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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article 2014081210020227645-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: http://sandman.net/files/aperture_curves_normal.png Here you see the normal 8 bit of image data with hot highlighted. http://sandman.net/files/aperture_curves_extended.png And here you see me having extended the white point into the data in the extended range, clearly showing that less is blocked. This image shows you what is truly blocked in the sensor data. You have shown all that before and nothing has changed by repeating yourself. I had hopes you'd understand what I was in reference to by explaining it further. You haven't extended anything other than the sensitivity on my BS meter. Wtf? What's with the teenage attitude? All you have shown us is the clipping beyond that WP spike. Show us where you get this figure between 255 & 300 that represents workable data. All that stuff in that red zone is gone never to be seen again. Look at the pictures again - the first shows the red blob larger than then in the second. That means that in the second image, there is more image data. That's because I have compressed the dynamic range. Perhaps a different example where you didn't have blown highlights might have been better for the purposes of this discussion. The image you used had too many exposure issues (see above) to truly illustrate your point. Not at all. I am not interested in the blown out parts, You should be, they are an indication of bad metering and/or bad exposure setting, and dare i say it questionable shooting on your part. Which would be interesting if this was a thread about metering, eexposure or shooting. It is not. It's about the capabilities of software, regardless of photo. The photo I picked is indeed a very poor photo, but clearly illustrates my point. perhaps if you had waited another 30-45 seconds for the Sun to drop behind that roof you might have had a better chance of selling it. Selling... what? ...and it is in the blown parts you claim there is this phantom data which somehow exists in this mysterious area beyond 255. Is the concept of larger dynamic range in RAW totally lost on you? Is this just a case of you not knowing that the sensor of a given digital camera can capture more data than your monitor can show? You seem oblivious to this fact where data beyond an 8-bit scope is "phantom" data to you. The data is clearly shown in my images, unquestionably! If you have questions or there are parts you do not understand, do not be afraid to ask and I'll try to explain further. I am interested in the parts that aren't blown out, but can't fit in a 8 bit colorspace and thus *appear* blown out. Parts that *are* blown out in 8 bit but not in 11, 12 or 14 bits. If this was a Hasselblad shot, there would be even more data hiding in the extended range outside the scope of your monitor. But it isn't a Hassy shot, the highlights are blown, and there is nothing to recover. As I have shown you in two images, there *IS* data to recover and I recovered it. What part of that do you not understand? http://sandman.net/files/aperture_curves_normal.png Unedited 8 bit view of image http://sandman.net/files/aperture_curves_extended.png Recovered data from 11 bit image data. See how the images differ? If there was you should be able to do that with the magic tools you have available in Sweden, and then present us with this wonderful image with its extended histogram data restored in all its glory, but you can't because that data does not exist on your computer or mine. The best that can be done is band-aid work. See above, and you see the recovered data. Just for once relax, take a deep breath and note how in the second image, there is data information in the extended range in the curves editor, how I've moved the white point to the right of the normal 8 bit range and it is now covering all of the original 11 bit of data. That's recovered data. And again - if something confuses you or you just didn't know there was such data, just let me know and I'll try to help explaining it. Not meant sarcastically or anything. I just assumed that everyone knew that RAW data had more bits of data than what your monitor could show, or what could be stored in the JPG format. In fact, if you've ever used Photomatix, or any other HDR tool, you probably know that they don't need to have several bracketed images to perform HDR tone mapping, you can do it with just one RAW file, because the software can tone map the extended range of sensor data found in that one file. These days, Photomatix will allow you to tone-map a JPG file as well, but it has much much less data to work with so the end result is a far cry from what you get with a HDR images, let alone bracketed images. In short, one RAW file with 12 bit of image data from my Nikon could quite possibly cover the dynamic range of three bracketed JPG images. -- Sandman[.net] |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Sandman: I am not talking about data that may or may not be outside the 11 bit data in the RAW file, I am talking about the data that exists between the 8 bit data you can see on your monitor and the 11 bit of data that exists in the image. I thought your first reference to 11 bit data was a typo, but here you are repeating that. It isn't 11 bit data. The ARW file is 14 bits per sample. For once, you're right (must feel good, right?). I looked it up before making my initial post but must have stumbled on bad data. blown out in 8 bit but not in 11, 12 or 14 bits. If this was a Hasselblad shot, there would be even more data hiding in the extended range outside the scope of your monitor. It has nothing to do with color space. When working with the RAW conversion stage, set brightness (or "exposure" if they call it that) correctly. Gamma and other parameters may interact with it to some degree. The primary reason for adjusting brightness and gamma, or in fact for using a curves tool too, in the converter stage rather than later, is because interpolation the RAW data produces a 16 bit depth RGB image. If the image is or has been converted to JPEG it is in an 8 bit format. But, even in a 16 bit format the histogram will almost always show values of 0 to 255 (8 bit depth) even if the actual data set being edited is larger. Captain obvious has emerged again. So, what's the problem here, you can't understand what you read or just don't care? The mere concept of having the information presented via a "curves" tool is what is confusing you. They might well show it to you in that context, but what they are doing is allowing you to go back to the RAW converter and change brightness. If you are aware of that, conceptually, it isn't at all hard to understand. No one is trying to "understand" anything here, ignorant Floyd. You're just posting obvious basic stuff that no one asked about because you can't read to save your life. Same old, same old, ey? -- Sandman[.net] |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: Perhaps a different example where you didn't have blown highlights might have been better for the purposes of this discussion. The image you used had too many exposure issues (see above) to truly illustrate your point. Not at all. I am not interested in the blown out parts, I am interested in the parts that aren't blown out, but can't fit in a 8 bit colorspace and thus *appear* blown out. Parts that *are* blown out in 8 bit but not in 11, 12 or 14 bits. If this was a Hasselblad shot, there would be even more data hiding in the extended range outside the scope of your monitor. It has nothing to do with color space. When working with the RAW conversion stage, set brightness (or "exposure" if they call it that) correctly. Gamma and other parameters may interact with it to some degree. brightness != exposure. lightroom used to have brightness, but it was removed in the current version since exposure works much better. brightness can be put back by choosing pv 2010 (or earlier), but that's not recommended. The primary reason for adjusting brightness and gamma, or in fact for using a curves tool too, in the converter stage rather than later, is because interpolation the RAW data produces a 16 bit depth RGB image. If the image is or has been converted to JPEG it is in an 8 bit format. But, even in a 16 bit format the histogram will almost always show values of 0 to 255 (8 bit depth) even if the actual data set being edited is larger. there is no later stage. everything is done in raw (assuming original raw) using floating point math and prophoto rgb colour space. always. it is never converted to jpeg until the image is exported *after* all adjustments are complete. Note that the horizontal scale on an histogram is rarely ever marked in fstops. Cameras generally have a very non linear scale while editors are "somewhat" close. But just because there are 6 or 8 or 16 vertical index marks on a histogram does not suggest the number of fstops of range covered. (Histograms of JPEG images cover about 9.5 fstops.) true but not relevant. The mere concept of having the information presented via a "curves" tool is what is confusing you. They might well show it to you in that context, but what they are doing is allowing you to go back to the RAW converter and change brightness. If you are aware of that, conceptually, it isn't at all hard to understand. again, you don't understand how the software works. there is no going back to the raw converter. everything is always done in raw, and in a non-destructive manner. there are specific sliders for exposure (not brightness) and contrast but it can also be done with curves and more work. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: Here's an example of a feature I'm missing in Lightroom. I use curves extensively, it's the holy grail of exposure editing. If you're not using it, start using it! A curves tool does not edit exposure Captain literal strikes again. The fact is that a curves tool does not change "exposure" (brightness is the correct term). It is a tone mapping tool. adjusting exposure is not the same as adjusting brightness. Isn't that rather obvious from what I said. no. exposure does not change brightness or contrast. it changes exposure which is why it's called exposure and not brightness or contrast. "Exposure" can only be changed with shutter speed and aperture, before the picture is taken. in an ideal world, it's correct when taken, but that's almost never the case, which is why can also be adjusted afterwards. Which does not stop several software programs from incorrectly labeling the brightness adjustment as "exposure". maybe some apps do but not all. in fact, adjusting brightness or contrast is rarely needed, since levels & curves do a much better and more effective job. Curves, as I've noted, simply doesn't do that and therefore cannot be "more effective". it does do that, and is more effective because some implementations of brightness and contrast can clip. Until you understand that, all you'll do is make silly statements such as you did for the rest of your post. take your own advice. you don't use the software being discussed, which would be step one. I suppose for someone who doesn't understand it that would seem to be true. It isn't. so far, what you've said does not apply to the software he's using. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: Here's an example of a feature I'm missing in Lightroom. I use curves extensively, it's the holy grail of exposure editing. If you're not using it, start using it! A curves tool does not edit exposure, it changes the tone mapping. You are only moving points between the maximum white and the maximum black in relation to each other. What you want to adjust, for the purposes stated, are brightness and contrast. A 'contrast' adjustment changes the data's range of darkness and brightness. A 'brightness' adjustment moves the range toward one end or the other of the scale. A curves tool doesn't move the range nor does it compress or expand it. Curves moves a portion of the range in one direction or the other, but cannot go past either end. Areas within the range are compress and expanded, but not the range. curves can easily adjust brightness or contrast and even includes presets to do so. That is not true. It can only remap tones within the preset confines that exist. it is true and the confines aren't what you think they are. When done with a RAW converter brightness and contrast adjustments can be dramatic in effect. If you try it in an editor with the RGB image produced by the converter the effect will be significantly reduced, and in particular if the image has been formatted and saved as a JPEG. lightroom *only* works on the raw data (assuming the original is a raw, that is, otherwise it obviously can't). And since it can and does do both, we can't assume that it is either. there's no need to assume anything. how it works is well understood. lightroom works with what you give it. if it's raw, it works on raw. if it's jpeg, it works on jpeg. very straightforward, and very obvious. the workflow is exactly the same, with the only difference being that the quality *may* be a little lower for some actions if the source is jpeg (it depends on what's done) and for others, identical. regardless, the workflow is the same no matter whether it's raw or jpeg and there is no perceptual difference with any adjustments. Abject ignorance. that describes you. what i said is correct. you don't use lightroom and are once again, talking about what you do not know. i suspect you'll say that's not possible, but it is. and you did exactly what i thought. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson: The fact is that a curves tool does not change "exposure" (brightness is the correct term). It is a tone mapping tool. nospam: adjusting exposure is not the same as adjusting brightness. Isn't that rather obvious from what I said. "Exposure" can only be changed with shutter speed and aperture, before the picture is taken. Which does not stop several software programs from incorrectly labeling the brightness adjustment as "exposure". God, you're ignorant. An "exposure" slider in software is *not* a brightness editor. It does *not* edit brightness. A true brightness slider edits all color values uniformly, increasing or decreasing the color value of every pixel. This is how the brightness slider have worked in Photoshop since the dawn of time, until CS5 (I think) where they changed it, but you can still use it if you click the "Use legacy" checkbox. The new PS brightness slider spreads the spectrum from the bottom, meaning that darker tones are changed less than brighter tones. An *exposure* slider focuses on the midrange, trying to emulate (yes, Eric, this is where emulate is the proper word) how the exposure of the camera works. With the base values of rgb(0, 30, 250), these are the results: True brightness +10: rgb(10, 40, 255) New PS brightness +10: rgb(3, 36, 255) Exposure +10: rgb(3, 40, 253) Using curves, you can edit the whitepoint, which works exactly like the new brightness editor in PS, meaning it extends the range beyond the colorspace. No one wants or use a brightness editor, they're worthless. That's why exposure and curves white point gives you the control needed. I much prefer the curves way, as anyone should. nospam: in fact, adjusting brightness or contrast is rarely needed, since levels & curves do a much better and more effective job. Curves, as I've noted, simply doesn't do that and therefore cannot be "more effective". It does, you just don't know anything about these matters. Floyd L. Davidson: Until you understand that, all you'll do is make silly statements such as you did for the rest of your post. nospam: take your own advice. you don't use the software being discussed, which would be step one. I suppose for someone who doesn't understand it that would seem to be true. It isn't. Ironic. -- Sandman[.net] |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
On 2014-08-12 17:16:53 +0000, Sandman said:
In article 2014081210020227645-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: http://sandman.net/files/aperture_curves_normal.png Here you see the normal 8 bit of image data with hot highlighted. http://sandman.net/files/aperture_curves_extended.png And here you see me having extended the white point into the data in the extended range, clearly showing that less is blocked. This image shows you what is truly blocked in the sensor data. You have shown all that before and nothing has changed by repeating yourself. I had hopes you'd understand what I was in reference to by explaining it further. You haven't extended anything other than the sensitivity on my BS meter. Wtf? What's with the teenage attitude? All you have shown us is the clipping beyond that WP spike. Show us where you get this figure between 255 & 300 that represents workable data. All that stuff in that red zone is gone never to be seen again. Look at the pictures again - the first shows the red blob larger than then in the second. That means that in the second image, there is more image data. That's because I have compressed the dynamic range. Perhaps a different example where you didn't have blown highlights might have been better for the purposes of this discussion. The image you used had too many exposure issues (see above) to truly illustrate your point. Not at all. I am not interested in the blown out parts, You should be, they are an indication of bad metering and/or bad exposure setting, and dare i say it questionable shooting on your part. Which would be interesting if this was a thread about metering, eexposure or shooting. It is not. It's about the capabilities of software, regardless of photo. The photo I picked is indeed a very poor photo, but clearly illustrates my point. perhaps if you had waited another 30-45 seconds for the Sun to drop behind that roof you might have had a better chance of selling it. Selling... what? ...and it is in the blown parts you claim there is this phantom data which somehow exists in this mysterious area beyond 255. Is the concept of larger dynamic range in RAW totally lost on you? Is this just a case of you not knowing that the sensor of a given digital camera can capture more data than your monitor can show? You seem oblivious to this fact where data beyond an 8-bit scope is "phantom" data to you. I record 14-Bit NEFs on my DSLR. I adjust those 14-bit RAW files in either LR or ACR. After conversion I work in 16-bit mode. The only time I work in 8-bit is the occasional jpeg. All of my images in LR are either NEF, CR2, DNG, 16-bit PSD, or 16-bit TIF. My 8-bit JPEGs are produced via the LR export dialog and exist elsewhere. I don't have an 8-bit workflow until I export from LR to produce a JPEG version of what is in my LR catalog. The data is clearly shown in my images, unquestionably! If you have questions or there are parts you do not understand, do not be afraid to ask and I'll try to explain further. Don't bother, I am not going to be using Aperture. I am interested in the parts that aren't blown out, but can't fit in a 8 bit colorspace and thus *appear* blown out. Parts that *are* blown out in 8 bit but not in 11, 12 or 14 bits. If this was a Hasselblad shot, there would be even more data hiding in the extended range outside the scope of your monitor. But it isn't a Hassy shot, the highlights are blown, and there is nothing to recover. As I have shown you in two images, there *IS* data to recover and I recovered it. What part of that do you not understand? http://sandman.net/files/aperture_curves_normal.png Unedited 8 bit view of image http://sandman.net/files/aperture_curves_extended.png Recovered data from 11 bit image data. See how the images differ? I see that you adjusted the linear curve on the right down which brought the highlight levels down in the upper right of the image. You didn't need curves to achieve that result and what was gained was useless data. The highlights were blown and nothing you can say or do will change that. If there was you should be able to do that with the magic tools you have available in Sweden, and then present us with this wonderful image with its extended histogram data restored in all its glory, but you can't because that data does not exist on your computer or mine. The best that can be done is band-aid work. See above, and you see the recovered data. You can't quantify that data can you? Just for once relax, take a deep breath and note how in the second image, there is data information in the extended range in the curves editor, how I've moved the white point to the right of the normal 8 bit range and it is now covering all of the original 11 bit of data. That's recovered data. All you are showing is the clipping indicator, not data, and all I will concede is that when you moved the linear end point on the right of the curves histogram down, you reduced the amount of fully blown data. Most importantly you can make the same adjustment in LR, ACR, PS anr any other editing software which has curves adjustment capability, even PSE, PS Touch, Pixelmator, and dare I say it GIMP. And again - if something confuses you or you just didn't know there was such data, just let me know and I'll try to help explaining it. Not meant sarcastically or anything. I just assumed that everyone knew that RAW data had more bits of data than what your monitor could show, or what could be stored in the JPG format. I have been doing this for some time and you are being a tad presumptuous regarding your idea of my ignorance. In fact, if you've ever used Photomatix, or any other HDR tool, you probably know that they don't need to have several bracketed images to perform HDR tone mapping, you can do it with just one RAW file, because the software can tone map the extended range of sensor data found in that one file. I have Photomatix and NIK HDR Efex Pro 2, and I am well aware of the single image tone-mapping capabilities of both These days, Photomatix will allow you to tone-map a JPG file as well, but it has much much less data to work with so the end result is a far cry from what you get with a HDR images, let alone bracketed images. In short, one RAW file with 12 bit of image data from my Nikon could quite possibly cover the dynamic range of three bracketed JPG images. Not really. I know the difference, but thanks for that attempt to teach me something I have known for years. Depending on the EV difference in those three bracketed shots you could get decent results, or you could get results similar to a tone-mapped single exposure. Most importantly not all single exposure RAW images are good candidates for single image tone-mapping with either Photomatix or HDR Efex Pro 2. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
In article , Sandman
wrote: Floyd L. Davidson: The fact is that a curves tool does not change "exposure" (brightness is the correct term). It is a tone mapping tool. nospam: adjusting exposure is not the same as adjusting brightness. Isn't that rather obvious from what I said. "Exposure" can only be changed with shutter speed and aperture, before the picture is taken. Which does not stop several software programs from incorrectly labeling the brightness adjustment as "exposure". God, you're ignorant. An "exposure" slider in software is *not* a brightness editor. It does *not* edit brightness. A true brightness slider edits all color values uniformly, increasing or decreasing the color value of every pixel. This is how the brightness slider have worked in Photoshop since the dawn of time, until CS5 (I think) where they changed it, but you can still use it if you click the "Use legacy" checkbox. it changed in cs3. The new PS brightness slider spreads the spectrum from the bottom, meaning that darker tones are changed less than brighter tones. greatly simplifying, brightness is levels and contrast is curves, with a single easy to use slider adjust for each. An *exposure* slider focuses on the midrange, trying to emulate (yes, Eric, this is where emulate is the proper word) how the exposure of the camera works. actually it focuses (ahem) on the highlights and shadows by protecting them from clipping. the midrange isn't as critical. it does emulate what would happen in the camera and is effectively the same had you changed exposure in camera. With the base values of rgb(0, 30, 250), these are the results: True brightness +10: rgb(10, 40, 255) New PS brightness +10: rgb(3, 36, 255) Exposure +10: rgb(3, 40, 253) Using curves, you can edit the whitepoint, which works exactly like the new brightness editor in PS, meaning it extends the range beyond the colorspace. eh? what does that even mean? No one wants or use a brightness editor, they're worthless. That's why exposure and curves white point gives you the control needed. I much prefer the curves way, as anyone should. the old style brightness/contrast were broken. they've long been fixed, with the legacy option still there for those who learned the broken behaviour and don't want to learn how it should be. nospam: in fact, adjusting brightness or contrast is rarely needed, since levels & curves do a much better and more effective job. Curves, as I've noted, simply doesn't do that and therefore cannot be "more effective". It does, you just don't know anything about these matters. he's never used the software being discussed. Floyd L. Davidson: Until you understand that, all you'll do is make silly statements such as you did for the rest of your post. nospam: take your own advice. you don't use the software being discussed, which would be step one. I suppose for someone who doesn't understand it that would seem to be true. It isn't. Ironic. isn't it? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
Sandman wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Sandman: I am not talking about data that may or may not be outside the 11 bit data in the RAW file, I am talking about the data that exists between the 8 bit data you can see on your monitor and the 11 bit of data that exists in the image. I thought your first reference to 11 bit data was a typo, but here you are repeating that. It isn't 11 bit data. The ARW file is 14 bits per sample. For once, you're right (must feel good, right?). I looked it up before making my initial post but must have stumbled on bad data. blown out in 8 bit but not in 11, 12 or 14 bits. If this was a Hasselblad shot, there would be even more data hiding in the extended range outside the scope of your monitor. It has nothing to do with color space. When working with the RAW conversion stage, set brightness (or "exposure" if they call it that) correctly. Gamma and other parameters may interact with it to some degree. The primary reason for adjusting brightness and gamma, or in fact for using a curves tool too, in the converter stage rather than later, is because interpolation the RAW data produces a 16 bit depth RGB image. If the image is or has been converted to JPEG it is in an 8 bit format. But, even in a 16 bit format the histogram will almost always show values of 0 to 255 (8 bit depth) even if the actual data set being edited is larger. Captain obvious has emerged again. So, what's the problem here, you can't understand what you read or just don't care? The mere concept of having the information presented via a "curves" tool is what is confusing you. They might well show it to you in that context, but what they are doing is allowing you to go back to the RAW converter and change brightness. If you are aware of that, conceptually, it isn't at all hard to understand. No one is trying to "understand" anything here, ignorant Floyd. You're just posting obvious basic stuff that no one asked about because you can't read to save your life. Same old, same old, ey? Yep, same old ****. It's pretty obvious who does understand it and who does not. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Perhaps a different example where you didn't have blown highlights might have been better for the purposes of this discussion. The image you used had too many exposure issues (see above) to truly illustrate your point. Not at all. I am not interested in the blown out parts, I am interested in the parts that aren't blown out, but can't fit in a 8 bit colorspace and thus *appear* blown out. Parts that *are* blown out in 8 bit but not in 11, 12 or 14 bits. If this was a Hasselblad shot, there would be even more data hiding in the extended range outside the scope of your monitor. It has nothing to do with color space. When working with the RAW conversion stage, set brightness (or "exposure" if they call it that) correctly. Gamma and other parameters may interact with it to some degree. brightness != exposure. lightroom used to have brightness, but it was removed in the current version since exposure works much better. brightness can be put back by choosing pv 2010 (or earlier), but that's not recommended. I'll tell you a secret: you cannot, under any circumstances, change the exposure of an image with post processing software. The primary reason for adjusting brightness and gamma, or in fact for using a curves tool too, in the converter stage rather than later, is because interpolation the RAW data produces a 16 bit depth RGB image. If the image is or has been converted to JPEG it is in an 8 bit format. But, even in a 16 bit format the histogram will almost always show values of 0 to 255 (8 bit depth) even if the actual data set being edited is larger. there is no later stage. everything is done in raw (assuming original raw) using floating point math and prophoto rgb colour space. always. it is never converted to jpeg until the image is exported *after* all adjustments are complete. But if it has been converted, and is now being edited... Also "everything is done in raw" is just not true. There is not color space for raw sensor data either. You are confusing the RGB image with the raw sensor data. Note that the horizontal scale on an histogram is rarely ever marked in fstops. Cameras generally have a very non linear scale while editors are "somewhat" close. But just because there are 6 or 8 or 16 vertical index marks on a histogram does not suggest the number of fstops of range covered. (Histograms of JPEG images cover about 9.5 fstops.) true but not relevant. True and very relevant, given how confused you and Sandman are. The mere concept of having the information presented via a "curves" tool is what is confusing you. They might well show it to you in that context, but what they are doing is allowing you to go back to the RAW converter and change brightness. If you are aware of that, conceptually, it isn't at all hard to understand. again, you don't understand how the software works. there is no going back to the raw converter. everything is always done in raw, and in a non-destructive manner. Do you even know what "non-destructive" means? It literally means going back and re-doing the interpolation of raw sensor data with a raw converter. there are specific sliders for exposure (not brightness) and contrast but it can also be done with curves and more work. You can't change exposure with processing software. And a curves tool does not change the brightness nor the contrast of an image as such. It remaps which tonal levels are assigned to which already defined levels. It doesn't stretch the range. It technically does not compress the range either, but the effect is the same. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lightroom and Aperture, shared library? | Sandman | Digital Photography | 15 | May 15th 14 05:09 PM |
PhotoShop Elements, Aperture and Lightroom | nospam | Digital Photography | 0 | May 23rd 08 10:09 PM |
PhotoShop Elements, Aperture and Lightroom | C J Campbell | Digital Photography | 1 | May 23rd 08 10:08 PM |
Aperture, Lightroom: beyond Bridge; who needs them? | Frank ess | Digital Photography | 0 | June 4th 07 06:42 PM |
Lightzone/Lightroom/Aperture | D.M. Procida | Digital SLR Cameras | 20 | April 27th 07 07:00 AM |