What’s Your Preference?

nanbil · #51 (**permalink**) 10-31-2009, 08:51 PM

I like some of the efforts shown here but I tried not to alter the picture too much. Tried to keep it as close to what I think the original intention was.

Used Paint Shop Pro X2 12.5 to open the .nef file. Processed it and saved as a .jpeg (later reduced size for Flickr)

Colour Balance: 4190 (Little bit warmer, more 'aged' look.)
Exposure : Shadow/Midtone/Highlight: 25 / 30 / 0 (Bring detail out of shadow, & some colour in the midtones)
Saturation: Histogram Adjustment - reduce high end luminanace by 1% (255 to 235) to bring out a litlle more colour)
Contrast: boost by 10
Tiny little bit of Burn Brush on mirror and headlight so they are not drawing the eye so much.
Sharpen: High Pass Sharpen - Radius: 10 Strength: 50 Blend: Soft light

Nathan deGargoyle · #52 (**permalink**) 10-31-2009, 10:42 PM

So How do various programs handle you RAW?

How do programs handle RAW? (by Nathan deGargoyle)

BIG FILE! But you have to look at the original size to see the differences.

UL: My take with UFRaw
UR: UFRaw default
BL: Picassaweb I Fell Lucky
BR: Irfanvieew Save as jpg

Cornish · #53 (**permalink**) 11-02-2009, 02:12 AM

Opened the .nef file quite easily with Paint Shop Pro v12, plus even opened it with Faststone Image Viewer! No offense but personally I think RLucas has over saturated the image, just my 2 cents worth.

sarahdavis · #54 (**permalink**) 11-02-2009, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suu

You said you liked it fairly subtle. This is jpg edited in Topaz Adjust (many variations possible within topaz but chose this one.) I think this keeps it within the real-feel range.

Great edits everyone, and good idea Wulf on the thread topic! This is something I've been interested in also - actually seeing how the RAW file edited much better. It would take a lot to get me to "switch over" though I think.

I also just wanted to say that I love this "Topaz Adjust" - was this done in Lightroom? I have PS. Elements 7, so I was just wondering.

Jatala · #55 (**permalink**) 11-04-2009, 07:49 PM

I've seen some great edits thus far, but wanted to pitch in my 2-cents on the obvious to most of us here. One's monitor configuration can make a substantial difference in how the picture appears on screen. Digital (DVI) versus analog monitor configurations, in my experience, produce varying visual results. You can also throw in the CRT versus LCD differences. If you would allow me to be technical, (I hate to be a party pooper), but unless drastic comparative changes are made to the (any) photograph, it may be hard for some of us to truly compare finite differences in a certain photo (to an extent). A video configuration “control” would be a good thing, though I guess those with sub-standard video setups are out of luck as they say.

This is just my technical opinion! I may be a little extreme here, and in the big picture it really doesn’t even matter, but it’s just what came to my mind since we are discussing the comparative nature of this question from Wulf…Thoughts?

wulf · #56 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 10:09 AM

For anything that is created to be viewed online, that uncertainty is something you have to live with. Even if you have a carefully calibrated, top-notch set up, most of your viewers probably don't! Working for print is different as you do have control over the display media but, as someone who produces pretty much exclusively for online output, it is a major reason why I haven't got into working on the finest details.

Wulf

crewser53 · #57 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 02:38 PM

RAW or JPEG tweeking really just doesn't matter. Cause no matter what you do it is still just a boring image, sorry.

wulf · #58 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crewser53

RAW or JPEG tweeking really just doesn't matter. Cause no matter what you do it is still just a boring image, sorry.

I'm sorry you don't have eyes to appreciate it. However, I would suggest that you restrain yourself to more constructive comments, even after you've provided some credentials for your own standards of taste by sharing your own pictures.

Wulf

woods · #59 (**permalink**) 11-05-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crewser53

RAW or JPEG tweeking really just doesn't matter. Cause no matter what you do it is still just a boring image, sorry.

It's even better then. We're not trying to say "let's turn this picture into something" but just take whatever shot in RAW to see what difference will bring in post processing.

And talking about this, it should be interesting to see a real comparison of edited from jpeg / from raw comparison. I'm also very curious about that

Jatala · #60 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wulf

For anything that is created to be viewed online, that uncertainty is something you have to live with. Even if you have a carefully calibrated, top-notch set up, most of your viewers probably don't! Working for print is different as you do have control over the display media but, as someone who produces pretty much exclusively for online output, it is a major reason why I haven't got into working on the finest details.

Wulf

Agreed! If I could find some time I believe I am going to take a stab at it. Can't process pics here at the office. :-(