will make its own "adjustments" to your foolish camera settings such as
    exposure and white balance. You can then adjust any of a number of
    factors to taste, but basically you will already see a respectable
    histogram and color balance and all of the rest of the adjustments.

    When I printed some of the pix, I noticed an unusual amount of noise in
    the sky and smooth colors. Through experimentation, what I discovered
    was happening was that if I underexposed the original RAW image, the
    import program was adjusting the exposure up, just as though I was
    increasing the ISO on my camera. All of my images were shot at ISO 80,
    but some were properly exposed and some were dark. Properly exposed, no
    noise. Dark, some noise. It could be somewhat lowered with luminance
    smoothing, but the basic amount and pattern of the noise is a product of
    how well you expose the original image, and nothing else. ISO has little
    to do with it. If you set a high ISO in your camera, all you are doing
    is reducing the exposure to the CCD, which increases noise. This
    underexposure can be processed to correct exposure either in camera or
    in the RAW import program, and that is all there is to that.

    Quite possibly, the camera will do some luminance smoothing (noise
    reduction) in processing the image for non-RAW modes, but I haven't yet
    experimented with RAW vs TIFF at various exposures.

    So RAW is quite flexible, but not magic, and it does NOT replace getting
    the exposure right in the first place.

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Oct 16, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gary Eickmeier

    Bob Williams Guest

    Gary Eickmeier wrote:

    > I just shot an auto show in RAW. It was a lesson in how RAW works.
    >
    > I use Photoshop Elements 3, which works substantially like Photoshop in
    > the RAW importing. The first thing you notice is that the import program
    > will make its own "adjustments" to your foolish camera settings such as
    > exposure and white balance. You can then adjust any of a number of
    > factors to taste, but basically you will already see a respectable
    > histogram and color balance and all of the rest of the adjustments.
    >
    > When I printed some of the pix, I noticed an unusual amount of noise in
    > the sky and smooth colors. Through experimentation, what I discovered
    > was happening was that if I underexposed the original RAW image, the
    > import program was adjusting the exposure up, just as though I was
    > increasing the ISO on my camera. All of my images were shot at ISO 80,
    > but some were properly exposed and some were dark. Properly exposed, no
    > noise. Dark, some noise. It could be somewhat lowered with luminance
    > smoothing, but the basic amount and pattern of the noise is a product of
    > how well you expose the original image, and nothing else. ISO has little
    > to do with it. If you set a high ISO in your camera, all you are doing
    > is reducing the exposure to the CCD, which increases noise. This
    > underexposure can be processed to correct exposure either in camera or
    > in the RAW import program, and that is all there is to that.
    >
    > Quite possibly, the camera will do some luminance smoothing (noise
    > reduction) in processing the image for non-RAW modes, but I haven't yet
    > experimented with RAW vs TIFF at various exposures.
    >
    > So RAW is quite flexible, but not magic, and it does NOT replace getting
    > the exposure right in the first place.
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier


    Thanks for that sharp observation.
    As we used to say in the early days of computers:
    "Garbage in .....Garbage out.
    We can massage the data 'till we are blue in the face.
    If the information is not captured in the first place, RAW Conversion is
    not going to create it for us.
    Bob Williams
    Bob Williams, Oct 16, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bob Williams wrote:
    > Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    >
    >> I just shot an auto show in RAW. It was a lesson in how RAW works.
    >>
    >> I use Photoshop Elements 3, which works substantially like Photoshop
    >> in the RAW importing. The first thing you notice is that the import
    >> program will make its own "adjustments" to your foolish camera
    >> settings such as exposure and white balance. You can then adjust any
    >> of a number of factors to taste, but basically you will already see a
    >> respectable histogram and color balance and all of the rest of the
    >> adjustments.
    >>
    >> When I printed some of the pix, I noticed an unusual amount of noise
    >> in the sky and smooth colors. Through experimentation, what I
    >> discovered was happening was that if I underexposed the original RAW
    >> image, the import program was adjusting the exposure up, just as
    >> though I was increasing the ISO on my camera. All of my images were
    >> shot at ISO 80, but some were properly exposed and some were dark.
    >> Properly exposed, no noise. Dark, some noise. It could be somewhat
    >> lowered with luminance smoothing, but the basic amount and pattern of
    >> the noise is a product of how well you expose the original image, and
    >> nothing else. ISO has little to do with it. If you set a high ISO in
    >> your camera, all you are doing is reducing the exposure to the CCD,
    >> which increases noise. This underexposure can be processed to correct
    >> exposure either in camera or in the RAW import program, and that is
    >> all there is to that.
    >>
    >> Quite possibly, the camera will do some luminance smoothing (noise
    >> reduction) in processing the image for non-RAW modes, but I haven't
    >> yet experimented with RAW vs TIFF at various exposures.
    >>
    >> So RAW is quite flexible, but not magic, and it does NOT replace
    >> getting the exposure right in the first place.
    >>
    >> Gary Eickmeier

    >
    >
    > Thanks for that sharp observation.
    > As we used to say in the early days of computers:
    > "Garbage in .....Garbage out.
    > We can massage the data 'till we are blue in the face.
    > If the information is not captured in the first place, RAW Conversion is
    > not going to create it for us.
    > Bob Williams


    Well - I'm glad someone read it!

    Thanks Bob

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Oct 17, 2005
    #3
  4. Gary Eickmeier

    Ed Guest

    What camera are you doing this with?

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:2XE4f.17546$...
    >
    >
    > Bob Williams wrote:
    > > Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    > >
    > >> I just shot an auto show in RAW. It was a lesson in how RAW works.
    > >>
    > >> I use Photoshop Elements 3, which works substantially like Photoshop
    > >> in the RAW importing. The first thing you notice is that the import
    > >> program will make its own "adjustments" to your foolish camera
    > >> settings such as exposure and white balance. You can then adjust any
    > >> of a number of factors to taste, but basically you will already see a
    > >> respectable histogram and color balance and all of the rest of the
    > >> adjustments.
    > >>
    > >> When I printed some of the pix, I noticed an unusual amount of noise
    > >> in the sky and smooth colors. Through experimentation, what I
    > >> discovered was happening was that if I underexposed the original RAW
    > >> image, the import program was adjusting the exposure up, just as
    > >> though I was increasing the ISO on my camera. All of my images were
    > >> shot at ISO 80, but some were properly exposed and some were dark.
    > >> Properly exposed, no noise. Dark, some noise. It could be somewhat
    > >> lowered with luminance smoothing, but the basic amount and pattern of
    > >> the noise is a product of how well you expose the original image, and
    > >> nothing else. ISO has little to do with it. If you set a high ISO in
    > >> your camera, all you are doing is reducing the exposure to the CCD,
    > >> which increases noise. This underexposure can be processed to correct
    > >> exposure either in camera or in the RAW import program, and that is
    > >> all there is to that.
    > >>
    > >> Quite possibly, the camera will do some luminance smoothing (noise
    > >> reduction) in processing the image for non-RAW modes, but I haven't
    > >> yet experimented with RAW vs TIFF at various exposures.
    > >>
    > >> So RAW is quite flexible, but not magic, and it does NOT replace
    > >> getting the exposure right in the first place.
    > >>
    > >> Gary Eickmeier

    > >
    > >
    > > Thanks for that sharp observation.
    > > As we used to say in the early days of computers:
    > > "Garbage in .....Garbage out.
    > > We can massage the data 'till we are blue in the face.
    > > If the information is not captured in the first place, RAW Conversion is
    > > not going to create it for us.
    > > Bob Williams

    >
    > Well - I'm glad someone read it!
    >
    > Thanks Bob
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier
    Ed, Oct 17, 2005
    #4
  5. Gary Eickmeier

    Dirty Harry Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:LWt4f.16347$...
    > I just shot an auto show in RAW. It was a lesson in how RAW works.
    >
    > I use Photoshop Elements 3, which works substantially like Photoshop in
    > the RAW importing. The first thing you notice is that the import program
    > will make its own "adjustments" to your foolish camera settings such as
    > exposure and white balance. You can then adjust any of a number of
    > factors to taste, but basically you will already see a respectable
    > histogram and color balance and all of the rest of the adjustments.
    >
    > When I printed some of the pix, I noticed an unusual amount of noise in
    > the sky and smooth colors. Through experimentation, what I discovered
    > was happening was that if I underexposed the original RAW image, the
    > import program was adjusting the exposure up, just as though I was
    > increasing the ISO on my camera. All of my images were shot at ISO 80,
    > but some were properly exposed and some were dark. Properly exposed, no
    > noise. Dark, some noise. It could be somewhat lowered with luminance
    > smoothing, but the basic amount and pattern of the noise is a product of
    > how well you expose the original image, and nothing else. ISO has little
    > to do with it. If you set a high ISO in your camera, all you are doing
    > is reducing the exposure to the CCD, which increases noise. This
    > underexposure can be processed to correct exposure either in camera or
    > in the RAW import program, and that is all there is to that.
    >
    > Quite possibly, the camera will do some luminance smoothing (noise
    > reduction) in processing the image for non-RAW modes, but I haven't yet
    > experimented with RAW vs TIFF at various exposures.
    >
    > So RAW is quite flexible, but not magic, and it does NOT replace getting
    > the exposure right in the first place.
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier


    I really really hate how the browser in PS adjusts all the raw files for
    you. My intentionally dark pictures are "adjusted" to what CS thinks is
    right, which is no where near where I want most of the time. It really
    makes me angry when I click on a folder full of raw files and I have to sit
    there forever while the computer crunches away at distorting my raw files.
    If anyone could tell me how to stop adobe bridge from doing this I would be
    grateful!!!
    Dirty Harry, Oct 17, 2005
    #5
  6. Gary Eickmeier

    Sonrise Guest

    "Dirty Harry" <> wrote in message
    news:2RF4f.208055$oW2.157375@pd7tw1no...
    >
    > "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    > news:LWt4f.16347$...
    >> I just shot an auto show in RAW. It was a lesson in how RAW works.
    >>
    >> I use Photoshop Elements 3, which works substantially like Photoshop in
    >> the RAW importing. The first thing you notice is that the import program
    >> will make its own "adjustments" to your foolish camera settings such as
    >> exposure and white balance. You can then adjust any of a number of
    >> factors to taste, but basically you will already see a respectable
    >> histogram and color balance and all of the rest of the adjustments.
    >>
    >> When I printed some of the pix, I noticed an unusual amount of noise in
    >> the sky and smooth colors. Through experimentation, what I discovered
    >> was happening was that if I underexposed the original RAW image, the
    >> import program was adjusting the exposure up, just as though I was
    >> increasing the ISO on my camera. All of my images were shot at ISO 80,
    >> but some were properly exposed and some were dark. Properly exposed, no
    >> noise. Dark, some noise. It could be somewhat lowered with luminance
    >> smoothing, but the basic amount and pattern of the noise is a product of
    >> how well you expose the original image, and nothing else. ISO has little
    >> to do with it. If you set a high ISO in your camera, all you are doing
    >> is reducing the exposure to the CCD, which increases noise. This
    >> underexposure can be processed to correct exposure either in camera or
    >> in the RAW import program, and that is all there is to that.
    >>
    >> Quite possibly, the camera will do some luminance smoothing (noise
    >> reduction) in processing the image for non-RAW modes, but I haven't yet
    >> experimented with RAW vs TIFF at various exposures.
    >>
    >> So RAW is quite flexible, but not magic, and it does NOT replace getting
    >> the exposure right in the first place.
    >>
    >> Gary Eickmeier

    >
    > I really really hate how the browser in PS adjusts all the raw files for
    > you. My intentionally dark pictures are "adjusted" to what CS thinks is
    > right, which is no where near where I want most of the time. It really
    > makes me angry when I click on a folder full of raw files and I have to
    > sit
    > there forever while the computer crunches away at distorting my raw files.
    > If anyone could tell me how to stop adobe bridge from doing this I would
    > be
    > grateful!!!
    >
    >


    Believe it or not, I read the solution to this problem in the November
    Shutterbug. The author was reviewing CS2 and noted the same "automatic"
    adjustments. It has to be turned off in ACR. Here are his comments:

    "As I delved deeper into this I found that although not in Bridge itself,
    there is a switch to turn off the auto-adjustment processing. A user has to
    select a raw file and launch Camera Raw. Then at the top of the dialog on
    the right there is a Camera Setting window which, in default mode, reads:
    [Camera Raw Defaults]. To the right of that is an arrow, which when clicked
    opens a dialog menu. About halfway down the menu is: Use Auto Adjustments.
    If you uncheck this option and then go down and click on "Reset Camera Raw
    Defaults," the next time Camera Raw is launched the four Auto Adjust
    functions will be off with no sheck mark in the associated boxes. In
    addtion, thumbnails of Camera Raw files in Bridge will be generated without
    any exposure or other auto-adjustment, so a bracketed series of exposures
    will actually reflect the different exposures of each shot. Why Adboe chose
    to put the auto-adjust on/off switch in "Camera Settings" in Camera Raw
    makes my head itch. I wonder why it is so hidden rather than being in
    General Preferences."

    "Adobe's Creative Suite 2 - What's In Photoshop 9.0 For Photographers,"
    David B. Brooks, Shutterbug, November 2005, p. 106.


    There's no mention for Elements 3.0, which has a very limited Camera Raw
    interface.

    HTH

    Sonrise
    Sonrise, Oct 17, 2005
    #6
  7. Gary Eickmeier

    Conrad Guest

    Hi,

    I'm using a Mac with PS CS2. When importing RAW files I can switch
    (after loading file in) to no adjustments of picture by using CMD U.
    It's interesting and somewhat informative to see before and after.

    While the Bridge program is separate in PS CS2, I was wondering if the
    same is true in PSE3 or PSE4 when loading in RAW files (i.e. is there a
    'mini-bridge' program at work)?

    Best,

    Conrad
    Camp Sherman, Oregon
    Conrad, Oct 17, 2005
    #7
  8. Gary Eickmeier

    Sonrise Guest

    "Conrad" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I'm using a Mac with PS CS2. When importing RAW files I can switch
    > (after loading file in) to no adjustments of picture by using CMD U.
    > It's interesting and somewhat informative to see before and after.
    >
    > While the Bridge program is separate in PS CS2, I was wondering if the
    > same is true in PSE3 or PSE4 when loading in RAW files (i.e. is there a
    > 'mini-bridge' program at work)?
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Conrad
    > Camp Sherman, Oregon
    >


    I have been using PSE3 since February, and am now evaluating the CS2 trial
    version. PSE3 uses the Organizer instead of Bridge. Personally, I like
    Bridge much better as it allows easy printing of contact sheets, as well as
    ranking and sorting, none of which are readily available in PSE3. So, it
    appears I will soon be licensed to use both programs, although I'm finding
    the $400 upgrade price a little hard to swallow. Still, I'd rather spend the
    money and get a full professional product than take a chance on PSE4. CS2
    just seems to have a lot of features I can take advantage of.

    Sonrise
    Sonrise, Oct 17, 2005
    #8
  9. Gary Eickmeier

    Dirty Harry Guest

    "Sonrise" <> wrote in message
    news:EhL4f.15601$...
    >
    > "Dirty Harry" <> wrote in message
    > news:2RF4f.208055$oW2.157375@pd7tw1no...
    > >
    > > "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    > > news:LWt4f.16347$...
    > >> I just shot an auto show in RAW. It was a lesson in how RAW works.
    > >>
    > >> I use Photoshop Elements 3, which works substantially like Photoshop in
    > >> the RAW importing. The first thing you notice is that the import

    program
    > >> will make its own "adjustments" to your foolish camera settings such as
    > >> exposure and white balance. You can then adjust any of a number of
    > >> factors to taste, but basically you will already see a respectable
    > >> histogram and color balance and all of the rest of the adjustments.
    > >>
    > >> When I printed some of the pix, I noticed an unusual amount of noise in
    > >> the sky and smooth colors. Through experimentation, what I discovered
    > >> was happening was that if I underexposed the original RAW image, the
    > >> import program was adjusting the exposure up, just as though I was
    > >> increasing the ISO on my camera. All of my images were shot at ISO 80,
    > >> but some were properly exposed and some were dark. Properly exposed, no
    > >> noise. Dark, some noise. It could be somewhat lowered with luminance
    > >> smoothing, but the basic amount and pattern of the noise is a product

    of
    > >> how well you expose the original image, and nothing else. ISO has

    little
    > >> to do with it. If you set a high ISO in your camera, all you are doing
    > >> is reducing the exposure to the CCD, which increases noise. This
    > >> underexposure can be processed to correct exposure either in camera or
    > >> in the RAW import program, and that is all there is to that.
    > >>
    > >> Quite possibly, the camera will do some luminance smoothing (noise
    > >> reduction) in processing the image for non-RAW modes, but I haven't yet
    > >> experimented with RAW vs TIFF at various exposures.
    > >>
    > >> So RAW is quite flexible, but not magic, and it does NOT replace

    getting
    > >> the exposure right in the first place.
    > >>
    > >> Gary Eickmeier

    > >
    > > I really really hate how the browser in PS adjusts all the raw files for
    > > you. My intentionally dark pictures are "adjusted" to what CS thinks is
    > > right, which is no where near where I want most of the time. It really
    > > makes me angry when I click on a folder full of raw files and I have to
    > > sit
    > > there forever while the computer crunches away at distorting my raw

    files.
    > > If anyone could tell me how to stop adobe bridge from doing this I would
    > > be
    > > grateful!!!
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Believe it or not, I read the solution to this problem in the November
    > Shutterbug. The author was reviewing CS2 and noted the same "automatic"
    > adjustments. It has to be turned off in ACR. Here are his comments:
    >
    > "As I delved deeper into this I found that although not in Bridge itself,
    > there is a switch to turn off the auto-adjustment processing. A user has

    to
    > select a raw file and launch Camera Raw. Then at the top of the dialog on
    > the right there is a Camera Setting window which, in default mode, reads:
    > [Camera Raw Defaults]. To the right of that is an arrow, which when

    clicked
    > opens a dialog menu. About halfway down the menu is: Use Auto Adjustments.
    > If you uncheck this option and then go down and click on "Reset Camera Raw
    > Defaults," the next time Camera Raw is launched the four Auto Adjust
    > functions will be off with no sheck mark in the associated boxes. In
    > addtion, thumbnails of Camera Raw files in Bridge will be generated

    without
    > any exposure or other auto-adjustment, so a bracketed series of exposures
    > will actually reflect the different exposures of each shot. Why Adboe

    chose
    > to put the auto-adjust on/off switch in "Camera Settings" in Camera Raw
    > makes my head itch. I wonder why it is so hidden rather than being in
    > General Preferences."
    >
    > "Adobe's Creative Suite 2 - What's In Photoshop 9.0 For Photographers,"
    > David B. Brooks, Shutterbug, November 2005, p. 106.
    >
    >
    > There's no mention for Elements 3.0, which has a very limited Camera Raw
    > interface.
    >
    > HTH
    >
    > Sonrise
    >


    Thanks man, you rock!
    Dirty Harry, Oct 17, 2005
    #9
  10. Gary Eickmeier

    Guest

    There may be an additional difference when you set the ISO higher in
    the camera. The camera most likely sets the highest A/D output to some
    relative fraction of the sensor exposure. For example if the ISO is set
    to 200 vs. 100 (assuming 100 is the 'normal' 'full well' sensor
    output), the A/D range is set such that the maximum count corresponds
    to a 'half full' pixel value. This way you get a smooth gradation over
    the ISO 200 exposure range. If this is done after the fact (in RAW
    processing) you may end up with 'missing counts' since the A/D full
    count would have been set for 'full well' sensor values and you are
    stretching it out after the fact. I don't know if this is actually what
    happens, but it makes sense that that is what the camera is doing
    internally, otherwise there would be no point in having an ISO setting
    that cannot be changed after the fact as is for example white balance.


    Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    > I just shot an auto show in RAW. It was a lesson in how RAW works.
    >
    > I use Photoshop Elements 3, which works substantially like Photoshop in
    > the RAW importing. The first thing you notice is that the import program
    > will make its own "adjustments" to your foolish camera settings such as
    > exposure and white balance. You can then adjust any of a number of
    > factors to taste, but basically you will already see a respectable
    > histogram and color balance and all of the rest of the adjustments.
    >
    > When I printed some of the pix, I noticed an unusual amount of noise in
    > the sky and smooth colors. Through experimentation, what I discovered
    > was happening was that if I underexposed the original RAW image, the
    > import program was adjusting the exposure up, just as though I was
    > increasing the ISO on my camera. All of my images were shot at ISO 80,
    > but some were properly exposed and some were dark. Properly exposed, no
    > noise. Dark, some noise. It could be somewhat lowered with luminance
    > smoothing, but the basic amount and pattern of the noise is a product of
    > how well you expose the original image, and nothing else. ISO has little
    > to do with it. If you set a high ISO in your camera, all you are doing
    > is reducing the exposure to the CCD, which increases noise. This
    > underexposure can be processed to correct exposure either in camera or
    > in the RAW import program, and that is all there is to that.
    >
    > Quite possibly, the camera will do some luminance smoothing (noise
    > reduction) in processing the image for non-RAW modes, but I haven't yet
    > experimented with RAW vs TIFF at various exposures.
    >
    > So RAW is quite flexible, but not magic, and it does NOT replace getting
    > the exposure right in the first place.
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier
    , Oct 17, 2005
    #10
  11. Ed wrote:
    > What camera are you doing this with?


    Oly E20.

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Oct 18, 2005
    #11
  12. wrote:

    > There may be an additional difference when you set the ISO higher in
    > the camera. The camera most likely sets the highest A/D output to some
    > relative fraction of the sensor exposure. For example if the ISO is set
    > to 200 vs. 100 (assuming 100 is the 'normal' 'full well' sensor
    > output), the A/D range is set such that the maximum count corresponds
    > to a 'half full' pixel value. This way you get a smooth gradation over
    > the ISO 200 exposure range. If this is done after the fact (in RAW
    > processing) you may end up with 'missing counts' since the A/D full
    > count would have been set for 'full well' sensor values and you are
    > stretching it out after the fact. I don't know if this is actually what
    > happens, but it makes sense that that is what the camera is doing
    > internally, otherwise there would be no point in having an ISO setting
    > that cannot be changed after the fact as is for example white balance.


    I have no idea. I just think that the image that is recorded on the
    sensor is amplified if you underexpose or set a high ISO. Which makes me
    wonder what RAW looks like at ISO 3200 (!).

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Oct 18, 2005
    #12
  13. On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:06:27 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Sonrise"
    <> wrote:


    >I have been using PSE3 since February, and am now evaluating the CS2 trial
    >version. PSE3 uses the Organizer instead of Bridge. Personally, I like
    >Bridge much better as it allows easy printing of contact sheets, as well as
    >ranking and sorting, none of which are readily available in PSE3. So, it
    >appears I will soon be licensed to use both programs, although I'm finding
    >the $400 upgrade price a little hard to swallow. Still, I'd rather spend the
    >money and get a full professional product than take a chance on PSE4. CS2
    >just seems to have a lot of features I can take advantage of.


    I don't care to use the Organizer in PSE3 at all and would love to find a
    hack to disable the setting to include files in the Save as of the editor
    by default, instead of having to uncheck this box for every save.
    ----------
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Oct 18, 2005
    #13
  14. Gary Eickmeier

    Conrad Guest

    Hi Ed,

    >>I don't care to use the Organizer in PSE3 at all and would love to find a

    hack to disable the setting to include files in the Save as of the
    editor by default, instead of having to uncheck this box for every
    save.<<

    I'm with you. I find the Organizer a pain in the a-- in PSE3 (Windows).
    The Mac version (without the Organizer) is much cleaner and smoother to
    work with - at least on the size monitor screens I have to work with.

    Best,

    Conrad
    Camp Sherman, Oregon
    Conrad, Oct 18, 2005
    #14
  15. Gary Eickmeier

    Alan Meyer Guest

    Sonrise wrote:
    > ... Personally, I like
    > Bridge much better as it allows easy printing of contact sheets, as well as
    > ranking and sorting, none of which are readily available in PSE3.


    You might look at Irfanview for printing "contact sheets". It is
    fairly configurable, and does some kinds of sorting.

    Alan

    P.S., I wonder if, 100 years from now when no one remembers
    what contact printing was, if they'll still call these
    "contact sheets".
    Alan Meyer, Oct 18, 2005
    #15
  16. Gary Eickmeier

    Guest

    "I just think that the image that is recorded on the
    > sensor is amplified if you underexpose or set a high ISO"


    I believe you are correct. However, (I think) that the amplification
    occurs prior to the A/D conversion when the camera is set to a higher
    ISO. This should result in less (although I don't know how much) noise
    and smoother transitions between levels.

    Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    > wrote:
    >
    > > There may be an additional difference when you set the ISO higher in
    > > the camera. The camera most likely sets the highest A/D output to some
    > > relative fraction of the sensor exposure. For example if the ISO is set
    > > to 200 vs. 100 (assuming 100 is the 'normal' 'full well' sensor
    > > output), the A/D range is set such that the maximum count corresponds
    > > to a 'half full' pixel value. This way you get a smooth gradation over
    > > the ISO 200 exposure range. If this is done after the fact (in RAW
    > > processing) you may end up with 'missing counts' since the A/D full
    > > count would have been set for 'full well' sensor values and you are
    > > stretching it out after the fact. I don't know if this is actually what
    > > happens, but it makes sense that that is what the camera is doing
    > > internally, otherwise there would be no point in having an ISO setting
    > > that cannot be changed after the fact as is for example white balance.

    >
    > I have no idea. I just think that the image that is recorded on the
    > sensor is amplified if you underexpose or set a high ISO. Which makes me
    > wonder what RAW looks like at ISO 3200 (!).
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier
    , Oct 18, 2005
    #16
  17. Gary Eickmeier

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On 18 Oct 2005 06:56:43 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Conrad"
    <> wrote:
    >I'm with you. I find the Organizer a pain in the a-- in PSE3 (Windows).
    >The Mac version (without the Organizer) is much cleaner and smoother to
    >work with - at least on the size monitor screens I have to work with.


    I never use it I tend drop files on the Desktop icon to go to the
    editor directly or from the stupid main menu page to the editor if
    opening from the desktop.

    What's really annoying given I will never use the organizer is I don't
    want to add new files to it by default when I do saves from the
    editor. It's enough of a PITA that if I can't eventually come up with
    a way to disable this default setting PSE3 isn't going to be my main
    editor.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
    Ed Ruf, Oct 18, 2005
    #17
  18. "Alan Meyer" <> writes:

    > P.S., I wonder if, 100 years from now when no one remembers
    > what contact printing was, if they'll still call these
    > "contact sheets".


    Maybe, but since that kind of little photo is called a "thumbnail" in
    lots of contacts, I wouldn't be surprised to see the terminology
    migrate towards "thumbnail sheet".

    Alternatively, people will be completely croggled at the concept of
    bothering to make pages of hardcopy when the photos are so much more
    easily viewed online.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 18, 2005
    #18
  19. Gary Eickmeier

    Alan Meyer Guest

    wrote:

    > There may be an additional difference when you set the ISO
    > higher in the camera. The camera most likely sets the highest
    > A/D output to some relative fraction of the sensor exposure.
    > For example if the ISO is set to 200 vs. 100 (assuming 100 is
    > the 'normal' 'full well' sensor output), the A/D range is set
    > such that the maximum count corresponds to a 'half full' pixel
    > value. This way you get a smooth gradation over the ISO 200
    > exposure range. If this is done after the fact (in RAW
    > processing) you may end up with 'missing counts' since the A/D
    > full count would have been set for 'full well' sensor values
    > and you are stretching it out after the fact. I don't know if
    > this is actually what happens, but it makes sense that that is
    > what the camera is doing internally, otherwise there would be
    > no point in having an ISO setting that cannot be changed after
    > the fact as is for example white balance.


    Bear in mind here that the vast majority of owners of digital
    cameras do not do any post-processing in Photoshop or any other
    image editor. I suspect this is true even for the consumer level
    DSLRs (e.g., those costing under, say, $1,500.) So the camera
    manufacturer may very well want to do things entirely in the
    camera that some users would be able to do in a more
    sophisticated fashion with an image editor.

    But leaving that aside, although I think I see what you're trying
    to do here, I'm not sure your approach does what you think it
    should do. Whether the sensor values are doubled before A/D
    conversion (amplification), or the A/D converter only reads the
    lower half of the available bandwidth, but reads it with twice
    the discrimination, I would think the effect on noise would be
    exactly the same. Either way, I would think the noise values are
    doubled. Either way, the number of bits given to any particular
    photosite output is the same. I don't see why there should be
    any more smoothing that way than the amplification way.

    Also, in either approach, I would think the camera software
    designer would want to modify the response curve rather than
    crudely double the signal level or clip the top half of the
    conversion. It might be best to boost the lower light levels and
    reduce response to the upper ones, but maybe not just crudely
    chop off the top bit(s) as it were.

    But I'm no expert on this stuff. I could easily be wrong on all
    counts, and I encourage everyone to correct me.

    Alan
    Alan Meyer, Oct 18, 2005
    #19
  20. Alan Meyer wrote:

    > Also, in either approach, I would think the camera software
    > designer would want to modify the response curve rather than
    > crudely double the signal level or clip the top half of the
    > conversion. It might be best to boost the lower light levels and
    > reduce response to the upper ones, but maybe not just crudely
    > chop off the top bit(s) as it were.
    >
    > But I'm no expert on this stuff. I could easily be wrong on all
    > counts, and I encourage everyone to correct me.


    What is interesting to me, and the main reason I brought it up in the
    first place, is whether RAW is such a big advantage. We all know that
    Canon is really good at producing low noise images at high ISO. So what
    happens if you shoot in RAW with one of these beauties? Do you screw
    yourself out of the noise processing that is built in with TIF or JPEG?

    Maybe the answer is to go with Canon's RAW converter rather than
    Photoshop's. I have no idea. Anybody?

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Oct 18, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jim Dalton
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,607
    Jim Dalton
    Jul 23, 2003
  2. Scot Gardner
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,584
    Derek Janssen
    Jul 1, 2003
  3. anthony
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    563
    Italo
    Sep 21, 2003
  4. anthony

    Adventures of Robin Hood image dither?

    anthony, Oct 4, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    438
    Gary Quinton
    Oct 5, 2003
  5. J. Alfred Prufrock

    "Adventures of Ford Fairlane" at Wal-Mart for $5.88

    J. Alfred Prufrock, Nov 24, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    652
    Fred Farkle
    Feb 15, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page