Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Blad Focus question  (Read 5140 times)

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: Blad Focus question
« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2010, 01:47:30 pm »

Quote
Scenario: you have a shoot with 20 selects all of which involve a model with a particular pair of shoes on which are rendering in a slightly off color (according at least to what the client wants/expects)


LIke it or not 90% of all images for commerce are probably processed in photoshop.

You can give the retoucher a close approximation of the image from any raw convertor, but the retoucher is still gonna process out a few different images and blend them.

Now, C-1 does a good fast job and it's great for processing "close" to the final look in the proofing stage, but even if you process out to final from c-1 most people that are expert at post production are going to process out the finals flatter than normal so they can work them deep in photoshop.

Tiwddling thumbs or not.

Though if you have a fast machine, PS doesn't use up that much time in waiting.

Still, C-1 is good for capture, good for proofing, ok for close to finish.

IMO

BC
Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: Blad Focus question
« Reply #21 on: October 21, 2010, 02:04:59 pm »

Scenario: you have a shoot with 20 selects all of which involve a model with a particular pair of shoes on which are rendering in a slightly off color (according at least to what the client wants/expects)

At the Photoshop Stage
1. Open the first image (twiddle thumbs while 16 bit 30+ megapixel file opens)
2. Create Adjustment Layer and make changes
3. Save the first image (twiddle thumbs while 16 bit 30+ megapixel file saves)
4. Repeat 1-3 for each of the 20 images

OR

At the Raw Stage
1. Select one image and adjust it
2. Select all images (Apple-A) and push the Local Copy and Apply button

The same goes for exposure tweaks, contrast, clarity, lens correction (huge time saver versus manually or script-based distortion correction).

Plus for the majority of adjustments the resulting file will have more quality/fidelity if the adjustments are made prior to processing rather than after. So for instance pulling up the shadows in C1 vs. processing strait and then lifting them in Photoshop will result in much better shadow quality (tonality, noise, saturation accuracy etc).

That's not to say that most final image won't go to Photoshop at the end, but simply that the more you can do in raw as a batch adjustment the more time you save. This is true regardless of whether you are using LR, Aperture, Phocus, or Capture One.

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 at 10% off

Doug, I fully agree with what you just said. When working in a set of multiple images that have to be corrected the same way, I also do that step in Capture because it's way faster and reliable.
But we have to end on layers anyway at one stage or another.
Scripts in PS are really powerfull but not user friendly. (and more scripts...)
About the lauching, I was refering to the option to load the C1 or full or simplify for the very beginning. That is interesting for tether (I now refuse to tether but a lot do) or when you want the program for very basics adjustments. In C1 as you pointed you can choose but you first need to open the software, so the idea is to quit that step and ask the user from the very beginning.

C1 can insipre itself from the competition and the competition from C1 of course, like the very good styles that all raw devellopper should have IMO.

About the speed, I must join Doug's view. Phocus is rather faster at first, but then C1, and specially if you have a lot of volume, because of its arquitecture is really fast and efficient.

John, I have a Lightroom and hardly (now never) use it. This is not because I think that Lightroom is bad, it's because I find it too integrated. It might seems a paradox but the powerfull way Lightroom deals with folders is a step to learn and I'm not ready to cross the Rubicon because there are so many softwares to master that adding another learning curve on the yet very long list just repulses me.
On the contrary, I find the Capture idea much more interesting to associate with a separate software to do those tasks, a software that is capable to read any kind of extention included the layers, videos and sound. So for B&W convertions I use PS with Silver Effex that is great because it works on layers and therefore is non intrusive.

About Phocus, I don't want to start a war between the big boys, I downloaded it in the case I rent a Blad back, and it's never bad to have the choice. To be honest, I find both Phocus and Capture 1 very good. Each has its own strengh. C1 is without hesitation more complex (didn't say more complicated) and therefore more heavy, but when it runs in cruise speed it runs. Phocus seems to me in a slightly different spirit, maybe more minimalist but very efficient too. 2 nice tools.

The only thing I'd like is to understand this DNG stuff. Why not a common format in the end? Is that because manufacturers want to keep their secret sauce for their backs?

Then, why Leica choosed the DNG for its S2 ? (and the Pentax will do too, but Pentax has been a strong supporter of DNG. Honestly, I shooted both on the Pentax and I'm unable to see any difference between the native raw and the DNG version. If you guys can find where are the differences I'd like to know where I should look). If there is a Pentax engineer that read those lines he's very welcome to bring the light on the 2 formats.

« Last Edit: October 21, 2010, 02:23:23 pm by fredjeang »
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Blad Focus question
« Reply #22 on: October 21, 2010, 02:23:19 pm »

LIke it or not 90% of all images for commerce are probably processed in photoshop.

You can give the retoucher a close approximation of the image from any raw convertor, but the retoucher is still gonna process out a few different images and blend them.

Now, C-1 does a good fast job and it's great for processing "close" to the final look in the proofing stage, but even if you process out to final from c-1 most people that are expert at post production are going to process out the finals flatter than normal so they can work them deep in photoshop.

Tiwddling thumbs or not.

Though if you have a fast machine, PS doesn't use up that much time in waiting.

Still, C-1 is good for capture, good for proofing, ok for close to finish.

It's very hard to disagree with you given your level of experience... but I do.

I think your 90% estimate significantly underestimates the percentage of working photographers who do their own post.

One Man Shops
Many of our DB customers, and even more of our dSLR customers do most or all of their gigs on their own from start to finish. Meaning they do the raw processing, retouching, and delivery themselves. A lot of the architecture/interior/still-life/product guys fit into that category. I really think this is something that varies based on region, pay-scale, and genre of photography. If you're doing the entire process yourself it just makes a lot more sense to do most of your adjusting at the raw stage.

Big Production Shops
Most of our big production house clients (e.g. multiple-bay furniture studios in High Point) do process in Capture One*. They do it for the quality, and also because they can have the photographers make minor adjustments on-set and the retoucher can start with that adjusted raw (making changes like making it more flat) prior to processing. This is enormously helpful if for instance the retouchers are locked in the bat cave and never see the actual products that are being shot. It also reduces the volume/size of the files going from the photographer to the retoucher since raw files are often 1/5th the size of a 16-bit TIFF.

It might be an interesting poll to ask who does most of their own finishing and of those who process in something other than ACR some or most of the time.

*to be fair to the thread here it's likely if they shot Hassy backs they'd be using Phocus for processing, or Sinar sw with Sinar backs for the same reasons

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 at 10% off

Dustbak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2442
    • Pepperanddust
Re: Blad Focus question
« Reply #23 on: October 21, 2010, 02:26:49 pm »

Scenario: you have a shoot with 20 selects all of which involve a model with a particular pair of shoes on which are rendering in a slightly off color (according at least to what the client wants/expects)

At the Photoshop Stage
1. Open the first image (twiddle thumbs while 16 bit 30+ megapixel file opens)
2. Create Adjustment Layer and make changes
3. Save the first image (twiddle thumbs while 16 bit 30+ megapixel file saves)
4. Repeat 1-3 for each of the 20 images

OR

At the Raw Stage
1. Select one image and adjust it
2. Select all images (Apple-A) and push the Local Copy and Apply button

The same goes for exposure tweaks, contrast, clarity, lens correction (huge time saver versus manually or script-based distortion correction).

Plus for the majority of adjustments the resulting file will have more quality/fidelity if the adjustments are made prior to processing rather than after. So for instance pulling up the shadows in C1 vs. processing strait and then lifting them in Photoshop will result in much better shadow quality (tonality, noise, saturation accuracy etc).

That's not to say that most final image won't go to Photoshop at the end, but simply that the more you can do in raw as a batch adjustment the more time you save. This is true regardless of whether you are using LR, Aperture, Phocus, or Capture One.

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 at 10% off

Naturally you are exaggerating to make your point. If you have to do a repeated job in PS you best create an action or a droplet. Really easy and fast. PS is much more powerful in post processing, especially automated, than any raw converter. (yes there are tasks in PS that are impossible or hard to automate but these are probably totally impossible in raw converters)

I hardly twiddle thumbs in PS. I adjust one image, create an action (or a droplet). Let it run over 200 images. Go down and make myself a cappuccino and relax a bit (or do other things like forum chatter :)).

All in all I do agree with your statement that you should get the most out of any raw converter before heading for PS.

edit; I convert everything through Phocus before heading to PS. I only touch ACR with my Nikon files and only via LR (I would like to use C1 for that though).
« Last Edit: October 21, 2010, 02:29:46 pm by Dustbak »
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Blad Focus question
« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2010, 02:52:19 pm »

Naturally you are exaggerating to make your point. If you have to do a repeated job in PS you best create an action or a droplet. Really easy and fast. PS is much more powerful in post processing than any raw converter. (yes there are tasks in PS that are impossible or hard to automate but these are probably totally impossible in raw converters)

I hardly twiddle thumbs in PS. I adjust one image, create an action (or a droplet). Let it run over 200 images. Go down and make myself a cappuccino and relax a bit (or do other things like forum chatter :)).

All in all I do agree with your statement that you should get the most out of any raw converter before heading for PS,

Am I exaggerating?

There are a LOT of tools/effects that are ONLY possible in PS. Just to pick one - a low opacity blurred overlay is a neat effect (when used in moderation) and can really only be achieved in Photoshop. For these scripting a droplet is a great time saver.

However, when a tool IS available in the raw processor as well as PS it is without a doubt an order of magnitude faster to do it at the raw level.
- exposure/contrast/curves/saturation
- lens corrections (chromatic aberration, distortion, fall-off)
- dust removal
- crops (especially aspect ratio crops like taking a folder of 3:2 dSLR files to 4:3)
- universal color adjustments

So if you have 40 files and you want to reduce saturation and pump contrast a droplet is faster than opening each file but will still take 10-40 minutes (computer/file-size dependent) versus literally 15 seconds at the raw stage.

One thing to keep in mind here is that I work for a company that sells digital backs so I work with a lot of big files - a 16-bit TIFF from a 65+ with no extra layers is already 360 megabytes. So to me "opening" a file can be a 20 second wait in Photoshop and after adding a layer for retouching it might take 60 seconds to save.

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 at 10% off
« Last Edit: October 21, 2010, 02:53:54 pm by dougpetersonci »
Logged

Dustbak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2442
    • Pepperanddust
Re: Blad Focus question
« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2010, 04:03:04 pm »

Am I exaggerating?

There are a LOT of tools/effects that are ONLY possible in PS. Just to pick one - a low opacity blurred overlay is a neat effect (when used in moderation) and can really only be achieved in Photoshop. For these scripting a droplet is a great time saver.

However, when a tool IS available in the raw processor as well as PS it is without a doubt an order of magnitude faster to do it at the raw level.
- exposure/contrast/curves/saturation
- lens corrections (chromatic aberration, distortion, fall-off)
- dust removal
- crops (especially aspect ratio crops like taking a folder of 3:2 dSLR files to 4:3)
- universal color adjustments

So if you have 40 files and you want to reduce saturation and pump contrast a droplet is faster than opening each file but will still take 10-40 minutes (computer/file-size dependent) versus literally 15 seconds at the raw stage.

One thing to keep in mind here is that I work for a company that sells digital backs so I work with a lot of big files - a 16-bit TIFF from a 65+ with no extra layers is already 360 megabytes. So to me "opening" a file can be a 20 second wait in Photoshop and after adding a layer for retouching it might take 60 seconds to save.

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 at 10% off

Yes, I think you are exaggerating.

Try exposure/contrast/saturation/curves/color adjustment on things as highlights or shadows only or based on specific channel information in a raw convertor ?
Lens corrections, definitely in the raw converter same as dust removal.
Cropping to a ration or resizing, C1 might be different but this is something I prefer doing from the Bridge with the image processor. Phocus is simply weak in this area.

I know about the big files. I routinely work with files that are in between 1 to 4gb and sometimes bigger.

Again, I agree there are things better suited for the raw converter. You should use whatever tool is easiest & fastest to get you where you want to be with the highest level of quality. That will often be the converter but not always.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2010, 04:21:12 pm by Dustbak »
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Blad Focus question
« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2010, 05:28:52 pm »

Again, I agree there are things better suited for the raw converter. You should use whatever tool is easiest & fastest to get you where you want to be with the highest level of quality. That will often be the converter but not always.

Well at least we agree in general if not some of the specifics :-). I respect your view.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up