RAW conversion look terrible

With the upgrade to iPhoto 6, RAW conversions from my D70 now look horribly noisy after increasing exposure. For that matter they look terrible when nothing has been done to them. What is going on!?
Left is Preview and Right is iPhoto with out any adjustments.
Powermac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.4)

If you're on the Mac, there was a problem with the update. Read this http://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/kb/acr-84-bridge-cs6-metadata.html

Similar Messages

I have an A77 and see that DxO RAW conversions look different

Several RAW conversion comparisons on the web amongst A77 users are pointing to markedly better conversions and noise handling currently within new DxO 7 eg. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=39970661
I know that Sony's RAW have historically taken a while to arrive at optimal conversions from previous experinece with my A350. When Lightroom 3 came along it was like getting new cameras for most Sony Alpha users with from RAW performance at last matching Nikon from effectively the same sensors.
Can you let me know the likely time lag till ACR and Lightroom will have an update to this initial default to really match the DxO performance. Otherwise, to be honest, despite being a Lightroom user since the original Beta stages and a passionate supporter and advocate, I may have to consider jumping ship. Working exclusively in RAW I do need to be using the very best conversions possible to make the best out of my investment in my camera equipment.
I don't know if this lag with ARW conversions is because Sony don't co-operate with Adobe early enough or whether because Sony is only number three in DSLR share it gets less priority within Adobe than Canon and Nikon, but some timeline on a revised version of Lightroom to address this for the new Sony Alphas would be great.
Many thanks from a long time advocate who really hopes I can stick with Lightroom,
Cheers,
Paul

Hi Hal,
Many thanks...I’ll give it a try. Not trying to cause trouble as I genuinely am a fan of LR, but if they always lag on getting to grips with Sony RAWs it’s a major drawback for Sony users.
Cheers,
Paul

Lightroom vs. Photoshop Raw conversion

I have noticed that the Lightroom RAW conversion looks about 1/3 to 1/2 stop brighter compared to Photoshop on the same image with the same settings (I'm using LR 2.4 and Photoshop CS4). Anybody else notice this or have any thoughts? I'm assuming they use the same RAW conversion engine.

Thanks for the response. Well, when I export from LR to a JPEG and do the same from Photoshop (viewing them in photoshop), I get two slightly different toned images (I mistakenly said the LR images are brighter...they're actually darker). Viewing them this way should remove any monitor discrepencies (I'm working on a calibrated Lacie 724 monitor with 120% Adobe 1998 gamut so that should not be an issue).

Edit in photoshop looks terrible

i thought i would try the "seamless" editing between LR and photoshop. go to photo, edit in photoshop....CS2 opens up...i can edit, dogde, burn, whatever...how great! then click save....and there are my changes in LR. in a perfect world, this would be great. but, the RAW file looks TERRIBLE when opened in photoshop. it looks like a washed out bluish cast with a bit of negative effect on it. it just looks bad. then when you save and view it in LR, it looks the same...terrible. i spoke with a couple people and they said this was a bug in the beta version. looks like an issue still. so now i have to take the long way around and export to tiff, then work on the photos, then export to jpg. ridiculous. i still like the software but they really should have focused on the big things instead of the small stupid things...like the 5 star rating system for photos.

there was no tone in my first post, what you were reading was insane frustration. i spent 5 hours on this and it still isn't working. sorry if you took it personal. the photos look faded when i right click, choose edit in CS2, and view them in CS2. if i open any other photos in CS2 they look mint. let me say they don't look night and day but they are very faded and the color saturation is not there. what settings in CS2? where do i look for these? i thought everything was perfect since it always is when i just use CS2. 2 of my other guys have the same issue, as well as another photo studio we are in touch with who dont' work with us. 4 people with the same issue is odd i think you would agree. i don't think we will get much resolved via this since i can't show you the photos. and when i do select edit in CS2, i get the box that comes up with the 3 bullet points...half the time i only am able to select the 3rd, since the first and 2nd are greyed out and yes i have the full version. bought right from adobe. what setting do you check off in CS2 to make it look great? then when i click SAVE in CS2, it brings it back to LR with my edits which is great, but it's the faded non-saturated version. i really really really wish i could give you more info but i can't. i'm not new to adobe, just LR. i have been using After FX, premiere, PS, encore, audition for years.

A lightroom preset to produce a RAW conversion that always looks like the camera-processed JPG?

Hi,
Any tips on how to make a Lightroom preset that will render the RAW file in a manner that looks remotely the same as the picture displayed when shot?
I'm not talking about camera calibration > camera standed, portrait etc.
With Lightrooms clunky default adjustments the histogram looks correct; i.e. the way it did when it was shot. The image also looks horrible; clipped blacks, too contrasty etc. because it arbitrarily boosts Brightness +50, Contrast +25
When I zero the settings the histogram shifts completely away from the way it was shot, as if it was underexposed, which is not correct. I've tested this with perfect exposures using a GMB colour chart.
I guess the camera is showing me a histogram of the JPEG after it has been processed.
Is there a quantifiable way to replicate this other than playing with the sliders until the RAW roughly matches the JPG and then saving the preset?
Thanks.
Update - I'm using a Canon 5DMkII and a 1DsMkII

Good grief. When I photograph a color chart, under controlled lighting conditions, exposed perfectly, that is what I want to see as the default RAW conversion, with acurate values. In fact with camera calibrations that is pretty much how it works. It's not open to interpretation. Blacks have a certain value, neutral 8, neutral 6.8 etc.
If not, then give me the tools to accomplish this quickly. In Photoshop I can shoot a scene under controlled lighting, shoot a color chart in the first frame, create a custom curve and apply this to every subsequent shot. There is a rough way to do this in LR but it's quite a backward step.
THEN I can have a filed day, changing whatever I want, but I do not like randomly dragging sliders until it "looks ok". I stopped doing that my first year of Photoshop when I learned how to use the color sampler correctly.
"If you shoot raw (as opposed to JPEG) then YOU have the power and capability to decide what stuff is supposed to look like. "
I understand I have the power to decide what stuff looks like. Nothing I have said so far argues against this. I'm asking for an accurate baseline, from which I can let my creativity run wild.
" I encourage people to ignore the LCD and go with your guts", "If you are lazy and don't want to be bothered rendering the scene, yes, I can understand why you would want somebody else to control the interpretation of the scene"
The LCD and the histogram are a quick way of evaluating correct exposure for a shot, so that blacks are not clipped and highlights are not blown out and lost forever. They are standard TOOLs of modern photography. To not use them is illogical. It would be like instructing people not to use the camera's inbuilt light meter, because it's "more creative" without it.
It does not have to be one extreme or the other. People seem to be saying "reject the jpg - it means nothing. Let the artist in you decide" and yet they blithely accept the default settings Lightroom gives. My point is, the camera rendering is a good REFERENCE POINT, far more accurate to what you saw on the day, and far more relevant, than LR's adjustments.
Once I have an accurate rendering, quickly, THEN I can be creative and enjoy the power and flexibility of RAW. If nothing else, it's a much faster way to work.

"Unable to save the raw conversion settings. There was a write permission error."

I just built a new workstation for processing photos using PS CS5. I use external drives to store my images as I find it easier for backing up as well as for when I want use my laptop for sorting, etc.. I copied over all my old "Collection" files, and of course, had to "fix" them once on the new machine. Once pointed in the right direction, the collections all fill out correctly.
When I go to process a collection though, I encounter an odd problem I can't seem to sort out. I can delete files, rename files, copy/paste to the external drives, etc.. What I can't seem to do is add Labels, Ratings, or modify RAW settings. I mean, I can use ACR to make adjustments, I just can't seem to save them.
The system just ignores label, rating commands completely. When I try to save an ACR adjustment I get this error. "Unable to save the raw conversion settings. There was a write permission error."
The files are NOT write protected. I'm set up as the owner of my workstation, with complete control of the system. I can't seem to find any useful information about this error because the "write permission error" seems to only be happening on installs, so that's all I can find help for.
My system:
Intel Core i7 970@ 3.20GHZ
24.0 GB RAM
64-bit OS - Windows 7 Pro
DX58S02 Motherboard
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580

Thanks for replying. I've been going crazy trying to fix this.
To answer your first question; I use sidecar XMP files. If everything from my archive was shot in RAW I'd try converting to DNG and see if embedding the changes directly in a file worked. Unfortunately, a lot of my old stuff was shot in JPG, so sidecars seems to be the best choice.
When I add labels, ratings, as well as change RAW settings on files I place on my workstations HD everything works. It's only when I try to do these things with the same files on removable drives that I run into trouble. The drives I use are Transcend 640GB StoreJet 25ms connected via USB.
I don't think it's a UAC problem. At least, to my understanding, doesn't that control how your machine alerts you to program changes? I looked into how to change ownership, and did so, but that didn't work. Here's a link to what I mean: http://www.addictivetips.com/windows-tips/windows-7-access-denied-permission-ownership/
I'm stumped. I also hate the idea that I'll have to go through various folders to find images from already created collections, copy them to a new folder on my HD and then work on them. Then I'll have to put them all back... ugghhhh

My RAW files look washed out jpegs are OK

My RAW files look washed out, in camera I introduced warm colours by setting it on cloudy and set to vivid. They look great in other programs, how do I retain the original colors?

Buddy, the issue is that Photoshop Camera Raw / Bridge don't use the parameters you set in-camera at all. It may seem odd that it doesn't, but that's the way it works.
The idea is that these software tools give you full control over literally hundreds of factors that go into your raw conversions, and trying to emulate the presets on the camera just doesn't make sense.
You need to save new Camera Raw Defaults to deliver color you like in new exposures you haven't opened before. Check especially the Camera Profile setting in the Camera Calibration tab in Camera Raw. Adobe does provide some options that will get you close to what the camera does, then you can tweak the settings further.
For what it's worth, it's not wrong to want the color to match, especially if you like the color the camera delivers. I've created Camera Raw Defaults for my own cameras that provide a very good match between the in-camera color and what a new exposure looks like when first opened in Camera Raw... I don't always leave it that way, though.
-Noel

Movie looks terrible when exported. Help!

So i just got back into some video work. I used to know how to video edit, but there has been some time between my once educated stage and now.
To get myself going I installed this old program and used a few files that I took from youtube. I converted the files to WMV's and began to cut away. After some considerable manipulation, music added and what not, i decided to export my project.
Here then enlies my probelm; every time I go to export the project the video looks terrible. The quality is degraded, the cuts between scenes are slower, and what is perhaps most annoying, is that anywhere a clip was manipulated ie (slowed down, reversed, whatever) the size of the clip shrinks to about half the size.
I can't figure out what is wrong, but then again I barely know anything about this program. What could be wrong? The project looks great on the time line. It's only when its rendered or exported that it gets all messed up. The clips are from youtube. the music is just an mp3. Is the footage just not high enough quality? Is the program I have too old? Any information regarding a solution to these problems would be greatly appreciated. Sorry if this is a stupid question.

Do you have any other suggestions or advice pertaining to my situation?
Two:
1.) Use G-Spot to tell you what CODEC is used, and possibly use a different conversion program to get the material into Premiere.
2.) Use a program like one from Moyea, or FLV to AVI. The conversion from FLV to another highly compressed CODEC like you probably used for the WMV will destroy any quality that you might have had.
If you had PrPro 1.5, or later, Moyea makes a plug-in to Import and edit FLV within PrPro. You might want to contact them, just to check if your version, known as PrPro 1.0 in most circles, will work with their plug-in. In PrPro 2.0, the Moyea plug-in works fine. However, when starting with FLV's quality is ALWAYS going to be an issue. There is no way around this.
Copyright issues totally aside, you'd be better off working from a ripped DVD of that Disney production. Do consider copyright issues long and hard. Won't go into the legal issues, but they should be considered.
Good luck,
Hunt

Raw Conversion: Colors not accurate. Correction with profile?

Hi,
When I create JPGs from my Raw files, the results don't look natural. Some colors have more saturation, some less. For example, the colors of the KoMi A series look somehow dirty; the reds of the Maxxum 5D seem to be oversaturated (dark reds are to bright, brown faces look rather pinkish).
This is in comparison to the orignal objects, to the JPGs generated from the KoMi Raw converter and to the in-camera JPGs.
Since Lightroom has tremendous color tuning options (under HSL and Color), I wonder whether a camera-specific profile can make the colors more natural. Has anybody tried for the KoMi cameras? Can anybody share a profile?
I don't have a color checker, so this would be a tough one for me. I tried a bit, but whenever one color seemed right, another color had become worse.
Here is my equipment:
Cameras: Konica Minolta A2, Minolta A1, Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D.
Other: My room has fluorescent tubes of type 950 (5000K, highest quality, Philips Graphica Pro) or of course daylight from outside. My screen is calibrated using ColorPlus hardware. I used a grey card for most of my photos. JPGs viewed with IMatch (color-profile aware).
Regards,
Martin

Hallo Uli,
there are two aspects of the color deviation:
1. Displaying colors in LR
This is what you are addressing in the other thread. I can confirm this behavior, but let's not touch this matter here.
2. Raw conversion
This is what I am talking about in this post. The effect is actually larger than the display deviation.
Regards,
Martin

RAW conversion in 16 Bit?

Hi to all!
I'm using Aperture for quiet some time now, and i like the way i can select and organize all my files, and doing and adjusting my projects and albums.
But since I'm starting shooting Nef files I seem to be more and more in a dilemma. I also like the way I'm working with CS4 now, and all the options I have in Camera Raw, and I'm still trying to figure out, whether there is a way in working with both apps inter-active.
My library is now a referenced, external one. So all editing of my Raw files is stored in the Aperture library internally. My 14 Bit Nef files are converted into 16 Bit in the moment Aperture is opening or converting it? As soon I open them with External Editor they are a 16 Bit (if I want so) but they are no more Raw.
Most of my files are not getting extensively edited, so it's fine with me doing my conversion and a few tweaks, and leave them so. Now I tried to open the same Nef files in Adobe Camera Raw, and as long I let Adobe store the edit files separate from the Raw files, it seems Aperture is not disturbed, and I can even open and adjust them again. So far it seems to be no problems.
But I noticed now 2 problems.
The first is that all given keywords and description are only inside Aperture library (and they would only accompanied if I export the files as Tif)
And secondly that Adobe Raw seems NOT to convert my Nef files into 16 Bit.
If someone sees somehow a workaround pls give me ideas. Also how important is this 16 Bit question at all during this RAW conversion? Would it make sense to Raw-convert a 8 Bit file, and open it after to 16 Bit to make than more layer-work or clean-up?
I'm sorry if my questions sound a bit confusing.

mogli365 wrote:
I also like the way I'm working with CS4 now, and all the options I have in Camera Raw, and I'm still trying to figure out, whether there is a way in working with both apps inter-active.
You can use both but not interactively, and it's probably not a good idea unless you really know what you're doing because you could lose track of some images that way. Many will say that there's no reason to do this, but there are some things I do starting in Bridge/ACR. I keep these images in a folder called "NOTinA2", and I browse that folder with Bridge.
My library is now a referenced, external one. So all editing of my Raw files is stored in the Aperture library internally. My 14 Bit Nef files are converted into 16 Bit in the moment Aperture is opening or converting it? As soon I open them with External Editor they are a 16 Bit (if I want so) but they are no more Raw.
Neither program is affecting the actual RAW file: Bridge/ACR are storing instructions in a sidecar file, and Aperture is storing instructions in the Library. When you export or open in Photoshop, a new file is created. There's no need to open either in Photoshop unless you need to do Photoshop work.
Most of my files are not getting extensively edited, so it's fine with me doing my conversion and a few tweaks, and leave them so. Now I tried to open the same Nef files in Adobe Camera Raw, and as long I let Adobe store the edit files separate from the Raw files, it seems Aperture is not disturbed, and I can even open and adjust them again. So far it seems to be no problems.
The two programs are both referencing the same files, and one doesn't even know the other is there. If you open a file in Photoshop from either program a new file will be created. However, if you open it from ACR, Aperture will not know it's there.
The first is that all given keywords and description are only inside Aperture library (and they would only accompanied if I export the files as Tif)
You can not share Keywords from Aperture with Bridge.
And secondly that Adobe Raw seems NOT to convert my Nef files into 16 Bit.
At the bottom of the Adobe Camera RAW window, you'll see what looks like a web link. Click it to open the workflow options dialog box. There you can change it from 8bit to 16bit, set your print resolution and tell it if you want to open them in Photoshop as Smart Objects. (that last option will "embed" a copy of the RAW file in your Photoshop document and allow you to revisit you RAW conversion settings.)
DLS

I tested my new Canon 5D Mark iii with my 85 1.2 L lens. The images look terrible! What gives?

I just purchased a new Canon 5D Mark iii body. It is replacing my 1Ds Mark ii. I tested it with my 85 1.2 L series lens. I took the RAW images into Capture One 7 to look at them. I was highly disturbed at what I saw. The quality was no where near my Canon 1Ds Mark ii. The images seemed somewhat soft even after applying a consderable amount of sharpening. They also looked flat and lifeless, even after pumping the contrast and adding Clarity. All in all they looked terrible! I must have something wrong, as I have read countless times that the new chip gives incredible results.
When first attempting to set up my camera I set it to Adobe RGB and for RAW images only. I noticed that you seemed forced into deciding on a specific "Picture Style". I left it on the default settting of "Standard". Should that effect my RAW files, or is that bypassed altogether when shooting RAW? I noticed that in "Standard" mode that some in camera sharpening was applied to the files. Is that my problem? Should that be turned down to zero, as I would normally do all my sharpening afterward either in Capture One 7 or other software. I shot all my test images with fast shutter speeds so that is not the issue. This lens is in perfect condition and has always produced incredibly sharp contrasty images. What on earth could be wrong? Any suggestions? I am a professional shooter for the last 20 years, so this is really perplexing me! Help!!!

Hi Corey,
Picture styles are ONLY applied to JPEG images or video. They are never applied to RAW. Canon will "tag" the meta-data of the image indicating picture style choices so that desktop processing software that understands those choices can apply it after-the-fact. But the point of "RAW" is that the camera will not perform any change to the image which would result in a loss of original data.
As for the soft focus... the good news there is probably nothing wrong with your camera or your lens. It probably just needs a slight focus calibration adjustment (you don't even need to send it in for this.)
The camera sensor is analogous to a movie screen. If the image is blurry... it's not the movie screen... it's the movie projector (or the focus). However... keeping with that analogy... suppose we focused the image perfectly... but then moved the project a foot closer to the screen. The result would be a slightly out-of-focus image even though there is actually nothing wrong with the projector.
The phase detect focus sensors are on the floor of your camera. When the reflex mirror is down, some light is bounced down into those sensors to focus the image. The distance to the AF sensors vs. the distance to the real sensor is supposed to be calibrated to match... but it's actually possible for the AF sensors to think the image is focused when it's really slightly out of focus on the sensor. For this reason, your camera has auto-focus micro-adjustment capability -- in other words this is something you can test and tune yourself. The REASON you might do it yourself is because it turns out it can be different for every lens (even two EF 85mm f/1.2L lenses in a row might have slightly different focus). This adjustment is only available on the mid-range and pro bodies -- it's part of the reason you buy a premium body. The camera can actually remember the AF adjustment for each lens uniquely.
See this article: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths
Or this article: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/are_your_pictures_out_of_focus.shtml
BTW, to test the lens, I'd suggest getting a focus calibration target. You want controlled conditions when you do this -- don't shoot typical everday subjects because it wont be precise enough.
I use a DataColor Spyder "LensCal". The LensAlign products are also popular.
Tim Campbell
5D II, 5D III, 60Da

Aperture RAW conversion and noise

I've been using Aperture for many years and have recently learned something useful about how to tweak the RAW conversion settings. Until recently I just left them at the default settings for my camera, a Panasonic GH2.
Anyhow I've not been entirely happy with shadow noise (otherwise I reckon it's a great camera). Many web sites say that a degree of shadow noise is normal for this camera, so I didn't figure mine was any different. I tried a variety of noise reduction approaches but none really made a worthwhile improvement.
Until a few days ago when I tried tweaking the 'Raw Fine Tuning' settings - and I found a way to make things *much* better.
Please note that the following comments may only be relevant to Panasonic RAW files, and maybe only for the GH2. I don't know if they apply to other cameras (though I think they may.
It turns out that for the GH2, the default 'Raw Fine Tuning' setting includes 'Sharpening' of 0.78 and 'Edges' of 0.79. This is fairly aggressive sharpening, but I didn't really realise what it was doing to noise until I discovered that was significantly increasing shadow noise -even at base ISO!
If I set these both the sharpening sliders in the Raw Fine Tuning section to '0', the 'grain' in the shadows is much smoother - a massive improvement.
But, of course, the image is a bit less 'sharp'. Well, this isn't much of a problem with 16+ megapixel cameras. Unless you are making huge enlargements from originals, and really look closely at the finest details at 100%, it makes very little difference if you give up this 'sharpness'. But the reduction in noise is actually very obvious indeed. It's much better!
Most of the sharpness I need on these less noisy images can easily be added by including the 'Edge Sharpen' adjustment, either at the defailt settings, or marginally toned down a bit. I'm currently using Intensity 0.7, Edges 0.3 and Falloff 0.4. This leaves most smooth areas untouched, so the 'noise' or 'grain' in smooth areas is as it comes from the sensor. By toggling the Edge Sharpen on and off, I can easily confirm no change in 100% or 200% loupe views.
That level of edge sharpening is a bit subtle, but actually achieves most of what I got from the Raw Fine Tuning sharpening sliders. It will be applied only to in-focus contrasty things like eyelashes or hairs or other defined edges, and very nicely.
So I'm sharing this in case other people also find it helpful. I strongly suggest removing the default sharpening entirely, and only using the Edge Sharpening slider in a cautious manner if you want to enhance sharpness.
Some related web pages:
http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/2011/01/aperture-3-too-sharp-tweak-the-default/
http://www.twin-pixels.com/raw-processors-review-aperture-bibble-capture-one-dxo -lightroom/
PS - there is a different issue with the default Raw Fine Tuning 'Boost' and 'Hue Boost' sliders, both of which are set to 1' by default. It turns out that these introduce a very large amount of contrast and exposure gain - turn them down to zero and the image goes quite dark and flat! The Aperture user guide says something about Hue Boost changing colours when Boost is set to '1' and this is the case. So I've experimented with turning them both to zero, and instead using a custom curves adjustment to achieve a similar level of exposure and contrast to the default conversion and the camera's default JPG image. By fine-tweaking the curves one can get better control of blown highlights and the overall contrast. I'm not sure if the colours are 'better', but I think so. I am fairly sure that I get smoother transitions in the mid-tonal ranges with this approach rather than just using Apple's default settings. Maybe they are a but strong for my liking. Certainly I can make curves that rarely require the 'Recovery' slider to fix over-boosted highlights. Anyhow, you may also find that this tweak helps a bit. Interestingly on a Canon RAW file the effect is not nearly as great in exposure terms, but there is also a definite colour change.
PSS - the end result is that I have set my camera preset for RAW fine tuning to zero settings for boost, hue boost, sharpening and edges. I then add contrast as needed using curves, and sharpen only with a little edge sharpening. I've then saved a few Presets with slightly different contrast curves and all with a little edge sharpening. I can very quickly select the level of contrast needed, and I am very confident that my results are quite a bit better, with better tonal gradations and much less noise.
Hope this helps
Chris.

Nice observations, Chris. I think the RAW Fine Tuning is often overlooked, even though it's a vital first step in RAW processing, and really the whole point of shooting RAW in the first place. Too much boost yields horrible skin tones in my experience. I have a default of .50 Boost and Hue Boost, Sharpening and Edges at .25, Moire .50, Radius 12.0 and Denoise .25. I've found these are "mid range" settings for the Canon 5Dii, and first make small adjustments to the Fine Tuning brick before moving on to exposure adjustments.

Need help with RAW conversion in 1.5

Previous tests on RAW conversion have confirmed that Aperture and CI pretty much all in camera settings except white balance. In my previous tests with everything set to pretty much "normal" in camera Aperture's RAW conversion was close but not exact to the camera produced JPG's of the same exact image (camera set to RAW+JPG). I have no way to test but now the same exact images are no where near the same color balance or temperature.
Does anyone else have this issue with 1.5? What is going on?
I can post some examples if it would help.

Hello, rwboyer
Quote: "[sic with] pretty much all in camera settings
except white balance. In my previous tests with
everything set to pretty much "normal" in camera
Aperture's RAW conversion was close but not exact to
the camera produced JPG's of the same exact image
(camera set to RAW+JPG)."
What are you using as a comparison for the jpegs?
Comparing a RAW photograph to a jpeg duplicate would
not look the same under close examination.
Let's see the examples.
love & peace,
victor
Let me rephrase and provide an example,
I have the camera set to produce a RAW file and a JPG of the same shot. In Aperture 1.1 the way both file looked side by side in Aperture was close but not identical, the way both files looked exported to JPG were close. After switching to Aperture 1.5 the same exact files look completely different.
Here is an example exported from Aperture 1.5
{Moderator note: Links to images were removed. Please only link to images that would be 'family-friendly'.}
Thanks
MacBookPro Mac OS X (10.4.6)

D700 Files Look Terrible in Aperture

OK - what's the deal here. I have been using Aperture forever... now that I have a D700, all my files look over exposed only in Aperture. When i hit full screen, the file at first looks beautiful - then suddenly it changes to an image that looks over exposed and flat. What's going on>?

I'm looking to get a D700 in the near future, and after reading several posts like this on the Apple forums I decided to give the 'overexposure' problem a look.
I downloaded several sample photos (most supplied by users on the forums here) and imported them into Aperture. I noticed the problem described (preview looks fine until Aperture finishes loading the RAW) and saw that the thumbnail in the Finder looks OK, Quick Preview is bad, Aperture preview is OK, Aperture full is bad.
Reducing the Boost option under RAW Fine Tuning significantly reduced the problem. It is my belief that Apple simply has FUBAR default settings for the RAW conversion of D700 images.
See:
http://gallery.me.com/gothalice/100191/Picture%201 (Before)
http://gallery.me.com/gothalice/100191/Picture%202 (After)

Exposure to the Right, RAW Conversion

Hi,
I am quite new to ETTR only having started seriously looking into it this week. I have got the "in camera" part OK. What is giving me a headache at the moment is the subsequent RAW conversion as far as exposure is concerned. I note that if I reduce exposure with the "exposure" slider or "recovery" slider, I can get rid of any clipping. But I notice that the histogram and appearance of each procedure is different. Could someone lead me gently and advise which if either is the preferred route?
Peter

Jao vdL wrote:
Yeah, your time is far more valuable than a potential 0.3 dB better signal
to noise.
Horseshyte....
Unless you are shooting a fleeting moment never to happen again (such as news, sports or something like a wedding), you would be a fool not to double check the scene contrast range and compare it to your sensor dynamic range and decide for yourself where to place your exposure on the scale between "normal" VS ETTR.
Most cameras these days handle a good 10-11 stops of scene contrast range no problem. If you are shooting on even a hazy day (let alone a cloudy day) todays sensors can prolly handle the scene with a plus 1/3 to 1 stop increase in base exposure. A +1 stop increase win base exposure in a scene with 10 stops or less will prolly not blow highlights but will result in a capture that when ETTR will produce a less noisy image than "normally" exosed (based on the through the lens metering of todays DSLRs).
If the scene contrast range is less than the dynamic range of the sensor, you are wasting bits to do a "normal" exposure...
All bets are off if the scene contrast range is beyond the dynamic range of the sensor...but of course, making that determination requires knowing both the dynamic range of the sensor (not supper easy to determine) and the contrast range of the scene (again, not easy to determine).
But don't disregard ETTR out of hand without knowing EXACTLY what we are talking about in terms of scene contrast range and dynamic rang os the sensor. In any even, you should try real hard to know what the f$%ck you are doing BEOFRE you actually exposure the frame...

RAW conversion look terrible

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for