I haven't installed it yet but I just bought PSE 12 (at a low price) to
evaluate what it can do. What to you mean "big brother" type changes?
Chuck Norcutt
On 12/12/2013 9:43 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
> Chuck,
>
> I am still using PSElements 11.0, and it does what you say. I go from
> RAW to 16-bit jpeg, take it as far as I can, then convert to 8-bit to
> finish. Works fine.
>
> I recently looked at the latest version of Lightroom, and Elements 12.
> Found that I can't run the latest Lightroom on my XP system, and found
> that many people were unhappy with the "big brother" type changes that
> Adobe made in PSE 12. Both will expire unused.
>
> Jim Nichols
> Tullahoma, TN USA
>
> On 12/12/2013 8:00 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Well, when I mentioned a RAW converter I never meant Fast Stone. Fast
>> Stone only converts RAW files using unknown and unvariable parameters.
>> It totally defeats the reason for shooting RAW. It would be better to
>> take the camera's JPEGs where one can at least control some of the
>> parameters.
>>
>> I think Elements does some more things that RAW conversion using 16 bits
>> but getting documentation of that is difficult. Adobe doesn't lay it
>> out on the sidewalk for you to find it. But even it it's only 8 bits
>> after RAW conversion that's still pretty good. I agree, Elements is
>> probably the best low cost tool.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> On 12/12/2013 6:04 PM, Moose wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2013 1:51 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>>> <Snip lots of good stuff>
>>>>
>>>> Now consider RAW images for a moment. These images typically start life
>>>> as either 12 or 14 bit images and get converted to 16 bits on the way to
>>>> editing. But these images don't start with a bunch of holes in their
>>>> value ranges as does an 8-bit image converted to 16-bits.
>>> Nicely said.
>>>
>>> It's still true that immediately converting a JPEG to 16 bit for editing
>>> will lead to fewer disappointing surprises, but
>>> Raw* to 16 bit is much better.
>>>
>>>> The full
>>>> range of brightness ranges is real and the image will survive much more
>>>> severe editing changes without succumbing to posterization. Compared to
>>>> a JPEG image there is also much more leeway in recovering dark shadows
>>>> and blown highlights... typically up to a stop on both ends.
>>> Would that this were true. Unfortunately, Brian uses 3/4 cameras with
>>> limited high ISO performance. Pulling up shadows
>>> is like raising ISO, and one quickly runs into noise problems. Not too big
>>> an issue, for someone using capable software
>>> tools, but ...
>>>
>>>> For this advantage you only need to use the RAW converter in the first
>>>> stage of
>>>> editing.
>>> Would that this were so simple. FastStone converts Raw to 8 bit THEN edits,
>>> not the reverse.
>>>
>>>> Use the RAW converter to do all of your brightness, contrast,
>>>> color balance, saturation, etc. changes up front. Then you can convert
>>>> to 8-bit for cropping and other editing changes with little or no effect
>>>> on color and brightness. Resizing and sharpening still have some effect
>>>> on pixel brightness but is minor compared to other edits.
>>>>
>>>> My last comment is that FastStone can call external editors. If you
>>>> open a RAW file in FastStone I'm sure you can pass it to the Oly RAW
>>>> converter before doing further work in FastStone.
>>> True, you may browse/view Raw files in FS, then pass them on to other apps.
>>>
>>>> Or just do all of your work in the RAW editor first and then move to
>>>> FastStone after
>>>> conversion to JPEGs.
>>> Sigh; again not so simple. Oly Viewer converter does no highlight recovery
>>> at all, just useless on the top end. One must
>>> go to something like RawTherapee, free, and slightly odd, or pay a few $
>>> for PS Elements, AfterShot Pro, or one of the
>>> other ones. Personally, I'd go with PSE, as I think ACR is still the best
>>> Raw converter.
>>>
>>> That pretty much does what you've suggested, converts in 16 bit, then does
>>> (most?) further editing in 8 bit, at least
>>> that's what I read.
>>>
>>> Raw Moose
>>>
>>> * You convinced me, and now you succumb to the infidels with RAW images? :-)
>>>
>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/12/2013 7:29 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
>>>>> I have no practical knowledge of the differences between 64, 32, 16, and
>>>>> 8-bit images.
>>>>>
>>>>> I really don't know what my machine works in. I wouldn't know where to
>>>>> look to find out ...
>>>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|