best RAW converter to recover blown / overexposed highlights

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by digiboy, Oct 2, 2004.

  1. digiboy

    digiboy Guest

    Hi All

    As above really! What the best RAW converter to recover blown /
    overexposed highlights.

    Cheers

    Digi
     
    digiboy, Oct 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. digiboy

    macro Guest

    I've had good results from Breeze Browser, but nothing can save a totally
    overexposed shot.

    digiboy wrote:
    > Hi All
    >
    > As above really! What the best RAW converter to recover blown /
    > overexposed highlights.
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    > Digi
     
    macro, Oct 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. digiboy

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    digiboy <> wrote:

    > As above really! What the best RAW converter to recover blown /
    > overexposed highlights.


    I haven't compared them, so I can't say which is "best", but Photoshop
    Camera Raw is pretty good at pulling *something* out of blown highlights,
    as long as all three channels aren't clipped, of course (if they are, then
    there is no hope).


    --
    Jeremy |
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Oct 3, 2004
    #3
  4. digiboy

    Mark M Guest

    "digiboy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi All
    >
    > As above really! What the best RAW converter to recover blown /
    > overexposed highlights.
    >
    > Cheers


    C1 (Capture One) and Photoshop CS both do a great job at this.
    It really is amazing what poorly metered shots you can rescue.
     
    Mark M, Oct 3, 2004
    #4
  5. digiboy

    MB Guest

    The best RAW converter by a long way is Compact One by Phase One. It's not
    freeware but it does a far better job than anything else currently
    available.
    Regards


    "digiboy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi All
    >
    > As above really! What the best RAW converter to recover blown /
    > overexposed highlights.
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    > Digi
     
    MB, Oct 3, 2004
    #5
  6. digiboy

    Mark M Guest

    "MB" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The best RAW converter by a long way is Compact One by Phase One. It's not
    > freeware but it does a far better job than anything else currently
    > available.
    > Regards



    Don't you mean "Capture One"??

    >
    >
    > "digiboy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Hi All
    > >
    > > As above really! What the best RAW converter to recover blown /
    > > overexposed highlights.
    > >
    > > Cheers
    > >
    > > Digi

    >
    >
     
    Mark M, Oct 3, 2004
    #6
  7. Mark M wrote:
    > "MB" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>The best RAW converter by a long way is Compact One by Phase One. It's not
    >>freeware but it does a far better job than anything else currently
    >>available.

    >
    >
    > Don't you mean "Capture One"??
    >

    Could you define "best" a bit? And by what measures does it do anything
    "far better"?

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Oct 3, 2004
    #7
  8. digiboy

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (digiboy) wrote:

    >Hi All
    >
    >As above really! What the best RAW converter to recover blown /
    >overexposed highlights.


    Capture One and Photoshop CS are the best, in my experience, although
    the latest version of Adobe Camera RAW renders some grey highlight
    levels with a greenish tint.

    This probably has to do with a flaw in the way that it interprets
    information from the remaining channel(s) in pixels where one or more
    channels clip in the RAW data. Both programs treat these pixels as
    greyscale, but ACR 2.2 makes certain levels greenish. There really
    should be more user control to guide assumptions on clipped pixels.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 3, 2004
    #8
  9. digiboy

    Guest

    In message <h7M7d.12871$Hz.4901@fed1read04>,
    "Mark M" <> wrote:

    >
    >"digiboy" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Hi All
    >>
    >> As above really! What the best RAW converter to recover blown /
    >> overexposed highlights.
    >>
    >> Cheers

    >
    >C1 (Capture One) and Photoshop CS both do a great job at this.
    >It really is amazing what poorly metered shots you can rescue.


    It is also nice that if you know this headroom is there, you can use it
    to your advantage. The noise in the 10D due to amplification and
    readout is low up until ISO 400, so if you are in a situation where you
    have a very low contrast subject, and were going to shoot at ISO 100,
    you might shoot at ISO 400 instead and "overexpose" by two stops, to get
    two extra bits of precision in the image, with almost no extra noise.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 3, 2004
    #9
  10. >As above really! What the best RAW converter to recover blown /
    >overexposed highlights.


    You can use a RAW converter to convert the file to a 3*16 Bit format (e.g.
    as TIFF or JP2, e.g. Thumbs + 2000 can do this). This does not lose any
    brightness resolution and you can use a 16 bit aware appropriate editor
    program (e.g. within Thumbs+) to tweak the lightness.

    -Michael
     
    Michael Schnell, Oct 3, 2004
    #10
  11. digiboy

    Mark M Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > In message <h7M7d.12871$Hz.4901@fed1read04>,
    > "Mark M" <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"digiboy" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> Hi All
    > >>
    > >> As above really! What the best RAW converter to recover blown /
    > >> overexposed highlights.
    > >>
    > >> Cheers

    > >
    > >C1 (Capture One) and Photoshop CS both do a great job at this.
    > >It really is amazing what poorly metered shots you can rescue.

    >
    > It is also nice that if you know this headroom is there, you can use it
    > to your advantage. The noise in the 10D due to amplification and
    > readout is low up until ISO 400, so if you are in a situation where you
    > have a very low contrast subject, and were going to shoot at ISO 100,
    > you might shoot at ISO 400 instead and "overexpose" by two stops, to get
    > two extra bits of precision in the image, with almost no extra noise.


    Yes.
    Sort of like pushing and pulling film...
     
    Mark M, Oct 4, 2004
    #11
  12. digiboy

    Jer Guest

    Mark M wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:eek:...
    >
    >>In message <h7M7d.12871$Hz.4901@fed1read04>,
    >>"Mark M" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"digiboy" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>
    >>>>Hi All
    >>>>
    >>>>As above really! What the best RAW converter to recover blown /
    >>>>overexposed highlights.
    >>>>
    >>>>Cheers
    >>>
    >>>C1 (Capture One) and Photoshop CS both do a great job at this.
    >>>It really is amazing what poorly metered shots you can rescue.

    >>
    >>It is also nice that if you know this headroom is there, you can use it
    >>to your advantage. The noise in the 10D due to amplification and
    >>readout is low up until ISO 400, so if you are in a situation where you
    >>have a very low contrast subject, and were going to shoot at ISO 100,
    >>you might shoot at ISO 400 instead and "overexpose" by two stops, to get
    >>two extra bits of precision in the image, with almost no extra noise.

    >
    >
    > Yes.
    > Sort of like pushing and pulling film...



    Just sitting here with my current level of swag, that sounds exactly
    like what one would do for film. And is exactly the reason why I
    sometimes demand processing be done "straight up". If I'm going to
    spend thousands of dollars and risk my life to capture an image, they
    don't want to know what will happen if they dink around with it.

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
     
    Jer, Oct 4, 2004
    #12
  13. digiboy

    MB Guest

    "Mark M" <> wrote in message
    news:eKN7d.12881$Hz.11213@fed1read04...
    >
    > "MB" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > The best RAW converter by a long way is Compact One by Phase One. It's

    not
    > > freeware but it does a far better job than anything else currently
    > > available.
    > > Regards

    >
    >
    > Don't you mean "Capture One"??
    >

    Sorry! Yes I mean Capture One, I was typing in a hurry.
     
    MB, Oct 4, 2004
    #13
  14. digiboy

    MB Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:nOU7d.102946$wV.17254@attbi_s54...
    > Mark M wrote:
    > > "MB" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >
    > >>The best RAW converter by a long way is Compact One by Phase One. It's

    not
    > >>freeware but it does a far better job than anything else currently
    > >>available.

    > >
    > >
    > > Don't you mean "Capture One"??
    > >

    > Could you define "best" a bit? And by what measures does it do anything
    > "far better"?
    >

    Capture One's workflow is very logical and productive. It works in realtime
    so you see your results onscreen. It is far more flexible when it comes to
    adjusting colour temperatures, exposure etc. It also has very good file
    management (although this is a feature I rarely use because I manage using
    ACDSEE). To sum up - it takes a lot of the guesswork out of RAW processing,
    put you in control and produces very good pictures.
     
    MB, Oct 4, 2004
    #14
  15. digiboy

    Mark M Guest

    "MB" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    > news:nOU7d.102946$wV.17254@attbi_s54...
    > > Mark M wrote:
    > > > "MB" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > >
    > > >>The best RAW converter by a long way is Compact One by Phase One. It's

    > not
    > > >>freeware but it does a far better job than anything else currently
    > > >>available.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Don't you mean "Capture One"??
    > > >

    > > Could you define "best" a bit? And by what measures does it do anything
    > > "far better"?
    > >

    > Capture One's workflow is very logical and productive. It works in

    realtime
    > so you see your results onscreen. It is far more flexible when it comes to
    > adjusting colour temperatures, exposure etc. It also has very good file
    > management (although this is a feature I rarely use because I manage using
    > ACDSEE). To sum up - it takes a lot of the guesswork out of RAW

    processing,
    > put you in control and produces very good pictures.


    Have you figured out a way to open RAW files from ACDSee directly into C1
    using the edit button? I use this for phtoshop all the time, but haven't
    been able to do this with RAW directly to C1. It would be great to have
    this capability...
     
    Mark M, Oct 4, 2004
    #15
  16. digiboy

    MB Guest

    >
    > Have you figured out a way to open RAW files from ACDSee directly into C1
    > using the edit button? I use this for phtoshop all the time, but haven't
    > been able to do this with RAW directly to C1. It would be great to have
    > this capability...
    >

    I'm not quite sure if this is what you mean, but try this:

    In Acdsee browse mode- click on the Edit tab;

    Click on the drop down arrow next to the Editor icon in the new toolbar
    (below the main toolbar);

    Select Configure Editors;

    Choose Add and negotiate to your C1 .exe file and click Open to select it.

    Now when you select a RAW file in the Acdsee browser you can open it
    directly into C1 by clicking the Edit button in the main Acdsee toolbar,
    clicking the Editor dropdown box and choosing the new C1 icon.

    Hope this helps - it will depend on your version of Acdsee and how you have
    got it configured.
     
    MB, Oct 4, 2004
    #16
  17. digiboy

    Mark M Guest

    "MB" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >
    > > Have you figured out a way to open RAW files from ACDSee directly into

    C1
    > > using the edit button? I use this for phtoshop all the time, but

    haven't
    > > been able to do this with RAW directly to C1. It would be great to have
    > > this capability...
    > >

    > I'm not quite sure if this is what you mean, but try this:
    >
    > In Acdsee browse mode- click on the Edit tab;
    >
    > Click on the drop down arrow next to the Editor icon in the new toolbar
    > (below the main toolbar);
    >
    > Select Configure Editors;
    >
    > Choose Add and negotiate to your C1 .exe file and click Open to select it.
    >
    > Now when you select a RAW file in the Acdsee browser you can open it
    > directly into C1 by clicking the Edit button in the main Acdsee toolbar,
    > clicking the Editor dropdown box and choosing the new C1 icon.
    >
    > Hope this helps - it will depend on your version of Acdsee and how you

    have
    > got it configured.


    That's what I've done, but C1 seems to be unable to handle this.
     
    Mark M, Oct 4, 2004
    #17
  18. digiboy

    digiboy Guest

    Capture One is outside my price range :-(, Camera RAW is OK now it
    supports my digicam, but I still find that it doesn't give me as much
    control as I'd like.

    The problem I would like to overcome (maybe like other people?) is
    that for some images on cloudy days have a dynamic range well in
    excess of what the sensor can capture. So you have a choice: reduce
    exposure to capture more highlights and then have to pull up the
    midtones, or you can accept some blow-out of the highlights and try to
    recover them in software.

    Any thoughts?



    wrote in message news:<>...
    > In message <>,
    > (digiboy) wrote:
    >
    > >Hi All
    > >
    > >As above really! What the best RAW converter to recover blown /
    > >overexposed highlights.

    >
    > Capture One and Photoshop CS are the best, in my experience, although
    > the latest version of Adobe Camera RAW renders some grey highlight
    > levels with a greenish tint.
    >
    > This probably has to do with a flaw in the way that it interprets
    > information from the remaining channel(s) in pixels where one or more
    > channels clip in the RAW data. Both programs treat these pixels as
    > greyscale, but ACR 2.2 makes certain levels greenish. There really
    > should be more user control to guide assumptions on clipped pixels.
     
    digiboy, Oct 4, 2004
    #18
  19. digiboy

    JeffS Guest

    On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:48:46 GMT, wrote:

    >It is also nice that if you know this headroom is there, you can use it
    >to your advantage. The noise in the 10D due to amplification and
    >readout is low up until ISO 400, so if you are in a situation where you
    >have a very low contrast subject, and were going to shoot at ISO 100,
    >you might shoot at ISO 400 instead and "overexpose" by two stops, to get
    >two extra bits of precision in the image, with almost no extra noise.


    Hi,
    I'm sorry but I have no idea what this means. I R Stoopid. Could someone
    please elaborate on this concept a bit? I'm at a complete loss as to the
    part about "2 extra bits of precision".

    Thank You,

    Jeff
    -----
    My Humble Galleries:
    http://www.pbase.com/jkseidel
     
    JeffS, Oct 5, 2004
    #19
  20. digiboy

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (digiboy) wrote:

    >Capture One is outside my price range :-(, Camera RAW is OK now it
    >supports my digicam, but I still find that it doesn't give me as much
    >control as I'd like.


    >The problem I would like to overcome (maybe like other people?) is
    >that for some images on cloudy days have a dynamic range well in
    >excess of what the sensor can capture. So you have a choice: reduce
    >exposure to capture more highlights and then have to pull up the
    >midtones, or you can accept some blow-out of the highlights and try to
    >recover them in software.


    >Any thoughts?


    How much headroom you have for the highlights would depend on the
    camera. I have the Canon 10D, and if the camera is set to shoot JPEGs,
    with daylight white balance, and normal contrast, you get clipping at
    2.2 stops above what the camera meters as average grey, in all three
    color channels. If you shoot RAW, the RAW data has about 3.7 stops in
    the red channel, 3.2 stops in the green, and 3.1 stops in the blue
    channel.

    Generally speaking, with evaluative metering (averaged for entire frame
    with slight weighting for the center), there are very few circumstances
    in which the RAW data actually blows out. Exceptions are bright white
    objects in the sun against a mostly shady background, highly saturated
    flowers, and overcast skies that only compromise a minority fraction of
    the frame.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 7, 2004
    #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. street shooter

    Canon 10D Blown-Out Highlights

    street shooter, May 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    691
    Don F
    May 5, 2004
  2. JeffS

    Blown Out Highlights Question

    JeffS, Aug 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    4,290
  3. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Blown Highlights With Wedding Dress Photo

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Sep 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    78
    Views:
    2,669
    Chris Brown
    Oct 1, 2004
  4. Rich

    R1 and blown highlights

    Rich, Nov 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    476
  5. jamesstevn
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,827
    jamesstevn
    Mar 10, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page