Neue Testversion 16.90b6

[bkh]

Beim HDR-Import sehe ich die Fadenkreuze nur dann, wenn ich die Extremwert-Vorschau (Fußspuren) einschalte (aktuelle Beta und PL 16.53, beides Mac 64 bit). Ach ja, und der Kreuzcursor erschwert das Platzieren der Marken, weil er 3 Pixel breit ist und das eigentliche Fadenkreuz nur 1 px. Kann man den Cursor nicht abschalten, während das Fadenkreuz bewegt wird?

L.G.

Burkhard.

[bkh]

Noch ein kleines Problem: die Qualität der Umrissverzerrung ist nicht besonders toll – anstatt einer glatten Umrisskurve sieht man deutlich lineare Stücke.
Beispiel: Umrissverzerrung eines Rechtecks mit einer der Kurven aus PL ("Fahne"). Oben die Originalkurve (auf die Größe des Rechtecks gedehnt), unten das verzerrte Rechteck (jeweils Ausschnitt, ganze PLD im Anhang). Das passiert auch, wenn man Bilder verzerrt.

Screen shot 2011-10-03 at 23.39.36 .png

Lässt sich da was verbessern?

L.G.

Burkhard.

[OldRadioGuy]

PL 16.90b6 64-bit crashes when selecting RAW image from Browser window.

1. Use Browser to navigate to a set of RAW images on drive c:
2. Select image with ORF (Olympus RAW) extension
3. Click on Camera icon on Browser menu and select Digital Camera Raw Data
4. PL crashes

The same operation in PhotoLine 16.90B6, 32 bit works correctly

However, in both 32 bit and 64 bit, the RAW image opened in Digital Camera Raw Data is very dark (the thumbnail in the Browser appears normal.)

Here's an example in PL (Image is cropped here to conform to dimension limitations of this board -- my original example was too big!):



Here's the same raw image opened in Photoshop Elements Camera Raw:



And here's the same image opened in the viewer that comes with Olympus cameras, Olympus Viewer 2.1 (Image is cropped here to conform to dimension limitations of this board -- my original example was too big!)



As I made the comparisons, I noted that more adjustments can be done in Elements Camera Raw and in the Olympus Viewer than in PL's Digital Raw Data tool before the image is moved to the editor.

[bkh]

However, in both 32 bit and 64 bit, the RAW image opened in Digital Camera Raw Data is very dark (the thumbnail in the Browser appears normal.)

Probably the gamma setting. At least, I have to set it to 2.2 for Nikon NEFs. (You can do this under Preferences -> File -> Raw, once and for all). Btw., did you choose "Automatic Color Correction" on purpose? I prefer "Use Camera White point" …

As I made the comparisons, I noted that more adjustments can be done in Elements Camera Raw and in the Olympus Viewer than in PL's Digital Raw Data tool before the image is moved to the editor.

Did you notice that there is a new raw import function in the current beta? You'll get that if you just "Open" a raw file, or if you double click it in the Browser (make sure you unchecked "Open Raw Images using the Import Function" in Preferences -> Browse -> Settings). You'll get the raw picture (just demosaiced) and an adjustment layer with all sorts of adjustments. In this way, you can use the normal non-destructive PL workflow for your raws. I think that it's much better than the old Import dialog because it's non-destructive and you don't have to use a special GUI.

Cheers

Burkhard.

[Martin Stricker]

Hello OldRadioGuy,

in PL you have to make your own adjustments. You can save your preferred adjustments as presets. This is very easy. Here are a view hints

1. Gamma has to be set on 2.2.
2. "Automatic Color Correction" should only be checked, if you have no color input profile for your camera. You get the best colors with a proper input profile.
3. "Use Camera White Point" should be checked, so PL will use the WB of your camera. This is a better starting point for your own correction in most cases.
4. With "Clip White" you can adjust the exposure of your camera.

Without adjustmenst

vorher-raw.jpg

With adjustments

nachher_raw.jpg

Compared to CameraRaw

cr.jpg

Probably the gamma setting. At least, I have to set it to 2.2 for Nikon NEFs. (You can do this under Preferences -> File -> Raw, once and for all). Btw., did you choose "Automatic Color Correction" on purpose? I prefer "Use Camera White point"

"Automatic Color Correction" has nothing to do with the "camera white balance".

You'll get the raw picture (just demosaiced) and an adjustment layer with all sorts of adjustments. In this way, you can use the normal non-destructive PL workflow for your raws. I think that it's much better than the old Import dialog because it's non-destructive and you don't have to use a special GUI.

Raw is always non-destructive, because you can not change a Raw File. If you want to save your opend Raw with the adjustment layers, you get really big files in addition to your original Raws. I think there are far to many adjustments at the moment, this may confuse many users, especially the beginners. There are also some other problems I wont mention, because of my lacking knowledge of English.

Martin

[bkh]

Probably the gamma setting. At least, I have to set it to 2.2 for Nikon NEFs. (You can do this under Preferences -> File -> Raw, once and for all). Btw., did you choose "Automatic Color Correction" on purpose? I prefer "Use Camera White point"

"Automatic Color Correction" has nothing to do with the "camera white balance".

Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of "Automatic Color Correction". The manual only mentions "Automatic White Point" but there is no such option in the Import dialog, so I guess the two are the same. In that case, however, it doesn't make sense to use both white points. But maybe "Automatic Color Correction" does something else?

Raw is always non-destructive, because you can not change a Raw File.

In this sense, editing any file is non-destructive as long as you keep a copy of the original. But for me, non-destructive editing means that I can undo earlier changes without having to re-do all the following steps. With Camera Raw Import, if I use "Clip white" and discover that I've lost highlight details only later, I have to start over from the beginning.

If you want to save your opend Raw with the adjustment layers, you get really big files in addition to your original Raws.

I don't get your point. The adjustment settings don't take much space. On the contrary, as long as you don't edit the original picture, PL saves the original raw along with the adjustment layers in the pld which gives much smaller pld sizes for me (hardly larger than the raws themselves). In principle, I could even delete the raws because PL can re-export them. Unfortunately, the raw gets lost when one edits the background layer.

I think that the main problem with both the old and the new raw import function is that you have to have a good icc profile for your camera for the import to produce good results "out of the box".

Cheers

Burkhard.

[Martin Stricker]

But maybe "Automatic Color Correction" does something else?

Some time ago I asked Gerhard what "Automatic Color Correction" is doing. As far as I understood it mimics the input profile. So it has nothing to do with the white balance.

In this sense, editing any file is non-destructive as long as you keep a copy of the original.

Didn't you notice the smiley?

But for me, non-destructive editing means that I can undo earlier changes without having to re-do all the following steps. With Camera Raw Import, if I use "Clip white" and discover that I've lost highlight details only later, I have to start over from the beginning.

Sure you are right. But in practice I rarely need to edit a converted Raw. There are also some steps in my workflow I need to leave the path of non-destructive working. For example there are some functions in PL which don't work proper when you are working in the camera input color space. So you have to convert into sRGB or Adobe RGB color space. Which also means, that some Adjustment Layers must be readjusted or you have to reduce all adjustments to the background layer.

I don't get your point. The adjustment settings don't take much space. On the contrary, as long as you don't edit the original picture, PL saves the original raw along with the adjustment layers in the pld which gives much smaller pld sizes for me (hardly larger than the raws themselves). In principle, I could even delete the raws because PL can re-export them. Unfortunately, the raw gets lost when one edits the background layer.

I would never delete the raws, because they are your originals. I just compared the size of one of my raws, a NEF from the Nikon D200, to the stored pld. The size of the NEF ist 8,77 MB, the unpacked pld size is 58,5 MB and the size of the strong packed pld is 41,6 MB. So the pld is about five times bigger. I think it would be much better if Photoline could work with sidecar files like PS. So you could work non-destructive and didn't need to much additional place on your hard drive.

Martin

[bkh]

Didn't you notice the smiley?

Sorry, I didn't.

For example there are some functions in PL which don't work proper when you are working in the camera input color space. So you have to convert into sRGB or Adobe RGB color space. Which also means, that some Adjustment Layers must be readjusted or you have to reduce all adjustments to the background layer.

There's even a non-destructive solution to that. Change the adjustment layer to be a child layer of the raw image, then the adjustments are computed in the colour space of the parent layer. Then change the document colour space, e.g, by creating a new background layer in that colour space or by assigning a new one after switching to document mode. Finally, you'll have to re-assign the camera rgb profile to the raw image. The last step is only necessary because PL seems to forget the colour profile of the background layer in picture mode (I'm inclined to consider this a bug.)

I just compared the size of one of my raws, a NEF from the Nikon D200, to the stored pld. The size of the NEF ist 8,77 MB, the unpacked pld size is 58,5 MB and the size of the strong packed pld is 41,6 MB. So the pld is about five times bigger.

Strange. Mine are from a D80 and about the same size, so there shouldn't be a big difference. If I open a NEF (9.2 MB, using the new import functionality) and save it as fast packed or strongly packed pld, the size is about 9.5 MB.

I think it would be much better if Photoline could work with sidecar files like PS. So you could work non-destructive and didn't need to much additional place on your hard drive.

I wouldn't mind this as an option (possibly for all layers imported from external files), but I also like self-contained files. At present, I also keep my NEFs since it is much too easy to lose the NEF image embedded in the PL file. It just disappears as soon as you start editing.

Cheers

Burkhard.

[Martin Stricker]

There's even a non-destructive solution to that. Change the adjustment layer to be a child layer of the raw image, then the adjustments are computed in the colour space of the parent layer. Then change the document colour space, e.g, by creating a new background layer in that colour space or by assigning a new one after switching to document mode. Finally, you'll have to re-assign the camera rgb profile to the raw image. The last step is only necessary because PL seems to forget the colour profile of the background layer in picture mode (I'm inclined to consider this a bug.)

Thanks for your suggestion. I have to checkout if it will work for me. But it seams to be even more difficult. I don' t think that this is a good solution. I've also noticed, that continuous working with adjustment layers lets slow down my Mac Pro.

Strange. Mine are from a D80 and about the same size, so there shouldn't be a big difference. If I open a NEF (9.2 MB, using the new import functionality) and save it as fast packed or strongly packed pld, the size is about 9.5 MB.

Really strange. I just converted the background layer of my NEF to 8Bit, the resulting pld is still about 30 MB.

Martin

[OldRadioGuy]

Hello OldRadioGuy,

in PL you have to make your own adjustments. You can save your preferred adjustments as presets. This is very easy. Here are a view hints

1. Gamma has to be set on 2.2.
2. "Automatic Color Correction" should only be checked, if you have no color input profile for your camera. You get the best colors with a proper input profile.
3. "Use Camera White Point" should be checked, so PL will use the WB of your camera. This is a better starting point for your own correction in most cases.
4. With "Clip White" you can adjust the exposure of your camera.

...

Martin

Martin and Burkhard

First, thanks for your replies to my posting of the three comparisons of developing raw images. You two gentlemen have been extremely helpful to me and many other PL users both here and in the English forum. All of us are extremely appreciative of you taking time to assist with the learning of PL.

I apologize for not being clear enough. I was not asking how to use the raw development function in PL. (I had been tinkering with Camera White Point and Automatic Color Correction before I made the screen capture, and the settings did not impact my illustration.) My question was really WHY -- Why does PL display the image with a gamma that is so much different than the other two examples I presented?

Regarding the first part of my post -- apparently both of you use PL 16.90B6 on a Macintosh, so you haven't experienced the crash of PL 16.90B6, Windows version, I reported when trying to open an ORF file in the 64-bit version.

Finally, your later discussion of Automatic Color Correction and Camera White Point. Unless there's a special reason for not doing so, the raw import should always use the camera's white point (also known as white balance). To get a more precise white point, professional photographers will often perform a manual white balance rather than relying on the automatic white balance of the camera. Anytime the kelvin temperature of the light changes, it alters the white point. Reflected light of a different color temperature onto a subject can create color problems that often require color correction. One could debate whether that correction should come in the Raw development stage or later in the photo editor.

Bob

[bkh]

I apologize for not being clear enough. I was not asking how to use the raw development function in PL. (I had been tinkering with Camera White Point and Automatic Color Correction before I made the screen capture, and the settings did not impact my illustration.) My question was really WHY -- Why does PL display the image with a gamma that is so much different than the other two examples I presented?

I just tried PL with a fresh set of preferences. The default gamma setting for raw import is 2.2, and colour correction, camera white point and 16 bit import are on, so a new user should get a reasonable image. I don't know why your default setting was/is 1.0 – either this is a relic of a previous version, or you changed it at some stage?

Finally, your later discussion of Automatic Color Correction and Camera White Point. Unless there's a special reason for not doing so, the raw import should always use the camera's white point (also known as white balance). To get a more precise white point, professional photographers will often perform a manual white balance rather than relying on the automatic white balance of the camera.

I am sure we all agree on that. At least with my camera, the white point used by PL is the white point which I set in my camera, so it's only automatic if I set my camera to use automatic WB. The debate between Martin and ma was about "Automatic Color Correction" – I assumed that it was an automatic white point correction by PL, but apparently it's something different (doesn't have an immediately visible effect on my Raws).

Cheers

Burkhard.

[Martin Stricker]

I assumed that it was an automatic white point correction by PL, but apparently it's something different (doesn't have an immediately visible effect on my Raws).

The "Automatic Color Correction" is broken in the current beta.

Martin