digitaldog

<blockquote> <p>To have a chance later to spoil it again by applying other adjustments, without being hindered by having the scope for adjusment limited by earlier attempts to adjust the image?</p> </blockquote> <p>How are they limtied? In each case you have baked RGB pixels you're just altering values at different times. This isn't parametric editing ala ACR or Lightroom on unrendered (raw) data. </p>

<blockquote> <p>But as raw (i.e. unspoiled by any adjustment settings used in the software) as you can get.</p> </blockquote> <p>Why would anyone want an image, unspoiled by adjustments unless it produced the best quality image? <br> How is an ugly 16-bit image a better start than a better looking 16-bit image? </p>

<p>Jeff's math is an eye opener and kind of illustrates the throwing the baby out with the bath water approach of migrating <em>simply because</em> there's a new method of buying/renting (whatever you want to call it) software. The bottom line is the bottom line in $$. It's either good money spent or it's not. Upgrade, don't upgrade, subscribe, don't subscribe, nothing new here in terms of deciding where to spend your hard earned cash. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I suppose if you never plan on upgrading your camera body or buying a newer lens, then your premise is true.</p> </blockquote> <p>And you keep old computer hardware up and running. I've got two such MacBook's, one for OS9 support, one for Rosetta with Intel support. As long as they don't die....</p>

<blockquote> <p>As to the format of the files produced, you are advised to use 16-bit TIFF with a large gamut colour space (ProPhoto?).</p> </blockquote> <p>The input scanner profile should tag that data. It's the biggest gamut the device can produce and it's based on measurements of said scanner and behavior (that's key) of data used to build the profile. No reason to convert to ProPhoto, the fewer conversions the better. You don't necessarily get R=G=B behavior which is useful unless you set that correction at the scan stage. </p>

<blockquote> <p>No once cares if you're the fourth here to use 7.1 and come back with a slightly larger dng.</p> </blockquote> <p>Speaking for everyone again. <br> <br> I came back with a slightly bigger <strong>and</strong> much bigger DNG depending on how I set the converter. So we've all varified it works as it does. Arron's trouble of uploading was well served and I'm glad I asked for it. If you or Arron is unhappy with how an older version of software operates you can upgrade as you yourself advised (and I agreed with) or stick to the same behavior, now knowing what an upgrade path <em>could</em> provide. </p>

<blockquote> <p>That is what raw data <em>from a typical digital camera </em>looks like.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, exactly why I posted it!</p> <blockquote> <p>Data from a scanner probably does not use a Bayer filter format.<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>It absolutely doesn't (unless you can find a single CCD scanner), otherwise it's true color coming from a trilinear CCD/sensor. Nothing like raw data in a bayer format! </p> <blockquote> <p>I'm not sure that there's an advantage to DNG, out-of-my-depth on that.<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>DNG like TIFF it's cousin is just a container. You can put scanned data in there. That data isn't raw, it's cooked. You can of course embed raw sensor data from a camera in a DNG. You can embed a JPEG in a DNG. And lots of metadata. The only thing that makes DNG a Digital Neg is when you put the actual digital neg into the container. That's the case when you convert a proprietary camera raw to DNG and not the case when you embed a scanner created data into that container. </p> <blockquote> <p>It can be a relatively flat, finished gamma file, for post processing with another program. Or the finished product.<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Which is no different than saving that data in a TIFF and futzing with it in Photoshop. That TIFF can be finished or need more processing. Nether state is raw like that from a DSLR as an example. And gamma has nothing to do with it. When I built scanner profiles for my Imacon, testing showed that a TRC Gamma of 3.0 produced the best data. So that's how I set the scanner and profile, in a color managed app, it looks just fine. As treated untagged, it would look awful even though it's not (just like 1.0 gamma images can look fine or very dark depending on if you treat the data correctly or not). </p>

<blockquote> <p>Andrew, downloading his file and being the forth to use 7.1 and returning here to report you also have a slightly bigger dng just like Aaron, Will and myself have, has nothing to do with solving the mystery of getting a huge dng file from using 4.1 or 4.6.</p> </blockquote> <p>7.1 is the process, 8.4 is the converter version I tested with and the results are clear. The two version value absolutely do not represent the same things! Further, as Will pointed out <strong>TWICE</strong>, the issue is not a few meg's increase it's a huge (2x) size increase and no matter how many times you run the same tests, you'll get the same results hence my request for the raw to test it without the insanity! With a newer version and process, the file is only about 4MB bigger. It's pointless to continue to do anything other than:<br> 1. Upgrade the DNG converter and settings as I've illustrated. <br> 2. Continue with the original workflow and end up with a bigger DNG. <br> It was I who asked for a sample and it was I who showed that the issue is based on an older encoding and no matter how many times you run the same tests, you'll get the same answers which is insanity as defiend by Dr. E. </p> <p>What part of the OP's original comment isn't clear: <em>when I convert the .ARW to .DNG the file sizes <strong>jump</strong> <strong>from</strong> about <strong>20mb</strong> (ARW) <strong>to</strong> anywhere from <strong>45-85mb</strong> (DNG).</em><br> <em><br /></em>That's not a few meg's if you check your math! Using a modern version of the converter and processing, it becomes the case. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Eric, Aaron isn't talking about a 3 Mb jump in size, he's upset by "the file sizes jump from about 20mb (ARW) to anywhere from 45-85mb (DNG)". Your size increases are about what I'm getting and no big deal.</p> </blockquote> <p>Exactly. So with a modern version of the converter, the size increase is only 4-5mb, tiny and well worth the benefits. </p>

<blockquote> <p>. LR *REQUIRES* that the image be part of it's organizational catalog<br> This is not true. You can choose to leave your images anywhere you choose, Do not have to import into the catalogue.</p> </blockquote> <p>There's some confusion and semantic issues here. <br> LR <strong>does</strong> require you point to any image you wish to handle and it records that location among other things and that's called <em>import</em>. You can't even view a thumbnail let alone edit an image until you do this. LR never does anything else in terms of import. That is, it doesn't suck any images into it's database. It simply references <strong>where</strong> the image resides on any number of drives. But NOT until you make that reference which is done via importing that image. The image itself isn't <em>imported</em> into anything and never has been unlike other competing products. But you have to import as step one or LR has no idea what or where the photo's exist.<br> If one thinks of '<em>import</em>' as '<em>open</em>' (once), such that now LR can <em>get</em> to the image, I think the confusion will lessen. </p>

<p>Scanners do not create raw data, not as we understand raw data from a single sensor capture device. This is what raw data looks like:<br> http://www.digitaldog.net/files/raw.jpg<br> A scanner can create an unfinished, not properly or fully rendered appearance. I don't know what the point is if you're the scanning operator, you have good scanning software (super important) and you just want to end up with a TIFF or similar document that has the global tone and color you desire. You either do it at the scan stage (fast) or later in Photoshop or some other app. IF the scanning software is poor, there's something to be said for scanning high bit, wide gamut and getting at least as close as you can with one default scan setting, then '<em>correct</em>' (that's what you're doing) later with another app to get the color and tone as you wish. You can pay now or later, what makes more sense in the workflow based on the tools and your time? </p> <p>You can save a fully rendered RGB document as a DNG. <strong>That does not make that data raw</strong>, it isn't any more than saving a TIFF as a PSD or vise versa changes the basic image structure. There is really no reason to save a fully rendered image as DNG instead of TIFF and neither are true raw files as you see above in the illustration. A Viewscan DNG is not raw data! It is a 'raw' uncorrected scan and that's true if it's a DNG a PSD or a TIFF. The editing capabilities are not anything like the way we deal with camera raw files. </p> <p>You have to '<em>cook</em>' the pixels from a scanner. Do it at the scan stage or later, the data isn't raw and the end results could be identical but the main factors are the control you have over rendering the image as you wish it to appear. </p>

<blockquote> <p>To Zeph: what Photoshop features do you use?</p> </blockquote> <p>That's the key question! Without a proper answer, it's impossible to plan an effective migration. Or even answer the key question, should you migrate. IF you need existing proprietary editing support, you're kind of stuck with Photoshop. </p>

<blockquote> <p>The exercise is to convert it with 4.6, l<strong>ike Aarron,</strong> and report ones findings.</p> </blockquote> <p>No it's not. You've failed <strong>again</strong> to properly read or comprehend posts as the test that follows is quite clear (I wrote it):</p> <blockquote> <p>Be useful if you could upload one camera raw so we could <strong>test different options</strong> with <strong>newer versions of the DNG converter.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Newer versions</strong> of the converter <strong>do not</strong> produce the large increase in size the OP reported so the solution is simple based on a proper test as I've conducted: Upgrade such a newer version of the DNG converter can be utilized or stick with the current workflow, understanding the size issue is due to an older versions routine. Further, using the most current version of the DNG converter, IF one selects the oldest format (<em>2.4 and later</em>), the <strong>same</strong> NEF becomes 81MB on disk! So it's clear what the issue is here and how to <em>'fix it'.</em></p> <blockquote> <p>The exercise is to convert it with 4.6, <strong>like Aarron</strong>, and report ones finding</p> </blockquote> <p><em>Insanity</em><em>: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results</em> . Albert Einstein. Your exercise fits that to a T.</p> <blockquote> <p>It must have something to do with converting so that the .DNG is compatible with Camera Raw 4.6 or earlier. I wonder what the difference could be, though?</p> </blockquote> <p>The update to the DNG processing. There are 6 options and for legacy workflows, Adobe updates but continues to support the older processing versions.<br /> You don't have to upgrade Photoshop, you don't have to use LR, you just need either a newer version of the DNG converter or examine the settings and use the latest (7.1). Then .ARW's are a few meg's larger than the original.</p>

<p>Converted <a href="https://app.box.com/s/fos5bi87jirtir47k5av" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">DSC02255.ARW</a> with latest DNG converter. Was 21.4MBb, DNG is 25.2MB. </p>

<p>You really need to do this yourself with an instrument and software that will create a custom profile for that display. <br> http://tinyurl.com/kdgutmz</p>

<p>There are no alternatives that will <strong>fully edit everything</strong> you've done assuming you've used proprietary Adobe technology like layers, blend modes, smart objects etc. Save a flattened TIFF, you have a world of options. So when you say <em>a</em><em>ny</em> programs out there that can replace Photoshop for image work, you have to exactly define what work you're talking about. You have piles of raw files with metadata instructions from Adobe Camera Raw? They are toast. You'll have to render the data into a TIFF or JPEG or similar rendered image and bring them into this new Photoshop replacement. </p>

<blockquote> <p>However, I've found that the "print boxes" used in photographic competitions are VERY bright and require darker prints.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's too bad. Do they have no ability to lower them? Are the Fluorescents? What is their justification for making them this bright? A print can be too light due to the opposite of what we usually see (display lighter than print). <br /> color management or not, digital imaging or not, art should be viewed in 'decent' (term is up to debate) illumination.</p> <blockquote> <p>On the other hand some galleries don't even have what I would consider normal room lighting.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is true but I place the blame on them! Case in point, I was just at an amazing Ansel Adam show in Santa Fe at a local well know gallery. The biggest group of his work I've even seen, some from a private collection. This gallery is in a very old building and multi-story. Now we know Adams could print! Some of his work was small and hung in stairways, tiny poorly lit rooms and they looked incredibly dark. Not quite my 5 watt night light analogy but close. A damn shame.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You'll find no sympathies from <strong>anyone</strong> here, Luminous Landscape, or AUF's.</p> </blockquote> <p>Speaking for everyone again...<br /> I'm not looking for sympathies from anyone here, you're off the mark. I'm looking for fairness however. Joe pointed out a post I made and shouldn't have, making a joke about you and Tim writing a book on color management after attempting to explain the severe differences between accuracy and differing output behavior without your side making an attempt to explain your '<em>theories</em>'. It's interesting to be called out when multiple posts prior, the text from you and Tim, show equal if not more hostile comments towards me. Doesn't bother me, it's the routine tactic seen on the net when a ridiculous flat earth religious idea is dismissed using a scientific approach. The flat eather's never answer any questions about or attempt to prove how their theories are formed and worse, continue to ask the other side questions then insults as a way to hide their ignorance and inability to prove their theory. It's probably why a post you were part of, as was I, got locked down (http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00cWLd).</p> <blockquote> <p>You're a nasty bully that for some reason gets carte blanche from the PN mods.</p> </blockquote> <p>I've said it once, it's worth saying again, especially in light of your posts in this thread in it's chronological order: pot calling the kettle black. <br /> Now, we've come to the point where this will get closed down. Was anything gained? I believe so, despite the signal to noise ratio. I only wish we'd seen Dag's superb examples earlier, the current flat earth theory proposed by you and Tim may not have been posted.<br> And if you or Tim or Joe want to explain your meaning of accuracy, I'm all ears.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Joe, does this much earlier post fit the same bill?<br> Probably, yes.</p> </blockquote> <p>Probably this too? I mean, if you're going to call out the forum rules on my joke about a color management book partnership and you are concerned with posts <em>with courtesy and respect, even if you disagree with them</em><em>:</em></p> <blockquote> <p>Andrew, you haven't been anywhere within 5 miles of the scientific method the 10 or so years I've participated in discussions (er...beating dead horses) with you about display price vs performance.<br> But I predict you'll dismiss that request with your typical condescending (speak for all) manner as being a pointless task that won't prove anything.<br> I'm surprised you don't have the post processing chops seeing you have all that expensive equipment to bone up on your editing skills. So I guess you really ARE just a digital imaging workflow consultant, not a skilled digital editor.<br> It's his MO, you'll never get a straight answer out of him, Joe.</p> </blockquote>

<blockquote> <p>So, just what is "Lab"?</p> </blockquote> <p>It's a device independent color space perceptually based (well that's the idea, it isn't fully) on how we humans <strong>see</strong> color. It's useful for some tasks, not others and it was designed many years before Photoshop, image editing and color management existed. When QuadTone RIP asks for Lab values, it's doing so because the numbers are not based on RGB or CMYK which are device dependant color spaces and the numbers would differ greatly depending on the '<em>flavor</em>' of RGB or CMYK and that would be a big problem. Lab numbers are not ambiguous. R45/G98/B129 is ambiguous as I've as yet not told you the color space (sRGB, ProPhoto RGB, Adobe RGB (1998), Epson 3880 Luster RGB). Each RGB color space above will produce a different color with the same set of RGB triples. With Lab, L89/a0/b0 is one color description, no ambiguity. <br /> See: http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200504_rodneycm.pdf</p>

<blockquote> <p>But I don't want to keep fiddling with the calibration on my monitor just to compensate for the widely varying conditions that I expect to display my prints. (The illumination used in contests and venues can vary by orders of magnitude!)</p> </blockquote> <p>You don' have to. Only the print to display match using both, meaning viewing booth <strong>next</strong> to the display count. Once you move the print away from the display under a different illuminate, you'll adapt to the new conditions (assuming it's not awful, a 5 watt night light or a 500 watt metal halide blub). The idea is WYSIWYG and you need that display in the mix to evaluate if that's happening. If the viewing booth is using a well behaved illuminant and you take the print into another environment with well behaved (but different) illuminate, you'll adapt and the print will look fine.</p> <blockquote> <p>In my opinion, the calibration stuff is just a starting point.</p> </blockquote> <p>To some degree it is. Even with the most expensive viewing booth and reference display system, an emissive display and reflective print will never match 100%. The idea is to reduce difference enough such there are no surprises and you don't have to make so many hard proofs. IF you're OK making print after print and adjusting, you don't need a calibrated display, you could do this on a grayscale unit. Soft proofing is about reducing the differences as much as possible, and learning to correlate the two items and not get a surprise later when you view the print. <br /> You ever shoot Polaroid’s in the old film days, I did? The Polaroid didn't look like the transparency but after enough experience, one could view it and have a pretty good idea what to expect from the film. Soft proofing is far closer than that but the mental adjustments are still needed.</p>

<blockquote> <p>These are real photographs of a Dell U2713H</p> </blockquote> <p>What a POS. And apparently Dell's support is awful too according to this customer on LuLa who's having all kinds of issues with black on his U2713H (yup, calibration of black is kind of, sort of, important):<br> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=90374.0</p> <blockquote> <p>Lessons learned: <br />---<strong>stay away from Dell</strong><br />---do not allow service people to send me to another part of the same company for information. ("To find out when your product is to be shipped, call this number or email this address....") You work for Dell. You find the answer and tell it to me.<br /><br />Long story short, new monitor looks just the same as the old one. In Adobe RGB, there is still no separation in the blacks and near-blacks. I returned both monitors.<br /></p> </blockquote>

<p>Be useful if you could upload one camera raw so we could test different options with newer versions of the DNG converter. Could be a bug in your older product I suppose.</p>

<p>Joe, does this much earlier post fit the same bill?</p> <blockquote> <p>We? Lol, you don't even make photos for the fun of it.</p> </blockquote>

<blockquote> <p>look over these recent screen shots of Dags, his examples further show huge differences ON THE SAME DISPALY without using it's unique functionality both he and I know play a critical role in what's emitted from the display.</p> </blockquote> <p>What I meant to say is look at the differences in technology where purity is controlled versus one that isnt' and the effect, huge! <br> Eric. You and Tim should conspire together to write a book on color management. It would be a fun read.</p>