Further processing though would be like taking a processed photo print and re-photographing it in order to be able to process it further - but you can't replace what's not there any more. If you're happy with the JPG output of the camera and do no further processing then that's absolutely fine it does what you want. Raw files however are like producing your own prints at home - DNG after all was derived from 'digital negative'. To me, in-camera JPGs are the film equivalent of taking a roll of film to the chemist's shop and collecting the prints a day or so later they are what they are. I learned the basics of photography and enlarging and printing in the late 60s/early 70s, and printed all my own monochromes up to the 90s. If I am dissatisfied and want something slightly different, I won't edit the JPG, I'll go back to my raw processor which has retained all the modifications that I made, and make another one. To me, the creation of a JPG is the last thing I do to an image. I would think that the majority of photos end up as JPGs (mine do), so ultimately, for me it's a question of how, but importantly when you get there. If you don't think that you get listener fatigue listening to MP3s, try it with a four-hour Wagner opera! (You might get fatigue for other reasons, but that's another story!) And you get processing artifacts here also, in the form of a level of dullness and 'listener fatigue' that you don't get with a WAV. The MP3 algorithm decides what the listener can or cannot hear, and removes sound data accordingly, so that even with the best quality MP3, you get only roughly a quarter of the original audio data. There's a parallel here with audio files, where raw would be equivalent to WAV, and JPG to MP3. Trying then to further process a JPG means that you're then potentially amplifying the errors introduced during the JPG creation process. So, much of what you see in a JPG is not what the sensor put there, and in guessing what to keep and what to discard, the processing sometimes gets it wrong.
This is where JPG artifacts come from because in order to reduce the file size (which was the original design intent for JPG) then the JPG processing has to calculate what to keep and what to throw away using an algorithm. Whether in camera or in post-production, processing into JPG is a lossy process, in this case with some 63% of the original data being discarded by the camera during the creation of the JPG. In other words, the raw file has almost three times as much data to work with than the JPG does. My camera is set to record raw and JPGs on different cards, and in this case the raw file was almost 30Mb and the JPG produced in camera being 11Mb at the maximum JPG quality. You can tell what's going on by looking at the file sizes of a photo file for example I just checked one that I took last month. What I mean is you can only work with what you've got, and with raw images you get everything that the sensor saw so that you have the best chance of getting the maximum from it. I'd just add that the old GIGO rule applies in this situation - garbage in, garbage out. I was unaware that XnView only uses the JPG within the DNG file - thank you for pointing this out.
#FASTRAWVIEWER REVIEWS FULL#
You do need a full raw converter program such as the free darktable or raw therapee to take advantage of a raw file.Thanks for this - I usually use FastStone, and occasionally using XnView for other editing. You do need a full raw converter program such as the free darktable or raw therapee to take advantage of a raw file. Result: I fear your approach is actually a full waste of the capabilities of the raw files. It then also can work with those jpgs to adjust them and create a changed output.īut essentially feeding a DNG into xnview and adjusting things there is 100% the same as feeding it a jpg debeloped in the camera. Xnview can open raw files in the way that it displays the jpg images embedded into the raw file. I am not sure about irfanview, but relatively sure about faststone and xnview.Īnd I fear you are believing something wrong here… UniWB would you simply choose the desired WB in your RAW editor content in the knowledge that no channel is blown in the original image?
#FASTRAWVIEWER REVIEWS HOW TO#
Some help with understanding how to us HDR scene without the HDR tonemapping most think of when composing hdr images
Once you know what is happening you can apply the right corrections your raw converter I would then look at how your camera handles baseline exposure I would also look at finding a way to view your cameras raw file, this will give you a better idea as to what is contained in the raw file There would be some need to configure your camera so that you have a better representation
Yes it can be done to some extent, the histogram in LV would be your best bet.
0 kommentar(er)
