Nidelva river through Trondheim Norway

Nidelva river through Trondheim Norway
by Saaru Lindestokke                

Submit your Photo
Hall of Fame

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

New answers tagged

0

Although the context is different, this is fundamentally a question of the difference in compression levels. ImageMagick identifies them as 81 and 95 — that's not a standard number, but it's generally true that 95 is "pretty high quality" and 81 is "medium-low quality". The issue of RAW vs. JPEG is a red herring here; it just happens that the embedded ...


2

Pretty much every consumer camera made for general photography has an integrated IR/UV filter, so the camera only captures visible light by design. Yes, it's frequently possible to modify cameras by removing or replacing the filter. It's sometimes done for astrophotography or UV photography, for instance. It has nothing to do with RAW vs JPEG or other ...


0

.RAW is a file format and has nothing to do with the range of electromagnetic spectrum as such. The "Thing" responsible for processing a particular part of the electromagnetic spectrum is your camera's sensor and corresponding circuitry. To give you a perspective, the .RAW (.CRT in canon) files may be compared to an undeveloped negative of the film days. ...


-1

LightRoom does no 'own processing' unless it is told to do so, maybe by import templates. When you are importing, check which template/profile you apply during the import; and try importing without any profile/settings. If you say 'the colors are dramatically off', it sounds like the temperature sliders was moved and the result stored in the import ...


1

Get a ColorChecker Passport and use it to create accurate profiles for Lightroom for the specific camera+lens combo and the current lightning conditions. While this doesn't guarantee that the images will look like the JPEGs generated by the camera, it does makes them look more accurate, perhaps even more pleasing than the JPEGs.


3

One thing I don't fully understand is why, when I take a photo with a Nikon and import it in Lightroom, the colors immediately appear desaturated and visibly different than what it looked like in the camera. This is just a different interpretation of the raw data. Lightroom can't read the preset information from Nikon files, it seems and applies some ...


5

That Adobe seems to butcher the colors of all my raws drives me nuts You are wrong here. What you see on the back of your camera is not the raw file, but the JPEG preview, which includes whatever setting you dial in your camera. That includes contrast and boost of saturation. LR cannot reproduce the same look from the raw file, because the process is ...


5

Just because using different WB settings to demosaic the raw data is non-destructive to the raw data doesn't mean one WB setting will be more or less noisy than another. It's not so much that you will get equal quality regardless of how you choose to interpret the raw data, but rather that regardless of whatever interpretation you choose to use for the raw ...


0

Extreme deviations <= Emphasis mine. Any extreme manipulation will. A "light" manipulation on a raw file won't. That is why you are working with a raw file in the first place, to have room to play with, including the white balance. was the "known" fact that WB changes to a RAW file are completely non-destructive. Yes, all the "changes" in a RAW ...


1

I have no experience with the software tools you mentioned, but googled up a discussion thread on the UFRAW sourceforge site, where folks mention having an issue with RAW opening in B&W, and rbellavance posted a list of things to try that I paraphrase: Go to the Grayscale tab. Check that None is selected for Grayscale mode. Go to the Corrections tab. ...


0

The bottom line is RAW is a file produced by your camera that contains 100% of the information your camera sees. JPG is a file produce by your camera were your camera's computer (brain) takes that same 100% of data and discards (deletes) a certain percentage of that data in order to make a compressed (smaller) file. Do you want your camera's brain to ...


0

I would like to answer by way of analogy. RAW is the cow. (Everything is there in the file) JPEG is a platter of swedish meatballs. (Someone has taken the raw material and made something from it.) Many things about the two might even be identifiable still. The fact remains that the process is not reversible. The nature of the original is less versatile as ...


2

Raw editors usually ignore the in-camera settings for things such as color and contrast. Instead they apply the user selected profile from the application you use to open the raw file and convert the raw data to a viewable image on your screen. It sounds like you (or someone else) have selected a B&W profile to be the default way your application opens ...


1

Can you provide me some reference of this? If it's done by increase ISO, is it same as I increase ISO when capturing the photo? If they won't be the same, what's the difference or which way is better? Some cameras have analog ISO gain, some don't. Some cameras may have analog gain implemented only in certain ISO range. Different raw processors may ...


0

I wonder that if I increase the exposure of a RAW in some software, say, Lightroom, what do I lose in the image. It's important to keep in mind that no matter what you do to post-process a raw image to create some other output that is more readily "consumable" (i.e., JPEG, or PNG, etc.), you will lose data compared to the raw file. There is much more ...


4

...is it same as I increase ISO when capturing the photo? If they won't be the same, what's the difference... The end result is similar, but how you get there and the side effects are different. Increasing the ISO setting on the camera results in the addition of gain (amplification) in the path between the sensor and analog-to-digital converter, which ...


0

(Disclaimer: I'm Italian, it's fatiguing for me to write in English and moreover to write in technical jargon. Thus, the following explanation take a few shortcuts to be easier to write and to understand) I'll start from the bottom; increasing ISO in camera cannot obviously be like increasing the exposure of a file, whatever the algorithm used: increasing ...


3

Both approaches are correct. At least as I understand what I think you are trying to say. I'm not sure, though, what you mean by, "(4 time bigger)". Raw luminance values are monochromatic in the sense that there is only one intensity value for each sensel (what we call a pixel well). But every one of those monochromatic luminance values is the result of ...


0

As no-one else has mentioned it already... Lightroom is fine. It can convert raw images. Does a reasonable job of them. Got a copy, use it periodically. But I've never been able to get images out of it that match what I can produce from Capture One from my Nikon or Olympus cameras. Back to back conversions on the same file, experimenting with all sorts of ...


1

This is a very old question but it remains relevant so I'll add my 3 cents. Lightroom's white balance presets seem to be just ballpark figures not tuned to any camera-specific properties. The best way to get Nikon/Canon/whatever-like rendition in Lightroom is described here and here. Basically: Take some photos with your camera using built-in white ...



Top 50 recent answers are included