The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Anyway to see as "RAW" a histo as possible in C1/LR?

S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Hey all,

I (assume?) know my Aptus II 6 doesn't show a jpg-process-derived histogram on the camera back... but I was wondering how one would go about getting the most "RAW" histogram representation upon import into both LR and C1 for these MF files.

I'm about to start my minor-area classes (photography) for my doctorate (music) this fall and will be doing a lot of fine-art work. Back in my Sony days, i got a lot of benefit from working with files that were as neutral and "raw" as possible... including using UniWB... such that my initial preview on the camera LCD was as close a representation to the RAW histogram as possible.

No UNiWB, lol... but I'll be shooting tethered with my Aptus a LOT this fall and want to get set up so that what appears post-shutter on my laptop screen is as neutral and representative of what the sensor actually captured as is possible. Do I simply zero out all the sliders, choose a linear tone curve, and use a custom camera profile?

Any thoughts, pointers, or resources you all could point me to would be very helpful.

Cheers!
Shelby
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Anyway? Gees....

Thread title should read "Any way...."
 

PeterL

Member
I'm not sure I understand entirely what you're trying to do, but if you tether into C1 you see the RAW file directly, no jpg is involved. You can manipulate this as you see fit, WB etc.

Sorry if I'm misunderstand what you're trying to do.

Cheers, -Peter
 

Anders_HK

Member
Also on the back you have a histogram direct from the RAW data, same as in C1/LR you should have so with no adjustments applied.
 

Thierry

New member
"Linear" is how the curve should be set, to start with.

Am also not sure to understand the question correctly.

Thierry
 
Last edited:
Shelby, in c1 there is a tab with basic settings or something like that. It shows the raw histogram along with an exposure assessment. There is another histo (with no exposure assessment) that is the post processed histo.
Regards
Paul
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Shelby,

Not exactly sure what you are asking. In C1 there is a box for "Film Curve." In that, if you choose "Linear" as Thierry suggested, you will get a very flat, linear file to work with. The C1 default is "Film Standard" and it has a judicious contrast curve applied to it. You can save your own curves as presets and you can even set up a style with your preferred starting settings for all adjustments, and that is then easy to apply to any selection of images, or even apply it to all images on import.
 
Just got home and checked C1 ... on the Capture tab a tool called Exposure Evaluation shows -2 EV to +2 EV and seems to be logarithmic. This histogram is the raw input values from the digital capture. I tried a quick google but could not find much information on it, although it's pretty obvious when you look at it.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
The Exposure Evaluation tool shows a raw histogram with only your Base Characteristic Curve applied. By default it's under the Capture tab and like any tool in C1 can be added anywhere, removed, rearranged, or floated.

The "Histogram" tool shows the histogram as currently adjusted (with levels/curves/wb/clarity etc etc applied).

This is a subtle but very powerful feature in Capture One and is easily overlooked since they only place it by default in the capture tab which many untethered shooters never look under. Thank goodness the entire UI can be easily customized in a matter of seconds!

If you add the Exposure Evaluation tool to the quick-tab alongside the normal Histogram tool you can quickly glance and see what the distribution of tones in the image is like with and without adjustment.

I think this is more pertinent to your goals than the "linear" vs. "film standard" base characteristic curve.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

Masters Series Workshop:
New England Landscape - Fall Color (Oct 5-8)
 

gazwas

Active member
The Exposure Evaluation tool shows a raw histogram with only your Base Characteristic Curve applied.

The "Histogram" tool shows the histogram as currently adjusted (with levels/curves/wb/clarity etc etc applied).
Well you learn something every day! :D

I 95% shoot tethered to my Mac with the exposure tab and always wondered why it never moved when making adjustments. Checked the histo tab and your correct, with that histo, adjustments effect the values.

I've now replaced the exposure evaluation with the normal histo in my quick tab..... thanks!

Always thought mine was broken. :eek:
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
The Exposure Evaluation tool shows a raw histogram with only your Base Characteristic Curve applied. By default it's under the Capture tab and like any tool in C1 can be added anywhere, removed, rearranged, or floated.

The "Histogram" tool shows the histogram as currently adjusted (with levels/curves/wb/clarity etc etc applied).

This is a subtle but very powerful feature in Capture One and is easily overlooked since they only place it by default in the capture tab which many untethered shooters never look under. Thank goodness the entire UI can be easily customized in a matter of seconds!

If you add the Exposure Evaluation tool to the quick-tab alongside the normal Histogram tool you can quickly glance and see what the distribution of tones in the image is like with and without adjustment.

I think this is more pertinent to your goals than the "linear" vs. "film standard" base characteristic curve.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

Masters Series Workshop:
New England Landscape - Fall Color (Oct 5-8)

However, while the Histogram Tool will reflect a a change if you adjust levels or brightness or saturation sliders, and the Exposure Evaluation Tool will not, if you change the Curve set in the Base Characteristics Tool (Linear, Standard, High Contrast, Extra Shadow) this does affect the Exposure Evaluation. The Base Characteristic Curves are the only settings that affect the Exposure Evaluation (far as I know).

The very nice thing about the Exposure Evaluation is the ability to adjust exposure (meaning old school, adjusting the light output or the aperture/shutter speed :rolleyes:), and being able to see, at the absolute raw level - well, about as raw as you can get anyway - exactly where the exposure is without any further manipulation.

Doug is correct, paired with the Histogram Tool, these combine for very powerful feedback. Underestimated.


Steve Hendrix
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Thanks all... very helpful!

Let me clarify.

I've always found that the adobe products (with 35mm digital) seemed to alter the rendering of the file (and the accompanying histogram was updated as well) upon import such that I wasn't looking at what the camera truly captured. Contrast was boosted.... a curve was applied... something along those lines. I understand this is completely configurable, but just "what is closest to actual RAW" has evaded me.

When shooting the a900, we were able to set the camera up such that the histo on the back was pretty close to unaltered raw data. If the LCD on the back of the aptus were actually very usable, I wouldn't have even posted this :D. So I'm looking for a way to make sure what I see on the laptop is pretty unadulterated by the raw converter. C1 or LR.

Reasoning? I'm starting a project in which I want all the files in series to be VERY similar. I'm going to be using a few studio lights and I want the tones on the subject and the background to be very consistent from shoot to shoot... so I'll be metering heavily... and I want to make sure that the initial view on the laptop is very unprocessed such that I can consistently check rgb levels on the background and subject with the dropper and know that the RAW processor has not become a moving variable in checking the file.

I also just want more control in post... and, for me, that starts by establishing a more "grounded" entry point into post processing.

Feel free to keep this discussion going.. VERY interesting.
 
Shelby, as Thierry says, a linear curve is what you need, but it's a mystical creature you're chasing as removing or neutralising all processing will not look realistic, even a linear curve is processing, as it distributes the data over a logarithmic dimension. Every film for example, has a curve and colour response, so for a more natural look you'd choose a natural film. Basically what you want is a neutral process and with C1 that's what you generally get. By default it will be a fairly neutral curve and all settings zero'd unless you've set it to add a style or changed some default values.

Secondly, the device you use to view the image, cannot render the volume of information in a RAW file, so you're already compromised, the ICC profile will take the output from your linear curve and turn it into something else. You need to colour balance your monitor to get it close. Make sure C1 has an output with a large gamut colour space such as ProPhoto or AdobeRGB.
 
Last edited:

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Thanks all... very helpful!

Let me clarify.

I've always found that the adobe products (with 35mm digital) seemed to alter the rendering of the file (and the accompanying histogram was updated as well) upon import such that I wasn't looking at what the camera truly captured. Contrast was boosted.... a curve was applied... something along those lines. I understand this is completely configurable, but just "what is closest to actual RAW" has evaded me.

When shooting the a900, we were able to set the camera up such that the histo on the back was pretty close to unaltered raw data. If the LCD on the back of the aptus were actually very usable, I wouldn't have even posted this :D. So I'm looking for a way to make sure what I see on the laptop is pretty unadulterated by the raw converter. C1 or LR.

Reasoning? I'm starting a project in which I want all the files in series to be VERY similar. I'm going to be using a few studio lights and I want the tones on the subject and the background to be very consistent from shoot to shoot... so I'll be metering heavily... and I want to make sure that the initial view on the laptop is very unprocessed such that I can consistently check rgb levels on the background and subject with the dropper and know that the RAW processor has not become a moving variable in checking the file.

I also just want more control in post... and, for me, that starts by establishing a more "grounded" entry point into post processing.

Feel free to keep this discussion going.. VERY interesting.

Shelby, the key for you is really going to be sticking to an ICC Profile and especially a Base Characteristic Curve (and making sure you don't change any default settings for your tools from your preferences).

As far as being as raw as possible, I've attached the Base Curves for comparison. I would choose Linear Response, and I might also tweak sharpening and texture tools to get to the appropriate raw level I'm looking for, then set those as defaults, save my workspace, etc.

I expect that getting to the "actual raw" data is kind of a never ending dog chasing tail routine, because the "actual raw" is probably a pretty ugly mess. What you wind up with in Capture One with a Linear Base Curve, and some other tools reduced (like sharpening) is an acceptable "raw looking" version that has not been modified in terms of contrast to resemble mainstream tastes. And that may be as good a starting point as you can get (or would want).

I suspect even from there, you may end up creating a modest routine as a default that pushes the linear file to a more pleasing rendition that at least is somewhat in the direction of where you'll wind up. One thing I've found with linear renderings is that - if the end result will not be reasonably faithful to that linear rendering, it is often difficult to predict what will happen (good and bad) to the file once you start tweaking and pushing it (sometimes what seem to be equalized tones change in certain areas, as in the case of Ulrich's cheeks in the attachments, for example). In many ways, it is often a better idea to at least start a little in the direction of where you might go, so you can adjust exposure and lighting to accommodate the direction you're going in with your post manipulation.


Steve Hendrix
 

yaya

Active member
Shelby, if you fancy delving into Leaf Capture, you can then create a linear-ish curve manually. If you shoot tethered it'll be tagged to the raw files or you can load it to your CF cards so the back will do the tagging. These files when brought into C1 will show that curve

In addition, both in LC and C1 you can select ProfotoRGB as the INPUT profile. It is flatter that the Leaf Profiles and shows a wider gamut that may also help

Yair
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Thanks Steve et al!

I'm not necessarily after actual raw data, but something that pretty accurately describes what has been (usably) captured. I bet you are all right that I'll eventually settle into some sort of import formula that heads me in the general direction of my particular look. I totally understand that the actual raw data is not what I'm after, so I apologize for the lack of (late night) clarity.

So far... since starting MF... I've not been very happy with my results as a whole. I see that the problem has been my lack of time and effort in really digging into what I have to work with. Thinking back to my a900 days, I was always really happy with what I was able to get out of those cameras even though the output really was not nearly as nice as what I get out of my aptus. With the sony, I worked pretty diligently to find a way to have a file that contained as much info as possible to work with... straight out of the camera. I was lucky that there were people who had already done a lot of legwork and were able to share camera parameters and such.

With MF, we seem to be working pretty independently within a smaller user base and some of the easily shared processing parameters just aren't available due to differences in work style, subject, camera, lenses, backs, etc...

I think the variable, for me, has been the lack of time I've had on finding a baseline from which to work. I've totally taken advantage of the horsepower under the hood of these great cams to fix things that spawn from shooting a bit too loosely. I'm wanting to correct that if possible.

For me that's finding a very neutral import recipe that begins my post-processing routine.

Thanks again, everyone, for the help!
 
Last edited:

yaya

Active member
Hi Shelby, if you have a raw file you're struggling with along with a processed image that you have corrected in OS or whatever, which represents what you would like to achieve at the Input level, you can send them to be and I can try and adjust the RAW file and send it back to you with the curve+profile etc. already embedded so C1 will see this tags and will allow you to save them as presets or as part of a style

At your leisure Sir:)

Yair
 
Top