Artifacts in A3 G1 X raw files.

Hi, I've been using Aperture for a few years and generally like and enjoy the software. I've MBP 2009 Core2Duo 8gb ram. on OS10.6.8 and A3 3.2.3.
I have a Canon G1 X recently supported by A3. I shoot a lot of water /river shots in sunlight and have found these artifacts in A3 raws only. I checked using Canons terrible to use DPP software and it's not there or in ooc jpegs. It almost looks like blown/stuck pixels but if tested for this and no go.
My question is what do more expert than I people think and do you think Apple would be likely have a fix. I can't remove this with any of Apertures available tools and I've tried them all
Here's links to pics of the artifact affect.
http://i1068.photobucket.com/albums/u451/flypaul1/ApertureatrifactsUBidgeeR2012- 03-2033872012-03-20.jpg
http://i1068.photobucket.com/albums/u451/flypaul1/ApertureatrifactscropUBidgeeR2 012-03-2033872012-03-20.jpg
http://i1068.photobucket.com/albums/u451/flypaul1/A3artifact22UBidgeeR2012-03-20 34512012-03-20.jpg
Thanks, any help/thoughts would be appreciated.
Paul.

Hi Kirby, thanks for your reply. I'm guessing your most likely right - the artifacts are in the Raw data.
A3 raws (from the G1 X) show moire at times (on telegraph wires etc.) and when there's glare ( like in ripply white water in sunshine or shiny foliage) plenty of coloured speckles - yes I did mean the green, pink, blue etc. hot pixel look. I am no doubt wrong blaming A3.
There is evidence of these speckles in Canons RAW files and DPP seems to deal with it with it's Chrominance noise adjustment. But these are low ISO pics.
The OOC Jpegs are simply clean - but a bit dulled down, Apart from the speckles I prefer A3's output.
It'd be interesting to see how other RAW conversions are handling these.
Here's a roughly 50% crop from an A3 RAW and CR2 Jpeg.
http://i1068.photobucket.com/albums/u451/flypaul1/A3artifact33EucG1X2012-03-1933 242012-03-19.jpg
http://i1068.photobucket.com/albums/u451/flypaul1/CanonJpeg33EucG1X2012-03-19332 52012-03-19.jpg
Sorry I haven't posted a DDP RAW of the same, as I said it does show the speckles , but they're dulled down a bit to start with.
I guess A3 is simply converting the data and Canon have their own special soup for this Camera.
My delema is what to do about it as I'd obviously prefer to keep using A3. I did try using Photoshop 5's noise reduction ( as external editor) but this also did little except degrade things. These artifacts seem to occur at all ISOs, apertures and shutter speeds. My old G11 used to show some pinkish fringing in the same type of high lights and it was easily removed with the Halo brush. I'd hope as Canon can sort this in Camera that somehow A3 can - maybe some one knows of a plugin that' might work.  I'd simply love to find a way to remove those coloured speckles, instead of having to rely on Canons Jpegs .
Paul.

Similar Messages

  • Canon 5D CR2 RAW Files Have Visible Artifacts

    There's a digital dithering pattern that's clearly visible on CR2 RAW files even with no adjustments in Aperture. Here are two example screenshots from Photoshop. The first is an 800 ISO image and the second is a 50 ISO image. I shoot RAW + JPEG.
    In the first, the JPEG from the camera, zoomed at 400% (top) and the equivalent JPG export at quality "12" (lossless) from the RAW image in Aperture with no adjustments (bottom). This is just the RAW, exported to JPEG at lossless 8 bit, same area at 400%. I experimented with 16-bit TIFF and PSD exports as well and the dithering pattern is the same:
    http://www.pipsqueak.com/imagehosting/ApertureJPGBug.jpg
    In the second, I took the original RAW, converted it to DNG format (I have to in order to use Adobe Camera Raw on CS 1) and imported into Photoshop using ACR "camera default" settings. I show that image at 12.5% at the very top and a detail in a window at 400% in the middle of the stack. The bottom image was created by bringing the RAW into Aperture and, without making any adjustments, exporting it as a 16-bit Photoshop file.
    I picked the blue area because it's easy to see the dithering pattern in a solid color. But it's there across the image.
    This is not just a high ISO or highly adjusted image problem. This is an EVERY image problem, at least with Canon 5D CR2 files.
    http://www.pipsqueak.com/imagehosting/ApertureExport_Bug02.jpg
    I've taken the same file, processed it using Adobe Camera RAW in Photoshop, exported it as a 16-bit PSD file and brought that into Aperture. Exports from that file are flawless. So I conclude that this has to do with the way that the OS is converting RAWs from the Canon 5D (or CR2s generally).
    Can this be a priority to fix? If Aperture can't export high quality images, its other truly admirable features will be for naught.

    Ian wrote a really good description of what RAW files are:
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=1303439&#1303439
    Since the RAW file is encoding the chip information, and the two 1D2 and 1Ds2 cameras use different chips (they do, don't they?), then it's conceivable that they could have different results in Aperture.
    On the other hand, I thought that CR2 files had the same underlying file structure, so it's strange that they encode differently.
    Might it be possible to take some kind of test image with both cameras that is basically identical and has some areas that are dark? It would be interesting to compile a list of those cameras that have conversion issues and those that don't. I know the Canon 5D conversion is not so good, and that there's an Olympus problem (although I don't remember the camera). On the other hand, there are a number of Nikon users who seem pretty pleased with their conversions.

  • Lines - artefacts? - on raw files from d200

    hello. this is the first time I've tried a forum..
    my problem is old raw files that were originally imported into iphoto from a D200 (jpegs shot at same time are fine) - they appear ok but with thin coloured horizontal lines (artifacts?) - in iphoto, and however I export them (eg as a TIFF, as original into Aperture, onto an external hard drive). I have solved this import problem with an update now, so its okay for new pictures - BUT - are all the old files damaged or recoverable somehow?? I would be very grateful for any help..

    hello & thank you. I just tried opening them in Capture NX and the lines are still there. I'm presuming this means the files were damaged somehow by being imported through iphoto that first time - as it no longer happens now I have the update (all my backup raw files were - I think - dragged out of iphoto and onto disk/hard drive, & show same thing). Does anyone know if there is any way to restore them?

  • How to assess focus sharpness of RAW files?

    What's the best technique to sort imported RAW files for focus sharpness?  I'm a nature photographer (birds, bugs, flowers, whales, & landscapes) taking telephoto & macro shots with Canon 20D and Canon L series lenses.  My current techique is to sort for sharpness by viewing at 1:1 and rejecting the RAW file if it is not tack sharp (eg. eye of the animal which is my focus point).  Am I rejecting some great photos that do not appear to be tack sharp right out of the camera (at 1:1 view)?  Thanks for sharing your techniques for assessing focus sharpness!

    The in focus sharpeness created by the lens being exactly in focus on the plain you intended is a different thing to the sharpening appied to an image in processing, which is basicaly localised contrast enhancement. The sharpness of the actual point of focus is a factor of the quality of the lens (combined with your technique in getting it in the right place and avoiding camera shake of course), if the technique is correct, using L series camera lenses should create a very sharp point of focus at any aperture, poorer quality lenses (and indeed even the occasional L lens, are never totally sharp because the are never actually in focus and increasing some sensors out resolve even the best lenses which can result in soft looking images on such cameras as the 1 D mk III if the focus is placed to the edges of the sensor) RAW files imported into LR have a  sharpening applied by default to deal with a specific problem described as follows. Digital capture sensors typically have an anti aliasing filter in front of the sensor which help to eliminate moire artifacts as edges come into conjunction at the resolution of the photosite array. That's a complicated way to say that if you have a thin straight line and you rotate it on the sensor so that it is almost in alignment with a line of photosites, there will come a point where the thin straight line will randomly register on one side or the other of a boundary between photo sites. The anti aliasing filter blurs and widens the line to minimize the moire effect that this causes. In doing so, some resolution is lost.  Input sharpening is the operation of setting edge boundary contrasts to recover the perception of resolution to reduce this problem this will enable you to judge accurately if you have actually hit the right spot with your focus, by viewing the image 1:1 before you start adding any contrast enhancements. Input sharpening is applied by default (unless you turn it off in LR) and little or no extra is usually required. Output sharpening is required for print and web images and this is also done automatically by LR using the selections in the export mode.
    Creative sharpening can be done if you really want to using the brush tool in LR, but applying over all sharpening as a creative technique using LR (or any other software for that matter) should be done with caution if at all.
    Processing sharpening enhances an image, it doesn't make an out of focus image somehow in focus.

  • Aperture Exporting JPEG's from RAW: file size and quality questions?

    Hey Everyone,
    So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
    My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
    Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size? I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
    I've bee told that Aperture has a better compression engine and that the resulting files are of the exact same quality because the PPI and image size are the same. Is that what explains the much smaller file sizes in Aperture?
    I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs.
    Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
    Thanks in advance for your help.

    mscriv wrote:
    So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
    JPEG is a "lossy" file compression algorithm. Whether Aperture or PS, *every time a JPEG is saved some loss occurs*, albeit minimal at the 11 or 12 level of save, huge losses at low save levels. Some images (sky, straight diagonal lines, etc.) are more vulnerable to showing visible jpeg artifacts.
    My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
    *Both of you are losing image data when you save to jpeg.* IMO the differences between the apps is probably just how the apps work rather than actually losing significantly more data. The real image data loss is in using JPEG at all!
    Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size?
    I doubt it.
    I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
    The issue here is not how many pixels (because you are not varying that) but how much data each pixel contains. In this case once you avoid lossy JPEG the quality mostly has to do with different RAW conversion algorithms. Apple and Adobe both guess what Nikon is up to with the proprietary RAW NEF files and the results are different from ACR to Apple to Nikon. For my D2x pix I like Nikon's conversions the best (but Nikon software is hard to use), Aperture second and Adobe ACR (what Photoshop/Bridge uses) third. I 98% use Aperture.
    I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs. Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
    JPEG is a useful format but lossy. Only use it as a _last step_ when you must save files size for some reason and are willing to accept the by-definition loss of image data to obtain smaller files (such as for web work or other on-screen viewing). Otherwise (especially for printing) save as TIFF or PSD which are non-lossy file types, but larger.
    As to the Aperture vs. ACR argument, RAW-convert the same original both ways, save as TIFF and see if your eyes/brain significantly prefer one over the other. Nikon, Canon etc. keep proprietary original image capture data algorithms secret and each individual camera's RAW conversion is different.
    HTH
    -Allen

  • Management of Fuji X-Trans RAW Files

    It would be really helpful if Adobe staff who monitor this forum could make a comment on work proceeding to improve the handling of RAW files coming from X-trans sensor cameras. I've recently started shooting a Fuji X-E1 along with my Nikon D3s and, while the jpgs are quite good, the RAW handling by ACR results in significant artifacts which limit the usefulness of Lightroom and Photoshop. While I understand that product development timing is uncertain, it would help the entire Fujifilm user community to know that Adobe was at least "working on it".
    Thanks!
    Jeff

    See an Adobe employee’s response, today, at the end of a long thread about the subject started back at the end of May:
    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/camera_raw_7_1_with_xpro_1_raw_detai l_area_change_to_oil_painting_effect#reply_10842854
    Jeffrey Tranberry (Chief Customer Advocate):
    The team is aware of the issue and investigating what can be done but cannot offer an ETA at this time.

  • Heavily Jagged Curves/Diagonals on Olympus EP-L1 RAW Files and possibly the whole PEN Family

    Hello everybody
    I have a serious situation here. My Olympus EP-L1 raw files have serious jagged diagonals. It's only visible on sharp curved surfaces. I ran some test on straight sharp diagonals from 45º to 0º but found no artifacts. Here is a comparison between in-camera jpeg and .ORF converted to DNG in Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3. BTW, this is visible on .ORF files as well as DNG. I took these photos with RAW+JPEG at full resolution, highest quality.
    Full thread and samples here
    Thanks

  • Horizontal colored bands appearing in imported raw files

    I just now started to have mostly magenta horizontal lines or bands appear in imported a Sony Nex 7 ARW files. When opening the same file with Sony’s raw converter or DXO Pro, the bands are non existent. I have noticed that sometimes but not always, the bands will disappearing in LR after I examine a photo by clicking on it to enlarge a selected area and the loading finishes. Exported photos will have the bands. Also, If I first open the files with IDC or DXO, the file will then import into Lightroom without the bands. I have run diagnostics on the SD card and the hard drive with no errors showing up. Running LR5.4 on a Macbook Pro. I’m totally confused. Any enlightening comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
    These artifacts are exactly like those in the post : Why do I get Colored bands on some images in LR4 and LR5, but not in Aperture?

    I have the EXACT same problems when importing .RAF files from my Fujifilm X-T1 via a USB card reader (USB 2.0) on my MacBook Pro 13" Retina (late 2013) with OS X 10.9.3 in Lightroom 5.4. (I did not purchase the X-T1 until after I updated to 5.4, so I can't speak of whether this happens in other versions of LR)
    I second sevenc's suggestions that this is NOT a hardware issue - I have tried 5 different SD cards, all formatted either on my computer or in the camera, reformatted several times (low-level format) and it STILL happens! Never with the JPGs, only with the RAW files.
    However, doing a straight file copy from the SD card (in the card reader) to the hard drive before doing the import works fine - no artifacts!
    Ditto if I use the internal SD reader (an internal USB3.0 connection) on the Macbook, no purple bands.
    It is apparently unrelated to the OS, since this is happening both in Windows and OS X. I have posted a more detailed acccount here:
    Lightroom 5.4 - "glitches" on my RAF->DNG conversions from X-T1 - Fuji X Post Processing - Fuji X Forum
    One of the members of that forum has seen the same happening with Panasonic RAW files, but only when an external USB drive was connected at the same time.
    When the external drive was disconnected, the images imported normally.
    BTW, my Canon files import just fine, using the same SD card, the same USB card reader and the same computer - no glitches....
    The most likely thing happening (my opinion) is that the Lightroom import process somehow interferes with the USB connection. It doesn't really make sense, because I am sure Lightroom uses the standard OS I/O file routines, but it seems to be the most likely issue. Is there a chance LR uses its own code for reading files off of external drives.
    Other software (Aperture, Preview, Image Capture, Raw Photo Processor 64 or PhotoNinja) can import fine, whether the card is in an external card reader or not - no artifacts.
    I have seen it the same issue described with Panasonic files on LR 4, so it does not seem to be limited to LR 5.4
    Re: Why do I get Colored bands on some images in LR4 and LR5, but not in Aperture?
    Anyone care to shed light on the issue and what could be going on here ? It seems the more obscure raw formats are affected (Sony, Panasonic, Fujifilm) and that Canon/Nikon users do not experience it (at least I haven't found it described online).
    This is a serious bug, because unless you do a re-import of the RAW/RAF file, the image data is permanently corrupted. It is not an issue of corruption of the embedded JPG preview , it is the RAW file itself. Once it has been imported by Lightroom, it displays the artifacts in other programs as well (Aperture, Preview etc)
    Trying to convert the image to another format, e.g. TIFF, JPG, BMP the artifacts are still there.
    I hope this is taken seriously by Adobe, as it is a critical issue for those of us who are affected. I can work around it by copying the files to my hard drive first, but it shouldn't have to be this way....

  • Lightroom quality on x-trans raw files.

    I see a lot of complains on Lightroom's ability to decode fuji x-trans raw file.  Is it now getting better?

    LR adjusted for the foliage
    I am not sure we are providing good guidance to typewritter99. Developing a raw file is an interpretation by itself and it is the operator's choice to bring the emphasis on what the focus should be on the picture. You are focusing on a part of the picture that would represent less than half an inch by a quarter should we printed this on an 11x17 sheet of paper. Moreover, the area you are looking at is out of focus to start with.  Frequently we would throw parts of the photo out of focus to drive attention into the subject. Why are we trying to rescue it in the first place? What is it bringing to the overall picture? (and as you can see top left, it is not that LR does a worse job than Iridient).
    I mean.... this is the detail we are looking at in the context of full picture posted in the article (http://www.thevisualexperience.org/web/processing-x100s-raw-with-iridient-developer-part-2 /):
    The capture above was processed with Lightroom from the RAW file shared in the article... can you highlight any quality issues? Color bleeding, artifacts? I guess that was the point of the original question.
    I would certainly recommend typewritter99 to download the free trials of all available converters and test them to see which one fits his needs best from a holistic point of view. But in honesty I cannot personally say I find any quality issues on Lightroom when processing my X-E1 files.

  • What does a camera add to a Raw file to make a finished Jpeg version?

    I've used Lightroom 4 for a while now but have only ever used Jpegs, and mostly using just the basics panel and curves. I want to try developing Raw files now too.
    I was wondering, compared to a Raw file what extra steps does the camera add to make a Jpeg file of the same image, essential steps that you would consider doing yourself to a Raw file in Lightroom too?
    I'm aware of Noise reduction, but am a little unsure about the rest.
    Many thanks.

    Pbeck1 wrote:
    my original question I feel is still partly unanswered, and that is: For a beginner to Raw editing, is there some sliders that should always be checked &/or adjusted without fail (even if you decide that no adjustment is needed).
    Answer:
    * white balance is critical, so it should always be considered on every photo, even if no adjustment required.
    * make sure you set camera profile according to taste (and after you gain experience, you may want to roll your own).
    * set lens corrections by default: CA + profile (I use a percentage of 100 for vignette correction by default, depending on lens).
    * fixed default for Lr color noise reduction (Lr default is usually fine). (color noise reduction is auto-adaptive, so you really don't need to set based on ISO, although you may need to up it on some photos to get all color noise, or down it on some photos to eek out max detail.
    * luminance noise reduction and sharpening should be set (initially) based on ISO range.
    Then adjust the basics. If toning can't be perfected with basics, supplement with tone curve, if still some imperfect areas, touch up with locals. Use HSL if need be, and so on and so forth.
    Fair enough?
    PS - I consider a default of 30 for luminance noise reduction to be *extremely* high. I start at zero for low ISO shots, and ramp it up to 25 for highest ISO shots. But consider that Lr's sharpening detail slider should only be used at lower ISOs (that's just my opinion/taste - ymmv). I set detail at 20 for lowest ISO shots, and ramp it down to zero for high ISO shots (as a default - I sometimes up it or down it afterwards). If sharpening detail is kept low, you won't need so much Lum. NR.
    Notes:
    * color noise reduction detail matters very little except at highest ISOs, in which case you can up it to eek out more detail, usually at the expense of more noise (so it needs to be balanced with amount).
    * likewise luminance NR contrast has only a very subtle effect at highest ISOs, and can pretty-much be ignored unless you are really wringing out the detail.
    * luminance noise reduction detail however can be important for not losing hard-won detail in the interest of noise control - consider uping it if you need to preserve detail in birds feathers or stone... - crank it down if you just want it clean - detail not important..
    What else you need to know?
    To summarize:
    ===========
    Lens corrections are a necessity in most cases, and you need to figure out how you like NR & Sharpening set by default. Camera profile determines the general look and feel of the photo and as such can be considered setting #1 (white balance is also setting #1 - yep: there are two #1s ;-}).
    Many photos can then be adjusted satisfactorily just using the basic sliders. What's needed after that, really depends on the photo, and you...
    Final thoughts are about sharpen masking. I used it a lot in the beginning, then noticed yucky artifacts / sparkling stuff scattered about..., and stopped using it entirely for years.  It's undesirable side-effects are most noticeable when sharpening detail is up (and/or sharpening amount). Moral of the story, if you keep sharpening detail (and/or sharpening amount) down, you can also use sharpen masking to keep from sharpening noise in "sky" and "skin", as another way to keep from needing so much lum. NR. Anyway, I'm using it again now, albeit very judiciously. Tip: press Alt key when adjusting sharpen mask slider.
    Put another way: sharpen masking masks (disables) sharpening in some places, but not others. Whether the transitions between masked regions and adjacent unmasked regions looks like hell or not depends on how much noise is being sharpened in the unmasked regions, since it's not being sharpened at all in the masked regions. Unfortunately, the situation can not be improved by increasing global noise reduction, since that makes the masked regions smoother too (as well as the unmasked regions).
    Bottom-line (imo): If low-noise is the priority over sharpening, then keep sharpening amount and detail low and use masking. If sharpening is a priority over over noise, then leave masking off and crank up sharpening til heart's content. If both sharpening and noise are priorities, there is no choice but to sharpen and/or noise reduce via locals, since using sharpen masking in conjunction with high sharpening (detail and/or amount) on a noisy (or even semi-noisy) photo, looks like cr@p (yes: that's just my opinion), regardless of global lum. NR setting.
    PS - Some people use sharpen masking with sharpening detail (and/or sharpening amount) up too and don't know what the heck I'm talking about - YMMV...
    Although I use zero sharpen masking by default, some people use light sharpen masking in default settings, and some people use heavy sharpen masking as default. Worth considering how much of it you tend to like...
    UPDATE:
    ~~~~~~~
    Settings you usually don't have to mess with, as a beginner: and why.
    * Camera calibration color sliders: white balance suffices.
    * Effects: most are "advanced" / optional (although you may want to explore post-crop vignette amount as your first foray).
    * Lens corrections: you need chromatic aberration at a minimum, and some profile-based correction by default is usually good, but the rest are "advanced".
    * Detail (covered above).
    * Split toning: "advanced".
    * HSL: "intermediate".
    * Tone Curve: consider using the parametric curve sliders, if you are beginner; point curve & channel curves are advanced; moving the parametric range-changing doo-hickeys: let's call that "advanced" too.
    * Locals and such can be considered not for begginers, but they will need to be used too at some point for optimal results. I mean, even beginners need to get the red-eye out sometimes, or kill dust spots... And you can get by without gradients or paint for a while, but not for long...
    Have fun,
    Rob

  • A word on RAW files

    With more hobbyists and prosumers using Aperture, a quick word on RAW files.
    RAW files are not image files in the traditional sense .... in fact they are really gray scale files of luminance (brightness) values that are collected from receptors on the CMOS or CCD array.
    Array, often called a Bayer Array after the engineer who designed the sensor. The CCD/CMOS sensor is an odd affair. It (other than Fuji, Sigma) is invariably a diagonal array of photo receptors, each with a color filter over it. The accuracy of the filter to the defined value of Red, or Green or Blue means that interpretation is needed to make it look the same as the standard value ...... at every brightness level from zero (no light) to full (saturated). These two items, color accuracy and brightness mapping are part of RAW conversion.
    The other non-obvious thin g about the array is that it has more green sensors than reds or blues. Why? Because our eyes see more green in daily life since its in the middle of our visible spectrum. Sensors are rather dumb and stupid about this, not having a brain and all to back them up. Well, they would if we took the jpg's from the camera, but we'd be restricted to whatever the developer said was the "right" answer under all lighting and contrast conditions .... exactly why we want to control the RAW processing, and use our brains and judgement, right?
    So, twice as many greens? Yes. But it gets trickier. Since we want to interpret a tone (color) and shade (brightness) for a pixel, we somehow need to map 3 colors (or as we've just discovered 3 colors and a 2nd green) to each pixel. This feat is called interpolation. How it's done is perhaps as much art as science since our eye does not see colors the same at low light levels as it does at mid or bright levels. That brain again helps out! Again we need to use that same brain to help refine the image we see coming out of the RAW processing engine.
    But there's yet another problem. Our eyes and brain in combination are freakily fantastic. Despite the microscopic size of those sensors on the CCD/CMOS imager, they are in a geometric array .... and although we can't see them directly, we become immediately aware of them when we see output from it. So a "demosaic" or moire filter needs to be applied to soften the geometric nature of the array. And each array is different and needs different filtering.
    So, lots and lots of interpretation is needed before the thing that's captured can be recognized as an image on our screens. How one company (Adobe, Apple, or camera manufacturer etc.) does this is proprietary to them, and so no edits on RAW's can be moved from one software company to another unless you take a resolved version .... jpg, tiff, psd etc.

    Most digital cameras use the Bayer pattern colour filter array for their sensor. In a Bayer Pattern CFA, we have a rectangular array of pixels, and each pixel either has a green, red, or blue filter on it. There are variants to this pattern, the complementary CMY system, RGB+clear etc. Some cameras use diagonal arrays of pixels, but these are less common. Fuji have a pattern with large and small pixels, which is unique to them. I'll talk only about the standard RGGB Bayer Pattern here, that most cameras use.
    The repeating pattern is something like this:
    R G R G
    G B G B
    R G R G
    G B G B
    There are one red, and one blue pixel for every pair of green pixels. This is due to green being the largest component of luma, and hence most easily perceived as contributing most to detail.
    Sensors convert light hitting the pixels into a an electrical charge, then to a voltage that gets converted into a digital signal. This digital signal will represent, linearly, the amount of light that hit that pixel. Black, however, in the raw signal may not be at zero, and blacked off calibration areas of the sensor will be recorded to allow for an absolute value for black to be found, and hence give properly linear data for the RAW conversion.
    The first stage in RAW conversion is to demosaic the data, which is to interpolate the missing values from the CFA, ie what is green on the red and blue pixels, what is blue on the red and green pixels and what is red on the green and blue pixels. Once this is done, we have a red, green and blue value at each pixel. The demosaicing process can be as complex or as simple as you like. There are as many methods as I've had hot dinners, so it's not suitable for me to go through the current work in this field, but a quick google will help you find more info if it's something that interests you. Most algorithms work on a much larger area of pixels than just the immediate surrounding ones for the algorithm, and this can vastly improve the quality of the conversion.
    Demosaicing can lead to image artifacts. These can be exacerbated in cameras that do not have, or do not have adequate optical low pass filtering ahead of the image sensor. That's a topic for another essay though! Moire is one symptom of inadequate filtering, and in Bayer CFAs mostly shows up as chroma moire because there are half as many red and blue pixels as there are green, and hence they are sampled at a lower rate. Chroma Moire, to a great extent, can be visually eliminated with clever RAW processing, however moire in general cannot easily be eliminated once it gets into a image.
    Here are some of the main types of artifacts you may see:
    "zippering" often caused by over-simplistic interpolation on the green pixels. The edges of straight lines can look like a zipper
    "parquet floor" often caused by a simple adaptive algorithm for interpolation getting confused by high local detail
    "chroma fringes" are a problem inherent in Bayer CFAs, but can be made worse by some algorithms, and often eliminated by others.
    The next stage in processing is on the RGB data to perform colour space conversion from the camera RGB space to a known RGB space, and white balance etc. We still have linear data at this point, and that's very important for such calculations. Finally, a tonal curve will be used to map from linear light data to a pleasing tonal representation for viewing.
    Graeme

  • I am unable to open raw files from my Canon T1i in Adobe Camera Raw of my version CS3 of Photoshop.  I have tried to update my ACR by downloading version 4.6 from the Adobe website but I am still unable to open raw files, just JPEG.  Is there a way to use

    I am unable to open raw files taken on my Canon Rebel T1i in my version of Photoshop CS3.  When I import raw files into Bridge they come up as patches with CR2 on them and when clicked on, a notice comes up stating that Photoshop does not recognize these files.  I tried to update my Adobe Camera Raw by downloading version 4.6 from the Adobe Website, but when I clicked on the plus-in, I got another message that Photoshop does not recognize this file.  I spoke with a representative from Canon who said that I could not update CS3 and that I should subscribe to the Cloud.  I would prefer to use my CS3, if possible.  Can anyone advise me what to do?

    The T1i was first supported by Camera Raw 5.4 which is only compatible with CS4 and later
    Camera Raw plug-in | Supported cameras
    Camera Raw-compatible Adobe applications
    Some options:
    Upgrade to CS6
    Join the Cloud
    Download the free Adobe DNG converter, convert all T1i Raw files to DNGs then edit the DNGs in CS3
    Camera raw, DNG | Adobe Photoshop CC

  • How can I process a linearly converted raw file while preserving color?

    Hi,
    I want to convert my raw files in a linear format (to preserve all the dynamic range and detail and prevent unnecessary clipping). My question is "how can I modify the brightness or luminance while preserving the hue and saturation of every color?"
    As for applying the gamma curve, I guess the best and only way in Photoshop is to create a Levels adjustment and place a 2.2 in the middle (gray) input box. However, I read in http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hybrid-conversion.shtml that a 4.75 value should be used... Why? Is the number placed there not correspond to the gamma being applied?
    Thanks in advance.
    Juan Dent
    P.S.: getting colorimetrically accurate color from the camera, through all the manipulations in Photoshop is for me crucial. Any pointers as to what to do and what to avoid?

    First of all, you should have used the Adobe DNG Converter 8.6, not an old, obsolete version.  Always use the very latest version.  8.3 was simply the first ACR version to support your camera model, that's all.
    Note that the DNG Converter works only on folders, not on individual raw files.  Put all your Sony raw files in a folder and run the Converter on that folder containing the raw files.
    I have absolutely no clue as to what on Earth you mean by : "upon reading the memory chip from Photoshop CS5".
    You also need to make sure that CS5 is fully updated.  You cannot rely on the highly and notoriously unreliable Adobe auto updater to tell whether you have the latest update installed or not.
    I still have no idea what platform you are on, Mac or Windows. Please read the following for next time:
    BOILERPLATE TEXT:
    If you give complete and detailed information about your setup and the issue at hand,
    such as your platform (Mac or Win),
    exact versions of your OS, of Photoshop (not just "CS6", but something like CS6v.13.0.6) and of Bridge,
    machine specs, such as total installed RAM, scratch file HDs, total available HD space, video card specs, including total VRAM installed,
    what troubleshooting steps you have taken so far,
    what error message(s) you receive,
    if having issues opening raw files also the exact camera make and model that generated them, etc.,
    someone may be able to help you (not necessarily this poster).
    A screen shot could be very helpful too.
    Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
    Thanks!

  • Is there a way to edit raw files from the Canon 5DMkIII in Lightroom 2?

    I rented a Canon 5DMkIII this past weekend and shot in RAW. I'm running Lightroom 2.7 on my laptop because I have a pre-Intel dual-G5 tower at home and can't run LR3 or LR4 on a pre-Intel chip machine and I tend to share my libraries across my laptop to my tower and back (so I need to be able to open the LR files on both machines, which is why I'm still using LR2 ... I know, I know, I need to upgrade but that's going to be a hefty investment!)... In the meantime, I'm wondering if there's a way to view/edit the raw files in Lightroom? They won't even import (I get the message upon import attempt: "Some import operations were not performed. (97)")... I know the information is there, though, because I used PhotoMechanic to do the initial sort of my images that I wanted to keep/edit. I see there's ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) 6.7 (I think it is) that supports the 5DMkIII, but I'd prefer to edit across the board in Lightroom, it's so much faster. Is there something I can download to still edit my raw files in LR2? Or, do I have to buy the update and get LR4 if I want to edit my 5DMkIII RAW files? Thanks in advance for your help!!

    Support for the canon 5d Mk111 was introduced in LR 4, ACR 6.7 so you will have to use the Adobe DNG Converter 6.7 or later to convert the raw files to dng format before you can import and work with the files in LR 2. The converter is a free download from Adobe and is available at this link.
    Mac http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5485
    Win http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5486

  • Problems with Viewing Canon EOS Rebel t1i Raw Files in Adobe PS and Bridge CS 4

    I am unable to preview the thumnails of my raw files from my Canon EOS Rebel T1i camera in Adobe Photoshop or Bridge (CS4)?  I've looked everywhere for a plugin? Am I unable to view these files in these programs. Please help. Thanks!

    You prolly need to update the installed Camera Raw plug-in...See the Camera Raw product page for more info on downloading and installing an update.

Maybe you are looking for