Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: NEW Adobe RAW Thread  (Read 7745 times)

boku

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
    • http://www.bobkulonphoto.com
NEW Adobe RAW Thread
« Reply #20 on: October 01, 2005, 10:34:55 pm »

Which reminds me - I am taking delivery of a Canon 5D on Tuesday - I have to do this all over again!
Logged
Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...[b

mcanyes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
    • www.dig-arts.biz
NEW Adobe RAW Thread
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2005, 09:06:47 am »

A quick comment about Jonathan's profile suggestions. I think you will find that you need to work out your own settings for the Adjust menu. I have had very good success with the calibrate settings, but I played around with some images that I knew were correctly exposed and arrived on my own settings for Adjust, and they were somewhat different from Jonathan's. Nothing wrong with using his for a starting point. Mine are 0, 3, 100, 15, 0 for a Nikon D2h.
Michael
Logged
Michael Canyes
Nikon stuff www.dig-arts.

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
NEW Adobe RAW Thread
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2005, 10:27:21 am »

I will simply add a different perspective for #5...  I sharpen a file three times before printing:

1) during the raw conversion.  Not a lot, just enough to smooth out the de-Bayering interpolation;

2) during post-processing in CS on the FULL sized file -- the main sharpening step;

3) a final touch-up tweak, usually targeting edges, on the print or web-sized file.

So while it may not be the current vogue, I'll simply add that folks always seem to comment (positively) on the amount of detail I get from my images.

Cheers,
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
NEW Adobe RAW Thread
« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2005, 10:30:30 am »

And another IMO PS:  You can print directly from CS in 16-bit mode; there is no need to change to 8-bit before doing so -- other than access to certain filters and operations not available in 16-bit.  (And for the most part, if it's not available in 16-bit I don't use it ??? )
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
NEW Adobe RAW Thread
« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2005, 12:12:42 pm »

Jack, yes you can send the print to the printer in 16 bit, but the image gets reduced to 8 bit by the time it hits the printer queue in your O/S - for example, if you send a 64 MB file to the printer in 16 bit and then open the printer queue from your Control Panel (Windows-talk here) you will see the same file queued for printing at 32 MB. I believe these printers (in my case Epson 4000) really only use 8 bit files for printing. That, however, is not relevant to the arguments and counter-arguments about the merits of high-bit editing.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
NEW Adobe RAW Thread
« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2005, 01:36:42 pm »

Quote
Jack, yes you can send the print to the printer in 16 bit, but the image gets reduced to 8 bit by the time it hits the printer queue in your O/S - for example, if you send a 64 MB file to the printer in 16 bit and then open the printer queue from your Control Panel (Windows-talk here) you will see the same file queued for printing at 32 MB. I believe these printers (in my case Epson 4000) really only use 8 bit files for printing. That, however, is not relevant to the arguments and counter-arguments about the merits of high-bit editing.
You are absolutely correct, however by keeping the file as 16-bit it allows me to save image storage space since I only need to store the native-size image.  I have no need (or desire) to store a final resized 8-bit image for each print size.  Instead I simply scale the 16-bit native image to whatever output size I need when I'm ready to print print it.
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
NEW Adobe RAW Thread
« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2005, 02:02:41 pm »

I do likewise. My final stored image is 16 bit with any adjustment layers I think I may need again preserved. As I use PK Sharpener Pro - IMO the best there is, but a glutton on file size, I flatten the capture sharpen into the Background at the outset of the workflow, and delete the Output Sharpener after printing. In any case Output Sharpener needs redoing for any substantial change in file size or resolution.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
NEW Adobe RAW Thread
« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2005, 10:23:38 pm »

Quote
I do likewise. My final stored image is 16 bit with any adjustment layers I think I may need again preserved. As I use PK Sharpener Pro - IMO the best there is, but a glutton on file size, I flatten the capture sharpen into the Background at the outset of the workflow, and delete the Output Sharpener after printing. In any case Output Sharpener needs redoing for any substantial change in file size or resolution.
If you use Costco to print, or something simliar, yuo need tgo convert it to a file format that the printer can understand. At this time, I think that is eitehr jpg or flattened tiff only.

Also, Costco offer an online service for poster sized proints, at something like 24+ inches for 10.00 US a print. I've heard their quality is excellent, just as their Noritsu printers are in store, at up to 12 x 18.

You just tell the workers to print from disk and no adjustments or resize. actually, I think except for resizing, they are completely locked out of any adjustments anymore.

The Noritsu is NOT an inkjet. I beleive it prints the image as it would a negative using the same chemicals and Fugicolor paper as film. Rather than print from a negative, it simply prints from the digital information.

A 12 x 18 print is 3.00. If anything is wrong with the print, even on your end, you don't have to pay for it either. I've been told they use this as a front, and even lose money on it, to get peple in the door. It works; I just bought a 1 gig CF card from them. lol
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
NEW Adobe RAW Thread
« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2005, 08:53:13 am »

Actually, if you're are not into your own digital printing, I've also heard - and once or twice seen - very good things about the quality of prints from COSTCO. And yes, if you are using their service, you need to conform to the requirements of their technology - better still - if they can give you an ICC profile for their printers useable in Photoshop's colour management that would assure the best outcome.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
NEW Adobe RAW Thread
« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2005, 06:11:53 pm »

Quote
Actually, if you're are not into your own digital printing, I've also heard - and once or twice seen - very good things about the quality of prints from COSTCO. And yes, if you are using their service, you need to conform to the requirements of their technology - better still - if they can give you an ICC profile for their printers useable in Photoshop's colour management that would assure the best outcome.
I don't think they do, though. If you can get access to Costco, try it Mark. It would be interesting to see what you think.
Logged

61Dynamic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1442
    • http://
NEW Adobe RAW Thread
« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2005, 07:14:01 pm »

Quote
Quote
Is that really CA? That is horrible if so. In the JPG version, it isn't there.
No, blue lines are shadows clipping warnings. If you uncheck the "Shadow" checkbox you'll see the blue lines go away. The blue lines (or dots) are only a visual clue to warn you of shadow clipping. You'll find the same with highlight clipping warning (in red). Of course, these warnings are not present in the converted file.

Francois
The blue indicates shadow clipping of all three channels. If you hold down the Alt key and click on the shadows slider you will see a more detailed view of clipping in the individual channels.

Quote
Actually, if you're are not into your own digital printing, I've also heard - and once or twice seen - very good things about the quality of prints from COSTCO. And yes, if you are using their service, you need to conform to the requirements of their technology - better still - if they can give you an ICC profile for their printers useable in Photoshop's colour management that would assure the best outcome.

Yes, Costco can turn out fairly good results. You just need to make sure it's clear that you do not want any automatic adjustments made to your prints.

You can download custom profiles for your particular costco store printer at DryCreekPhoto.
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
NEW Adobe RAW Thread
« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2005, 03:38:01 am »

Quote
Quote
Quote
Is that really CA? That is horrible if so. In the JPG version, it isn't there.
No, blue lines are shadows clipping warnings. If you uncheck the "Shadow" checkbox you'll see the blue lines go away. The blue lines (or dots) are only a visual clue to warn you of shadow clipping. You'll find the same with highlight clipping warning (in red). Of course, these warnings are not present in the converted file.

Francois
The blue indicates shadow clipping of all three channels. If you hold down the Alt key and click on the shadows slider you will see a more detailed view of clipping in the individual channels.

Quote
Actually, if you're are not into your own digital printing, I've also heard - and once or twice seen - very good things about the quality of prints from COSTCO. And yes, if you are using their service, you need to conform to the requirements of their technology - better still - if they can give you an ICC profile for their printers useable in Photoshop's colour management that would assure the best outcome.

Yes, Costco can turn out fairly good results. You just need to make sure it's clear that you do not want any automatic adjustments made to your prints.

You can download custom profiles for your particular costco store printer at DryCreekPhoto.
Thanks Daniel.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up