Improvements in Image Processing SW

kellycat · 07-23-2010, 01:49 PM

I noted a very nice review of Lightroom 3 on dpreview.com today which seemed to echo a theme that I have been interested in for some time. The theme which interested me was in reference to the evolution of image processing software and the improved ability it has given us to come closer to actually presenting "the image we saw" when we snapped the shutter as opposed the image we seem to have gotten. While cameras and sensors have improved considerably in the last decade the majority of the improvement we have actually benefited most from has been in the realm of software.

Here is an example of what I am talking about. Fortunately, I have been preserving the these images in their raw as well as processed form for some time now. Original was captured on 10D in CRW format in September of 2003.

Processed in 2003 with PS8:

Processed in 2010 with CS5:

jcjacob · 07-23-2010, 01:58 PM

I agree with you about the advances in the software. Back in 2003, anyone looking at that photo would've said 'WOW', but the clarity doesn't hold a candle to what you just did with CS5.

I do some quick snapshot type photos as JPGs, but for years, anything that I wanted to keep I shoot as RAW so I have all of the unmodified, uncompressed sensor data to work with in the future.

kellycat · 07-23-2010, 04:51 PM

If forum members and Jay are willing, there are some interesting technology as well as ethical issues that might be addressed in this thread. I have been participating in the debate about what constitutes warranted/unwarranted manipulation of images since the early 1960s (it was not a new issue even then) and would like opinions and Jays concurrence as to whether this might be an interesting subject to discuss here.

By the way, here is a JPG of as close to the RAW image as I can represent here.

Ken-L · 07-24-2010, 05:03 PM

Even a "RAW" image has already been "manipulated" by the engineers that decided how the sensors would "see" and then how the camera would "interpret" what the sensor "captured".

JPEGs are even further "processed" by the camera (actually by those same engineers) to what someone at the factory thought would look good.

The closest you would come to "unprocessed" is an image taken with a totally manual film camera (and then the film emulsion was designed by someone else) and a contact print made of the negative, but the photographic paper was also engineered for a certain look.

Any film given to a machine or person for processing to a print also goes through processing. First in what chemicals get used, the mixture and time. Then when prints are made there was additional processing: someone else's notion of how that print should look.

In those "old days" those of us that did not want to do our own darkroom work could send Professional Film to a professional lab, or we shot slide film which at least was only "developed" so we got what we intended.

Digital imaging takes all of this out of the stone-age of photography. Now we take an image that doesn't blow the highlights or shadows, has what we want in focus, and is composed the way we want. The rest is in the "post-processing". Just as it used to be done in a darkroom.

Nikon's settings are very conservative, and I make them even more so. The rest I do after I download the images to my computer.

kellycat · 07-24-2010, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken-L

Even a "RAW" image has already been "manipulated" by the engineers that decided how the sensors would "see" and then how the camera would "interpret" what the sensor "captured".

JPEGs are even further "processed" by the camera (actually by those same engineers) to what someone at the factory thought would look good.

The closest you would come to "unprocessed" is an image taken with a totally manual film camera (and then the film emulsion was designed by someone else) and a contact print made of the negative, but the photographic paper was also engineered for a certain look.

Any film given to a machine or person for processing to a print also goes through processing. First in what chemicals get used, the mixture and time. Then when prints are made there was additional processing: someone else's notion of how that print should look.

In those "old days" those of us that did not want to do our own darkroom work could send Professional Film to a professional lab, or we shot slide film which at least was only "developed" so we got what we intended.

Digital imaging takes all of this out of the stone-age of photography. Now we take an image that doesn't blow the highlights or shadows, has what we want in focus, and is composed the way we want. The rest is in the "post-processing". Just as it used to be done in a darkroom.

Nikon's settings are very conservative, and I make them even more so. The rest I do after I download the images to my computer.

Exactly, the point Ken, all images are manipulated it is only a manner of degree. When does "manipulation" become unacceptable and to whom? There are a lot "Photo-police" out there who know almost nothing about imaging trying to tell others what is acceptable. There are some good cases to be made for some standards, but who sets those standard and for what ends seems to be the real issue. Photographers traditionally end up as the scapegoats, as in the recent BP case, but for what crime or indiscretion?

By the way, Nikon's settings are not that conservative, particularly when it come to noise reduction. My tests with a D3 and D700 in 2008 pretty much confirm that, but I am a big fan of what they are doing with regard to noise and it is a good selling point.

Ken-L · 07-24-2010, 06:44 PM

Considering how many of the earth's human population are still practicing all forms of superstitious rituals routinely, it is no wonder how many believe that if it is not "right-out-of-the-camera" it is wrong.

kellycat · 07-24-2010, 06:56 PM

I guess we should be happy that this issue isn't worse with all those superstitious folks out there. Given the right out of the camera point you made, I wonder what they would do if they were aware of the fact that today's digital cameras are really computers? More likely, they would probably would not even be aware of computers.

jcjacob · 07-24-2010, 08:36 PM

Human nature. People have to have something to complain about. And the less those people know, the longer and louder they try to make their point.

07-23-2010, 01:49 PM	#1
kellycat Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Denver Posts: 23	Improvements in Image Processing SW I noted a very nice review of Lightroom 3 on dpreview.com today which seemed to echo a theme that I have been interested in for some time. The theme which interested me was in reference to the evolution of image processing software and the improved ability it has given us to come closer to actually presenting "the image we saw" when we snapped the shutter as opposed the image we seem to have gotten. While cameras and sensors have improved considerably in the last decade the majority of the improvement we have actually benefited most from has been in the realm of software. Here is an example of what I am talking about. Fortunately, I have been preserving the these images in their raw as well as processed form for some time now. Original was captured on 10D in CRW format in September of 2003. Processed in 2003 with PS8: Processed in 2010 with CS5: __________________ Members don't see ads in threads. Register your free account today and become a member on Tech Today Online, gaining access to posting privileges, contests, free plug-ins and other downloads, unlimited online storage for your photographs, reviews, free marketplace listings, and much more. __________________ Kellycat

07-23-2010, 01:58 PM	#2
jcjacob Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Doylestown, PA Posts: 159	I agree with you about the advances in the software. Back in 2003, anyone looking at that photo would've said 'WOW', but the clarity doesn't hold a candle to what you just did with CS5. I do some quick snapshot type photos as JPGs, but for years, anything that I wanted to keep I shoot as RAW so I have all of the unmodified, uncompressed sensor data to work with in the future. __________________ -John

07-23-2010, 04:51 PM	#3
kellycat Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Denver Posts: 23	If forum members and Jay are willing, there are some interesting technology as well as ethical issues that might be addressed in this thread. I have been participating in the debate about what constitutes warranted/unwarranted manipulation of images since the early 1960s (it was not a new issue even then) and would like opinions and Jays concurrence as to whether this might be an interesting subject to discuss here. By the way, here is a JPG of as close to the RAW image as I can represent here. __________________ Kellycat

07-24-2010, 05:03 PM	#4
Ken-L Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 150	Even a "RAW" image has already been "manipulated" by the engineers that decided how the sensors would "see" and then how the camera would "interpret" what the sensor "captured". JPEGs are even further "processed" by the camera (actually by those same engineers) to what someone at the factory thought would look good. The closest you would come to "unprocessed" is an image taken with a totally manual film camera (and then the film emulsion was designed by someone else) and a contact print made of the negative, but the photographic paper was also engineered for a certain look. Any film given to a machine or person for processing to a print also goes through processing. First in what chemicals get used, the mixture and time. Then when prints are made there was additional processing: someone else's notion of how that print should look. In those "old days" those of us that did not want to do our own darkroom work could send Professional Film to a professional lab, or we shot slide film which at least was only "developed" so we got what we intended. Digital imaging takes all of this out of the stone-age of photography. Now we take an image that doesn't blow the highlights or shadows, has what we want in focus, and is composed the way we want. The rest is in the "post-processing". Just as it used to be done in a darkroom. Nikon's settings are very conservative, and I make them even more so. The rest I do after I download the images to my computer. __________________ "An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way." - Bukowski

07-24-2010, 06:44 PM	#6
Ken-L Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 150	Considering how many of the earth's human population are still practicing all forms of superstitious rituals routinely, it is no wonder how many believe that if it is not "right-out-of-the-camera" it is wrong. __________________ "An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way." - Bukowski

07-24-2010, 06:56 PM	#7
kellycat Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Denver Posts: 23	I guess we should be happy that this issue isn't worse with all those superstitious folks out there. Given the right out of the camera point you made, I wonder what they would do if they were aware of the fact that today's digital cameras are really computers? More likely, they would probably would not even be aware of computers. __________________ Kellycat

07-24-2010, 08:36 PM	#8
jcjacob Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Doylestown, PA Posts: 159	Human nature. People have to have something to complain about. And the less those people know, the longer and louder they try to make their point. __________________ -John

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode