Serene Life

by garik

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

You could try the following with exiftool: export the RAW image or remove the JPEG preview image or remove the cropping information and load the resulting image with Camera Raw. (Make sure you make backups first in a separate directory!!) ExifTool is avaliable here, but any recent Linux distro has it. There is a GUI available, too. I can give you ...


1

That is the result of the raw processing program not having the correct profile for the said camera. Getting an updated version should resolve your problem. The list of cameras supported by RawTherapee, together with the version number since, can be found at RawPedia.


1

Panorama maker from Arcsoft - This recognises Canon RAW (.CR2) and also .TIFF. Please note, it only exports to the following formats. WINDOWS - JPEG, TIF, BMP, TGA, MOV, SWF, PTViewer MAC - TIFF, JPEG, JPEG-2000, HTML On the Windows version it will recognise JPG, JPEG, TIFF, TIF, RAW (Adobe DNG (.DNG), Canon Camera RAW File (.CRW;.CR2), Epson RAW Format ...


4

Stitching RAW files is problematic. In order to get a good stitch you ideally want to correct vignetting and distortion first, something that you would do in your RAW converter, then just output TIFFs of a smaller size (no need for full size when combining multiple files usually) and things will be both quicker and more accurate.


0

You could use dcraw to convert raw files to "raw" tiff files that only contain the raw data using the command "dcraw -D filename". The stitching then needs to be done by taking into account the Bayer pattern. This means that you must extract from each tiff file the pixels that belong to each of 3 color channels. You can use programs such as ImageJ, you do ...


3

PTGui can stitch RAW and DNG images as input. However, remember RAW files do not contain any editing adjustments (such as CA correction, noise reduction, or vignetting correction), so there's not a lot of advantage to be had by going this route, rather than converting your RAWs to TIFFs, and then stitching the TIFFs. See also: Are there any open source ...


1

RawTherapee supports Canon PowerShot G16 starting RawTherapee version 4.2.


1

I had the same issue, and looked up which versions of Lightroom, Camera-Raw, PS were required. In my case updating Camera-Raw plugin allowed my version of PS to read them, but I could not do so with Lightroom. So, I went with Adobe's free DNG converter.


3

This is a complex answer, so feel free to ask more questions. Basically, one major difference between the images is that your noise sources in the image is vastly different. Because the noise is different and because its contribution is different with regard to exposure, the obtained images are quite different. Think of your camera detector as a well that ...


0

A long exposure increases the possibility of blur due to camera movement (even tiny vibrations). You're also more likely to get noise in the image from the sensor if the exposure is very long (seconds rather than some fraction of a second).


2

To understand why you can't do this, it's helpful to understand how RAW works. A RAW doesn't actually contain colored pixels, it's a single channel ("gray scale") image representing alternating red blue and green pixels called a Bayer pattern. To actually get the "actual" pixels, you have to extrapolate from each of the pixels neighbors using a complex ...


5

You could use dcraw to convert the raw image data to a "raw" tiff file that only contains the raw image data. You do that by giving the command "dcraw -D filename". This will produce a tiff file without any demosaicing or scaling. Such a tiff file is then smaller than an ordinary tiff file because each pixel is then only either a "red", "green" or a "blue" ...


12

You have to convert them to some other format, but that format doesn't have to be JPEG. For example, you could save the files as TIFF or PNG instead of JPEG. RAW files are data read more or less straight from the sensor, so it doesn't make sense to "resize" such files. You have to instead process them into a useable image format, which you can then ...


0

I think that using the Neutral style and configuring the camera to use Adobe RGB instead of sRGB would give the closes possible representation for the "original RAW", but it's actually not anywhere near. And depending on the RAW processor you use, it could still be very different (LR process RAWs very differently than the Canon software, and so on). Anyway, ...


1

Your best option is probably using the "Neutral" picture style, this will apply minimum processing with a flat tone curve and no sharpening. This will give you the closest thing to a raw histogram available in-camera but it will make the jpeg look dull and lifeless - so you'll lose the ability to use the jpeg and preview for anything except judging focus.


4

You can use Magic Lantern to display RAW histogram in live view and image review. Head over to http://www.magiclantern.fm and download the version available for your camera. The installation instructions are different for each camera and can be found in their forums. In order to view RAW histogram in the preview, you could shoot with the technicolor ...


0

In-camera JPEG could be theoretically better than RAW, in cases where RAW file does not transfer truly raw data from sensor - manufacturers do it to reduce file size ("compressed RAW"). Some cameras, like Sony, only use compressed RAW and this can result in unexpected artifacts in images processed from RAW files, see for example ...


11

You can't view a RAW image, because a RAW file is not an image, it is a set of monochrome luminance values. When the data is converted to RGB using demosaicing certain settings such as contrast, saturation, etc. are applied. There has to be a value for those settings. You are much better off learning to use the histogram (also drawn from the JPEG preview) to ...


1

The only "real" RAW option is the option RAW. The other two, S-RAW and M-RAW where introduced in the EOS-1D Mark III and EOS-1D Mark IV respectively as options to decrease the file size. The S-RAW has about 1/4th the number of pixels and half the fil size of "real" RAW and the M-RAW about 54-60 % of the pixels and two thirds of the size of the RAW option. ...


0

Typically the reason is that by darkening the sky you're basically mapping a certain range (say, 10 levels) in a more extended range (let's say twice as much, 20). Therefore you're actually enhancing the tone difference between adjacent pixels. An extreme example of this is when you stretch the range so much that you start to see the quantization error: it ...


1

It does not matter what you set in camera as RAW. RAW is RAW, it is not modified until post. Most monitors will not display aRGB and many printers do not print aRGB. I select aRGB as the assigned profile and my printer tells me much is out of gamut. I am forced to work in sRGB as that is where my color gamut is for my monitor and printer.


1

from Charles Poynton "The rehabilitation of gamma": Misconception: The nonlinearity of a CRT monitor is a defect that needs to be corrected. Fact: The nonlinearity of a CRT is very nearly the inverse of the lightness sensitivity of human vision. The nonlinearity causes a CRT’s response to be roughly perceptually uniform. Far from being a defect, ...


1

Consider this example from Cambridge in Colour: By applying gamma encoding, we are able to represent the original image more accurately, with the same bit depth (5, in this example). This is achieved by using the 32 levels in a way that more closely corresponds to the human eye. In other words, it's a form of compression. JPEGs, for example, can actually ...



Top 50 recent answers are included