Because nobody would buy it :lecture:
-bob
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!
Purple Flowers -> blue
- Thread starter ChrisDauer
- Start date
-bob
Robert Campbell
Well-known member
This is the ultraviolet problem again: one suggestion is to photograph bluebells early in the day - it seems they reflect less uv then.
ChrisDauer
Workshop Member
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2003-04-07-blue-ketchup_x.htm
Though I suppose it's a condiment and not a food. :lecture:
On the other hand, given that Russians during WWII lived off of sawdust and glue, I suppose the sugars in Ketchup would be down right tasty!
scott kirkpatrick
Well-known member
I wonder whether the strange colors out of my GRD-II shot are due to C1's "neutrality" or because the M8 shot was taken with a UV/IR filter. Anyone care to try without using C1, say with Lightroom, ACR or Aperture? The yousendit link to the original raw file is http://download.yousendit.com/F4329A1C3E052E3C .
scott
scott
Scott, here is the result with ACR. WB off the right gray card came to 2700 +8.
-bob
ChrisDauer
Workshop Member
Bob has the magic touch.
But he messed up.
The Lemon is orange. :grin:
scott kirkpatrick
Well-known member
That's great, the orange became orange again. Now for the purple sweater to stop being blue? See the M8 shot in my first post. That's about right for both.
Looking at the histogram for the GRD-II shot in C1, I thought perhaps I had blown the red channel and ended up with only yellow in the orange. This supports the occasional claim I hear that ACR is particularly smart about recovering highlight information in which the raw data goes beyond the JPG.
scott
Looking at the histogram for the GRD-II shot in C1, I thought perhaps I had blown the red channel and ended up with only yellow in the orange. This supports the occasional claim I hear that ACR is particularly smart about recovering highlight information in which the raw data goes beyond the JPG.
scott
scott kirkpatrick
Well-known member
Hi Jono.
I reckon that's pretty close indeed. maybe still a little understated on the reds, so maybe I did overexpose slightly. Does Aperture know anything about the GRs, or just provide a generic DNG handler? Do you have a profile that you use?
scott
I reckon that's pretty close indeed. maybe still a little understated on the reds, so maybe I did overexpose slightly. Does Aperture know anything about the GRs, or just provide a generic DNG handler? Do you have a profile that you use?
scott
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Scott
I've had a go at tweaking it, a bit of yellow in the red seems to help, but it seemed better to 'show it like it is'.
Aperture simply uses it's generic DNG handler (which works really well). I think we have pretty much the same RAW scenario:
M8 - dng (fully supported)
.ORF - now also fully supported
Ricoh dng - not supported.
There is a part of me which is thinking that it would be more sensible to convert everything to .dng and use them for storage (someone might be able to read them in the future!).
Aperture still has it's quirks, but the days when I dithered between using it and Lightroom have completely gone now.
Robert Campbell
Well-known member
Forgive me for being dense, Jono: but if dng is a generic format, then how can there be variants which some programs don't support? [I use Lightroom on a PC]
Aperture 2 has a generic dng converter. It still has specific ones for the supported cameras you list. 1.5 had no generic converter, and then one had to fool the program into thinking that the grd is one of the supported cameras.
However, it must be said that the generic and specific conversions can yield quite different results. The generic one applies a lot more sharpening, for example. For whatever reason.
However, it must be said that the generic and specific conversions can yield quite different results. The generic one applies a lot more sharpening, for example. For whatever reason.
scott kirkpatrick
Well-known member
I suspect the problem is that "generic" isn't the whole story. The standards that define how to read a .dng or .tiff file say where the RG or B values of the pixels are to be found, how to encode the basic characteristics of the R, G, and B filters used, and provide room for lots of metadate, much of it gratuitously obscure or even encoded, so that only the camera maker's proprietary software can use it to get the best image. White balance information is passed along by a single triplet of "average" R,G, and B values, which each software tool turns into a color temperature and a shift along the magenta-green axis, in units known only to the developers of that tool.
When the software recognizes the camera, it can in addition supply tone curves that are appropriate for that camera, read additional information from the metadata, and perhaps offset the white balance towards a best rendering. Thus when I read my M8 files into C1, I see color shifts of a few units, but the generic handler that reads in the Ricoh data often comes up with shifts of 15-25 in the same units. Even "generic" seems to differ from one tool to another, so that Aperture, in the examples here, seems to be trying a little harder than C1.
scott
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Robert
Well, this is a very big can of worms - As I understand it the DNG files can contain specific camera information as well (notably with respect to the bayer filter as I understand it), which will not be used by a generic converter.
Adobe did a big deal on DNG being 'universal', but even they have had problems with some Nikon files.
Aperture has a generic DNG converter, but if the camera is supported (whether with DNG or other RAW format) then it does use that information.
Personally I think it's the least worst option (dng) - one of the reasons why the Sigma worries me - I just can't see that there will be anything to decode those RAW files in 10 years time, let alone 20
Robert Campbell
Well-known member
Hi Jono; I must be very stupid, for I thought that dng was an open format, meaning that anyone could use it, even if the parameters were set by Adobe [possibly with outside influences and suggestions]. I didn't think that there were camera specific functions - this would seem to severely limit its usefulness.
Re the Nikon files: I did understand from somewhere that Nikon encrypted the white balance info in its nef [or whatever they are called] files, to make it harder/next to impossible for third parties to reverse engineer them.
BTW, how was the snow up the Alps/the funny french cars/ the garlic and the vin rouge? And did you suffer from getDPI withdrawal symptoms?
Robert Campbell
Well-known member
Hi,
Are you and Jono saying that this so-called universal generic dng format simply isn't what it says on the can? That there are variations with 'secret' information? If so, then what's the point of dng; why not stick with camera makers' own formats?
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Bertie
I'm not sure that it limits it's usefulness, if it were really standardised, then it wouldn't have scope for dealing with advances in RAW file development, and thus it would very much limit the results to a lowest common denominator.
On the other hand, Aperture does have a generic RAW converter for .DNG, so that it can process any DNG file (but not necessarily with the best equipment).
It used to bug me, but increasingly I think that it's a good compromise which does 'ensure' the longevity of one's RAW files.
La Rosière
As for the get DPI withdrawal symptoms? I had a computer in the hotel room, but refrained from looking for the week and was much consoled by the aforementioned garlic and vin rouge!
Surely not
Ah, but I have an open car, but I'd be extremely irritated if everyone could use it!
I think that the argument is that to get the best out of your raw files, the .dng (or whatever file) will have camera specific information within it - which is outside the scope of the .DNG spec.
I'm not sure that it limits it's usefulness, if it were really standardised, then it wouldn't have scope for dealing with advances in RAW file development, and thus it would very much limit the results to a lowest common denominator.
On the other hand, Aperture does have a generic RAW converter for .DNG, so that it can process any DNG file (but not necessarily with the best equipment).
It used to bug me, but increasingly I think that it's a good compromise which does 'ensure' the longevity of one's RAW files.
Ah - the snow was excellent, the funny french car was a Renault Laguna, the garlic and vin rouge was nearly as good as the chocolate and vino rosso from over the border (but much more expensive). Our baby seemed to be happy, the hotel was wonderful . . . . the only thing which suffered was the photography, but there are a few shots here:BTW, how was the snow up the Alps/the funny french cars/ the garlic and the vin rouge? And did you suffer from getDPI withdrawal symptoms?
La Rosière
As for the get DPI withdrawal symptoms? I had a computer in the hotel room, but refrained from looking for the week and was much consoled by the aforementioned garlic and vin rouge!
jonoslack
Active member
HI Terry
Well, actually, some of the black and white shots that say D-lux3 (file names starting with L9) were actually taken with the M8.
Always when skiing in the past I've taken a backpack with a 'real' camera in it, but this year I thought I'd give it a miss (last year I was embarrassingly dangled from a ski lift by the strap on a backpack, which then broke, dumping me unceremoniously into a pile of snow).
Most of the time I had the D-lux 3 in one pocket and the GX-100 in the other. I had a long thread worked out for when I got back . . . .then I thought I wouldn't bother.
Basically, the GX-100 has a better interface, and is better at high ISO . . .but:
the Dlux-3 has
1. better colour
2. a better lens (especially at telephoto)
3. 16:9 is much more useful for landscape than 4:3
4. much much less noise in the sky at base ISO.
The real truth however was that the files from the M8 were so much better than either . . . . . . .
nostatic
New member
You're making it a lot easier for me to rationalize buying either a GRD2 or GX-100 to go along with my Dlux3
And in my case, now that I've been shooting with the Pentax K20d and glass like the 77mm ltd for a few weeks, I can see the shortcomings of the files coming out of the Dlux3.
Then again, I can't stuff the pentax in my pocket.