A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 30th 13, 07:28 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

On 2013-11-30 02:30:23 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

bd wrote:

[...] DCRAW works fine, but... the results
are not as good looking as those that the camera delivers in jpg format,
since, I suppose, the latter go through one or more enhancement processes
such as sharpening, improving contours and contrasts through the use of
various filters or in altering gamma factor etc..


There are many things that are simply impossible (sharpening) or
difficult (any adjustment that isn't automatic) with DCRAW. It
is not meant to be used as a general tool.

With my new EOS 600D, I use "ufraw", which works as an interface for
dcraw. The results that I obtain are neither better nor worse than those
with the G2.


Note that UFRAW is a lot more than and "interface" using DCRAW.
It uses DCRAW as the basic converter engine, but has it's own
processing for many other of the enhancement tools you need.

However, it is a RAW converter, not an image editor. Hence
there is more to post processing that it can do alone! The next
step is to process each image with GIMP.

This is certain to get a bit lengthy, but let me walk you
through some suggestions for your workflow.

First, you want UFRAW to set a "base" configuration that you
start with. That's a little complex because when working you
want it to save all setting each time you save an image. When
you start work on a group of files, the first thing is to check
the configuration of UFRAW. Here are my defaults, from top to
bottom:

---- Pre-Configuration ----

At the top:
Enable Raw histogram

2nd line:
Set Exposure to 0.0 (see Note)
Set Restore Details for Negative EV to "HSV space for sharp detail"
Set Clip Highlights for Positive EV to "digital linear"
Set Auto Adjust Exposure to disabled (see Note)
Note: Clicking the last icon will set exposure to 0 and disable
Auto Adjust.

3rd line:
White Balance -- set to either "auto" or "camera"
Grayscale Mode -- None (which means color)
Lens correction (optional, may not exist) -- None
Base Curve -- Straight Line (use reset button on right)
Color Management -- A. Input ICC Profile: No profile
B. Gamma: 0.45
C. Linearity: 0.10
D. Output ICC Profile: sRGB
E. Output intent: Perceptual
F. Output Depth: 8 (16 sometimes)
G. Display ICC Profile: sRGB
H. Display intent: Perceptual
Correct Luminosity, Saturation --
A. Contrast (Optional, may not exist): 1.00
B. Saturation: 1.30
C. Manual curve
D. Click on both left and right bottom reset buttons
Lightness Adjustments -- Does nothing on mine (if it exists, set
everything to 0)
Crop and Rotate -- Click on two reset buttons, and "lock" icon.
Note that there
are bugs associated with the functions in this
menu, and on
occasion odd crops may show up that require
these resets to be
reset to get a normal view.

Save -- THIS IS IMPORTANT!
A. The "path" should be your current working
directory.
B. Select the output file format (I would
recommend only TIFF).
C. Set JPEG compression level as desired
(less than 92)
C. Enable JPEG progressive encoding
D. Enable TIFF lossless compression
E. Enable Embed EXIF
F. ** Set Create ID file to ONLY **
G. Set save image defaults to Always
H. Disable remembering output path
I. Enable overwriting files without asking

Bottom of page:
Enable Live Histogram
Check the indicate box for Overexposure
Uncheck the indicate box for Underexposure

---- End of Pre-Configuration ----

Obviously there are some items you might want to set
differently. I would suggest waiting until you work with those
for awhile first, and then slowly start changing things to match
your specific needs *after* you get an idea what the purpose is
for each. However, it is also true that sometimes you'll want
something different for a specific set of images, so if it
actually makes a difference, change the default on a case by
case basis.

The effect of setting UFRAW to only write an "ID" file is
important. I start UFRAW like this:

ufraw *.nef


You will want to change *.nef to whatever suffix is appropriate
for your raw files. But it will do each raw file in sequence.
If you don't want to do a given file, click on "cancel" instead
of "save" and it will skip to the next file. Clicking on "save"
will *only* write a *.ufraw file, which happens almost
instantly. It then goes to the next RAW file. You don't need
to wait for it to convert each file.

When you've gone through all of the files you want to process,
convert them to TIFF format files with a batch process like
this:

ufraw-batch *.ufraw


You can then take a coffee break, read Usenet, or whatever while
all of the time consuming number crunching is done.

But lets go back to the first RAW file you process, and follow a
typical sequence for making the adjustments. I usually just put
the exposure slider somewhere near correct, and then adjust
White Balance. You can switch between different presets, or go
to manual and adjust it yourself. Then I click the "Color
management" icon and adjust gamma and linearity plus exposure to
get the look I want. If the image is going to be processed by
GIMP, leave the output bit depth at 8. If you will process with
software that can deal with 16 bits, change it to that.

The next step will be processing with an editor. If you use
GIMP or any other 8 bit editor you'll want to get the gamma and
brightness very close to perfect with UFRAW, because changing
either in GIMP can cause posterization. But GIMP is fine for
cropping and most other edits. You can do minor adjustments to
contrast and brightness, in particular to local area selections.
Local sharpening and blurring is also done with GIMP, and then
before writing the final output file to disk it should be 1)
saved as an XCF formatted intermediate file, 2) scaled to the
appropriate size, 3) apply Sharpen and Unsharp Mask, and finally
4) saved to disk (perhaps as a JPEG format).

Your first efforts may not match the perceived quality of images
produced by the cameras JPEG engine, but... rest assured that
with practice you can develop the skills needed to always
produce a better result than the camera does. The reason is
fairly simple too. Your computer can at least equal what the
camera's computer can do, but it has the advantage of 20-20 hind
sight too. The camera has to be configured before you make an
exposure. You only get one guess at what is right for each
exposure, and that's it. With post processing you take the
exact same raw sensor data the camera used, but you get to try
any and every possible variation on configuration until you get
not just something close, but rather the precise configuration
you like the best. Many times every single shot is slightly
different, and you do get better results for each one!

Just don't expect to do that immediately, and do expect to save
your raw files because I guarantee that in 2 years, not to
mention 5 years, you'll be better at editing!

Also be aware that with Linux if you become proficient at writing
shell scripts there is just no end of ways to improve productivity.
The ImageMagick tools are fabulous for editing. And there are
many ways a shell script can speed up your workflow. For example,
I preview my images, as JPEGs, with a very customized version of XV which can
sort them into various directories. The JPEG images I don't want to convert
with UFRAW go into one special directory, and then a shell script moves
the RAW files to the same directories where the JPEG is now at. Then
I run UFRAW and it never loads a file I don't want to process. Plus
when I want to run the batch on all of them, I use a script that does
odd things like automatically setting wavelet noise reduction depending
on the ISO it was shot at, and it determines how many CPU cores are available
and proceeds to keep each CPU busy with a different process (which with
as many as 12 cores can make a huge difference in how fast a few hundred
RAW files can be converted to TIFF files).


I stand amazed that you actually believe that the procedure you just
expounded, is in anyway efficient and productive, just to justify the
use of one OS over another.
....and in the end you still only have 8-bit editing & adjustment.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #12  
Old November 30th 13, 10:47 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:45:26 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
[...] most importantly I have a feeling your hardline choice
of OS is your real problem, and it is distracting you from paying
attention to improving your photography.


That in fact seems to be *your* most serious impediment to
improving your photography.

The OP seems to be well aware that a more functional OS is
eventually going to allow him to produce better results...]


I am curious how you come up with this. To me, it's like saying a
better developing pan will lead to better photographs when working
with film.


No, it's more like having a drawer full of different sized trays
means the user can choose which one is most efficient for any
given job. That leads to a more effective system than one where
the only trays available come in just one size (that fits all,
supposedly).

Since most people never printed anything larger that an 8x10,
they don't see a difference. But for the photographer that
pushes the limits, trays large enough for 16x20 and 20x24 prints
make a huge difference. Not to mention they immediately bought
something like an El Nikkor lens rather than use the one that
came with the enlarger.

And while a 35mm enlarger from Ponder and Best or Durst, or even
the low end Beseler or Omega models might seem like a great
production tool for many, real darkroom workers wouldn't
consider anything less that a Beseler 23C, and would rather have
either a Beseler or an Omega 4x5 enlarger, even if all they ever
work with is 35mm film.

It's the difference between printing today with an Epson 2800
or using an Epson 4880 or 7890.

--
Floyd L. Davidson
http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #13  
Old November 30th 13, 11:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-30 02:45:26 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Savageduck wrote:
[...] most importantly I have a feeling your hardline choice
of OS is your real problem, and it is distracting you from paying
attention to improving your photography.

That in fact seems to be *your* most serious
impediment to
improving your photography.


Not really, there is a whole shopping list of other things which impede
the improvement of my photography.

The OP seems to be well aware that a more functional OS is
eventually going to allow him to produce better results...]


Locking himself into a single OS solution in the face of what is
minimally recommended by the camera manufacturer, in this case Canon is
certainly going to be a distraction of some degree.


He doesn't seem to need the hand holding that the vast majority,
including you, require. The lowest common denominator when it
comes to consumers is not where a perfectionist, a professional,
or even just an advanced photographer actually needs to be. But
it is indeed where most of them are stuck.

Floyd might have an answer, but be warned, he is a Nikon shooter.

He didn't ask how to operate his camera though, and if
he had I
certainly would not be the one to ask, nor would I bother to try
answering questions I know nothing about.


I didn't think you would.


So why do you respond to questions when you know nothing
at all about the answer... I guess the subtle hint above
was too vague?

Good luck with your quest.

True, because most answers here will be equal to
yours...
garble about a topic you don't know the answer to, or even
enough to understand the questions.


My knowledge of Linux is nonexistent, and I have little desire to
dabble in those mysterious waters.


So don't be telling others what the significance of using Linux
is.

My knowledge of GIMP is limited to making a comparison with Photoshop
using OSX, and I found it lacking in several areas, but that is just
ignorant me. I still have version 2.8.2 installed on my Mac, and I am
probably not going to use it again, other than to remind myself why I
don't use it.


The biggest problem you'll face with GIMP is the different user
interface concept. It was designed to be run under X, and by
people used to X. The restrictions of the MS Windows systems
are just as confusing to us as X is to you. Things like having
anything ever run full screen, and having all windows in a single
frame. Disgusting!

I have my opinion regarding my choice of OS and you have yours. (Mine is OSX).


I really only have one small nit with OSX, which is the effort
they went to to hide access to things like a shell command line.

I was correct with one thing, that you would be able to provide the OP
with some assistance and direction in his quest. I don't underestimate
your wealth of knowledge, as you do mine.


But I don't seem to have underestimated your knowledge.

As to my photographic skills, they have always been open to some
improvement, at least for the last 60 odd years that I have had some
idea of what a camera was when it was in my hnds. It is an ongoing
learning situation for me, and I continue to learn with lessons coming
from a variety of sources, including you.


Anyone who can do anything is in the same boat. I've been doing
this stuff for 50 years and all that means is that I can now
finally learn some of the things that 10 years ago, never mind
20, were still far beyond my grasp. Some of that is the added
experience, but some of it is the accessability to better
learning tools with modern digital technology. Such as Linux...

--
Floyd L. Davidson
http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #14  
Old November 30th 13, 11:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Also be aware that with Linux if you become proficient at writing
shell scripts there is just no end of ways to improve productivity.
The ImageMagick tools are fabulous for editing. And there are
many ways a shell script can speed up your workflow. For example,
I preview my images, as JPEGs, with a very customized version of XV which can
sort them into various directories. The JPEG images I don't want to convert
with UFRAW go into one special directory, and then a shell script moves
the RAW files to the same directories where the JPEG is now at. Then
I run UFRAW and it never loads a file I don't want to process. Plus
when I want to run the batch on all of them, I use a script that does
odd things like automatically setting wavelet noise reduction depending
on the ISO it was shot at, and it determines how many CPU cores are available
and proceeds to keep each CPU busy with a different process (which with
as many as 12 cores can make a huge difference in how fast a few hundred
RAW files can be converted to TIFF files).


if that isn't proof that linux users do things in the most difficult
and most convoluted way possible, i don't know what is.


Difficult? Perhaps for you. But it allows a faster and more
effective workflow. Even if you don't understand why.

Every time I need some complex task done repeatedly, and
especially if the intervals between occasions when it is done
are long enough that I am not likely to remember exactly how to
get it perfect... I write a script.

One example might give you an idea. A few years ago I developed
a "menu flyer" for a local restaurant. Today there are a number
other things, mostly signs and an annual calendar, that get
printed using the same logos and so on, but the main product is
still the menu. There is the flyer, there is a webpage (check out
the menu at http://samandlees.com), a 12 page spiral bound table
menu and a 12 page folder menu. Try doing that with a Windows
system and make it so that changing the price or description of
a "Sam & Lee's Burger" requires editing just one file and then
typing "make" to update every version. Oh, and you can't use
a "cookie cutter" software package template either, because when
the owner tells you they want a specific change to the format it
is never a menu choice and it also isn't optional!

Between the Tex typesetting code, bash shell scripts and
Makefiles, it's now right at 10,000 lines of code.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #15  
Old November 30th 13, 11:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The OP seems to be well aware that a more functional OS is
eventually going to allow him to produce better results...]


except he said he didn't want to switch to a more functional os.


There ain't none, sonny.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #16  
Old November 30th 13, 11:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

Savageduck wrote:
I stand amazed that you actually believe that the procedure you just
expounded, is in anyway efficient and productive, just to justify the
use of one OS over another.
...and in the end you still only have 8-bit editing & adjustment.


Actually I can do 32 bit editing too.

Your inability to see how that proceedure is more effective and
efficient is not at all astounding.

What part of it do you think your methods improve on???

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #17  
Old November 30th 13, 11:34 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Savageduck:
I have my opinion regarding my choice of OS and you have yours.
(Mine is OSX).


I really only have one small nit with OSX, which is the effort they
went to to hide access to things like a shell command line.


Haha.

/Applications/Utilities/Terminal.app

Sure is hidden.



--
Sandman[.net]
  #18  
Old November 30th 13, 11:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
sid[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

bd wrote:

Hi to Everyone !

I previously had an old Powershot G2, and I used "dcraw" to convert RAW
images to such formats as tiff, ppm or jpg. I must state that I dont use
MSWIN and don't intend to, so the software that is meant to be used with
those cameras is useless to me. My favorite OS are Debian Squeeze on one
PC, Ubuntu 13.04 on the other one. DCRAW works fine, but... the results
are not as good looking as those that the camera delivers in jpg format,
since, I suppose, the latter go through one or more enhancement processes
such as sharpening, improving contours and contrasts through the use of
various filters or in altering gamma factor etc.. I have tried to treat my
converted raw pictures using various filters and else, but I never got
results as good as expected, especially if compaired to those that the
camera delivers in jpg.

With my new EOS 600D, I use "ufraw", which works as an interface for
dcraw. The results that I obtain are neither better nor worse than those
with the G2.

So, I wonder if anyone would know about what treatment Canon exactly
applies to raw images so as to deliver enhanced jpeg pictures, either
inside the camera, or through the software that they provide for use with
MSWIN. Is there a place or address where I could expect to find this ?


Short answer is no, whatever adjustments Canon make to produce their jpgs
are their secrets.

I also found dcraw and ufraw a bit lacking when I first started along the
path that you are now on, 2006 in my case, so I settled on using Bibble.
Corel have now purchased Bibble and market it as Aftershot Pro. I've found
no reason to change and am currently using the final version of Bibble 5.
Other open source alternatives are Digikam, RawTherapee and Darktable.
I have to say though that having recently tried ufraw I was able to easily
acheive my desired results, because I am much more aware now of what
adjustment does what and how to achieve the look that I require. It does get
easier the more you do it

--
sid
  #19  
Old November 30th 13, 11:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
sid[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

Savageduck wrote:

but most importantly I have a feeling your hardline choice
of OS is your real problem, and it is distracting you from paying
attention to improving your photography.


That is just ridiculous, what on earth does his OS have to do with improving
his photography? At no point ever has the operating system on my pc affected
my ability to chosse what to shoot or how to compose that shot or how to
expose it. Is that what I'm doing wrong d'you think?

Floyd might have an answer, but be warned, he is a Nikon shooter.


Those Nikon shooters are a bit scary it's true, but a linux geek to boot,
run for the hills

--
sid
  #20  
Old November 30th 13, 11:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

Sandman wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Savageduck:
I have my opinion regarding my choice of OS and you have yours.
(Mine is OSX).


I really only have one small nit with OSX, which is the effort they
went to to hide access to things like a shell command line.


Haha.

/Applications/Utilities/Terminal.app

Sure is hidden.


Yep. Why rename it and why not put it where it belongs!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
converting 35 mm slides to digital images LeighWillaston Digital Photography 30 June 18th 07 10:46 AM
Converting 35mm Slides to Digital Images Jim[_9_] Digital Photography 0 June 2nd 07 02:18 PM
Are you converting your RAW images to DNG? JC Dill Digital Photography 140 November 10th 06 05:07 PM
QuickTake 150 images - Converting on PC [email protected] Digital Photography 5 April 21st 06 03:00 PM
Tool for converting 12-bit TIFF images to 16-bit TIFF-images? Peter Frank Digital Photography 23 December 13th 04 03:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.