Post processing images - The final step to getting that awesome click
- Thread starter izzikio_rage
- Start date
-
- Tags
- camera post processing shot software
OP
izzikio_rage
Technomancer
14 bit basically means that it uses 14 bits to store one pixel's brightness/color value. So there can be 2 to the power 14 different levels of brightness for one pixel. Compare that to a jpeg which is 8 bit (2^8 levels) and you can understand why it is said that raw files contain much more information.
Practically this means that in areas where your camera would have clipped the image (shown it as either pure black or pure white) a raw can still contain details. Also for smooth shade gradations a raw will be much smoother than a jpeg (which becomes apparent when you process it and bands appear in jpeg)
8 bit, 12 bit, 14 bit, 16 bit — What Does It Really Mean to Digital Photographers? | Laura Shoe's Lightroom Training, Tutorials and Tips for more gyan.
I'm also trying to get some really high dynamic range pics, will share their raws here then
Practically this means that in areas where your camera would have clipped the image (shown it as either pure black or pure white) a raw can still contain details. Also for smooth shade gradations a raw will be much smoother than a jpeg (which becomes apparent when you process it and bands appear in jpeg)
8 bit, 12 bit, 14 bit, 16 bit — What Does It Really Mean to Digital Photographers? | Laura Shoe's Lightroom Training, Tutorials and Tips for more gyan.
I'm also trying to get some really high dynamic range pics, will share their raws here then
raja manuel
In the zone
Yeah, practically the difference between 12 bit and 14 bit doesn't mean much unless the sensor itself is capable of giving that kind of output, otherwise the noise will drown out the extra info. I remember a famous blog post by a Nikon photographer who tested this and concluded it is better to stick to 12 bit RAW with lossy compression, and convinced several D800 owners to use that setting.
OP
izzikio_rage
Technomancer
@raja: i didn't know that. would love to read about it though. Also read an interesting article about how some of the newer cameras can apply selective noise reduction and sharpening to an image. Is there some software that will allow me to do this to the RAW files I develop. It always seems that my post processing noise reduction leaves the files more soft/blurred than what the camera does
raja manuel
In the zone
Here is the post. There could be a lot of arguing over his methods and results but I think he has made a good case for using 12-bit lossy compression in the field, particularly if you want a deeper RAW buffer.
The question of noise, especially with reference to ISO settings, is clearly complex. The standard advice we receive on the internet (higher ISO equals more noise) is clearly incorrect (or rather not always correct). Doing as much research as time permits, but it clearly needs more.
As far as software that can develop RAW files with selective noise reduction, I am not aware of any software that can do that at the RAW development stage itself. It can be done once the developed image is passed onto an image editing process - I think Photoshop has noise reduction brushes, but it should be possible to do it with layers in any suitable image editing application. It should also be noted here that noise makes images look sharper than they actually are, so removing a lot of noise could give the impression that the image is softer when it actually isn't.
raja manuel
In the zone
Thanks for the link; the comments were far more informative than the article itself. Two interesting bits of info:
1) As suspected, Lightroom converts RAW to TIFF at a very early stage of processing, and therefore loses out on processing latitude.
2) Apparently Darktable can perform local edits using paths, which I think is what izzikio_rage was asking about.
OP
izzikio_rage
Technomancer
@ Raja: So I guess the bottom line is that all alternatives need to be tried out and then you select the one that is best for your camera 
. "Noise makes an image look sharp" - I agree on this, however my problem is that any kind of noise reduction makes the image look very soft. I though the perhaps it was my cam (sony NEX 6) which was the culprit but I've been checking out the raws posted here and 100% crops that websites show and that is not my problem. So I guess it has to do with my settings/shooting technique or my post processing technique.
@Kaz: Read through the comments and there seem to be plenty of free alternatives to lightroom for windows too (lightzone is a often mentioned name). If someone is using any of these post your observations here and let us know if it's worth trying out.
@Gen: The PP on this is pretty good, however I think the image itself is not one that you would want to PP a lot. I think if you really wanted to make it amazing in post processing then the way would be to add a dramatic sky to the image.
Add Dramatic Skies To Your Photos With Photoshop Touch's Fade Tool [How To]
I've never done this before but seems like it's worth giving a shot
. "Noise makes an image look sharp" - I agree on this, however my problem is that any kind of noise reduction makes the image look very soft. I though the perhaps it was my cam (sony NEX 6) which was the culprit but I've been checking out the raws posted here and 100% crops that websites show and that is not my problem. So I guess it has to do with my settings/shooting technique or my post processing technique. @Kaz: Read through the comments and there seem to be plenty of free alternatives to lightroom for windows too (lightzone is a often mentioned name). If someone is using any of these post your observations here and let us know if it's worth trying out.
@Gen: The PP on this is pretty good, however I think the image itself is not one that you would want to PP a lot. I think if you really wanted to make it amazing in post processing then the way would be to add a dramatic sky to the image.
Add Dramatic Skies To Your Photos With Photoshop Touch's Fade Tool [How To]
I've never done this before but seems like it's worth giving a shot
Last edited:
raja manuel
In the zone
@ Raja: So I guess the bottom line is that all alternatives need to be tried out and then you select the one that is best for your camera
@Kaz: Read through the comments and there seem to be plenty of free alternatives to lightroom for windows too (lightzone is a often mentioned name). If someone is using any of these post your observations here and let us know if it's worth trying out.
I use RawTherapee. The software has a lot of features, and you might be interested in the ability to choose from 9 demosaicing algorithms to see if one can give better results with either noise reduction method. Plus lots and lots of other stuff to play around with as well - the software is known for giving slider shock to newbies. It is more than just a RAW tool, though; I have been scanning some old family photos and sending the JPGs to RawTherapee to bring back the colours and detail, and the results are stunning.
I am also figuring out how to move to Linux because, as has been pointed out by many geek photographers, the best tools are available there.
kaz
right here
I will suggest VMWARE..Installing Linux alongside Windows is cool (I always have Linux installed) but I don't think just for using one tool you should switch OS..