| Author | Message | ||
     phil sparks New member Username: Philsparks Post Number: 1 Registered: 06-2006 |
After a few years using PWP 3.5 on film I recently got a D50 and following the suggestions on the web started using RAW files. I followed the instructions using the batch conversion to create TIF files but have found the images really dull and flat. I can crank up the contrast and saturation to add a bit of sparkle but it takes quite some time. Is this how it should be? Also a couple of other queries - I've been converting the .NEF files to .TIF before begining work in PWP - however this creates huge files, is it possible to work on and save the .NEF files? Finally one other RAW question, when doing a bit of surfing, a number of comments about other RAW converters talked about setting the white balance before converting and so on, how do I do this in PWP before bringing in the RAW file? sorry for really basic queries Phil | ||
| John Burkus Junior Member Username: Oakvilleonca Post Number: 6 Registered: 04-2006 |
Welcome to the PW Pro RAW complainers club. If you look a few postings ago for RAW Conversion 'Comparisons' that I started, I voiced the same problem and have yet to get an easily workable answer. I think that Picture Window Pro v.4 was not thought through with the same amount of rigor as the non RAW version. It's a shame because it is a really professional piece of software that has stood the test of time until now. There is no white balance that I am aware of in PW Pro V.4 nor can you save the RAW file in the traditional sense of saving a jpg or tiff file. "Great meal. What pots did you use?" | ||
| James Sulester Member Username: Jimsul Post Number: 9 Registered: 04-2006 |
Well, certainly white balance cant be done in raw, which I like, as in CS2 or Bibble but obviously the philosopyh was to do it in the program which certainly has adequate features for doing this, without losing information, at least as I understand it. Jim Sulester | ||
| Kiril Sinkel Member Username: Ksinkel Post Number: 316 Registered: 08-2002 |
If you want to convert a number of raw images efficiently, the best technique is to use the workflow. The workflow can convert the images and can also be used to make all the usual corrections, such as contrast, brightness, color balance (also called white balance or whitepoint) and sharpening. There is a small 'trick' in using workflow to convert the images. The images should be grouped into batches that require the same settings. So you will want to group all images shot indoors with camera flash into one batch, images shot outdoors in sun into another, etc. As far as file size is concerned, the tradeoffs are pretty standard. 48 bit tiff is the largest but gives the best quality. It captures all the tonal detail of the original image. 24 bit tiff and jpeg are next in quality and smaller in size. All these options are available via the workflow, s it's a matter of choosing whatever is best for the your purpose. (The workflow can even be used to produce both high quality tiff images and downsized, easy to e-mail jpegs, if that's what you need.) When you mention saving edited NEF files, I believe you are referring to a technique of saving the RAW NEF file plus a 'sidecar' file offered by some raw converters. The converters do not actually modify the raw file. Instead in this option, the raw file contains the original unadjusted picture data and the sidecar file contains a list of operations to be performed by some program. This is effective as long as you have the program that can understand the sidecar file and perform the operations. So it's fine for work in progress. However it is not a robust way to archive images for long periods of time since it may not be easy or even possible to find all the software required to make the conversions at some arbitrary time in the future. Kiril | ||
| Eric Vogel Member Username: Evogel Post Number: 60 Registered: 08-2005 |
John, I assume that the PWP folks have good reasons for chasing RAW conversion. Perhaps for enlarging their market, perhaps for attracting a third party activity, or something else, I don't know. I do know that I personally have no interest in using RAW conversion in PWP as I use BibblePro. Also, since I follow the BibblePro boards, I get the distinct impression that RAW conversion is 1) highly technical, 2) requires tremendous resources to track what all the manufacturers are doing (making test shots, cracking EXIF, etc.), and 3) remains a bit of a black art that requires a lot of experience and practice. I have tried a bit of RAW in PWP, and decided the results weren't worth my time. And I know that a lot of folks don't even shoot RAW because of the overhead and extra processing and don't find the benefits worth it (I shoot RAW almost exclusively but I am a masochist ;-} ) Besides personal serious work, I am trying to use PWP more and more for my general processing for web use, in part because since the Corel acquisition PSP seems to be veering off into the weeds. Instead of being the poor man's PhotoShop, they seem to be heading for everyman's instant photo retouch (give aunt Mary a makeover!) I would prefer to see DL-C put the bandwidth into robust scripting/macro facility, but that is certainly their call. I have upgraded to 4.0 to get the batch facility, and certainly will continue to upgrade if that continues to improve. As for RAW, well, if they can beat Bibble, I will use it, but I fear they have a long way to go on that for speed and quality. So, like any software package, there are aspects of PWP I don't care about so I simply don't use them, e.g. albums among others. Eric | ||
| phil sparks New member Username: Philsparks Post Number: 2 Registered: 06-2006 |
Thanks for the replies guys, seems I got more answer than I bargained for! I guess as a new user of a digi SLR I'd heard discussions on RAW and assumed it was the best quality option to go for. I'd also assumed naively that when I opened the image in PWP I'd get something that looked instantly great (after all this was one of the reasons for heading in the digi direction). After a bit of surfing this evening it appears that RAW conversion is, as one of the earlier posters said, not at all a standard process. this evening I've tried RawShooter Essentials - which seemed to give overblown colours. vuescan (which I have already for neg scanning) which is pretty good and gives a quite appealing first image and gives the control to tinker with the white balance for each image prior to conversion and PWP again. To be honest PWP is probably giving the closest to accurate colours although it starts looking very dull and flat, however to my eyes the images look just a touch cool. Having just blown GBP500 on the D50 I'd assumed that with PWP and the Nikon disks I'd be in business. I guess I may give Bibble a try to see if it gives me a better and more consistent starting point. In answer to some of the above points I can see why PWP want to integrate RAW - when I come back from my hols with a few hundred shots, ideally I want to load them all into the PC, do the minimum of work for the "middling" shots, bin the rubbish and only invest serious time in the few really great pics that may get hung on the wall. If I have to use 2 different packages to acomplish this it's a big disinsentive to spending an evening on the pc. ta again Phil | ||
| Elie Dinur Member Username: Elied Post Number: 140 Registered: 07-2003 |
I think Jonathan and Kiril have been bravely true to the philosophy behind PWP. A few points: For years Jonathan has maintained that as long as the RAW image data is brought into 16 bit without clipping, there is nothing that can be done in a RAW converter that cannot be done at least as well and maybe better (and certainly with more precise control) in PWP. Second, Jonathan has many times expressed his dislike of the "automatic" functions used in many applications to attract an entry market. At the same time the marketplace has changed in recent years. Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro, once aimed at the upmarket professional end, have introduced more and more dumbed-down features for beginners and at the same time the designers of RAW converters have on one hand included more editing functions to attract advanced users and on the other set defaults that will instantly please beginners. I've seen the same thing happen with Canon cameras (I know less about other brands). The lastest models now have Picture Styles, some of which will produce the highly saturated colors, blown highlights, muddy shadows and oversharpening of the P&S cameras that most new DSLR users will be accustomed to. Nine months ago when the first purchasers of the 1D Mk2N were pros they laughed at the "circus colors", but today the forums are full of newbies praising the 30D's "WOW!" factor. When PWP was born it was meant to be intuitive to photographers coming from the wet darkroom into digital. It has remained an application that assumes a certain level of user-knowledge and allows a corresponding level of user-control. By not setting more popular defaults and hard-wiring in more hidden functions, DL&C has probably lost prospective buyers, but I've always had the impression that PWP is more a weekend labor of love than a major source of income. Personally, I have always adopted a workflow that starts with a minimal, low contrast RAW conversion and quick transferral to PWP, prefering that the WOW! be my own hard-earned WOW!, so I believe Jonathan and Kiril are on the right track. Elie | ||
| Robert W. Coutant Member Username: Couman Post Number: 110 Registered: 01-2005 |
Amen! Bob C. | ||
| J E Knepley Member Username: Edk Post Number: 29 Registered: 03-2004 |
Phil, Since you're using a Nikon camera, have you tried Nikon Capture? There's a free trial download. Many - if not most - Nikon shooters find that the RAW conversion using Capture is better than 3rd party alternatives. I shoot 100% RAW; my workflow starts with Capture & ends with PWP. You might give it a try and see if if it works for you. I use PWP daily, recommend it to all of my friends, and upgraded to 4 - but not for RAW conversion. Someday maybe, but for now Capture gives me better results without too much effort & relearning. Ed K. http://www.pbase.com/ed_k | ||
| Eric Vogel Member Username: Evogel Post Number: 61 Registered: 08-2005 |
Really well said Elie. Your comment on circus colors rings especially true. I almost didn't buy a Canon printer because of the ridiculous sample prints they had in the store. (I ended up buying a moderate level Canon, got it profiled, and am delighted with the results. More than meets my needs for now.) Like you, I typically "develop" RAW in a minimal way to ensure I don't lose anything. I do like to set WB at that point. I didn't realize PhotoShop itself also was succumbing to the mass market fads. But Adobe is a public company, so I guess they have to stir the pot. Eric | ||
| John Burkus Member Username: Oakvilleonca Post Number: 7 Registered: 04-2006 |
Elie: I appreciated reading you observations but I can't help feeling that there is a certain nostalgia to what you are saying and that the market is being flooded with amateurs. Not all photographers are artists and providing tools to help them attain whatever insights they want to achieve is not a bad idea. The more I reflected about your comments the more I thought that some users of PW Pro were like sculptors. They like to start with a good piece of marble and create a brilliant piece of sculpture with all the loving care and toil that that involves. If Photoshop has been dumbed down this will certainly be news for the thousands who are spending vast amounts of time and money in trying to master it. Besides, the whole notion of dumbing down in this context is derogatory. I like to play and experiment with various kinds of tools knowing that from time to time I may luck into a result that I like. I also post to my photoblog (http://lightandshadow.my-expressions.com/) and one of the things that I have learned is that in that medium appreciation is very fleeting. In the end in comes to what I like that motivates me to create better photographs. I bought PW Pro because I thought that their excellence would be carried into the processing and editing of RAW images. That, sadly for me, has not been the case. Perhaps I expected too much or perhaps what it comes down to is that no single product can meet all my perceived needs. I can live with that. John "Great meal. What pots did you use?" | ||
| phil sparks New member Username: Philsparks Post Number: 3 Registered: 06-2006 |
I haven't used Nikon Capture yet, but having tried lots of others will give it a go - would baulk at a further GBP100 but if it works well maybe I'll have to bite the bullet. Tried Bibble last night and to be honest the results without much fiddling looked a bit false to me. It's almost like all the other RAW converters I've tried crank up the saturation and contrast in order to achieve an initially impressive image whereas PWP starts at the other end of the scale. Granted I haven't fillded with any of the alternatives too much but if this is required maybe I'm better off just starting with the flat image in PWP and spending my time there. the one area I'm still struggling with in PWP RAW is that there seems almost to be a 'haze' in front of the colours, a slight lack of saturation, if I turn the saturation up a bit the actual colours head off into circus-ville. Also in general its colours, whilst being more natural than the others I've tried, seem to be a little cool. As I said I'm amazed how much difference there is between converters in terms of basics like white balance and brightness. I'd expected the differences to be only subtle to an amateur like me. I thought I should have left all the difficulties of dodgy colours behind when I bought a digi-SLR .... obviously not Phil | ||
| David J. Bookbinder Member Username: Dbookbinder Post Number: 226 Registered: 09-2002 |
I think what might be a helpful addition to the RAW conversion is a set of sample workflows that demonstrate how to tweak the initial conversion to optimize color balance, saturation, contrast, sharpness, and noise control. This would give the non-technical user a starting point. In addition, a tutorial that links the initial processing steps during conversion with tweaking the output in RAW, along the lines of Kiril's message, but with examples, would be helpful to users who want to use PWP for conversion but need the guidance. Just my two cents. - David | ||
| John Burkus Member Username: Oakvilleonca Post Number: 8 Registered: 04-2006 |
David: I think that your idea is great and I know that I would find it helpful. There are several PW Pro 3 tuturials but none of the ones I know cover RAW. I hope that some of the resident gurus will help us with this one. John "Great meal. What pots did you use?" | ||
| meow Junior Member Username: Meow Post Number: 141 Registered: 10-2003 |
Eric, > I assume that the PWP folks have good reasons > for chasing RAW conversion. Perhaps for > enlarging their market, perhaps for attracting > a third party activity, or something else, I > don't know. I know the answer to that. Search this board and you will to. ;-) | ||
| phil sparks New member Username: Philsparks Post Number: 4 Registered: 06-2006 |
I totally agree about having some kind of 'hints & tips' regarding RAW. When I first opened a RAW file in PWP I thought I must be doing something badly wrong - where had my bright and vibrant colours gone? In particular when I tried some of the competition and saw that they had the zip my images lacked. I'm gradually warming to the PWP RAW conversions as they do actually seem to be the most neutral starting point. If I'd had some warning that this was the case, and the rationale, as set out by Elie above, then maybe my first reaction wouldn't have been to head off to the competition. cheers Phil | ||
| Steven Taylor Member Username: Staylor2 Post Number: 35 Registered: 09-2004 |
In general I agree with the philosophy of keeping the RAW conversion simple and just getting all the data passed through to do final editing using all the power and control of PWP. That said, I also am under the impression that white balance is one thing that needs to be gotten right the first time in the RAW conversion. If it is wrong in the initial RAW conversion, it can't (easily) be made right later on. I remember reading something about this but I don't remember where. It was said to have something to do with the individual color responses and the Bayer pattern interpolation. If this is true, and so far in my experience, it does seem to be true, then it does seem that PWP's RAW conversion process should include a white balance selection. Everything else, saturation, dynamic range, sharpening, etc. can, and should, be left to the regular PWP transforms. Yes, this means that the images just after RAW conversion will look flat and not have the "WOW" factor. However, all the data will be available so you will be able to make the image look just as you wish. Steve Taylor | ||
| Robert Sheldon Junior Member Username: Bobsofpa Post Number: 6 Registered: 05-2003 |
The one item I still find lacking in PW RAW is recovering clipped highlights. Until it does a better job I am not going to invest my time in learning the ins and outs of PW RAW. I use Canon's Zoombrowser just to do a rough WB (daylight/tungsten/etc), set the exposure/contrast to ensure that I have the range I want. I then convert to tiff and do the rest of the processing in PW. Bob Sheldon | ||
| Eric Vogel Member Username: Evogel Post Number: 62 Registered: 08-2005 |
OK Meow. I think you are being a tad catty, but I'll buy a vowel. What's the secret code word to search for? | ||
| Andreas Member Username: Dreticus Post Number: 19 Registered: 08-2002 |
I agree with Elie, to some degree. I have tried a few RAW-converters, and their *default* conversions (defaults settings) seem often exaggerated (especially saturation). Wow! Sometimes I do my conversion-work in PW and then compare it with an out-of-the-box result of a dedicated RAW-converter, only to find out that... well, the RAW-converter is over the hill but it shows me the direction to go with PW... ...and I can do better with PW. Here is an example. The first image is a RAW file, converted by PW. It is, like others have mentioned, flat. \image {PW, right after conversion} The second is from Silkypix (one of the better converters, I believe) with default settings (but no sharpening). \image (Silkypix) The third one is from PW, after 5 minutes of work (no sharpening; I used a mask to darken the overexposured area somewhat, but that's a detail). \image {PW, after some work} I think you can judge for yourself. At the moment I'm glad that the PW-conversion leaves everything up to the operator, but that does not mean that there is no room for improvement. (If only it was highlights recovery.) | ||
| Andreas Member Username: Dreticus Post Number: 20 Registered: 08-2002 |
Not very impressive ! Here is a link to the pictures, for those interested: PW, original: http://users.edpnet.be/detroya/Dreticus/PW/PW_orig.jpg SilkyPix, default: http://users.edpnet.be/detroya/Dreticus/PW/Silkypix_orig.jpg PW, after some work: http://users.edpnet.be/detroya/Dreticus/PW/PW_after.jpg | ||
| David J. Bookbinder Member Username: Dbookbinder Post Number: 227 Registered: 09-2002 |
Another helpful tweak would be a set of Color Balance files which approximate a correction for incandescent, tungsten, daylight, sunny, and flash. This would be of use in general, not just with RAW files, but would be particularly helpful in supplying a starting point for correcting color balance specific to a particular camera. Otherwise, as Steven points out, it can be rough going. Establishing color balance at the conversion level would be even better, but creating the .cb files to use post-conversion should be a relatively easy task for someone who knows what he is doing, I would guess. Another two cents, David | ||
| meow Member Username: Meow Post Number: 142 Registered: 10-2003 |
Hi Eric, No, it didn't mean to be catty. Sorry! I was thinking of that RAW conversion has been a *much* requested feature here at the board. | ||
| Eric Vogel Member Username: Evogel Post Number: 63 Registered: 08-2005 |
Meow - no problem. I will have to plead ignorance as I didn't realize that it was so desired by the user base, and self-absorbtion since I wasn't interested in the topic I didn't even notice it - my bad! (of course, I have my own wish list for PWP) Best, Eric | ||
| Tom Spillman New member Username: Tspillman Post Number: 1 Registered: 06-2006 |
I agree with the comment about Color Balance. I am a new user of PWP and relatively new to digital photograpy. OTOH, I have been involved with photography since about 1942. I had my own darkroom for many years and exhibited ocassionally before retirement. I am also new to color work. I have been working my way through Katrin Eismann's book, which doesn't immediately apply, since like mostly is aimed at Photoshop, but it has a number of intriguing examples. Most I can handle in a few minutes, but yesterday I spent almost 45 minutes trying to balance the color on a picture with a serious blue cast. At the end, I looked back at PSPX and used the color balance transaction. It has a Kelvin scale and I used it to make the first change and I had a satisfactory image in about five minutes. I recognize that this is largely because of my lack of experience working with both PWP and color problems, but it is a very real problem to me. Regards... Tom | ||
| Jonathan Sachs Member Username: Jsachs Post Number: 492 Registered: 08-2002 |
Try Transformation Filter, select a Solid Color filter, then in the color picker, click the Opt button and select Color Temperature from the options menu. This lets you apply a filter based on color temperature. If you are familiar with using CC filters in the darkroom, you can also select the Filter Bank option instead of Color Temperature and then select any combination of Wratten or CC filters. Jonathan Sachs Digital Light & Color | ||
| Tom Spillman New member Username: Tspillman Post Number: 2 Registered: 06-2006 |
Thanks. That's just what I needed. I tried it on the same image with much faster results. FWIW, I just did a search on the help file and found no reference to "color temperature" in the help file, hence my lack of earlier success. Since, as I mentioned, I have little color experience, the CC filters are not intuitively obvious, but I have a bunch of info in my library about their use. In the past, I concentrated on B/W and print quality. Color was to "finicky" for me in those days, but my wife doesn't miss the smell of hypo in the house!! Thanks, again... Regards... Tom | ||
| Elie Dinur Member Username: Elied Post Number: 141 Registered: 07-2003 |
As regards Color Balance, it can be easily done if one photographs a white object or a neutral grey card under the actual light conditions. I use a three panel white/grey/black card from qpcard.com which works well with the three probes of the Color Balance Transformation. Of course, problems of time and/or access can make the use of the card difficult, but PWP conversion does utilize the WB data recorded by the camera. Camera AWB success varies between different brands and also is dependent on the range of colors present in the photographed scene (since it works on some weighted variation of the "average to grey" method). My camera works relatively well for average outdoor scenes but poorly for tungsten lighting. Therefore, I have shot my qpcard under a variety of conditions; morning sun, midday, late afternoon sun, open shade, foliage shade, tungsten, etc. and made my own "presets". It is easily done. Of course they have the same limitations as any presets, but since I am neither a scientific nor a forensic photographer, I am not overly concerned with absolute fidelity and consider any WB as a starting point. Since we are talking here about overall (macro) color cast, the measurements made from three shades of grey are adequate. The micro-relationships between individual colors is another story and dependent on the camera profile used at conversion. Any third-party converter is at a disadvantage and I must admit that I like better the colors I get by using in PWP profiles "borrowed" from Canon converters. Kiril wrote a few weeks ago that they are going to have another go at writing some profiles whose data has not been filtered through a conversion to sRGB, so I am looking forward to that. Elie | ||
| Robert W. Coutant Member Username: Couman Post Number: 111 Registered: 01-2005 |
Tom, Use of the Kelvin temperature adjustment is mentioned on page 155 of the electronic manual. That is in the middle of discussion of other color techniques (including CC filters) available in PWP. Also, see the white paper on color balancing -- that document includes some before and after examples. Bob C. | ||
| Tom Spillman New member Username: Tspillman Post Number: 3 Registered: 06-2006 |
Thanks for all of the help. I found my mistake. I spelled the search argument correctly "color temperature" instead of "color temperture" which is used in the "help" file (p. 145 of my edition). When I spelled it the way it is spelled in the help documentation I found it. I SHOULD have used "kelvin" which is independent of the other spellings (and I think I know how to spell that!). I should have realized that what I needed was there, but I'm used to software where that is not often the case <g> Thanks again for the help... Regards... Tom | ||
| Steven Taylor Member Username: Staylor2 Post Number: 36 Registered: 09-2004 |
Jonathon, I tried using this method: "Try Transformation Filter, select a Solid Color filter, then in the color picker, click the Opt button and select Color Temperature from the options menu. This lets you apply a filter based on color temperature." on my Tractor picture and I still couldn't get it even close to a correct color balance. This is a picture that I took with the camera white balance set incorrectly. I shot in raw however, so if I could select the proper WB on conversion everything would be fine. That is what I can do in Bibble. Once I convert it in PWP, which defaults to the camera setting, I can not seem to be able to restore the colors other than with specific points of color correction transform. Kiril has the picture file. See this previous discussion: http://www.dl-c.com/discus/messages/2/8463.html Steve Taylor | ||
| Jonathan Sachs Member Username: Jsachs Post Number: 493 Registered: 08-2002 |
Only some images can be corrected by filtration. Others, especially those made under mixed illumination or using light sources that have spikes in their spectrum (e.g. fluorescents) are much harder to correct. In addition, if one of the channels is clipped due to overexposure, the resulting colors may also not be correctable by simple filtration. This looks like it may be what was happening with the tractor photo. Jonathan Sachs Digital Light & Color | ||
| Kiril Sinkel Member Username: Ksinkel Post Number: 317 Registered: 08-2002 |
Steven, All the things that Jonathan mentions are valid. However let me add a note on PWP raw conversion. In the latest PWP version (4.01.1) you have the option of using or not using the camera's whitepoint. The option can be set in File/Raw Settings. I don't know if converting from raw without using the camera whitepoint setting will make a difference to your photo, but it may be worth the experiment. Kiril | ||
| Steven Taylor Member Username: Staylor2 Post Number: 37 Registered: 09-2004 |
Kiril, I am now running 4.0.1.1 and had not tried the raw white balance selection before. Now I just tried it and there did not seem to be any difference between the two selections when I did the conversions. This image was a normal shot in regular outdoor sunlight. The only problem was that the camera's WB setting was wrong. If I open this shot in Bibble and use the camera "As Shot" WB in comes out more or less the same as in does in PWP. If I change the Bibble WB to "Sunny", then the picture comes out with what I would call "correct" colors. Letting PWP convert it and then trying to manipulate it back to what it should look like, is much more difficult than selecting "Sunny" in Bibble. I admit that this is a special case and as a general rule you don't want to design software around special cases. On the other hand, it does seem like a WB override on raw conversion would be a nice feature since that is the one thing that cannot be easily fixed in PWP after the fact. Steve Taylor |
