Raw photo software

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mayayana, Aug 11, 2012.

  1. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    as do i.

    you on the other hand often provide opinion disguised as fact and when
    people point out the flaws, you turn nasty. you can't ever admit you're
    wrong, even in the face of facts.
    go read about camera raw, or better yet try it. certainly you must know
    *someone* who uses it.

    you're talking out your ass.
    Guest, Aug 17, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    actually, i do.
    no it doesn't, it modifies what's already there.

    there is *no* reason to replace everything when not everything changed.

    you have admitted you don't use camera raw and have no intention of
    trying it to see what it really does.

    you're taking out your ass.
    what's silly about it?
    on that, we agree. i won't even write geocoding data to the original
    Guest, Aug 17, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    it's not non-destructive and doesn't support smart objects (or
    equivalent). you have to regenerate a new xmp file.

    that's *very* different than just changing something on the fly at any
    why don't you try that for a change?

    you've admitted you don't use camera raw. why not just sit back and ask
    questions about how it works rather than assume it does things that it
    doesn't actually do?
    Guest, Aug 17, 2012
  4. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    adobe camera raw is a raw converter. that's why it's called adobe
    camera raw, not adobe camera editor.
    Guest, Aug 17, 2012
  5. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    not as easily as with other apps.

    let's say you make some adjustments to the raw, then crop, remove dust
    spots or maybe even remove a tree, gaussian blur the background,
    sharpen the subject and then want to go back to change the white

    s you explained above, in ufraw, you would need to regenerate a new xmp
    file. that's insanely inefficient.

    in photoshop, you just double-click the smart object and the camera raw
    window comes up and you make whatever changes you want. you can even
    re-adjust the gaussian blur amount if it's a smart object. in lightroom
    you just make the change directly. the gimp does not support smart
    objects or even adjustment layers, so this is *not* possible.

    have you used photoshop and camera raw?

    from what you have said, the answer is a huge 'no' and you have no
    plans to do so in the future.
    Guest, Aug 17, 2012
  6. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    you said it needs a 'fast preview image'. it does not.

    the image you see is rendered from the raw and it's very fast. there
    isn't a separate preview image.
    which ones?

    camera raw is considered by many to be among the best of the raw
    that's not how it works. stop talking out your ass.
    yes, that's true.

    what isn't true is how you think camera raw works.
    it isn't using pipes.
    it's very clear form your comments, and in particular your outright
    admission that you don't use camera raw and not having any interest in
    trying it, that you not only don't understand how it works, but you
    *can't* have an understanding on how it works since you have never used
    Guest, Aug 17, 2012
  7. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    what is displayed is rendered from the original raw data on the fly.
    there is no separate preview.

    if you make a change, it's re-rendered. it's optimized and very fast.
    Guest, Aug 17, 2012
  8. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    there are no smart objects, so not the same at all.
    the lines between the two have blurred. lightroom is both a raw
    converter and and editor (and much more). there is no distinction to
    the user, nor does it matter. the user just does what they need to do
    to the image, not bounce between different apps with intermediate files
    or piping or whatever else might be needed.
    writing the xmp file itself isn't the issue. invoking ufraw is.
    so you just run ufraw to make some xmp files and that's the end of the
    Guest, Aug 17, 2012
  9. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    it does not have to re-render *everything* when just one part changes.

    for example, if you change sharpening, you don't need to reapply the
    white balance and exposure.

    certainly this should be obvious, but apparently you aren't aware of
    some of the optimizations that are possible.
    once again, no pipes or intermediate files.
    talking about yourself again?
    Guest, Aug 17, 2012
  10. Mayayana

    tony cooper Guest

    How do you "remove" white balance?
    tony cooper, Aug 18, 2012
  11. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    don't apply it.
    Guest, Aug 18, 2012
  12. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    i'm not evading at all.

    camera raw is a plug-in. it *can't* be run by itself.

    it can only be run within photoshop or lightroom, both of which add
    editing functions.

    in the case of lightroom, there's no distinction between editing or raw
    conversion, nor does it matter. you make the desired change to the
    image at any time.

    in photoshop, there's a small difference but if you use smart objects,
    you can go back to camera raw from within photoshop, just like you can
    with an adjustment layer.
    he posted a screen shot which shows all of that within camera raw.
    Guest, Aug 18, 2012
  13. Mayayana

    tony cooper Guest

    I'm unsure of what you mean. "White Balance" is a point at which the
    color temperature is set. It can be changed, set, and re-set, but I
    don't understand how it could be "removed".

    If you mean white balance can be re-set in an image, then "removed" is
    a poor choice of words to use.
    tony cooper, Aug 18, 2012
  14. Mayayana

    tony cooper Guest

    What does that mean? Every image has a white balance factor. It is
    not added or removed, but it can be changed.

    Saying "don't apply it" makes no sense at all in answering a question
    about removing something. You can only remove what is there. If it
    is never there, it can't be removed. White balance, though, is always
    there and cannot be removed. It can be changed, but not removed.

    I suspect that you two are muddling about talking about *adjusting*
    the white balance by applying the white balance tool in the RAW image.
    Not applying that tool does not remove white balance. Setting the
    white balance differently from the first application does not remove
    white balance.

    It's like setting the thermostat in a room. You don't remove the
    room's temperature, you change it.
    tony cooper, Aug 18, 2012
  15. Mayayana

    tony cooper Guest

    This is an election year, so I'm used to a volume of rhetoric that
    sounds like it says something, but - when examined - doesn't address
    the point at all.

    I repeat, "How do you remove white balance"?

    In that muddle of rhetoric you seem to saying that there is a default
    white balance where all three multipliers are equal to 1.0. My
    position is that this can be changed, but it cannot be removed.
    tony cooper, Aug 18, 2012
  16. Mayayana

    tony cooper Guest

    Please refer to my other post on the subject of a volume of rhetoric
    that doesn't address the point. You have added to the volume, but
    still have not addressed the simple question: "How do you remove
    white balance?"

    I congratulate you on the introduction of the problem of rounding
    errors in the analogy of changing the temperature by adjusting the
    thermostat. You have ascribed an error of precision to an action of
    change where no numerical result has been mentioned. And done so with
    a straight face! As if it actually means something!
    tony cooper, Aug 18, 2012
  17. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    it is true.
    nope. it might in some cases, but certainly not always.
    sure you can.
    it has a list of edits that are applied to the raw which are rendered
    on the fly and it caches some of it for speed.

    if you make a change to sharpening, for instance, the white balance is
    still valid and there's no need to recalculate that. as i said, that
    should be obvious but apparently it isn't.
    what way is that?
    Guest, Aug 18, 2012
  18. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    that's funny. it's the same as what you said in your response to him,
    except your response was full of technobabble about multipliers and

    you're arguing just to argue.
    Guest, Aug 18, 2012
  19. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    but not one *you* picked. it will typically use a default value.

    if that is acceptable, then you don't need to do anything. usually, it
    isn't, and the white balance needs to be adjusted.
    Guest, Aug 18, 2012
  20. Mayayana

    Guest Guest

    it does it using the raw data.
    Guest, Aug 18, 2012
    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.