For four years I have waited for this day which has not come

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you Paulus that's what i understood a well but my raw files are never taken to be viewed as is so this explanation makes me feel that i come from another planet sort of. Nothing personal of course thanks again for sharing .

[Paulus]

Thank you Paulus that's what i understood a well but my raw files are never taken to be viewed as is so this explanation makes me feel that i come from another planet sort of. Nothing personal of course thanks again for sharing .

Now I don't understand? Do you mean, that you don't import raw files, or do you mean that the imported raw file cannot be seen as a raw file? As I understood, the DNG as seen in Lightroom is a preview of a raw file, or am I wrong?

[mjh]

In a modern way; shoot the photo in a way, you don't have to do anything in post processing, the " negative " or DNG is as good as it gets already.

That way you would not get optimum results in some situations. For example, in high-contrast situations you could not expose for the highlights as the print would come out way too dark then. You will only get the best results possible if you spend as much thought and effort on developing the picture as you did in taking it. There is no easy shortcut.

[lct]

Now I don't understand? Do you mean, that you don't import raw files, or do you mean that the imported raw file cannot be seen as a raw file? As I understood, the DNG as seen in Lightroom is a preview of a raw file, or am I wrong?

 

Must be my poor English sorry. I just meant that none of my raw (or dng) files are meant to be viewed or printed w/o any post processing. Otherwise i don't see the point of using raw (or dng) files at all. 

[Paulus]

Must be my poor English sorry. I just meant that none of my raw (or dng) files are meant to be viewed or printed w/o any post processing. Otherwise i don't see the point of using raw (or dng) files at all. 

I understand, but just for the phylosofical point of view. It would, or would it,  be possible to have photoprints out of a raw file in which any post processing will not be nessecery to get a satifying result?

 

I can remember there are files in my Lightroom that were good enough for me to print without any post processing, only import them in Lightroom and export them again. But maybe I'm not critical enough? For me it still gives me a point to use raw, instead of jpeg for reasons written above.

[jaapv]

I understand, but just for the phylosofical point of view. It would, or would it,  be possible to have photoprints out of a raw file in which any post processing will not be nessecery to get a satifying result?

 

I can remember there are files in my Lightroom that were good enough for me to print without any post processing, only import them in Lightroom and export them again. But maybe I'm not critical enough? For me it still gives me a point to use raw, instead of jpeg for reasons written above.

Photoshop output to print is not raw but a converted file.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I guess it means that you like the way LR processes your dng files automatically. I could not say the same because i don't like this way personally and even C1 that i've been using for many years gives a yellowish cast to M240 files that i need to correct generally.  YMMV.

[jdlaing]

Photoshop output to print is not raw but a converted file.

You don't get a RAW file from any M digital camera. They are ALL processed files before you even touch them in post processing.

[jaapv]

Yes, that goes for all raw files of all cameras, In actual fact Leica is one of the companies that applies the least pre-raw processing (one of the reasons they always get hammered for ISO performance). Raw is not a sensor dump but a pre-processed file.

It is raw BTW, not RAW as it is not an acronym.

The point of my post, however, was that LR is an enhanced raw converter.

[Paulus]

Yes, all well, but back tot the issue. Let's call it raw even if it isn't. Let's not go into the technical or semantical discussion.

 

The thought was " raw " in the meaning:" just like it is" . ( Not that this is a good definition, but let's try to feel the meaning of my thoughts. ) Of course that's a difficult thing. In the negative or colour slide positive, one is depenable of the material made. Is it fuji agfa etcm but still it's possible withing a certain window to produce a negative which can be printed without much processing. Idealy without processing.

 

When I'm sitting in my dark room, I choose filter 3 , measure the time and print. Is this what is meant?

[mjh]

it's possible withing a certain window to produce a negative which can be printed without much processing. Idealy without processing.

A raw file will always have to be processed before you can do anything with the image. You can let Lightroom apply its default settings but the results won’t be as good as those you could get with optimised settings.

[Paulus]

But is it possible to make a capture, in this way, that the defaultsetting is enough to have an optimal result? Just like " The Negative " promotes a " best way "?

[LocalHero1953]

What's an optimal result?

[mjh]

But is it possible to make a capture, in this way, that the defaultsetting is enough to have an optimal result? Just like " The Negative " promotes a " best way "?

No – and you cannot create a perfect negative either, i.e. that doesn’t require any special attention in the lab. Paper with different gradations and techniques like dodge&burn were not just invented so you could get acceptable results from suboptimal negatives.

 

One reason why you cannot just apply default settings in raw conversion was given in #263.

[Jeff S]

But is it possible to make a capture, in this way, that the defaultsetting is enough to have an optimal result? Just like " The Negative " promotes a " best way "?

 

Perhaps you misunderstand Adams.  He did loads of post processing on most of his prints.....meticulous dodging, burning, and lots more.  His point was to create a negative that gave him the best starting point to make adjustments as he saw fit, not to print 'as is'.  And that starting point could vary by picture.  Not only that, but he sometimes reinterpreted his prints over time as his tastes changed; he did this even with his famous 'Moonrise' picture  over several decades....  http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibitions/anseladams/arrington/arrington_adams.html

 

I don't think I ever made a 'straight' final print in any of my darkrooms over 30+ years.......nor with any of my inkjet prints, even if only some subtle effects. The slightest change can mean the difference between a print that 'sings' and one that misses.....and that can change even by cover glass, display lighting conditions, etc.  Depends on your tastes, standards and judgment.

 

That's why I always try for optimal in-camera exposure and always shoot RAW (DNG)...no waste of information.....but no guarantees of a great print (or picture); that's up to me.

 

Jeff

[Tailwagger]

But is it possible to make a capture, in this way, that the defaultsetting is enough to have an optimal result? Just like " The Negative " promotes a " best way "?

 

It's certainly possible to have a good, maybe even a great result...  every now and again.  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  Like it or not, editing and refining on the back end can, more often than not, make the difference between meh and something worth viewing.

[jaapv]

Yes, all well, but back tot the issue. Let's call it raw even if it isn't. Let's not go into the technical or semantical discussion.

 

The thought was " raw " in the meaning:" just like it is" . ( Not that this is a good definition, but let's try to feel the meaning of my thoughts. ) Of course that's a difficult thing. In the negative or colour slide positive, one is depenable of the material made. Is it fuji agfa etcm but still it's possible withing a certain window to produce a negative which can be printed without much processing. Idealy without processing.

 

When I'm sitting in my dark room, I choose filter 3 , measure the time and print. Is this what is meant?

Raw is just a file with digital information waiting to be interpreted. You can take the comparison to a negative only so far. A negative is still something that can be viewed as an image. A raw file is just the content of a memory chip that can  be expressed in a row of ones and zeros. That means that it can only be seen as an image after digital manipulation and that manipulation is arbitrary. So you cannot print a raw file directly, you can only print it after processing, either to a preset that somebody else decided (which you call straight) or to your own input.

[marchyman]

 

The thought was " raw " in the meaning:" just like it is" .

 

 

Raw is not an image it is a mosaic of red, green, and blue color samples from the sensor that must be processed (demosaiced) into an image.  When you ask for jpeg output your camera does this for you.   Lightroom, ACR, etc., also do this for you.  They use parameters specified by Adobe.  When you process the image you are in effect adjusting the parameters away from the Adobe defaults.

[pop]

Raw is just a file with digital information waiting to be interpreted. You can take the comparison to a negative only so far. A negative is still something that can be viewed as an image. A raw file is just the content of a memory chip that can  be expressed in a row of ones and zeros. That means that it can only be seen as an image after digital manipulation and that manipulation is arbitrary. So you cannot print a raw file directly, you can only print it after processing, either to a preset that somebody else decided (which you call straight) or to your own input.

There are two intrinsic difference between "raw" and "cooked" files.

 

One is the separated colour channels. In the raw file each location shows the value of but one of the three colour componentes. The software has somehow to combine several of those locations into three-coloured pixels. There are several ways of doing that, none of which is ex cathedra the "real" one, and all will produce slightly different images.

 

The other are extra processing steps to be applied to the image before it has the required quality. The recently most discussed one is the compensation of geometric distortions.

 

Otherwise, both raw and cooked files are just files with images, with the "extrinsic" difference that most image viewers are programmed to handle JPEG files and very few TIFF files and their derivates.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[michaelwj]

Best of both worlds would be an optical RF a la M240 and an accessory EVF as good as the SL's to me.

 

 

I think this would be a big win for a lot of people, but I can't see it happening for a little while. A high resolution EVF like the SL would need a lot more processing power, which would generate a lot more heat. Adding it would lead to an increase in body size to accomodate both the bigger battery and the heat dissipation. Heat dissipation was one of the reasons Leica gave for the size of the SL in a recent interview IIRC. I suppose some of the processing and heat dissipation could be passed onto the finder itself, but can you imagine the blowback on a $3k accessory finder that is 4x4x4cm?

Maybe in a few years...