Someone gave xrapidx a 40D

BigAl-sa said:
Try saving the file as something else (jpeg or tiff). I'll have a quick check what DPP does with the saved RAW file and let you know.
Click to expand...
Well DPP saved all the changes I made, and shows them when I reopen the RAW. I can also revert back to the original settings (by moving the sliders back to where they were when I started), so I'm not sure where your problem lies?? A bit more info as to what you did maybe??
 
Ok - these are the steps I quickly took to reproduce the problem on a random RAW file:
1.) Open RAW file in DPP
2.) Open Tools
3.) Change to NR/Lens/ALO

...and while I was doing this I noticed it applied the NR - I think my issue was slow PC, it opens the RAW file as it was taken on the camera, and then reapplies everything from the recipe file, so it takes about 20 seconds to apply the NR.
 
I wonder if DDP uses the same NR routines that the camera uses? If so, I might just have to see how I can squeeze it into my workflow. The 40D's NR is way better than anything I've been able to achieve with software.
 
koffiejunkie said:
I wonder if DDP uses the same NR routines that the camera uses? If so, I might just have to see how I can squeeze it into my workflow. The 40D's NR is way better than anything I've been able to achieve with software.
Click to expand...
Then why not let the camera handle the NR? :confused:
 
mercurial said:
I'll never shoot JPEG. Waste of camera.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if I'd go that far. If post isnt your thing, for whatever reason, then there's little point in shooting RAW.
 
mercurial said:
Then they might as well get a P&S. Spending R6000 upwards to take JPEGs is a waste of money IMO.
Click to expand...
Post is just one part of the process.

Before there was digital people used this stuff called film (many still do) and how many people developed their own? Not many I'll wager because more often than not the labs did a better job and/or it was more convenient. Was having a SLR a waste over the compact cameras? Of course not, because you still have infinitely more control making the image even if someone else is processing it for you.

Even today I rely on others for another crucial step - printing. What's the point in taking all these beautiful images if they're just going to sit on a hdd for eternity. I just dont have the equipment to make prints the way my local lab does. Flickr is no substitute for a 8x10 :)

EDIT - my idea of a 'waste of money' would be spending that much money and only then figuring out that the guy sitting next to you with the r1500 P&S is consistently taking better images no matter how much money you throw into your kit bag. :D
 
Last edited:
mercurial said:
Then they might as well get a P&S. Spending R6000 upwards to take JPEGs is a waste of money IMO.
Click to expand...

Have you looked closely at the JPEGs coming out of your camera? They're still way better than anything you can get out of a P&S, and you still have the functionality that an SLR camera provides.

To tell you the truth, if I could reach the results I want without having to do any post, then I would be shooting JPEG exclusively, but as it is, I don't - and I would blame this on my own skill level.
 
koffiejunkie said:
Have you looked closely at the JPEGs coming out of your camera? They're still way better than anything you can get out of a P&S, and you still have the functionality that an SLR camera provides.

To tell you the truth, if I could reach the results I want without having to do any post, then I would be shooting JPEG exclusively, but as it is, I don't - and I would blame this on my own skill level.
Click to expand...
A fair bit of blame has to go to the camera too especially when it comes to dynamic range and pulling out shadow detail.

I wonder if the ideal solution might be with the jpg type processing info applied to the RAW straight out of the camera so for 90% of the time you have a usable image then and there but still have the RAW data available for that last 10%.

Sure you can have the camera output both RAW & JPG but that's also a waste of space and Aperture (and maybe only aperture?) balks at importing both simultaneously anyway.
 
bwana said:
A fair bit of blame has to go to the camera too especially when it comes to dynamic range and pulling out shadow detail.

I wonder if the ideal solution might be with the jpg type processing info applied to the RAW straight out of the camera so for 90% of the time you have a usable image then and there but still have the RAW data available for that last 10%.
Click to expand...

As far as I know this is what DDP does and what Adobe's camera profiles attempt. I understand that Canon and Nikon wouldn't want to publish the specs of what they do to the image (which would enable the likes of Lightroom and Aperture to incorporate that) because that would let their competitors know what they're up to too. But it would be nice if they can at least provide RAW decoders for the major products, so that the you have the option of starting with a RAW file that looks exactly like the camera's JPEG would. 80% of the time that's what I'm after anyway.

bwana said:
Sure you can have the camera output both RAW & JPG but that's also a waste of space and Aperture (and maybe only aperture?) balks at importing both simultaneously anyway.
Click to expand...

I look through the JPEGs before I import the RAW, delete the ones I'm not happy with, delete the RAWs corresponding to the rest, and import. I don't see the point of keeping the RAW around if I'm happy with the JPEG.
 
koffiejunkie said:
I look through the JPEGs before I import the RAW, delete the ones I'm not happy with, delete the RAWs corresponding to the rest, and import. I don't see the point of keeping the RAW around if I'm happy with the JPEG.
Click to expand...

BTW, this sounds like a lot of work, but I do the delete part with a one-liner in the shell - easy stuff, takes a second.
 
koffiejunkie said:
As far as I know this is what DDP does and what Adobe's camera profiles attempt. I understand that Canon and Nikon wouldn't want to publish the specs of what they do to the image (which would enable the likes of Lightroom and Aperture to incorporate that) because that would let their competitors know what they're up to too. But it would be nice if they can at least provide RAW decoders for the major products, so that the you have the option of starting with a RAW file that looks exactly like the camera's JPEG would. 80% of the time that's what I'm after anyway.
Click to expand...
Sure its what they all attempt to do (including aperture) but it takes time and resources. Canon is also apparently pretty forthcoming with their stuff apparently - as opposed to Nikon who closely guard it.

I guess I'm suggesting a more usable preview (which aperture currently loads if you've got quick preview enabled) than the one they give you now.
koffiejunkie said:
I look through the JPEGs before I import the RAW, delete the ones I'm not happy with, delete the RAWs corresponding to the rest, and import. I don't see the point of keeping the RAW around if I'm happy with the JPEG.
Click to expand...
And yeah - that does sound like way too much effort esp if you use Apertures Quick Preview. ;)

It also probably fills up memory cards 30% faster?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X