thormod

<p>Would this be a solution? It's a collage of one of my daughters cartoons.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Jim. <br> I'm a guy who is frequently proven wrong, but being autodidact - its how I learn.<br> To my understanding, a circular polarizer is a linear polarizer with a 1/4 wave piece of glass glued to the back side. (I have no idea what a 1/4 wave glass is) But is is necessary to rotate the polarization so a DSLR can focus and evaluate exposure. I do understand why a DSLR needs circular polarization - or rather, won't work with linear. (I think).<br> I do not understand how it can introduce "weird colors".<br> Not saying it won't, but why?</p>

<p>OK, I'm proven wrong:) Thanks to Dieter Schafer' hint. <br> I use Phil Harvey's Exiftool and there it is, a thumbnail using the -b switch. <br> Thanks to all for educating me. That's the value of Photo.net and the corporate knowledge in the fora ( I'm stubborn and prefer the latin fora to forums.)<br> I'm really glad I found this place.</p> <p>Thanks again.<br> Tom</p>

<p>Well, I got an answer from Michaeltapesdesign.<br /> Hi,<br /> First it is not a converter. We extract the embedded JPEG. So nothing is done with or to the raw image. And yes, it is based on DCRaw, but again, not using the conversion aspects at all.<br /> ~michael<br> It would indicate that I am wrong, but I am still a little confused.<br> Why would it be based on David Coffins DCRaw if there is an embedded jpg in the RAW file? I am familiar with Davids DCRaw and have used it in own programming. Run with default settings it will produce a jpg image, but that image is converted to jpg from the RAW file.</p>

<p>I disagree Dan. The jpg seen on the camera viewer is a low resolution jpg created separately, but from the raw file.<br /> Unless you set your camera up for export of both RAW and jpg, the jpg is discarded.</p> <p>I may disagree with you as well Howard. I'm guessing that IFJR is based on David Coffins dcRaw or similar.<br /> I have asked IFJR and am awaiting their answer. I will return here as soon as I have their answer.<br /> Tom</p> <p> </p>

<p>I keep reading that there is a jpg file embedded in the RAW files and that's how web browsers can render RAW files. Some even claim a full size jpg.<br> I'm frequently wrong, but I don't think this is correct.<br> I know I can export RAW and RAW + jpg and jpg, depending upon my settings. It's the embedded jpg I'm curious about.</p>

<p>I see the image as a snap shot, one I would be happy to have in my album if I had taken it.<br> So, courtesy of Dan Margulis' PPW, I hit the "auto" buttons and thanks to the built in tweak options - voila!<br> Slight color boost of foreground, added contrast to the foliage* and the background and sharpened a tad.<br> * Don't know if foliage is correct english term for trees without leaves.<br> Tom </p><div></div>

<p>Thanks. Question answered:)</p> <p>Tom</p>

<p>No, not many times for same image. After voting, all images went away. I interpreted this to confirm "one vote".<br> I'll try voting again to see what happens.</p> <p>Tom</p>

<p>I have been 3 weeks in Spain. During that time I voted for an image in the colorful contest. It was my interpretation that"One member, one vote". (I didn't find this written anywhere.) <br> Home again, I find that I can still vote. <br> So, can we vote for more than one image?<br> If so - how many?<br> If not - is it because I have a different IP addy in Spain and at home, Norway?<br> Tom</p>

<blockquote> <p><strong>They <em>can</em> but will not if you simply use the Luminosity Blend mode (fade) just after USM. You don't impact colors.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>You are probably right, because I never really understood "Fade Luminosity". Its like the "Blend if" sliders - a mystery</p> <p>Tom</p>

<p>So, now a shot at answering "Rendered from what" As far as I understand, in PS, it is the sharpening halos that are the issue. They can take on weird colors, both the Lighten one and the darken one. Thats why I at the moment think it is a good ideah to sharpen in LAB L. You don't impact on colors.</p>

<p>I have never stated that “<em>We <strong>must</strong> sharpen after converting to Lab</em>” That does not make sence.<br> Still, sharpening the lightness chan in LAB makes sence to the subjective me - some times.<br> Most of the time I use USM in RGB, if not USM - then prolly HighPass in RGB.<br> Yet I find myself often in LAB, and it saves time sharpening the L chan - now that I know how to do with HighPass also:)<br> P.S. Remember, I'm a retired old fart. Did some BW dark room in my teens, but it has been "Point and Shoot" since the introduction of color. Took up "serious" photo around 2005 and am autodidact, thanks to the internet.<br> I may claim strange things, but it will be out of ignorance - never malice!</p>

<p>Here it is.</p> <div></div>

<p>Increased exposure. Slight noise reduction. Increased color contrast. Slight sharpen of horse, rider and next pole. Blurred everything else.<br /> Darn! forgot to reduce size.</p>

<p>I'm confused David. Correct exposure 2 min. 4 ea. 30 sec. stacked will give correct exposure?<br /> I thought that if you stacked 4 ea. 30 sec. images, you would get a single image with 30 sec exposure.<br /> If you had said 1 30 sec, 1 one min, 1 90 sec, and one 2 min, I'd think Bracketing and HDR .If you have a shallow depth of field, I would understand stacking 4 images with the same exposure, but with different focus..<br /> Tom.<br /> Eager to learn unknown stuff.<br> Edit:<br> Sorry David. Just found your link to ImageStacker. Wow!<br> This I godda learn:)</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>Sorry Andrew, My Bad. I blame it on trying to many variations with to many layers, at the same time.<br> Fade luminosity does not impact colors in RGB.</p> <p>Thanks for your solution Tim. I'll get back to you when wife lets me open PS. We're on vacation and I am supposed to enjoy myself outdoors.</p>