I write metadata into the sidecar files using the dt metadata tool, and
I am only starting to get into the complexities of managing this if
using several pieces of software to access images. My normal workflow is
to process the raw images, including the addition of metadata. In order
to actuall
Am 07.06.2013 22:31, schrieb johannes hanika:
>
>
> 2) pixels that are driven above L=100 in darktable, e.g. in the
> basecurve module. There is no convenient method ATM to bring them
> back into reasonable values. Shadows&Highlights would be a good
> candidate. But the current imp
One alternate to the base curve is to turn it off entirely and create your own
presets using the tone curve. Or craete your own base curve preset. I process
most of my stuff to black and white but find the tone curve typically a more
useful and versatile tool for both B&W and color.
-L
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Ulrich Pegelow
wrote:
> Am 07.06.2013 12:57, schrieb johannes hanika:
>
> my 2ct:
>>
>> - underexposure + digital exposure correction is terrible wrt noise
>>
>> - i think our highlight reconstruction (this is about hardware clipped
>> pixels in the input) has some
i just used it on clouds, i mixed red into gray to get b/w detail in the
clouds back. conditional blending ftw :)
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:08 AM, David Vincent-Jones wrote:
> It doesn't work on blown clouds of course ... it turns the clouds blue,
> which is not exactly what one would want but if
It doesn't work on blown clouds of course ... it turns the clouds blue,
which is not exactly what one would want but if it is a bare sky that is
blown it works fairly well.
David
On 13-06-07 12:22 PM, johannes hanika wrote:
> wow, that is a surprisingly cool trick, works really well. thanks for
Am 07.06.2013 12:57, schrieb johannes hanika:
> my 2ct:
>
> - underexposure + digital exposure correction is terrible wrt noise
>
> - i think our highlight reconstruction (this is about hardware clipped
> pixels in the input) has some problems currently, if i find some time i
> want to fix this.
>
wow, that is a surprisingly cool trick, works really well. thanks for the
hint (i'm still going to fix the highlights module..).
-jo
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 4:06 AM, David Vincent-Jones wrote:
> I am noticing that with some blown sky situations if I use a parametric
> mask on the magenta area an
I am noticing that with some blown sky situations if I use a parametric
mask on the magenta area and then use the channel mixer to drop the red
value to that of the green value, some level of the blue sky can often
be recovered.
David
On 13-06-07 08:22 AM, Rob Z. Smith wrote:
> OK, let me subs
| I haven't worked on a blown colour casted highlight reconstruction
| recently, but it strikes me that we can perhaps deal with such colour
| casts more easily in dt than any of the other raw converters. Let's
| say our reconstruction causes a typical magenta colour cast in the
| reconstructed ar
That spoils all the fun :-)
... and sometimes the results as well.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Siebenmann [mailto:c...@cs.toronto.edu]
'let the camera metering do what it wants' approach
The content of this email is private and confidential, and unless otherwise
stated only the int
OK, let me substitute 'not quite white' instead of grey.
Imagine what is probably the most frequent use case of blown out areas in
clouds. Rather than losing all detail my thoughts are that it might be best to
do something like map (255,255,255) to white but say (255,254,243) to some
averaged
| Surely the best thing to do is to just shoot normally, expose properly
| and, if the Nikon base curve is excessively boosting highlights, use a
| different curve. I certainly wouldn't want to go around underexposing
| my shots just to suit a particular raw development tool whether this
| is dt o
| my 2ct:
|
| - underexposure + digital exposure correction is terrible wrt noise
This is apparently potentially camera dependent. Some recent cameras
have had noise profiles such that *for noise* it didn't matter what
ISO you shot at; underexposure and then bringing the exposure up in
post-proc
| On 13-06-06 10:14 AM, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
| > I would be happy to see a highlights reconstruction option for 'if
| > any channel is clipped, set the pixel to white'. I might even turn
| > it on all the time.
[...]
|
| It might be nicer if such an option set the pixel to grey rather
my 2ct:
- underexposure + digital exposure correction is terrible wrt noise
- i think our highlight reconstruction (this is about hardware clipped
pixels in the input) has some problems currently, if i find some time i
want to fix this.
j.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Rob Z. Smith wrote:
Surely the best thing to do is to just shoot normally, expose properly and, if
the Nikon base curve is excessively boosting highlights, use a different curve.
I certainly wouldn't want to go around underexposing my shots just to suit a
particular raw development tool whether this is dt or not.
Johannes,
Here's a readable backtrace and debug-all output of the crash, maybe
that gives you an idea -- in case you're still interested in
understanding the mystery that is :)
http://www.hajo.net/pub/Various/temporary/dt-1.2.1-crash-logs.tar.gz
Greetings,
Hajo
PS: Apologies -- if I remembered
It might be nicer if such an option set the pixel to grey rather than white
using the values of the remaining unblown channels to take a best guess at how
near to full white that grey should be.
-Original Message-
From: David Vincent-Jones [mailto:davi...@frontier.com]
Sent: 06 June 2013
please look into the wiki (and my previous mail about lua) on how to do
> it you can also ask me any questions on lua, either here or on IRC
>>
>
> I think the first step for me would be to learn yet another language. ;)
> Anyway, I think it's an interesting option. I've some ideas here, but
20 matches
Mail list logo
