Go Back   RetouchPRO > Technique > Photo Retouching
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Photo Retouching "Improving" photos, post-production, correction, etc.

Loss in detail TIFF vs RAW???

Thread Tools
Old 11-04-2013, 10:06 AM
skoobey skoobey is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,376
Smile Re: Loss in detail TIFF vs RAW???

It is true, and I did find it be a steep curve to conquer, yet now that I understand what I am doing, I find it to be really "analogue", which I like. As someone who never dealt with film, and gone digital first, now I understand both.

Imagine, how tough it would be form someone like me to enjoy film processing, if Photoshop were a completely linear experience.

I think it will get more "to the point" with cc, but that might me unfortunate for people who use it in other fields (science etc.).

As for wast color spaces... well I do understand that when someone tells me: this is going to be printed on Epson bla bla, here's the color space you should use, but for everything else, I found Adobe RGB and LAV to be most predicable.
Reply With Quote top
Old 11-04-2013, 01:48 PM
klev klev is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,109
Re: Loss in detail TIFF vs RAW???

Originally Posted by skoobey View Post

Imagine, how tough it would be form someone like me to enjoy film processing, if Photoshop were a completely linear experience.
This has nothing to do with anything. We get hung up on qualities of film that were inherent to the medium. Trying to achieve the same look is a highly inductive process, as creative processes are, but the role of a piece of software is to impart control, nothing more. Tools are generally meant to be predictable. You would find that most photographers chose films and +1 +2 -1 -2 etc. processing based on past results. Beside that it would likely be easier to create a series of LUTs with a linear lookup assigned to sets of data. With ICC profiles the data bounds are drawn quite early, and large gamuts do not work due to the way things are quantized. Gamma encoding in general is just a way of dealing with a limited dynamics range. Your suggestion doesn't help pull more of a film look from your digital camera files. If anything it's more restrictive.

Regarding Epson, it's not really a guarantee that it will only be reproduced in one place. Predictable results that do not cause unintended temperature fluctuation within certain subsets of colors and subtle bugs due to uneven value distribution is a good thing. whenever the topic comes up though someone always misdirects to the topic of non-linear human vision and color perception variations due to age, color blindness, etc, yet it has minimal impact on making predictable calculations. I look at a lot of software and just see the many hacks that remain for legacy reasons, even if they have started to update certain algorithms. Here's an example. Brightness/contrast changed with CS5. Unsharp masking still uses an inverted gaussian distribution. I'm curious how something like a lanczos filter lookup would work on de-mosaiced raster data.

Last edited by klev; 11-04-2013 at 01:53 PM.
Reply With Quote top

  RetouchPRO > Technique > Photo Retouching

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Plug-In: Camera Raw 5.7 vickatter Software 3 12-08-2013 06:46 AM
Editing RAW Portraits in Lr and Ps sajan250 Photo Retouching 3 12-25-2012 10:41 AM
Non-destructive workflow and double raw conversion ronfya Photo Retouching 16 09-25-2012 10:23 AM
Using Raw formats rayi23 Input/Output/Workflow 7 04-30-2011 11:13 PM
Please help - RAW desaturating and altering hue ysbryd Input/Output/Workflow 4 04-07-2011 09:11 AM

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved