jeff_clegg Posted June 11, 2009 Share #1 Posted June 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I shoot dng in the M8. I call up the images in CS3 Bridge. Some basic editing is done and then I open the image in CS3. When I try editing the image in CS3, the Histogram becomes corrupt. I thought that this was a Leica problem, but I know of others with different cameras having the same problem. Can anyone offer a heads-up for this. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Hi jeff_clegg, Take a look here Histogram becomes corrrupt when edit in CS3. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jamie Roberts Posted June 11, 2009 Share #2 Posted June 11, 2009 I shoot dng in the M8. I call up the images in CS3 Bridge. Some basic editing is done and then I open the image in CS3. When I try editing the image in CS3, the Histogram becomes corrupt. I thought that this was a Leica problem, but I know of others with different cameras having the same problem. Can anyone offer a heads-up for this.Thanks What do you mean "it becomes corrupt?' Do you mean there are breaks in the overall histogram? That's the result of your editing the file...after awhile the whole thing needs refreshing (the data is cached as you work with it), so you can do that with one of the icons in the top-right corner of the histo. Or do you means something else other than "corrupt"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_clegg Posted June 12, 2009 Author Share #3 Posted June 12, 2009 When I edit the file in CS3, I then refresh the histogram. After doing so, I notice the vertical blanks in the histogram. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_clegg Posted June 14, 2009 Author Share #4 Posted June 14, 2009 Jamie Roberts, thanks for your timely response. I had done what you recommend and thats where I notice breaks in the overall histogram. It must be a case where I need to dive into Photoshop CS3 and through experience, I will be able to resolve. I did this with one image that was uninteresting, and when I got through it, the results blue me out (I am the greatest critic of myself). If anyone else can offer any suggestions, I would appreciate them. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 14, 2009 Share #5 Posted June 14, 2009 Make sure you are importing the DNG as a 16 bit file. What you described can happen when you manipulate 8 bit images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_clegg Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share #6 Posted June 16, 2009 Thanks, Steve, That may help. I also have been playing with Image, Adjustments, Shadow/Highlight. Maybe its because I have little bit to learn, but I was impress with the manipulating results. Thanks, Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 21, 2009 Share #7 Posted June 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is true that manipulating your files, especially in 8 bits, will break up the histogram into a kind of " comb". Unfortunately what you are seeing is not the histogram breaking up, but the damage you have done to your file. The only remedy is to work in 16 bits. Fortunately you will not see the result in the final print in many cases, although it may show up as posterizing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_clegg Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share #8 Posted June 23, 2009 Jaap Could you elaborate a little on your response: "Fortunately you will not see the result in the final print in many cases, although it may show up as posterizing"? Thanks, Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 23, 2009 Share #9 Posted June 23, 2009 What Jaap means is that most times when you edit in 8 bits of colour, you won't see the results of the editing (the histogram doesn't matter, in other words, for any final output like a print or web display). However, every so often when you work in 8 bpp, you will "stretch" the ability of even Photoshop (which is generally excellent in this regard) to compensate for the edits you are making. This means that you can sometimes see "stepping" or aliasing among certain colours (blue skies are notorious for this; they're hard to print well to begin with as a natural "gradient" but a lot of manipulation can really show if you're working in 8 bit colour). JPEGs make this worse because they are compressed with loss of data--and re-compressed with more data loss--every time you save them. That's why even in 8bpp editing some people prefer to use TIFFs (which can be compressed but without any data loss). These days though, you can get away with a lot with 8 bpp and JPEG editing in a good program like Photoshop. But for tricky light, or gradient detail, stick with 16bpp until you get ready to make the final version for print (usually, but not always, your print process will work better with an 8 bpp final file--but you only convert when you're through editing ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 23, 2009 Share #10 Posted June 23, 2009 But why should you want "to get away" with 8-bit Jpegs, Jamie, except if you are using an old version of Elements which does not support 16 bits.? It is just as easy to develop your RAW files to 16 bit TIFF and work with those, to be sure of maximum quality. It is not as if current computers lack memory or processing power. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 23, 2009 Share #11 Posted June 23, 2009 The quickest way to create the "comb" damage, in my experience, is to do an "Auto Levels" adjustment. I always use a 16bit native .psd file format when I am working on an image om Photoshop. Just seems to make sense, really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 23, 2009 Share #12 Posted June 23, 2009 .psd has an advantage if you want to save it including your layers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 23, 2009 Share #13 Posted June 23, 2009 You can save layers in any format. It's worth remembering, though, that time you save a jpg, you lose information Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 23, 2009 Share #14 Posted June 23, 2009 Is that so? I always go the TIFF/JPG route (and never save layers). What would be the advantage of .psd then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WPalank Posted June 23, 2009 Share #15 Posted June 23, 2009 Jeff Schewe on the TIFF vs PSD debate: Ted Dillard: TIFF vs PSD- Schewe (via Luminous Landscape) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 23, 2009 Share #16 Posted June 23, 2009 But why should you want "to get away" with 8-bit Jpegs, Jamie, except if you are using an old version of Elements which does not support 16 bits.?It is just as easy to develop your RAW files to 16 bit TIFF and work with those, to be sure of maximum quality. It is not as if current computers lack memory or processing power. LOL!! You're right Jaap--except that everything is relative If you're doing one-offs or even a couple of hundred files, 16bpp TIFFs are reasonable. But if you're working with many thousands of files per shoot, then even the most-up-to-date hardware gets bogged down pretty quickly. Personally, I now work from RAW into whatever format I need at the time, so I have a little different workflow than many. 99% of the time I make my big editing moves in RAW. So I don't need to output TIFFs because, honestly, I can make the small changes I'll make for print (sharpening and final contrast adjustments) in PS with little or no degradation to the data and very certainly absolutely no visible degradation whatsoever. Printers and labs want a JPEG anyway, and C1 and Photoshop are extremely good at making exceptionally high-quality JPEGs. And when you're processing literally 10s of thousands of files in a season then it makes sense to use JPEG for a lot of that. Anything going to the web (and usually proof quality), for example, simply doesn't need 16 bits of resolution (see caveat above). Anything going to a slide show or TV doesn't need that resolution either, though a case could be made for high-depth blu-ray presentations on the very latest monitors. For example, my main processing machine is a i7 Intel with 8 GB of RAM and I have many terabytes of storage (gotta have backup too). I still max out the processing power of my machine with C1 Many many of my professional colleagues shoot JPEG exclusively. They get "the shot right" in the camera. I have to say, this does make for an even faster workflow. I don't do that (and some would say I can't with the M8), but I do add at least a week to my workflow by shooting RAW. Larger faster hard drives may make me change my mind someday and I may go back to 16bpp TIFFS, but right now I'd be messed for storage if I went back to my old workflow, which was C1/ RAW -->basic 16bpp TIFF-->Photoshop --> multiple outputs. Nice for landscape shooters, but not so good, or even necessary, for events. Now I do more and more with C1, and more and more with JPEG. Another way to look at this is that you already have a 16bpp TIFF: it's called a RAW file Why make another one again? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 23, 2009 Share #17 Posted June 23, 2009 You can save layers in any format. It's worth remembering, though, that time you save a jpg, you lose information Yes, though the information you lose may not have any bearing whatsoever on what the final output looks like Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 23, 2009 Share #18 Posted June 23, 2009 Jeff Schewe on the TIFF vs PSD debate:Ted Dillard: TIFF vs PSD- Schewe (via Luminous Landscape) Interesting read - thank you for the link Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 23, 2009 Share #19 Posted June 23, 2009 Interesting read - thank you for the link Very interesting indeed! Jeff seems to have gone from "everything should be stored as a DNG" to "everything should be stored as a TIFF"... Of course, a PSD, and a DNG, is just a fancy TIFF anyway. If, sometime in the future, computers can no longer read PSDs we're in very big trouble anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_clegg Posted June 24, 2009 Author Share #20 Posted June 24, 2009 Jamie, Excellent explanation. It seem for my purpose that minor editing in the dng file in Adobe Bridge, going to CS3 and saving as a tiff in 16 bit to do final editing. Than when I am ready to print, save to 8 bit. I don't take the number of exposures that some of you do > I still try to make every one count. Thanks, Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.