| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/16/2006 03:15:21 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Wow! Great tip. |
Yup -- a tiptop tip, as it were. I hardly ever use blending modes, so this will be a great way to experiment. |
|
|
|
10/16/2006 03:18:54 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Wow! Great tip. |
I'll third that. I had never thought about that, and in fact it's not completely clear *why* it should work, though the fact that it does provides some interesting insight into how Photoshop treats such an adjustment layer! Ya learn something new every day. |
|
|
|
10/16/2006 03:40:20 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by MrEd:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I then do any basic 'trimming' (DPP speak for cropping). |
The 1 thing I wish RSE and/or Minolta's Dimage Viewer can do is crop. That would definately help. |
I find it's quicker in DPP than PS. I have PS7, so i don't have bridge and ACR and all that stuff to know if it's fast(er) or not.
You can copy and paste your edits on an image to one or all or a select few - i've not tried to paste a trim to collection of images yet.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2006 06:42:03 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Create a levels (or curves) layer and do nothing inside of it. Then set the blend mode of your adjustment layer to the desired blend mode. This has the SAME EFFECT as if you had "duplicated the bitmap layer" and set the blend mode! But since it's an adjustment layer, you haven't increased the memory footprint hardly at all. |
In CS2 I created a new image:
800 x 600 pixels, 72dpi, RGB color, 16-bit, white background.
I saved this new image as "newfile1.tif". The file size is 2,830 KB.
I opened newfile1.tif, then selected Layer\New Adjustment Layer\Levels... which displays the New Layer dialog. I clicked OK, which displays the Levels dialog. I clicked OK again to accept the new layer. I saved the edited image as "newfile2.tif", with the Layers checkbox selected so it will save the new layer. The file size for this file is 6,582 KB.
IOW, the file with the Levels adjustment layer is over twice as large as the original. I call that a significant increase in file size.
Am I missing something or doing something different than you did?
|
|
|
|
10/16/2006 07:48:21 PM · #55 |
Like Mick, I just tried the test... I opened an original, and saved as both a .TIF and a .PSD. I then added a curves adjustment layer, with no adjustment, but blend mode changed to "multiply." Resaved as .TIF (with layer info, RLE compressoin) and .PSD. The stats:
.TIF from original: 23.3MB
.PSD from original: 23.4MB
.TIF with layer added: 45.7MB
.PSD with layer added: 44.7MB
There does seem to be a significant "footprint" from the added layer, both in the PSD and TIF formats. |
|
|
|
10/16/2006 10:31:31 PM · #56 |
Hmmmmm... Don't know what is happening with you guys but here is my experiment.
Basline:
I started with a "real world" post processed .tiff file. The file itself originated with a sRGB .jpg from my Sony F717. In post it had been converted to an 8-bit, Adobe RGB (1998) color space .tiff file. Post processing included 7 layers: 1-original BG, 2-duplicated BG for cloning, 2 Levels layers, 2 curves layers, 1 selective color layer and a 50% greyscale overlay layer.
The baseline file is 51 Megs.
The process:
I created my "multiply" mode layer two different ways starting with the 51 Meg baseline file. In the first I duplicated the clone data layer and changed its mode to "multiply" and saved the file under a different name. The second way I created a Curves layer above the clone data layer and set its mode to "multiply" and then saved the second file under a different name.
In both cases the final effect on the image was exactly the same.
The Results:
Original .tiff: 51 Megs
Data Layer added and saved: 64 Megs
Adjustment Layer added and saved: 51 Megs (Same size as the original)
I have no idea why your results are different.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2006 11:31:38 PM · #57 |
Interesting results. Here's my theory so far:
- The first time you add a layer, there is some significant overhead. The .PSD file (that's the only thing I have tested) will grow significantly, even if it is just a do-nothing adjustment layer.
- The next layer you add, however, will have negligable impact on the size. You can try it. Add several Levels layers and the file size will stay relatively unchanged.
- Now dupe your background layer and save it. Get ready for a really huge jump in file size.
So I think it is that first step that examples the differences in what you guys are seeing. The "real world" case started with multiple layers already. Your other tests started at ground zero and only added the adjustment layer.
Well, that's what my testing so far leads me to believe...
|
|
|
|
10/17/2006 05:10:29 PM · #58 |
Not saying this is a great image or anything, but from posters here I have learned a lot about RAW image processing and am attempting to apply that knowledge. This image was processed from some of my RAW capture experiments.
This I can say for certain... If you are serious about fine art photography then RAW is the way to go. It gives you more data to work with from the get go and greater flxibility with what you can do with it later on. All that is a good thing, probably help you get ribbons as well.
My initial impression compared to capturing 8-bit sRGB .jpg images then converting it to .tiff and Adobe RGB (1998) for post processing is incontrovertible, starting with RAW is a huge advantage.
I buy into the notion that RAW is like a digital negative and that RAW conversion is like developing a negative.
Taking in RAW, using RAW image conversion for 'developing' a 'negative', and post processing from there will give you a superior final master file from which you can make great prints or web graphic output.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2006 05:46:14 PM · #59 |
Hey Steve, don't knock it. I think it's a great image. I love the colors. It should make a really great print (especially if you go big).
Message edited by author 2006-10-17 17:46:22.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2006 05:59:19 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Hey Steve, don't knock it. I think it's a great image. I love the colors. It should make a really great print (especially if you go big). |
Not really knocking it, but agree I could blow that sucker up almost as big as I'd want and it will be good, but then I've seen it at full size and at 400% enlargement above that too. ;)
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 09:25:21 AM · #61 |
RAW workflow - Is this right?
The biggest advantage of RAW image processing is starting out with all your camera's captured data at 16-bits/channel in the Adobe RGB (1998) color space.
What do you think about the order of events in the following general workflow to produce an 8-bit sRGB .jpg file for output to the web?
1-Initial camera capture: RAW in Adobe RGB (1998) color space
2-Use RAW conversion to 'develop' digital negative and to produce 16-bit .tiff output file
3-Additional post processing with image editing software (Photoshop, etc.) to produce final post processed master file
4-Flatten, crop and resize
5-Sharpen (USM or Smart Sharpen)
6-Convert from Adobe RGB (1998) to sRGB
7-Convert from 16-bit to 8-bit
8-Save web graphic output file
Additional questions:
Should you do the conversion from Adobe RGB (1998) and 16-bits to sRGB and 8-bit BEFORE or AFTER sharpening?
Of the two, should you convert Adobe RGB to sRGB first and then from 16-bit to 8-bit, or do 16-bit to 8-bit conversion first then RGB to sRGB?
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 09:37:37 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
1-Initial camera capture: RAW in Adobe RGB (1998) color space
2-Use RAW conversion to 'develop' digital negative and to produce 16-bit .tiff output file |
If you are shooting in raw, the in camera colorspace setting has no effect. Your raw conversion software is where you would need to set it to Adobe or sRGB. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 10:19:09 AM · #63 |
I figured in RAW color space does not matter, but in conversion it most certainly does. I just have my camera setting for Adobe RGB for situations where it only produces .jpg output.
Mostly, I'm interested in the order of workflow with respect to color space coversion, 16 to 8 bit conversion and sharpening from the completed post processed master file for producing output files in a color managed environment.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 10:49:11 AM · #64 |
Why does everyone thing Adobe RGB is better?
Labs and the web are sRGB. perhaps your inkjet printer is A-RGB, perhaps not.
Anytime you convert from one colorspace to another you will experience a remapping of some colors and that isn't good, not at all. So why shoot in Adobe RGB for the web? You've created another step (the conversion to sRGB) and run the risk of uncontrolled color shifts, or you edit it twice.
You need to edit in the colorspace of the output method you've chosen. I've worked at printers where the output is CMYK and when the customer supplied an RGB file (adobe or s it didn't matter) the colors shifted when it was converted to the proper space. If the client worked in CMYK space then no conversion, no shift.
I shoot sRGB and that's what my lab uses. So if there is any measurable benefit to adobe RGB i'd not benefit from it, and the conversion would likely create quality issues in the color reproduction.
Edit: read a few posts - Adobe is a larger color space and there is no point to make an sRGB into a Adobe RGB - the information is NOT there so you are interpolating colors.
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 10:51:24.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:57:40 PM · #65 |
Good points... Good questions... My responses are based on my experiences...
My experience
Up until starting to use RAW I began with an sRGB .jpg camera file that I converted to an Adobe RGB (1998) .tiff file for post processing. I keep my post processed master file in that format and change it for producing output files for such things as print or web. Also, I own an Epson 4000 printer and my major concern is matching screen appearance with print output from that printer. The Epson is a 17" carriage fine art photographer's printer. It is used in many print shops.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Why does everyone thing Adobe RGB is better?
Labs and the web are sRGB. perhaps your inkjet printer is A-RGB, perhaps not. |
I think Adobe RGB (1998) is better because it is a richer color space and provides you more color data to start with. Even though you will later convert back to sRGB for printing you get a higher quality print in the end. It is most noticeable in skies and areas of very fine, but smooth, tonal transitions. That has been my experience with larger prints. It is true even with sRGB .jpg original input files converted to Adobe RGB and then later back again to sRGB.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Anytime you convert from one colorspace to another you will experience a remapping of some colors and that isn't good, not at all. So why shoot in Adobe RGB for the web? You've created another step (the conversion to sRGB) and run the risk of uncontrolled color shifts, or you edit it twice. |
When remapping RGB to sRGB you are making a downward color remapping to a subset color space of RGB itself. That is what I usually do and where my personal experience resides. Basically what happens in this case is that sRGB colors are substituted for RGB shades that are between what sRGB can handle. That is the very thing that reduces banding in tonal transitions and results in better print. It does not produce color cast and/or color noise problems of any kind since it choses either the closer lower or closer upper color that it can handle. Of course, you will still have the annoying sRGB color jumps between pixels that you always get with sRGB, the difference is the pixels are redistributed better along the tonal transition boundaries. That is what I've found with my large prints on the Epson 4000.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
You need to edit in the colorspace of the output method you've chosen. I've worked at printers where the output is CMYK and when the customer supplied an RGB file (adobe or s it didn't matter) the colors shifted when it was converted to the proper space. If the client worked in CMYK space then no conversion, no shift.
I shoot sRGB and that's what my lab uses. So if there is any measurable benefit to adobe RGB i'd not benefit from it, and the conversion would likely create quality issues in the color reproduction.
Edit: read a few posts - Adobe is a larger color space and there is no point to make an sRGB into a Adobe RGB - the information is NOT there so you are interpolating colors. |
You can never be 100% certain what printer or printer paper you will be printing on. Obviously, those things could be changed at any time. And there is a big difference between web and print output.
Therefore you have to make a generic choice for your post processed master file and produce different output files for different purposes from that. Even making a choice for a different type paper on the same printer will have a huge impact on your print color and quality. You depend on the proper printer/paper profile to make the needed adjustments for you so that what you see on the screen is what you get when printed. It is not enough just to have the same color space.
If you must change your sRGB file to CMYK then naturally you will have to make image adjustments no matter what. Not true of RGB to sRGB since sRGB is a subset of RGB.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2006 04:07:57 PM · #66 |
I think I missed it in here...so sorry if it is redundant....
If I shoot in RAW+JPEG does that actually mean the camera is capturing the one photo in both formats? I understand that in jpeg the camera itself does some processing, and raw doesn't (duh)..
So in reality I could equally compare the two versions of the same photo, right?? |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 04:11:03 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by dassilem:
I think I missed it in here...so sorry if it is redundant....
If I shoot in RAW+JPEG does that actually mean the camera is capturing the one photo in both formats? I understand that in jpeg the camera itself does some processing, and raw doesn't (duh)..
So in reality I could equally compare the two versions of the same photo, right?? |
Yes! |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 04:18:22 PM · #68 |
thanks....thought I understood but perhaps not :-)
I've just started dabbling with the raw... |
|
|
|
11/23/2006 11:27:43 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Additional questions:
Should you do the conversion from Adobe RGB (1998) and 16-bits to sRGB and 8-bit BEFORE or AFTER sharpening? |
IMHO and from what many post-editors say, sharpening should be the last step (before saving for distribution). The reason being, once you sharpen, anything else you do with the image alters that sharpness you just worked hard to create.
|
|
|
|
11/24/2006 12:01:16 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by dassilem:
thanks....thought I understood but perhaps not :-)
I've just started dabbling with the raw... |
It's funny that this post should pop up on the front page again tonight. I just went and played around with some night photography and decided on a whim that I would try out the RAW file in CS2 after already uploading the edited (cropped) JPEG. I may never go back to working with just the JPEG again.
I like the RAW version better. Much more detail in it!
 From the JPEG
 Then from the RAW |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/23/2025 02:28:11 PM EDT.
