What to do when you hit a wall?

[smoke665]

My eyesight is not what it used to be so I find myself relying more on live view, which is still difficult. The meter is easy to read, but the histogram display is so small that it's difficult for me to see very well. My intent is to add a Flucard which will allow functionality on my tablet for live view. As to best fit, since the only reason I do it is for enjoyment, I most certainly will move in that direction.

 

[Ysarex]

My eyesight is not what it used to be so I find myself relying more on live view, which is still difficult. The meter is easy to read, but the histogram display is so small that it's difficult for me to see very well. My intent is to add a Flucard which will allow functionality on my tablet for live view. As to best fit, since the only reason I do it is for enjoyment, I most certainly will move in that direction.

You mentioned Pentax -- don't know what model you have. There are all kinds of histograms both in camera and in processing software. If live view is showing a histogram it is most likely a single histogram in which case it's either a luminosity histogram or RGB composite. Both can be misleading and in camera both would be derived from the camera JPEG processor and so not necessarily reflect what you'll get in the raw file. I believe your camera will show you a histogram when reviewing a photo and in that case display a three channel view. Again this histogram is derived from the JPEG and does not directly reflect the raw file.

Joe

 

[smoke665]

If live view is showing a histogram it is most likely a single histogram in which case it's either a luminosity histogram or RGB composite

There is more difference between my previous K30 and the new K3 II then I originally thought. I'm a little disappointed with Pentax on documentation with the K3 II. The book that came with the K30 was more detailed and informative. The addition of a slew of new image altering algorithms makes it difficult to even shoot manual without it trying trying to control something. So at times it seems like we are in a battle of wills, to the point that I almost give up and go to full auto. I can't find the documentation to prove it, but I believe you are right about the histogram on live view being an RGB composite. It gives luminosity on the instant review, and RGB, luminosity, red, green and blue on the review screen. I also think (but can't verify) that the histograms are all based on conversion to a JPEG based on the "camera tone finishing setting" (at the time the image was taken). However the camera saves the information to the file so that you can change the "image tone" (which also affects the histogram) at any point up to and until the raw file is processed by using their proprietary software for file conversion.

 

[PhotosInParadise]

OP - have you been to the optometrist lately and had your eyes checked for cataracts? I think you said you are an older person, pardon me if you're not. I am 69 and had cataract surgery in April and it has made a tremendous difference in my eyesight.

 

[smoke665]

OP - have you been to the optometrist lately and had your eyes checked for cataracts? I think you said you are an older person, pardon me if you're not. I am 69 and had cataract surgery in April and it has made a tremendous difference in my eyesight.

I'm a couple of years younger than you, but my eyesight has been getting progressively worse over the years. Last visit to the optometrist (6 months ago) they told me that it wouldn't be long before I would need cataract surgery. Despite the reflective coating on the trifocals I have a lot of difficulty seeing from light into dark.

 

[Ysarex]

If live view is showing a histogram it is most likely a single histogram in which case it's either a luminosity histogram or RGB composite

There is more difference between my previous K30 and the new K3 II then I originally thought. I'm a little disappointed with Pentax on documentation with the K3 II. The book that came with the K30 was more detailed and informative. The addition of a slew of new image altering algorithms makes it difficult to even shoot manual without it trying trying to control something. So at times it seems like we are in a battle of wills, to the point that I almost give up and go to full auto. I can't find the documentation to prove it, but I believe you are right about the histogram on live view being an RGB composite. It gives luminosity on the instant review, and RGB, luminosity, red, green and blue on the review screen. I also think (but can't verify) that the histograms are all based on conversion to a JPEG based on the "camera tone finishing setting" (at the time the image was taken). However the camera saves the information to the file so that you can change the "image tone" (which also affects the histogram) at any point up to and until the raw file is processed by using their proprietary software for file conversion.

It's hard to find that kind of info which tells you something. My Fuji has a live histogram as well and it's a luminosity histogram. It was a real struggle to dig up and verify that info with absolutely no help from Fuji. You've got to wonder how important they think the info is and you're left wondering what your problem is since it seems like you're the only one who wanted to know.

I am very sympathetic to your lament; "at times it seems like we are in a battle of wills, to the point that I almost give up and go to full auto." But I don't know you well and find it difficult to advise you. I suspect given your background and prior comfort with shooting, processing and printing B&W in an environment where you were fully responsible to the end result that you're somewhat like me. I'm very happy with modern digital tech. because it extends what I was able to do with film and does it better, but I have the same lament about the camera software's interference. For example features on my camera that the manufacturer touts as best-thing-since-sliced-bread and that the user community lauds as the same have me cussin' and spittin'. I'm using a camera now with an EVF and Fuji has designed the EVF to deliver a preview of the JPEG the camera is going to create -- an exposure, WB, tone response live preview. It's a major selling feature! People love it! I hate it, but I've learned to ignore it. Why do I want to see how the software in the camera is going to mangle it's version of my photo? That's just a nuisance.

Right up to the top end flagship cameras now the manufacturers are all pushing their automated JPEG processing aggressively enough that it is difficult if not impossible to step aside and ignore it. Reading forums like this one and encountering someone learning to process raw files you constantly see the complaint; "No matter what I do I can't make the raw file look like the camera JPEG. What am I missing?" OMG! The whole point of saving and processing a raw file is so you don't have to tolerate the bleep bleep camera JPEG and then try and repair it! Why would you want to replicate it?!

When I take photos I stay focused on: There's a sensor in my camera and I'm going to expose it. I don't need help with that nor do I want interference. For me a good exposure is saturating the sensor to threshold period. I'm not interested in seeing what kind of JPEG the camera software creates from that. Since the histograms the camera displays are all derived from that JPEG I tend to ignore them. I will save the raw sensor capture and process that later to the end result I want and again I don't need help with that and I'm not interested in seeing what automated software can or can't do.

So I'm an old guy with fancy new tech most of which I keep turned off and or have learned to ignore. When I get a new camera the first thing I do is find the metering system. It will have that manufacturer's version of "matrix" or "evaluative" metering enabled by default. I turn that off and never turn it back on. I do not need software in my camera trying to second guess me while I'm setting an exposure. That's my job and I know how to do it -- it's my photo. Once the meter is behaving like the measuring tool it should be I test it and I'm good to go. In sympathizing with your lament I come down to what I just said in the prior sentence; it's my photo. That battle of wills is between me and the automated software in the camera that's interfering. I turn that sh*t off or ignore it.

Joe

 

[smoke665]

I don't know you well and find it difficult to advise you. I suspect given your background and prior comfort with shooting, processing and printing B&W in an environment where you were fully responsible to the end result that you're somewhat like me. I'm very happy with modern digital tech.

Joe thank you for confirming that I'm not really going crazy with your comments on technology, and I have found previous advise you've given to be extremely helpful. I am also happy with modern digital, just find it frustrating when I know what I want, how to go about getting it, and a computer deciding I want something else.

Something you said in the your posts about what the camera displays, made me curious. Yesterday I shot a number of different settings, with the same lens.. I pulled this off the SD card because the image looked decent in thumbnail, it's not the best of the bunch but it illustrates my point. 1/6 sec, f/14, ISO 200, 24.38mm, AWB.

In the first image and histogram, the raw file was loaded into Pentax's Utility 5 conversion software. No changes were made other than to let it convert and save as TIFF. I then loaded the TIFF into PSP, re-sized and saved as a JPEG.



The second image and histogram, I loaded the raw file straight into PSP, let PSP convert, resized and saved as a JPEG with no further intervention.



Maybe I need to incorporate this into work flow, rather than going straight to PSP for editing might save me a lot of trouble.

 

[Vtec44]

I was a the same point a few years back. For me, it was more about going back to the basics and just enjoy telling stories through photos, rather than worry about making perfect photos. There is no such thing as a perfect photo. Simple, elegant, refinement, and emotions are the things that I aim for these days.

 

[Overread]

RAW data is data; but in order to display a rendering the RAW software has to pick a starting point for how to render that data. That is partly why different RAW software options will show the same data in slightly different ways. However the file data itself still holds the same capacities; you can get one to look like the other by tweaking a few values.

Of course the software also has differences that can result in an actual difference in how the data appears; but they are often very marginal and generally speaking something you don't have to concern yourself with as the differences will, in most cases, be invisible to a print or internet display.

 

[Ysarex]

I don't know you well and find it difficult to advise you. I suspect given your background and prior comfort with shooting, processing and printing B&W in an environment where you were fully responsible to the end result that you're somewhat like me. I'm very happy with modern digital tech.

Joe thank you for confirming that I'm not really going crazy with your comments on technology, and I have found previous advise you've given to be extremely helpful. I am also happy with modern digital, just find it frustrating when I know what I want, how to go about getting it, and a computer deciding I want something else.

Something you said in the your posts about what the camera displays, made me curious. Yesterday I shot a number of different settings, with the same lens.. I pulled this off the SD card because the image looked decent in thumbnail, it's not the best of the bunch but it illustrates my point. 1/6 sec, f/14, ISO 200, 24.38mm, AWB.

In the first image and histogram, the raw file was loaded into Pentax's Utility 5 conversion software. No changes were made other than to let it convert and save as TIFF. I then loaded the TIFF into PSP, re-sized and saved as a JPEG.

View attachment 122865 View attachment 122864

The second image and histogram, I loaded the raw file straight into PSP, let PSP convert, resized and saved as a JPEG with no further intervention.

View attachment 122870 View attachment 122871

Maybe I need to incorporate this into work flow, rather than going straight to PSP for editing might save me a lot of trouble.

What you're experiencing here also drove me near to madness when I first started working with digital. With a raw sensor capture a lot of processing has to take place before you've got an RGB image you can look at. I first started out with the misconception that a raw file first opened up was showing me my photo ready for editing. That's not the case, when first opened up, raw conversion software A versus software B shows you your photo already edited -- a lot. Same theme again -- it's been done for you by the bleepin' software. I started opening the same raw file in different raw converters to compare the result. No two were alike and in fact the differences were substantial in some cases.

This left me with the nagging question, how do I know I got the exposure I wanted? How do I know the software isn't covering something up? Back in the film lab I had this device called a densitometer. The densitometer allowed me to check my film exposure and processing and know with certainty what I was doing. I was comfortable with that methodology and now with digital I've got the rug pulled out from under me. Open my raw file in software A and I get one version, open it in software B and it's entirely different. In both programs A and B I'm seeing a histogram for my photo, but what's it a histogram of? They're both different and I haven't done anything yet!!!!!! How do I work like that?! Then I found RawDigger: RawDigger: Raw Image Analyzer | RawDigger

RawDigger gave me my densitometer back and I'm back in control. The raw conversion software products are all different tools with different abilities. None of them will show you your photo without putting their spin on it. It's frustrating and infuriating. I rely on a couple different raw converters changing tools to suit the job so to speak, but I rely on RawDigger to know what I did when I made my exposure and inform my camera use next time out.

Joe

 

[Dave442]

In the two images you posted is a normal issue as Joe noted. Each software can use its own conversion of the Raw file. I use LightRoom and besides the normal White Balance adjustments there is also the Camera Calibration where there are usually a number of different preset options (you can add presets and also make your own) as well as the ability to adjust tint, hue and saturation of the primary colors.

I have not used PSP, but it may have some options so you can have it process the Raw photos when importing so they look closer to what you like when using the Pentax software. Often the camera manufacturers' software will read the settings that you may have adjusted in the camera to apply to JPG files and their software will apply give the option to apply that to the Raw file, so you will see something similar when processing in the computer as to what you saw on the back of the camera.

If it is like LightRoom, then you can have the software apply a Camera Profile upon import based on the serial number of the camera (so you could have a specific profile for each of your cameras).

 

[smoke665]

What you're experiencing here also drove me near to madness

Yes, Yes, Yes!!!! Thank you Joe. Once again, I think you've come to the rescue. I just about pitched everything a couple of weeks ago. I think my "blind pig finding an acorn" analogy was much closer to the truth then I realized as I was struggling to make an educated guess as to where I should be, but not knowing for certain. For now I've gone back and reprocessed some raw files using the Pentax utility then editing the TIFF in PSP. The difference in the end result is amazing. As "Overread" said earlier "data is data", but when you read that data and it comes out different, it is hard to understand what's correct and what isn't. I still believe I should download "Raw Digger", for my own piece of mind. Which version do you recommend?

 

[smoke665]

f it is like LightRoom, then you can have the software apply a Camera Profile

PSP uses a plugin for raw conversion. I think I've read something about using a camera profile, but haven't figured out where or how. I fear that this may be another of the those "add on for a price" things that Corel is notorious for. I need to get ready for a meeting in a bit so will check it out in more detail this evening. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Ysarex]

What you're experiencing here also drove me near to madness

Yes, Yes, Yes!!!! Thank you Joe. Once again, I think you've come to the rescue. I just about pitched everything a couple of weeks ago. I think my "blind pig finding an acorn" analogy was much closer to the truth then I realized as I was struggling to make an educated guess as to where I should be, but not knowing for certain. For now I've gone back and reprocessed some raw files using the Pentax utility then editing the TIFF in PSP. The difference in the end result is amazing. As "Overread" said earlier "data is data", but when you read that data and it comes out different, it is hard to understand what's correct and what isn't. I still believe I should download "Raw Digger", for my own piece of mind. Which version do you recommend?

You only need the exposure version of RawDigger -- a mere $25.00 last time I checked. When you open a raw file in RawDigger you get a histogram for the raw file. It will be the first time you will have in fact seen the histogram for your photo. Every other software from the camera right up to the raw conversion software that shows you histograms DOES NOT show you the histogram of the raw file! They are all showing you the histograms of their processing output from the raw file. And who's to say they haven't mangled up that processing. For sure they can't read your mind and know what you intended when you took the photo. Is it your photo or not? So with RawDigger I get to see what I did and know where I stand.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

f it is like LightRoom, then you can have the software apply a Camera Profile

PSP uses a plugin for raw conversion. I think I've read something about using a camera profile, but haven't figured out where or how. I fear that this may be another of the those "add on for a price" things that Corel is notorious for. I need to get ready for a meeting in a bit so will check it out in more detail this evening. Thanks for the heads up.

Before you spend more: PSP isn't the best raw converter out there. Your Pentax utility is probably pretty good but otherwise limited in capability. PSP's editing ability for the converted RGB (TIFF) files is fine and you can use that without a problem.

Every time a raw file is opened and processed a camera input profile is required in the conversion process. When you buy raw conversion software and they support your camera, one of the things you get from them is a ready to go input profile (or two or more) supplied by their software engineers. With some of the less featured raw conversion software out there you have to live with what comes in the box. Better raw conversion software will let you build and install your own camera input profiles (can be a daunting task).

If you are finding the Pentax utility and PSP not giving you the results an/or features you want before you spend $$$ look at the free open source converters Raw Therapee, LightZone, and DarkTable (MAC).

Beyond that you can 30 day free trial most of the major products and I'm pretty familiar with most of them if you have further questions.

Joe