Photography experiment proposal (pics posted)
mgoodm3
Posts: 17,497 ✭✭✭
I have been thinking about how other people post-process their images and figured that it might be interesting to see how other people work with the same image. Would be best done with those people who shoot RAW or at least know how to manipulate RAW images. I could send the same RAW image to various people and see what the final version looks like. We could post them all and compare notes. Maybe we'd all learn something new. It would demonstrate how different or alike we are in our preferences. It would be limited in that only one person has the coin in hand, but I think that the point of this exercise is to see how various people work with the same material.
1. RAW image either NEF or DNG format.
2. create a JPG in a standard size (700 x 700 for example)
3. Send them all to a central source to upload and post them.
I don't know, maybe I'm a dweeb, but it seems interesting to me.
link to the images
1. RAW image either NEF or DNG format.
2. create a JPG in a standard size (700 x 700 for example)
3. Send them all to a central source to upload and post them.
I don't know, maybe I'm a dweeb, but it seems interesting to me.
link to the images
coinimaging.com/my photography articles Check out the new macro lens testing section
0
Comments
<< <i>I was trying to figure out how to include non-RAW people in this. Maybe could send out a large unprocessed TIFF image also. >>
16 bit tiff would be the only way although it is still a bit more limited than true raw.
http://macrocoins.com
To support LordM's European Trip, click here!
<< <i>I've done that before and the main thing everyone learned was that there is a large difference in monitors. An image on a calibrated monitor can look entirely different on an uncalibrated screen. I know some of the great looking pictures on my calibrated 20" LCD look terrible on my laptop or older uncalibrated 17" CRT. >>
I need a little help with this one. How do you know if your monitor is calibrated or not?
link to pics
Do whatever you want with the images, we'll see what comes out. If you do anything interesting to them, I'd also like an "accurate" one in your eyes.
<< <i>Hmmm...I always thought the idea was to not manipulate the images with software. I can tell by reading this thread you guys are playing way over my head with this image stuff. My camera shoots images as a .jpg and all I do is crop and size. I had no idea that you guys were processing images.
Digital image formats like NEF are MADE to be processed, you cannot simply take them and save. It's a process not unlike developing a real life negative, but with a few more bells and whistles.
edit to add: your camera processes the images for you, without giving you any options. You may have a few presets, i.e. portrait mode, sports mode, whatever, but in any event a camera captures more dynamic range than a monitor will display. The captures must be processed either by the camera or manually, to thin down the dynamic range for one thing, control sharpening and compression for another, and you can also crop, etc. at the same time.
nef or tif ...either is good.
<< <i>Hmmm...I always thought the idea was to not manipulate the images with software. I can tell by reading this thread you guys are playing way over my head with this image stuff. My camera shoots images as a .jpg and all I do is crop and size. I had no idea that you guys were processing images.
Just because some of us choose to shoot raw does not mean that our images are manipulated. I very rarely do anything other than straightening with the raw file except generate a 16 bit TIFF to export to Photoshop...Mike
I did the following with this file:
1) Opened in Capture
2) Applied Dynamic Lighting (50,0,20)
3) Exported 16 bit TIFF to Photoshop
4) Cropped out background.
5) Resized using "Bicubic Sharper"
6) Changed to 8 bit color
7) Saved file
<< <i>
<< <i>Hmmm...I always thought the idea was to not manipulate the images with software. I can tell by reading this thread you guys are playing way over my head with this image stuff. My camera shoots images as a .jpg and all I do is crop and size. I had no idea that you guys were processing images.
Digital image formats like NEF are MADE to be processed, you cannot simply take them and save. It's a process not unlike developing a real life negative, but with a few more bells and whistles.
edit to add: your camera processes the images for you, without giving you any options. You may have a few presets, i.e. portrait mode, sports mode, whatever, but in any event a camera captures more dynamic range than a monitor will display. The captures must be processed either by the camera or manually, to thin down the dynamic range for one thing, control sharpening and compression for another, and you can also crop, etc. at the same time. >>
I agree. Fatman, you are probably doing more processing of the image than we are -- you just don't know what your camera is doing for you. Also, there is some "processing" already involved by virtue of the choice of lighting and angle when the photo is taken. My opinion is that the guys on this forum who take these breathtaking photos do very little if anything to the image once it gets in the camera.
<< <i>
<< <i>I've done that before and the main thing everyone learned was that there is a large difference in monitors. An image on a calibrated monitor can look entirely different on an uncalibrated screen. I know some of the great looking pictures on my calibrated 20" LCD look terrible on my laptop or older uncalibrated 17" CRT. >>
I need a little help with this one. How do you know if your monitor is calibrated or not? >>
It takes either hardware, software, or both to calibrate a monitor. They are normally calibrated to match printing standards so that the picture you see on the screen will look exactly like the print. If your monitor is calibrated you would have to either do it yourself or pay someone to do it for you.
<< <i>Hmmm...I always thought the idea was to not manipulate the images with software. I can tell by reading this thread you guys are playing way over my head with this image stuff. My camera shoots images as a .jpg and all I do is crop and size. I had no idea that you guys were processing images.
It can be very misleading to say an image is straight from the camera. That's because modern DSLR cameras can make an image look almost anyway you want "straight out of the box". There is almost nothing that can't be manipulated inside the camera - sharpness, tone, saturation, hue, and if that's not enough one can install custom color curves that can make even more changes. All these changes are inside the camera - then there is lighting that can further change the image right out of the box.
I was not inferring anything other than you guys are talking way over my head. I am no photographer and I don't play one on TV either so I have no real clue as to what you all are talking about. I point and shoot and it works for me. There are many on this forum that post amazing images, and then there are those that post what appear to be manipulated pipe dreams. I do know that the OP's images always appear clean. crisp, and most important, real.
<< <i>Wow, quoted four times in the last 10 posts. I guess I touched a nerve.
I was not inferring anything other than you guys are talking way over my head. I am no photographer and I don't play one on TV either so I have no real clue as to what you all are talking about. I point and shoot and it works for me. There are many on this forum that post amazing images, and then there are those that post what appear to be manipulated pipe dreams. I do know that the OP's images always appear clean. crisp, and most important, real. >>
I'm just guessing, but did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night?
The .tiff image worked out the best for me I could not turn the other images..I used a resizer after changing the .tif to .jpg....
.....
<< <i>
<< <i>Hmmm...I always thought the idea was to not manipulate the images with software. I can tell by reading this thread you guys are playing way over my head with this image stuff. My camera shoots images as a .jpg and all I do is crop and size. I had no idea that you guys were processing images.
It can be very misleading to say an image is straight from the camera. That's because modern DSLR cameras can make an image look almost anyway you want "straight out of the box". There is almost nothing that can't be manipulated inside the camera - sharpness, tone, saturation, hue, and if that's not enough one can install custom color curves that can make even more changes. All these changes are inside the camera - then there is lighting that can further change the image right out of the box. >>
While your post is technically correct, producing an image free from undue manipulation in RAW is quite possible -- it is all in the settings. Just because the camera has the ability does not mean that it is the case (and I can speak with authority with respect to my photos) as each of these settings have "none" or "off" as an option.
In the end, all digital cameras are producing a digital image from analog data, and every single digital algorithm applied to this image data will introduce artifacts. So from one perspective, the workflow which produces accurate results with the least manipulation will be the most artifact free (and hopefully accurate) with respect to the analog original. By least, I mean:
1) A to D conversion (you have to start somewhere)
2) Mapping of bayer pattern input into RGB image (because digital image sensors aren't configured as RGB).
3) Application of white balance (to remove color cast, best if done in-camera on raw image)
4) Color mode translation (sensor captures more colors available than a printer or screen can, often done in the following step)
5) Translation of RAW to JPG
6) Resizing (a necessary evil)
7) Cropping (the least destructive of all maniupulations)
However, there are many, many others that are commonly used including:
1) Rotation (more damaging than many think, even 90 degree multiple rotations introduce artifacts although minimal)
2) Sharpness/unsharp mask (often unnecessarily used as resizing produces the same effect)
3) Levels (a very dangerous but powerful tool, introduces all kinds of artifacts including digital banding and noise)
4) Contrast (another type of levels)
5) Color (hue/saturation/etc. which are actually levels on color channels)
6) Compression
7) and the other 1000 photoshop commands.
and each introduce artifacts.
Often the intent of using any of the above "optional" steps is to try and accurately depict what a coin looks like or correct other "problems" with the capture. However in doing so artifacts are introduced and a tradeoff between artifact-free image and an accurate/pleasing image is made.
Humbly submitted....Mike
I do virtually all of my manipulation in the RAW editor, except resizing and sharpening. I turn off the sharpening in the RAW editor because the unsharp mask in PShop is more flexible. I use as little sharpening as I can get away with, but a little improves most pictures.
Hell, I don't need to exercise.....I get enough just pushing my luck.
anyone do good enough?
anyone close to what the coin looks like in hand?
<< <i>I do virtually all of my manipulation in the RAW editor, except resizing and sharpening. I turn off the sharpening in the RAW editor because the unsharp mask in PShop is more flexible. I use as little sharpening as I can get away with, but a little improves most pictures. >>
Great point Mark. Manipulations done in RAW are, in general, less damaging to the image -- so if you can do the edit in RAW you're probably better off (unsharp mask being the exception to the rule)....Mike