[Phot] RAW issues. White on white - new version.

While I'm sure you're all sick and tired of
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM...chBarkSnow.jpg
That was a med-quality JPG out of the camera. I had Elements 2.0 with
no RAW plugin, no 16 bit capability.

So, I reloaded it using Elements 3.0 in 16 bit mode (from the raw).
I adjusted the color temp (about 7500K) in the RAW interface of E 3.0
and saved as a 16 bit TIF.

From there, I made no further color changes. Just crop, USM and 8 bit
conversion to JPG.

Here's the new, much nicer version. Note the yellow glow in the snow
near the bark.
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM...arkSnow_II.jpg

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:
While I'm sure you're all sick and tired of
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM...chBarkSnow.jpg
That was a med-quality JPG out of the camera. I had Elements 2.0 with
no RAW plugin, no 16 bit capability.

So, I reloaded it using Elements 3.0 in 16 bit mode (from the raw).
I adjusted the color temp (about 7500K) in the RAW interface of E 3.0
and saved as a 16 bit TIF.

From there, I made no further color changes. Just crop, USM and 8 bit
conversion to JPG.

Here's the new, much nicer version. Note the yellow glow in the snow
near the bark.
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM...arkSnow_II.jpg



Very nice.

Go ahead if you've got more. I'm collecting these to make a canoe.


--
Frank ess

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:19:23 -0800, Alan Browne =

wrote:


While I'm sure you're all sick and tired of
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM...chBarkSnow.jpg
That was a med-quality JPG out of the camera. I had Elements 2.0 with=
=

no RAW plugin, no 16 bit capability.

So, I reloaded it using Elements 3.0 in 16 bit mode (from the raw).
I adjusted the color temp (about 7500K) in the RAW interface of E 3.0 =
=

and saved as a 16 bit TIF.

From there, I made no further color changes. Just crop, USM and 8 bi=
t =

conversion to JPG.

Here's the new, much nicer version. Note the yellow glow in the snow =
=

near the bark.
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM...arkSnow_II.jpg

Cheers,
Alan


Is this the normal workflow: RAW TIF JPG ?
-- =

Slack

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:18:42 -0800, Slack
wrote:

Is this the normal workflow: RAW TIF JPG ?

Normal to Alan or normal in general?

I did that for a bit, but lately I've been doing RAW - PSD - JPG.
I don't think the middle step matters that much as long as it's
something which can store 16-bit image data in layers. But I just
started with this stuff, and maybe there are considerations I don't
know about.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

Alan Browne wrote:
[]
Here's the new, much nicer version. Note the yellow glow in the snow
near the bark.
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM...arkSnow_II.jpg

The different coloured border is extremely distracting when trying to
compare the two images. Given that, I prefer the bluer one for colour,
although the yellow one appears sharper. Will depend how I have my
monitor set, I guess!

Cheers,
David

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

While I'm sure you're all sick and tired of
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM...chBarkSnow.jpg
That was a med-quality JPG out of the camera. I had Elements 2.0 with no
RAW plugin, no 16 bit capability.

So, I reloaded it using Elements 3.0 in 16 bit mode (from the raw).
I adjusted the color temp (about 7500K) in the RAW interface of E 3.0 and
saved as a 16 bit TIF.

From there, I made no further color changes. Just crop, USM and 8 bit
conversion to JPG.

Here's the new, much nicer version. Note the yellow glow in the snow near
the bark.
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM...arkSnow_II.jpg

Cheers,
Alan


Amazing what a little extra data can do for you, isn't it. Very nice
comparison.

Now, I have a digital newbie question for you. Would a polarizer have had
as much of an impact on this digital image as it does on a film image?

Walt

Slack wrote:

Is this the normal workflow: RAW TIF JPG ?

Oof! In a very large nutshell, yes. It can end at the TIF for printing.

You can (in the RAW plugin) load it into E 3.0 (PS) as 8 or 16 bits per
color. From there you can save as any format that suits you. (Need to
resample down to 8 bit/col for JPG).

I prepared 1 JPG for the web (the one you saw), another much larger
(without the 'frame') to send to the photostore for printing. Each
USM'd at its size and for its use.

The TIF version (16 bit/color) is saved withoug sharpenning (USM) for
archive).

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

David J Taylor wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:
[]

Here's the new, much nicer version. Note the yellow glow in the snow
near the bark.
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM...arkSnow_II.jpg


The different coloured border is extremely distracting when trying to
compare the two images. Given that, I prefer the bluer one for colour,
although the yellow one appears sharper. Will depend how I have my
monitor set, I guess!

I was wondering if the border change would distract anyone. Still the
color change is so different in any case. It's not a subtle change.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Walt Hanks wrote:


Now, I have a digital newbie question for you. Would a polarizer have had
as much of an impact on this digital image as it does on a film image?

Film v. digital, same effect.

Wrt this image, not entirely sure. It may have been useful to cut the
'glint' from the snow, but that's part of the image, IAC.

As most of the light here is difuse from the blue sky, a polarizer would
have reduced the light considerably, but the color would have remained
as it would continue to come from other unfiltered directions. A pol
may or may not have had an undesirably effect on the yellow reflections
on the snow (from the bark).

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:

I was wondering if the border change would distract anyone. Still
the
color change is so different in any case. It's not a subtle change.

This one looks more "natural" to me. That's a good example of what I
meant by my tendency to "adjust to make it SEEM right" as opposed to
"what it actually might have been". The yellow reflections under the
bark are a very nice touch.