Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Colour of light matters  (Read 38234 times)

Iliah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 770
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #60 on: July 11, 2013, 12:40:52 pm »

Andrew, why not to invite some of your friends here to help you out?
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #61 on: July 11, 2013, 01:26:16 pm »

Andrew, why not to invite some of your friends here to help you out?

Sure Iliah...what would you like me to say...that you have a long history on multiple forums and email lists of being very anti-Camera Raw and dismissive of Thomas Knoll's approach to raw processing. Does that help flush out the background? It would als be useful for LuLa members to know that you've work with Alex Tutubalin on LibRaw and Andrey Tverdokhleb on RPP. You are also a strong critic of Camera Raw on Dan's Color Theory email list. So, it's not like you are just some guy voicing an opinion here...you have an axe to grind.

But, one thing you haven't done (as far as I can see) is explain what's wrong with Thomas' approach.
Logged

Iliah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 770
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #62 on: July 11, 2013, 01:39:25 pm »

Sure Iliah...what would you like me to say...that you have a long history on multiple forums and email lists of being very anti-Camera Raw and dismissive of Thomas Knoll's approach to raw processing. Does that help flush out the background? It would als be useful for LuLa members to know that you've work with Alex Tutubalin on LibRaw and Andrey Tverdokhleb on RPP. You are also a strong critic of Camera Raw on Dan's Color Theory email list. So, it's not like you are just some guy voicing an opinion here...you have an axe to grind.

But, one thing you haven't done (as far as I can see) is explain what's wrong with Thomas' approach.

I knew you would chime in, and thank you for the links. However I do not "work". I answer when being asked when it comes to RPP. LibRaw is a free and open source initiative to help maintain diversity of raw converters which IMO is in the best interest for all of us photographers. Good competition never hurts.

While you are in ad mode, why not to mention RawDigger? It is a very useful utility for those who want to know their cameras better and polish exposure technique.

Saying I have an axe to grind you need some better proves than you provided :) All I want is some good raw converter, Adobe or not, and spend as little time as possible out of my photography.

Logged

Vladimirovich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1311
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #63 on: July 11, 2013, 01:45:55 pm »

One simply needs to go to the link I provide where more negative opinions about raw processors are found but little facts to backup the opinion.
technically that might be written by AT (the person who originally started RPP, not IB, who joined that later when, as far as I understand, another project, Rawmagick, prematurely died)...
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #64 on: July 11, 2013, 01:48:42 pm »

While you are in ad mode, why not to mention RawDigger? It is a very useful utility for those who want to know their cameras better and polish exposure technique.

I was going to mention RawDigger but didn't know you had anything to do with it...(other than use it).

:~)
Logged

Vladimirovich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1311
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #65 on: July 11, 2013, 01:52:54 pm »

to know that you've work with Alex Tutubalin on LibRaw
that is quite irrelevant to any axes grinding... LibRaw refactors (along with certain performance improvements, etc, etc) dcraw code into C++ library, which makes it easier for 3rd party developers to use that Coffin's creation, and Adobe also does contribute to dcraw as their employees said on record and vice versa...
Logged

Iliah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 770
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #66 on: July 11, 2013, 01:56:24 pm »

> the person who originally started RPP

Ask Andrei, I'm sure he will explain.
Logged

Iliah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 770
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #67 on: July 11, 2013, 01:57:53 pm »

I was going to mention RawDigger but didn't know you had anything to do with it...(other than use it).

:~)

Read copyrights, you may find a dozen other projects with my name on them.
Logged

Iliah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 770
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #68 on: July 11, 2013, 02:01:45 pm »

> you have a long history on multiple forums and email lists of being very anti-Camera Raw and dismissive of Thomas Knoll's approach to raw processing.

Dismissive? Anti-Camera Raw? Or simply pointing out problems?

And why you guys, being friends of late Bruce (G-d bless him) never corrected technical inaccuracies in his CameraRaw article? I pointed those out many times.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #69 on: July 11, 2013, 02:02:54 pm »

Dismissive? Anti-Camera Raw? Or simply pointing out problems?

What problems?

10 posts from Iliah since I posted the image he asked for, nothing yet on what the visible or more likely invisible problems are. That has to be a record in digressions in this short a period of time.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #70 on: July 11, 2013, 02:04:46 pm »

And why you guys, being friends of late Bruce (G-d bless him) never corrected technical inaccuracies in his CameraRaw article? I pointed those out many times.

Which Camera Raw article?
Logged

Iliah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 770
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #71 on: July 11, 2013, 02:08:19 pm »

What problems?

10 posts from Iliah since I posted the image he asked for, nothing yet on what the visible or more likely invisible problems are. That has to be a record in digressions in this short a period of time.

I asked for deltaE report to keep it objective.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #73 on: July 11, 2013, 02:13:00 pm »

I asked for deltaE report to keep it objective.
Not at all necessary for the reasons I outlined and further, you yourself have stated:
Quote
The image you just posted is a perfect example of the problem, and not just this one.
So what's so visually obvious and in what way does this dismiss my preference for the rendering I the image creator desired?
Again for the 3rd or fourth time, WHAT PROBLEM?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 02:14:39 pm by digitaldog »
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #74 on: July 11, 2013, 02:13:12 pm »

What part of Bruce's article do you disagree with?
Logged

Iliah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 770
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #75 on: July 11, 2013, 02:17:36 pm »

What part of Bruce's article do you disagree with?

Read carefully, count sections on distribution scales, use your current understanding to rephrase or comment on "Linear processed raw captures look very dark."
Logged

Iliah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 770
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #76 on: July 11, 2013, 02:18:27 pm »

Not at all necessary for the reasons I outlined and further, you yourself have stated:So what's so visually obvious and in what way does this dismiss my preference for the rendering I the image creator desired?
Again for the 3rd or fourth time, WHAT PROBLEM?

That does not work for me. Compute deltaE and we will not be arguing impressions.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #77 on: July 11, 2013, 02:25:41 pm »

That does not work for me. Compute deltaE and we will not be arguing impressions.

Poor and expected excuse. Understood clearly, it's an invisible problem as I suspected. Probably why you dragged me down that "show us an image" rabbit hole then decided that despite my expected and desired rendering, that couldn't be dismissed.

Further, without those dE values that are in this context quite useless, how do you explain what you wrote more than once, that the example was obviously a "perfect example of the problem"? Making up facts again?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #78 on: July 11, 2013, 02:29:23 pm »

Read carefully, count sections on distribution scales, use your current understanding to rephrase or comment on "Linear processed raw captures look very dark."

Linear data without a profile to define it does look dark! I have plenty of examples of this as I'd hope you do too.

If that's the biggest beef you have with Bruce's article, I'd place that into the silly beef you have with invisible issues with the ACR engine.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Iliah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 770
Re: Colour of light matters
« Reply #79 on: July 11, 2013, 02:29:42 pm »

> Poor and expected excuse.

Andrew, again - other way around. You opted out and it is the obvious fact. I'm amazed how uninterested you are in this simple experiment.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9   Go Up