Time passes by

by clabacchio

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

4

The only advantages to saving your RAW files as 8-bit is for memory conservation or if certain tools only work with 8-bit images. There is no advantage from a quality point of view, if you're going to do a lot of editing especially in a wide colour space then you may get posterisation when working with only 8 bits. Regarding colour spaces, it is advisable ...


0

Since the destination for many photos is the web, conversion to 8-bit does not really hurt anything. Even most printers (even many pro printers) have an 8-bit pipeline. The main concern in editing with an 8-bit file is that you may introduce banding in smooth areas (usually the sky) but for skin smoothing there's probably not much danger. As for using ...


1

RAW files are 12 ~ 14 bits. I'm pretty sure he knows that. Why an 8 bit TIFF? This was a given for him, so I'm puzzled. The higher bit depth is certainly safer for major corrections of exposure, contrast etc. I would especially be cautious when using ProPhoto RGB that may have tendency to posterization in 8 bit. But 8 bit may be enough for his type of ...


6

I didn't have enough "reputation" to address some of these answers as comments. AJ Henderson is wrong, 30 1s exposures will (for the most part) be identical to 1 30s exposure. If it shows up in a 30s exposure, then stacking 30 1s exposures will also show it. I am actually the author of the article that Trengot linked (thanks!). In fact, unless you are ...


4

Fundamentally you're capturing the same amount of light in either case so the results should be the same. Practically, there are 2 differences between stacking 30 one second exposures and shooting one 30 second exposure. The first is the light lost between each one second exposure after the shutter closes before it reopens for the next exposure. This can ...


1

No, 30 one second exposures is not equivalent to a single 30 second exposure. You do gain a lot of information from doing 30 1 second exposures, but you are not able to detect anything that is too faint (which might have shown up on a 30 second exposure, but still registers as 0 on the 1 second exposures). It is a good technique to avoid noise, but does ...


-4

i don't think it is possible. amount of light on every photo is the same, it means no additional information in details you can add, so it's like you have only one photo


0

Yes it is possible. Put all images as layers and choose Add to on every layer in Photoshop. For night sky images, there is a software called deepskystacker. DeepSkyStacker is a freeware for astrophotographers that simplifies all the pre-processing steps of deep sky pictures. http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/index.html This image is stacked from 4 ...


2

This explains how to merge multiple short exposures to mimic the effect of a longer exposure. It's aimed at emulating ND filter photos but the principal should be the same. The basic premise is to take multiple shorter shots and then use a tool like Hugin to align and ImageMagick to convert them into in a single image. The result is effectively the same as ...


0

You can find a lot of potrtait/model RAWs at this ModelMayhem Forum section Challenges, Contests, and Samples.


2

http://rawsamples.ch has 230 files from various camera manufactures. Please add to the collection if your camera isn't represented.


0

Since my other answer (while popular) is not really an answer to the question, I'll go ahead and post the right answer. If your camera shoots in DNG 'natively', then I would go ahead and go with DNG, because it's what the manufacturer adopted as its 'raw' format. It will contain every bit of information the camera can produce. I believe that this is what ...


0

Whether there is any benefit of shooting in the proprietary format depends on the particular implementation of the two raw formats by the manufacturer. For example, is the DNG format storing the same metadata? Is it using lossless compression? If the files give identical results and contain identical metadata, then it might be beneficial (more future proof) ...


0

Make sure to rule out the obvious: that your monitor is incorrectly calibrated. Try viewing the images on another computer, or attach an external monitor to your laptop. If possible, try printing a sample with a reputable printing company. Is it still green? Ok, then the conversion is the problem. If not, you have a problem with what your monitor is ...


1

This kind of thing can happen if your NEFCDC is out of date, since it needs to be updated for every new camera that comes out. If that doesn't work then try opening the NEF with with the View NX or Capture NX 2. Each NEF image includes a JPEG preview image. If the embedded JPEG preview has a green tint, then the NEF will too. You can also get a green ...


0

try the free Capture NX-D from Nikon's website. There you can adjust the photos before exporting them


0

Note: For your particular case where your camera actually shoots in DNG there's no reason not to use it as that IS the RAW format of your camera anyway. Note the definition of DNG is Digital Negative (DNG): an open lossless raw image format. That is, DNG is also a RAW format. While there're very strong arguments about DNG VS RAW let me summarize a couple of ...


0

Yes. You still need an exposure. RAW is not magical, it is just the sensor data for a certain exposure. You must choose the aperture according to the depth-of-field you want, the shutter-speed according to the motion you want to capture and the ISO to balance between them which will set the gain on the sensor to make a balanced exposure. Sure, RAW is more ...


0

One of the benefits of the DNG file is the size. They are around 15-20% smaller in file size than PEF files without any loss of quality. Also, with the DNG format the XMP data is included in the DNG file, so you don’t have to worry about the XMP data getting separated from the original DNG.So in that case there is a huge benefit in terms of organization ...


1

I have tried Capture NX-D, Capture NX-2 and the DxO Optics Pro 7 (the newest version is 9, but 7 can be downloaded for free till the end of this month). Of these applications Capture NX-2 has a very nice tool called Control Points which provides an easy way of manipulating selected features of the photo. E.g. you put a control point on someone's face and ...


2

You aren't really missing a lot in terms of RAW manipulation and actually may have some slightly improved options with the vendor provided RAW editor. The main thing that third party tools are designed for is workflow management and cataloging. They make it easier to manage large numbers of files, tagging them so they can easily be found later and ...


0

I recommend you put those questions on an astro amateur forum, e.g. Cloudy Nights. You will get more answers + advice with respect to astronomical use of DSLRs or software...


0

Here is the process I use: cd ~/directory_with_raw_files ufraw-batch --out-type=tif --out-depth=8 --wb=camera --exposure=0.33 --black-point=auto *.NEF Of course, you will process CR2 files instead of NEF. I usually open just the first raw file to find acceptable parameters for ufraw-batch, such as exposure. Then install the stacking package: sudo ...


0

ufraw will handle raw files for you, and can do the basic processing that you mentioned. If you still need more editing, it connects nicely to gimp. In case you are running Ubuntu, Mint or a similar flavour, install it like this: sudo apt-get install ufraw gimp ufraw-gimp


1

been using geeqie for years and it has saved me countless hours. can't even use any other viewer any longer due to how spoiled I am on geeqie's ability and speed. while being able to view images as fast as my wheel mouse can scroll is awesome, and the ability to open every file from geeqie is also nice. its a one stop viewer that is always installed ...


0

The RX100 requires a minimum of camera raw 7.2 http://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html Photoshop CS2 supports camera raw versions 3.0-3.7 http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/global/camera-raw-compatible-applications.html So you don't need a new computer, but you need a much more recent version of Photoshop(CS6 or ...


1

Well, you've certainly run into "The Photoshop Tax" on new cameras. :) To get Photoshop/ACR to open a RAW file directly, it must be a new enough version that groks the RAW of the camera model. And since RAW is not a file format or a standard, and changes with each camera model, and Adobe has no time-travel capability, this means a version of ACR that came ...


1

The dynamic range that a RAW file takes in is generally much wider than the range used in producing a finished photograph. It contains the actual raw values of the amount of light gathered by each point on the sensor. When adjusting the exposure slider, it shifts the relative interpreted intensity of each pixel based on the amount of light that was ...


3

It's my understanding that most raw converters apply a multiplier to linear values, either demosaiced or not. (The big exception is Adobe.) This mimics more/less exposure in the camera, and the end effect is that a file looks likes it had been exposed in camera at the net exposure (actual exposure + exposure adjustment in the converter). But don't just take ...



Top 50 recent answers are included