On 4/11/2014 7:56 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>>> If a person is shooting in-camera JPEG, I honestly cannot fathom a
>>> reason why you would ever select aRGB in-camera. And, for me, I am
>>> thinking of the output. I tend to work backwards (does this surprise
>>> anybody?). If the output is sRGB, why subject myself to conversion
>>> steps if I don't need to?
>> Simple, 'cause when you bend the tones, you get gaps and piles in the
>> histogram. Sometimes not noticeable, sometimes
>> ugly. Worse, sometimes just off, and hard to see how/why. And once it's
>> happens, and is noticed, it's back at least
>> several steps.
>>
>> But I may be unjustly maligning your idea. Do you convert to 16 bit at the
>> beginning?
> The premise is "in camera JPEG".
And a foolish one it is, IMO. Just in the middle of some ordinary shots, what
if that once in ten years shot comes up -
the highlights are blown and the light already changed.
It may be fine for stock, or mass portraits, or events. I wouldn't know, as I
don't do those things. I do shoot out in
the field, where both subjects and light are often fleeting. It's simply easier
to recover with RAW.
> An in camera is always going to be an
> 8 bit per channel file. If you are shooting 8 bit with aRGB, you are
> much more likely to end up with TONAL compromises at the expense of
> expanded color pallet. You've only got 256 possible values per color
> channel. You've got to steal them from somewhere. Personally, I would
> much rather steal bits from the top two brightness zones, at the
> expense of the highlights in order to get more bits in the shadows.
> But the idea behind "color spaces" is essentially that you remap bits
> to accomplish a desired task.
I do shoot RAW+JPEG most of the time for a while. So I do have a reference of
what the camera thought.
> Now, where this all makes perfect sense is if a photographer is using
> one of those new-fangled Fujifilm X-Thingies that do everything but
> the laundry, and you shoot stock. As good as the X-Thingies are, I'd
> be terribly tempted to just shoot in-camera JPEG+RAW, but never touch
> the RAW file unless something needs addressing.
Fine for stock, I imagine, but not relevant here. :-)
> Since I'm such as
> great photographer, I can shoot the pictures without need of any (or
> minimal spot) editing. In this case, I can just take the JPEG files in
> aRGB and send them straight to my stock agency, as they still prefer
> aRGB. With the right in camera settings appropriately assigned for the
> image at hand, the color and contrast of the images are pretty much
> nuts on.
I believe you mean sRGB in the above?
>
> Yet, as somebody who has the vast majority of his images destined for
> on-line display and printing through a lab that prefers sRGB, I see
> absolutely no practical purpose to shoot in camera JPEG at aRGB.
> That's just stupid busy work.
I'm not sure how you and I got in a circle about JPEG and sRGB. I don't much
care what the JPEGs are in, as I don't use
them for anything serious.
>
>
>> I agree, and when I work on sRGB images from the web, I go 16 bit, but stay
>> in sRGB.
> Any editing immediately involves the conversion to 16 bit.
Ah, finally an answer!
> However,
> not all 8/16 converters work equally well. I have found ...
I have no idea about all that. PS makes the histogram look the same and the
image look the same as before conversion.
I've not had any trouble.
Multi Bit Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|