This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080209080604050209080801
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
KB ha scritto:
> On Jul 19, 1:13 pm, "catf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
> <catf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Kurt,
>> make sure you have the latest camera raw plugin
>>
>> here is a link to camera raw candidate (beta)
4.5http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Camera_Raw_4.5
>>
>> and here is a link to camera raw
4.4.1http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html
>>
>> "Kurt Knoll" <kkno...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> This is exactly the problem I have right now. My Photoshop CS will not
open
>>> a raw file from my Canon Rebel XTIS Camera in Photoshop and I have
therefore
>>> to us The Canon utility program that came with the camera first
converting
>>> it to a tiff file and then use Photoshop to do further processing
there.
>>> Kurt Knoll.
>>>
>
>
>
> To me it seems that the real problem here is not so much the lack of a
> visual reference, gray balance and pure hue targets, which we had
> strapped on a drum in a viewing booth during trials, but with digital
> it's the poor image quality that your stranded with upon the initial
> conversion process regardless of the tools used. I realize we have the
> ability to revert without destroying the original captured data,
> yeeha! assuming you can recreate the good moves and compensate for the
> bad decisions one initially made.
>
> Today it's like your handed this shoe box full of crapola and forced
> to pound the content into submission. I know the more you have to push
> the more the image breaks down. This is a major step back in my head,
> don't get me wrong, digital is the way to go but holy jesus! the
> effort it takes to optimize and sharpen that raw data is painful. Now
> if your divorced from the shoot itself like I am, your having to reach
> inside the authors head and extrapolate from that "hi-end" digitally
> captured data and target the vision and expectations of the artist.
> Outside of hovering over the shoulder as they hit the button and
> taking a mental picture, I'm still baffled by the tools and workflow.
>
> KB
>
>
>
Have you ever wondered why a 10+ Mpixels RAW file only weighs around 6
to 8 Mbytes (depending on the camera maker), while the same image in
TIFF weighs 30+ Mbytes ? Any CCD camera sensor only *captures* around
1/3 of the data needed at a given resolution. That's the maximum you get.
In order to restore the *missing* data when processing a RAW file,
software algorithms are applied (demosaicing). The better the algorithm
the better the image. (and there isn't a standard algorithm either, thus
results may vary...thus forget about *the original picture*)
In the end, that's all you get after spending $800+ on your professional
digital camera. ;))
--------------080209080604050209080801
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
KB ha scritto:
<blockquote
cite="mid:cbb68327-dc07-4b39-992c-f90c3a318e68@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Jul 19, 1:13 pm, <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:catf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
">"catf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:catf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"><catf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Kurt,
make sure you have the latest camera raw plugin
here is a link to camera raw candidate (beta)
4.5http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Camera_Raw_4.5
and here is a link to camera raw
4.4.1http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html
"Kurt Knoll" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:kkno...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"><kkno...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This is exactly the problem I have right now. My
Photoshop CS will not open
a raw file from my Canon Rebel XTIS Camera in Photoshop and I have
therefore
to us The Canon utility program that came with the camera first converting
it to a tiff file and then use Photoshop to do further processing there.
Kurt Knoll.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
To me it seems that the real problem here is not so much the lack of a
visual reference, gray balance and pure hue targets, which we had
strapped on a drum in a viewing booth during trials, but with digital
it's the poor image quality that your stranded with upon the initial
conversion process regardless of the tools used. I realize we have the
ability to revert without destroying the original captured data,
yeeha! assuming you can recreate the good moves and compensate for the
bad decisions one initially made.
Today it's like your handed this shoe box full of crapola and forced
to pound the content into submission. I know the more you have to push
the more the image breaks down. This is a major step back in my head,
don't get me wrong, digital is the way to go but holy jesus! the
effort it takes to optimize and sharpen that raw data is painful. Now
if your divorced from the shoot itself like I am, your having to reach
inside the authors head and extrapolate from that "hi-end" digitally
captured data and target the vision and expectations of the artist.
Outside of hovering over the shoulder as they hit the button and
taking a mental picture, I'm still baffled by the tools and workflow.
KB
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Have you ever wondered why a 10+ Mpixels RAW file only weighs around 6
to 8 Mbytes (depending on the camera maker), while the same image in
TIFF weighs 30+ Mbytes ? Any CCD camera sensor only *captures* around
1/3 of the data needed at a given resolution. That's the maximum you
get.<br>
In order to restore the *missing* data when processing a RAW file,
software algorithms are applied (demosaicing). The better the algorithm
the better the image. (and there isn't a standard algorithm either,
thus results may vary...thus forget about *the original picture*)<br>
In the end, that's all you get after spending $800+ on your
professional digital camera. ;))<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------080209080604050209080801--
|
