-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
George the Macaw (Yorkshire Wildlife Park)
- Thread starter Dan Siman
- Start date
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Dan,
I love this fella and he's a great subject. Talk about flamboyant!
I wonder about your processing. The light appears flat. Have you processed this at all?
Asher
i have edited it to the best of my abilities yes!
i would probably guess the same as you can see both of these birds colours in him!
hi again asher! i am also sending you both the picture file & the cr2 file as im not sure which parts you would require! i am sending them via yousendit & i would like for you to have a play around with it yourself & publish the results for me to see where i am going wrong please if you would! and show me what can be improved!
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
That's sporting of you, Dan!
I'm not sure I'll do better. It depends on what information is in the RAW files. I'll have a good try. Thanks for the sharing!
Asher
you should have the stuff delivered by now hopefully as it was sent to the opf mac address
do you know what i am learning everyday & have only just realised now how to edit the raw file & have just had my first play with the actual raw file rather than the jpeg which i usually edit from (or at least i think i have) & here is my first attempt! does this look any better to you guys or have i messed it up??? i personally think it is an improvement on comparison! maybe a little over saturated though!
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Dan Siman: George the Macaw
Yorkshire Wildlife Park
Edited from RAW Original DS
Dan,
You have made a great next step! The RAW file is actually much more robust than the jpg which with the sRGB color space, and 8 BIT has discarded some 97% of all the data!
The 8 BIT sRGB file is just for putting on the web, not really for much processing as it readily breaks up. The RAW file, OTOH, is so rich and then, if you wish, you can develop a version for the beak, green feathers, eye and whatever you wish and then combine them somehow. Well, that's my approach. I normally would, (at Nicolas Claris' insistence, must than him for that), use Phase One's Capture One software. However, this is processed entirely in CS4. So there's room for improvement, for sure.
Dan Siman: George the Macaw
Yorkshire Wildlife Park
Edited from RAW ADK
So this is a quick demonstration of how much more there is in a RAW file and the benefit of attention to local richness. The picture is likely even better than this, as one could spend more effort on the edges. However, you can be very proud of what you have done. The great thing about such a rich file is that you can process it in so many ways, (with different software and style), according to how you might imagine your subject is best rendered. Only a fool would tell you how this image should be as no one can read your mind. It's your picture and only you can decide its presentation, (unless it's for my catalog of a bird I'm selling and I hire you for the shot)! So what I show is merely an exploration.
So Dan, there you are, this is a perfect image for trying out different approaches according to your taste!
Asher
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
Hi Asher,
Are you sure you converted to sRGB instead of assigning sRGB? The image looks very undersaturated.
Cheers,
Bart
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Bart,
I never assign to a color space. It could be that the slight desaturation adjustment I made is what you react against, but perhaps somewhere in my workflow an error was made.
Asher
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Asher,
Could you tell me how that is defined, and how that value is determined?
Thanks.
Bet regards,
Doug
Could you tell me how that is defined, and how that value is determined?
Thanks.
Bet regards,
Doug
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Bart,
Best regards,
Doug
If not, in what color space might the developed image have been?
Best regards,
Doug
Mike Spinak
pro member
Doug,
An sRGB JPEG is an 8 bit depth file, which means it has 256 tonal values from darkest to brightest for each color channel, for each pixel.
A RAW file, depending upon your camera, will likely be either 12 bit or 14 bit color depth.
9 bit = 512 tonal values per color channel
10 bit = 1,024
11 bit = 2,048
12 bit = 4,096
13 bit = 8,192
14 bit = 16,384
So, there's 64 times as much tonal information in a RAW 14 bit file as there is an sRGB JPEG, and 16 times as much in a 12 Bit RAW file as an sRGB JPEG. I'm guessing that is what Asher is referring to when he says "discarded some 97% of all the data!" Looked at a certain way, you could reasonably say that with sRGB, you have literally either discarded 15/16ths of the data or 63/64ths of all the data in the file, by reducing it from a 14 or 12 bit color file to an 8 bit color file.
An sRGB JPEG is an 8 bit depth file, which means it has 256 tonal values from darkest to brightest for each color channel, for each pixel.
A RAW file, depending upon your camera, will likely be either 12 bit or 14 bit color depth.
9 bit = 512 tonal values per color channel
10 bit = 1,024
11 bit = 2,048
12 bit = 4,096
13 bit = 8,192
14 bit = 16,384
So, there's 64 times as much tonal information in a RAW 14 bit file as there is an sRGB JPEG, and 16 times as much in a 12 Bit RAW file as an sRGB JPEG. I'm guessing that is what Asher is referring to when he says "discarded some 97% of all the data!" Looked at a certain way, you could reasonably say that with sRGB, you have literally either discarded 15/16ths of the data or 63/64ths of all the data in the file, by reducing it from a 14 or 12 bit color file to an 8 bit color file.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Bart,
On what bass are you judging my rendering s so unsaturated? The picture Dan processed, below is, at least on my screen, over saturated and the colors are so obviously excessively bleeding color, and thats masking out feather detail! cannot imagine that this is how the parakeet really looks!
Dan Siman: George the Macaw
Yorkshire Wildlife Park
Edited from RAW Original DS
So my workup was concerned with getting as much detail as possible with a rich color presentation. It was necessary to pull back a tad on saturation to achieve this.
Dan Siman: George the Macaw
Yorkshire Wildlife Park
Edited from RAW ADK
In response to your quest for more saturation, I found I could add +9 n saturation n a Hue Sat layer n CS4.
In reference to your question about sRGB, why did you ask the question?
In any case, I went back and checked all the files and discovered that CS4 processed the component Adobe RGB psd files in 32 BIT HDR, but somehow, on the way, (?assigned/?converted) to sRGB, the working space of CS4, on my laptop at that time. So I can reprocess the files with the working RGB being Adobe RGB and see how different the color might become.
Dan Siman: George the Macaw
Yorkshire Wildlife Park
Edited from RAW and Saturation increased +9 n Hue/Sat layer in CS4 ADK
I am not sure what the bird looked like, so mine is the best guess I can make! It does seem that one can allow a level of saturation which causes bloom all over adjacent pixels! is it now correct or still, in your opinion "not right"?Ultimately, what is it that I might have overlooked here, makes it seem that my presentation is likely undersaturated?
Dan look at the pictures. How are we doing?
Asher
On what bass are you judging my rendering s so unsaturated? The picture Dan processed, below is, at least on my screen, over saturated and the colors are so obviously excessively bleeding color, and thats masking out feather detail! cannot imagine that this is how the parakeet really looks!
Dan Siman: George the Macaw
Yorkshire Wildlife Park
Edited from RAW Original DS
So my workup was concerned with getting as much detail as possible with a rich color presentation. It was necessary to pull back a tad on saturation to achieve this.
Dan Siman: George the Macaw
Yorkshire Wildlife Park
Edited from RAW ADK
In response to your quest for more saturation, I found I could add +9 n saturation n a Hue Sat layer n CS4.
In reference to your question about sRGB, why did you ask the question?
In any case, I went back and checked all the files and discovered that CS4 processed the component Adobe RGB psd files in 32 BIT HDR, but somehow, on the way, (?assigned/?converted) to sRGB, the working space of CS4, on my laptop at that time. So I can reprocess the files with the working RGB being Adobe RGB and see how different the color might become.
Dan Siman: George the Macaw
Yorkshire Wildlife Park
Edited from RAW and Saturation increased +9 n Hue/Sat layer in CS4 ADK
I am not sure what the bird looked like, so mine is the best guess I can make! It does seem that one can allow a level of saturation which causes bloom all over adjacent pixels! is it now correct or still, in your opinion "not right"?Ultimately, what is it that I might have overlooked here, makes it seem that my presentation is likely undersaturated?
Dan look at the pictures. How are we doing?
Asher
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
Instinct? Recollection of potential tropical bird feather colors?
While the pulling of saturation might explain some of my impressions, I suspect there is more ...
Although I didn'know that PS HDR was involved, I did read somewhere that an issue exists with HDR being assigned an sRGB colorspace (which would look desaturated when the originals were e.g. Prophoto RGB).
I suspect it will look much closer to the original bold colors, but without the clipping (because Raw is usually a much better basis to start editing from).
Cheers,
Bart
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Mike,
But it doesn't fit at all well with the concept of amount of information as defined in information theory.
Before I get to that definition, let me give a homey example of why the outlook you present doesn't work for me. I won't try to visualize "tonal information".
If we have one eight-bit word, that body of data it can represent 256 different "situations".
If we have two eight bit words, this body of data can represent 65536 different "situations".
Thus, under your outlook, two 8-bit words between them carry 256 times as much information as one 8-bit word. That's real synergy!
In information theory, there is a rigorous measure of the amount of information contained in a body of data. The unit is the bit. It applies whether the information is represented in binary form or not.
If all the possible values that a data item can represent are equally likely to occur (and that is hardly likely to be true for the cases of interest to us, but I'm in no position to deal with that complication right now, so I suggest we just ignore it), then the amount of information (in bits) in some body of data is just the total number of bits used to represent it.
This gives of course a much more believable result in the case of my little example above: two 8-bit words carry twice as much information as a single 8-bit word.
Now if we are comparing two different ways to present a digital image, lets say of 1M pixels with three components for each (R,G,B or Y,Cb,Cr), the first way being with a 16-bit word for each component of each pixel, and the second way being with an 8-bit word for each component of each pixel, then (and again ignoring the "equally-probable" condition), there is half as much information in the 8-bit suite of data as in the 16-bit suite. (I'm not going to try to make the comparison between raw and JPEG spheres as the two are not directly comparable.)
Thus, if we take the 16-bit suite and "truncate" the words to 8 bits, we now have half as much information. It is probably justifiable (if we are not being too rigorous) to say that we have "lost" half the data.
I doubt that we should think of "tonal information" as living in some other world than information generally.
Best regards,
Doug
Well, that's an interesting outlook.
But it doesn't fit at all well with the concept of amount of information as defined in information theory.
Before I get to that definition, let me give a homey example of why the outlook you present doesn't work for me. I won't try to visualize "tonal information".
If we have one eight-bit word, that body of data it can represent 256 different "situations".
If we have two eight bit words, this body of data can represent 65536 different "situations".
Thus, under your outlook, two 8-bit words between them carry 256 times as much information as one 8-bit word. That's real synergy!
In information theory, there is a rigorous measure of the amount of information contained in a body of data. The unit is the bit. It applies whether the information is represented in binary form or not.
If all the possible values that a data item can represent are equally likely to occur (and that is hardly likely to be true for the cases of interest to us, but I'm in no position to deal with that complication right now, so I suggest we just ignore it), then the amount of information (in bits) in some body of data is just the total number of bits used to represent it.
This gives of course a much more believable result in the case of my little example above: two 8-bit words carry twice as much information as a single 8-bit word.
Now if we are comparing two different ways to present a digital image, lets say of 1M pixels with three components for each (R,G,B or Y,Cb,Cr), the first way being with a 16-bit word for each component of each pixel, and the second way being with an 8-bit word for each component of each pixel, then (and again ignoring the "equally-probable" condition), there is half as much information in the 8-bit suite of data as in the 16-bit suite. (I'm not going to try to make the comparison between raw and JPEG spheres as the two are not directly comparable.)
Thus, if we take the 16-bit suite and "truncate" the words to 8 bits, we now have half as much information. It is probably justifiable (if we are not being too rigorous) to say that we have "lost" half the data.
I doubt that we should think of "tonal information" as living in some other world than information generally.
Best regards,
Doug
Cem_Usakligil
Well-known member
Hi Doug,
Well stated, nothing to disagree on my part.
For those who are not familiar with Information Theory, what Doug is making clear here is that there is a logarithmic relationship between reducing the number of possible states of something (i.e. the probability of it) and the resulting reduction of information content, i.e. the number of bits. Originally, the possible number of states was 65536. This can be represented as having an information content of 16 bits at a maximum (if we assume an equal distribution/weight of the of all individual probabilities). We have reduced this number of probabilities by a factor of 256, but the information content has gone down to 8 bits. So effectively, we have reduced the information content by a factor of 2 and not by a factor of 256 as many of us may conclude intuitively, although it is not the right conclusion. HTH,
Well stated, nothing to disagree on my part.
I think that the word "truncate" might be a bit misleading to some, allow me to elaborate please. The logic of the process is that we are taking 16 bits and mapping them into 8 bits by diving them with a value of 256 (in decimal domain). So the values between 0 and 65535 get mapped to values between 0 and 255. Of course, in binary arithmetic domain this can be very quickly achieved by "truncating" the least significant 8 bits of the 16 bits.
For those who are not familiar with Information Theory, what Doug is making clear here is that there is a logarithmic relationship between reducing the number of possible states of something (i.e. the probability of it) and the resulting reduction of information content, i.e. the number of bits. Originally, the possible number of states was 65536. This can be represented as having an information content of 16 bits at a maximum (if we assume an equal distribution/weight of the of all individual probabilities). We have reduced this number of probabilities by a factor of 256, but the information content has gone down to 8 bits. So effectively, we have reduced the information content by a factor of 2 and not by a factor of 256 as many of us may conclude intuitively, although it is not the right conclusion. HTH,
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Cem,
Best regards,
Doug
Your point is well taken. I had in fact thought of instead speaking of remapping, but figgered it would just complicate my point!Hi Doug,
Well stated, nothing to disagree on my part.
I think that the word "truncate" might be a bit misleading to some,
Thanks for that nice elaboration.
Best regards,
Doug
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
+1
In addition, we must be careful when comparing gamma adjusted JPEG to linear Gamma Raw capture. When we add lossy compression and different gamut sizes, there is only one way to compare, the actual number of distinct colors at the end of our processing (e.g. with Irfanview).
Cheers,
Bart
Mike Spinak
pro member
Not my outlook, Doug - an explanation of what I think was Asher's outlook.
Cheers,
Mike
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I like your calculation as it represents range of colors better and my gestalt experience of the lack of robustness of an sRGB 8 BIT file to editing and the easy tendency to posterization. It's not just how much data is left on a log system, but how the gradation of color withstands manipulation needed to represent a large range of image processing needs in one picture.
Asher
Mike Spinak
pro member
I do agree that, experientially, when you try to bring out shadow details, or fix exposure errors, or shift color temperature, or make other extreme adjustments, the difference in "robustness" before a picture becomes posterized, or extremely noisy, or has no detail to work with, or "falls apart" in various other ways, seems like a greater difference than half / double.
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Asher,
Best regards,
Doug
Is that a color space, or does that "mode" normally use some particular color space?
Best regards,
Doug