And even better, to ignore it, and NOT create a replacement. The forum is going better than ever, and the threads are reasonably organized, and most posts now have a “topic”.
Bye…
Agreed 1000%. When I think I’m “finished” editing an image, now I make a VC and try out some of my other ideas. I’ve got one image “in the bank”, and if the VC image is not at least as good, I ignore it and go back to the good version.
I guess this is a selling point for mirrorless cameras, as the viewfinder in neither my D780 nor my Leica shows that kind of detail, but with the Leica and Visoflex, I get to see what the camera is about to capture.
I realize that now - never thought much about it, or used the Color Wheel in the past. Now it’s a very handy tool for adjusting color. I haven’t yet used it to change a car or bicycle to a different color, but that capability is there when/if I find a use for it.
I need to read up on, or watch the videos, on how to get the best use out of the PL Color Wheel tool.
The above reply was posted many weeks ago. DxO needed to approve it, and they just did. Please ignore it.
I wish DxO has listed the posting time as weeks ago, not 14 hours ago, as I’m writing this.
There is one “off-color” word; maybe that’s why it was held up?
Dunno.
From DxO as a message:
Hello,
This is an automated message from DxO Forums to let you know that your post was approved.
I see you give a lot of good information here, but I don’t believe you are right regarding color space and RAW files.
As I have understood it, the RAW file is exactly the same whatever color space the camera is set to. It’s supposed to be what the sensor record, color space only come into the equation when converting the RAW file into a normal file format like JPG, TIFF or whatever format.
(I have my camera set to aRGB, but that’s just because I used to also take JPG files together with my RAW files some years ago.)
For me the camera records the image in an input color space, defined by the color filter array. During the conversion the eyes goes output oriented.
But I think she means for the jpg. However I hate the phrase “more information”.
George
A RAW file i supposed to be what the sensor records. Color Space should only come into the equation when interpreting the RAW file, that means converting it to an image file format like JPG or other.
More information only means that the process will give you a wider range of colors when camera or software interpret the RAW file. In that way you get more color information in your file.
But in front of that sensor there’s a color filter array. Thet filter is sensitive for some kind of color red green and blue. That determines the input color space. It’s only of value for the converter.
George
Infact there isn’t any “color” in a rawfile.
Only equivilance of charges of a sensorwell.
A pixel is basicly 4 wells in bayer array. Which has block everything except green or everything except red, or everything except blue light which charge a well to a certain load due exposure time and amount of that lightwave present in your framing.
Four charges of r,g,b,g (a group) which is converted when demosiaced to RGB channels for 1 pixel. In order to balance this is there a Whitepoint and blackpoint added and a WhiteBalance calculated. In order to have this numbers in a way your original image is reviewed they use a colorprofile and thus colorspace.
Inside the camera there is a rudimentair raw to jpeg/tiff in some cases and some does DNG, converter which you can set in two colorspaces for joeg and tiff sRGB and AdobeRGB. The DNG i don’t know that’s dslr area i believe.
So in principle every raw to RGB converter produces/can produce an other image in way of color and brightnes due calculation differences wile they uses the same colorspace as “livingroom” for the preview/end file.
I shoot jpg plus raw for fast viewing purposes and the onboard panorama feature which only produces jpegs. There for i have my camera set on AdobeRGB so i have a little bit more wiggleroom.
I throw away the oocjpegs after processing the rawfiles which has the same number so i have no problem using the “wrong” colorspace in camera for http usage.
If we talk about a (output)color space we mean the possibility of an output device to produce signals within a range of wavelength.
If I talk about an input color space I mean the sensitivity for the combination of CFA and sensor to register the appearance of certain wavelength.
I don’t know if the used colors of that CFA array, red green and blue, are defined in the exif or are standardized in some way.
George
That is what I learned to accept. All things being equal, the raw file should be independent of which camera was used to create the file. That would imply that if one took the same photo from multiple cameras, the color detail would be the same from each image, but I doubt that is the case.
To interpret the image captured by the camera, all the necessary information would presumably be stored within the “raw” image and any other relevant information included in the file, including the small “jpg” preview image. Not sure if this is really true. I’m also not sure that if the resulting image was opened in multiple computers running different software, how similar the on-screen images would be prior to doing any editing.
Why would you think that? Raw data is just that “data”. Which in the case of a raw camera file is essentially the amount of light that has passed a colour filter in front of the pixel. The amount of light will depend on the band pass of the filter used. A different filter will allow more/less light thus changing the data.
This data has to be interpreted into an RGB image and this “interpretation” will depend on how an individual software engineer decides to do the “interpretation”. If two people took the same raw file and produced an image they liked, do you think it would be exactly the same?
1 Like
Joachim, I think the problem with that concept is that “manipulation” is a common word that is “loaded” with a lot of values even before it got used by “photo purists”.
This has been a never ending debate even i my country also since there have been a few pretty spectacular frauds by Swedes - even in international contests where one guy won one of these with a manipulated elephant. Sorry for him that specific animal was wel known among nature photographers in South Africa so he got busted after having exchanged the sky and even changed at least one of the ears and that fact got him busted.
Another high profiles nature photographer were cutting and pasting pictures of the very rare and shy lynx (big cat living in our forests) into nice natural surroundings. So many that peopl got suspicious because many can walk in the deep forrests a whole life without seen a single lunx tail.
Maybe a year ago this discussion landed in a suggestion to use the word “non documentary” or “ej dokumentär” in Swedish instead.