Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: mtnbkr on April 17, 2009, 11:01:31 AM
-
Ok, now that I have a DSLR, I need to give more consideration to a "digital darkroom". I never bothered with my previous digital cameras because that were all P&S "digitoys", but the D40 might make it worth the effort.
Currently, I've left the WB untouched until I see how the camera handles various situations (though by experimenting with it last night, I can see where I might need to change it for certain shots). I did adjust the exposure compensation to underexpose by .7 on the recommendation of Ken Rockwell. Apparently, and I saw this for myself, the D40 tends to overexpose because it sets exposure by the darkest item in the scene. I tried -.3 compensation, but that wasn't quite enough. So far, the pics are pretty close exposure-wise, but I need to shoot more to make a final determination. I had to make similar adjustments on my N80 to get the sort of exposures I wanted.
So, how much post exposure processing do you do? What tools do you use? Do you shoot RAW or just a high quality JPG (or both as I'm doing right now)?
I'm not keen on the idea of spending a lot of time tweaking each and every image. I'd prefer to get the average image right in camera and use computerized processing to tweak special or critical images.
Chris
-
IMHO, Apple Aperture is the best toolset for imaging & project metadata management
Adobe Lightroom is another option that will run under M$ control
-
I use the full version of Adobe Photoshop for editing and Adobe Bridge for organizing and previewing. For the cameras I have that are raw capable I shoot everything in raw mode. Back on the PC I convert the raw files to Adobe DNG, archive both in seperate folders, and only keyword and work off the DNG files. I use Adobe Camera Raw to convert the DNG's to editable files for Photoshop.
The big advantages of using the raw mode is the ability to recover blown highlights, pull detail out of the shadows, and adjust the white balance after the fact. The sensors will clip the highlights easily like slide film, but are able to capture shadow detail better than almost any film you can buy. One of the reasons Ken Rockwell, and a lot of others, suggest dialing in some amount of underexposure is to reduce the frequency of which you clip the highlights. If you haven't clipped the highlights that badly you can usually recover them while bringing up the exposure on the rest of the image in the raw converter software.
It's been my experience that most well exposed digital images need little in the way of post processing to get a presentable picture. Modern white balance systems usually get close enough to true that often only a little adjustment is needed. In the vast majority of cases I find that I only need to tweak the white balance a bit in Camera Raw, and then in Photoshop I usually need to apply a little levels and/or curves adjustment to get the image where I want it. Prior to using digital cameras I used to work with scanned film. I'm probably spending 5-10% of the time I used to spend working with scanned film in post because I don't need to spot out dust specks and scratches or bring whacked out color casts back in line because the color temperature of the scene was so far off what the film was designed for.
If you don't want to drop the coin for Photoshop go check out Photoshop Elements. It has most everything you would need for processing snapshots and such and also works with Camera Raw. If you're looking to make your own prints than I would recommend getting a decent for calibrating and profiling your monitor. Doing that helps get what you see on your screen to more closely match what will come out of your printer. If you're going to have labs make your prints or just process stuff for email and web pages you can probably get by without calibrating the monitor.
-
Good info, thanks.
What about using Gimp?
I'll do the vast majority of my printing at other places. Penn Camera, where I got my camera, gave me a year's worth of free prints (10 4x6, 3 5x7, 1 8x10, and a photo CD each month), so I'll probably go with them for the time being. My printer does a decent job, but I'm not sure how much calibration flexibility I'll have with my laptop.
Chris
-
I've never used GIMP, so I really cannot comment on it. If you're talking about GIMP under Linux there is currently no color management for Linux like there is for Windows or Mac, so if you go the display calibration route things will get complicated. GIMP under Windows might not have the same problem, but again I don't really know if GIMP for Windows will plug into Windows color management. If you're going to use raw files with the GIMP then how you do so will depend on the OS you're running. If Windows you can download Adobe's DNG Converter. This is a standalone program that will batch convert your raw files to DNG, and GIMP will work with DNG. If you're talking about GIMP under Linux you will have to search around for other tools. They're out there.
The calibration process isn't all that dependent on what external controls you have on the screen. It uses the OS color management system and driver software to adjust the default color balance and gamma settings. A basic calibration kit will include a device that sets a light sensor agains the screen and software that performs the calibation process. Colorvision's Spyder is a popular example of this:
http://spyder.datacolor.com/ (http://spyder.datacolor.com/)
But like I said, if you don't plan on printing your own very often you can skip this part. With as cheaply as you can get lab made 4x6's and 5x7's done through online outfits it's not worth printing anything smaller than 8x10 unless you need it right away. Also, as you work with your computer and printer you'll start to get feel for how what you see on the screen will print out. If you ever decide to start making inkjet prints from 11x17 or larger you will defintely want calibrate the display so you're not wasting paper and ink.
-
Photoshop Elements here. Pretty slick, plenty good for everyday use, and very user friendly. Came with the camera.
However... CALIBRATE YOUR MONITOR FIRST!!!
Before hauling off and doing anything with software or trying to compensate in-camera make sure your monitor is displaying accurately. When I first went digital I also though I was having exposure problems. Turns out the camera was doing a fine job, it was my monitor that was improperly calibrated.
Brad
-
I'll check out Elements as well.
My first few photos looked overexposed in the camera's LCD. When a beige wall, illuminated by a warm light, shows up bright white on the camera's display, it's probably overexposed.
Chris
-
Not necessarily. I bet the camera has a brightness setting for the display. That may be out of whack.
It could also be the metering. Are you set for spot or evaluative? Spot metering can cause highlights to be blown out if the subject is relatively dark. It's especially bad on bright sunny days if the subject happens to be in a bit of a shadow.
Check the in-camera histogram for exposure uniformity. If that checks out, download the pics to the computer and see how they appear on-screen. Check those first and see what's going on with the image before you begin messing with compensation settings.
Brad
-
Display brightness was turned down to the lowest level.
I didn't download those pics, but I did download the ones of my daughter. With exposure compensation set to -.7, the pics were fine on the laptop screen and camera LCD.
It's been my experience that Nikon cameras using matrix metering tend to overexpose a tad for my tastes. This corresponds with Ken Rockwell's reporting on this regarding the D40.
Anyway, I need to get a few more pics tonight. I didn't have much time to mess around with it yesterday.
Chris
-
Yes, learn how to read and use the histogram. That will tell you much more about your exposure than anything you see on any screen.
-
Display brightness was turned down to the lowest level.
Unfortunately, lots of monitors these days don't let us adjust brightness and contrast separately.
go_bang, you sound like a professional.
-
Unfortunately, lots of monitors these days don't let us adjust brightness and contrast separately.
go_bang, you sound like a professional.
My monitor settings are calibrated using Spyder Express 2.2
It is a program and piece of hardware that checks your monitor output and adjusts it to true color.
Getting your printer synced up is another whole different story...
-
Unfortunately, lots of monitors these days don't let us adjust brightness and contrast separately.
Actually, I was referring to the LCD on the back of the camera.
Anyway, there isn't much adjustment I can do to my laptop. Using one of those web based color wheel adjustment tools, my screen is pretty close to where it should be (according to those pages). I took a bunch of pictures yesterday and what I saw on my laptop matched what I was seeing while taking the pictures
I pulled up the RGB Histogram for various shots, but I have no clue how to read them, even after reading an article on the subject. I understand what they're showing, but I can't determine if one channel is too high or low just by the histogram.
Chris
-
Ok, these pics looked perfect on the screen, but are a bit dark when printed (about one stop). I frequently have this problem from a variety of sources (other digital cameras, scanned prints, etc), so I think it's the printer, but I wanted to get more opinions. Check them out and let me know how they look exposure-wise on your computers. I've made no adjustments to the pictures either during or post exposure. White balance was set to Auto, exposure compensation was -.7. ISO should be 200 on all three.
The JPG files are the "Large, Basic" JPGs captured when using "RAW+JPG".
They're full size, so I'm not going to "inline" them into the thread. Dialup users would hate me. :)
Amtrak Commuter train at 6:30pm: http://mysite.verizon.net/allencb/DSC_0004.JPG
Cherry blossoms in our front yard at 6:45pm: http://mysite.verizon.net/allencb/DSC_0007.JPG
Abby with an attitude (pic taken in medium shade a minute or two before the Cherry Blossom pic): http://mysite.verizon.net/allencb/DSC_0009.JPG
THanks,
Chris
-
They look about a half-stop dark on my monitor.
LCD displays are notirious for causing images to appear "hot". Even though you don't have a lot of user-level control over the settings some of the monitor calibration tools do it at the display card.
Brad
-
Ok. Half a stop isn't much. I did take some more test pictures with different exposure compensation settings and sent them to walmart to see how they print there.
Chris
-
Don't be surprised if they come backing looking ok. Most digital printing services will have some kind of auto-exposure correction built in. I've had several shots that I had intended to be light/dark but came out looking normal when printed commercially.
Walmart seems to do an ok job. I've had more consistent luck with Walgreens, though.
Brad
-
Yeah, the prints came out fine. The techs at WM don't make any adjustments, but I forgot about the auto exposure in the printing machine. I'll take a couple to Penn Camera, I imagine they can print the file exactly as delivered.
We don't have any Walgreens around here that I'm aware of.
Chris
-
Epiphany time.
It occurred to me as I read the umpteenth article on screen and printer calibration that I'm wasting my time. Except for the odd print here and there, I am not going to be printing at home. I can upload to Walmart and have Fuji Crystal prints in an hour for $0.18 each (cheaper than I can print at home). I can do something similar with Penn Camera (my local camera shop). The pics I take and view on my camera's LCD look the same on my laptop LCD, which look the same as printed at WM. I need to get an honest, uncorrected print so I can get a better idea of what my camera is actually doing, but the results so far are pleasing. I do need to remember to change WB settings for a given scene. "Auto WB" doesn't quite cut it based on my limited experimentation (tends to be too "cool").
Chris
-
One consideration: Will that camera shoot in RAW format? I dismember what Nikon calls it. Makes for bloody huge images, but when I was using Nikon Capture to grab and catalog them, I could go up/down two stops with very little weirdness.
If you can shoot in RAW, do it. Don't compress a damn thing any more than you have to. That way, when you ask me to blow something up to 24x36 (or larger...), you won't be disappointed.
bogie@meramecdigital.com
-
My wife just got a free DL of Corel, I was very impressed. Sure, it's not Adobe, but it was very good software.
-
One consideration: Will that camera shoot in RAW format? I dismember what Nikon calls it. Makes for bloody huge images, but when I was using Nikon Capture to grab and catalog them, I could go up/down two stops with very little weirdness.
If you can shoot in RAW, do it. Don't compress a damn thing any more than you have to. That way, when you ask me to blow something up to 24x36 (or larger...), you won't be disappointed.
bogie@meramecdigital.com
It does shoot RAW (NEF in Nikon terminology). It'll even do RAW+JPG Basic, which is what I'm currently doing. The images linked above are the "Basic JPG" files it creates. I'll probably stick with RAW+JPG until I determine how much, if any, post exposure manipulation I'll be doing. With a 4gig card, space isn't exactly at a premium yet (I can get 477 shots at RAW+JPG).
Chris
-
I kind of figured display calibration wouldn't be worth your time, given the reason you bought the camera.
Here's how to read a histogram in simple terms:
Think of the histogram as a chart. The horizontal access represents exposure. The far left is zero, for compete black, and the far right is 255, for complete white. The vertical axis represents pixel count. The higher the line at a given horizontal value, the more pixels in the image have an exposure rating at that value. For a black and white image you only have one histogram. For color images your actually have four. One for red, one for green, one for blue, and one that is a mashup of all three. If your camera or image software only shows you one histogram for a color image then it's the last one I mentioned.
So, what does it all mean? If the vertical lines on your histogram slope up from zero, have nice peaks and valleys, and slope back down to 255 then you probably have a well exposed image. Than means that nothing in the image has been rendered completely black, thus losing shadow detail, and nothing has been rendered completely white, thus losing highlight detail (aka blown highlights). If the veritcal lines on the histogram are bunched up at the left side of the graph then your image is under exposed. If they are bunched up at the right end, your image is over exposed. Ideally, you want the first condition I mentioned. Nothing's perfect, so you'll always be settling for a compromise.
In practice, with a DSLR you are better off under exposing and pulling the exposure up in post because DSLR sensors are extremely good at preserving shadow detail, but absolutely awful at preserving highlights (actually all image sensors stink at preserving highlights, but the big one's in DSLR stink at it less than the small ones in compact digicams). This is where raw comes into play because then you're playing with ALL the data the sensor has to offer. Anywhere from 12-14 bits per pixel. JPG data is only 8 bits per pixel. Much more data to work with in the raw file, which is why you can do what you can with them.
-
Don't be surprised if they come backing looking ok. Most digital printing services will have some kind of auto-exposure correction built in. I've had several shots that I had intended to be light/dark but came out looking normal when printed commercially.
Walmart seems to do an ok job. I've had more consistent luck with Walgreens, though.
Brad
Same experience here with York Photo Labs. I uploaded a bunch of images to their site that were straight out of my Canon S400 compact and ordered a set of prints of them. The prints can back almost drop dead perfect.
-
Go_bang, thanks for the explanation, it made a lot more sense that what I've read before.
Chris
-
+1 on under exposed vs over exposed.
I can nearly always bring back an underexposed photo in Adobe PS Elements. The photos that are blown out over exposed usually don't look right if they can be salvaged at all.
Using Elements editing in RAW gives me way more options and control than working with .jpgs
-
Ok, I'm confused again.
As my images come out of the camera, they look fine on the screen, but looking at the histogram indicates they are slightly underexposed. Allowing Irfanview to apply "auto color correction" bumps up the exposure a touch. It's not a huge adjustment, just a tweak. I sent a couple images (uncorrected, straight from camera with only NEF to JPG conversion) to Penn Camera with instructions to not adjust anything. Those images came back significantly lighter than expected.
I sent a 2nd set to both Penn and Walmart without special instructions. I have the Penn prints back and they look great, but Penn reduced the exposure a bit to get that result. Penn thinks my images are overexposed a touch.
Speaking to the guy who runs the lab at Penn, it appears there is not hard and fast "correct" method. He said I should adjust my images to get the desired result at its final step (in this case, printing at Penn). They're not equipped to match my camera, my monitor, their monitor, and their printing system like pro labs do. I don't expect this of them, I'm just trying to get my camera and computer as close as possible to what my printers (Penn and WM) will deliver so there are no surprises. It's not so important for snapshots (they're coming out as I wanted), but if I have something "special" to print, I'm probably going to want full control over the exposure, colors, etc.
Chris
-
Chris, trying to get labs line Penn and Wal-Mart to makes prints exactly the way you want them is an effort in futility. These guys are rigged for cranking our snapshots quick and cheap. Their market is the snapshooter who isn't all that picky about how the prints come out as long as they look good and presentable for friends and family.
If you want to take full control of how your prints look then you need to either work with a lab that is set up this kind of work or buy your own printer and make them yourself. If you're going to do the former then you will need to calibrate your monitor, use good quality image software, and learn about color spaces (sRGB, Adobe RGB 1998, etc). These guys may even have a link on their websites where you can download a color profile that matches their print equipment. You'll pay more for this kind of service too. If you would rather get a good printer, start with something simple. A low end HP Photosmart or Epson Stylus R-series is a good place to start.
-
but if I have something "special" to print, I'm probably going to want full control over the exposure, colors, etc.
Chris
The only way to make that happen is go get a GOOD monitor and a decent monitor calibration setup. Once you are calibrated everything should be WYSIWYG.
*EDIT TO ADD*
...and a second on everything GB said above.
Brad
-
They're actually printing my prints how I'd want them, I'm trying to get a handle on the camera/computer side of things so what I seen on screen is what they're printing without correction. The confusing part is the histogram. It says "underexposed". Irfanview, via it's "auto correction" is saying "underexposed". Penn thinks the files are "overexposed". I don't understand how that works. I thought the histogram was an absolute measurement of the light and color values.
If I adjust my digital images (in camera or on the computer) so they can be printed at Penn without correction, they're way too dark on my computer and the histogram indicates underexposure as well.
I guess my confusion is with the whole "histogram" thing. Is that actually an absolute measurement or one that can be influenced by software and local computer settings?
Chris
-
Excellent, this discussion prompted me to look further into my printer software and find where I can set it up to print using sRGB or Adobe RGB profiles.
-
There are a few factors at play here.
First, you really don't know how Penn has configured their equipment. Remember, their bread and butter is taking image files straight out of the customer's camera or memory card and printing them. Their machine is programmed to apply some kind of correction as a rule, and you probably have no way of knowing if the guy running the machine that day honored your request to print without correction or not. In short, outfits like Penn are the wrong kind to use to establish a baseline on anything. You need to find a lab that is geared towards handling a customer that takes complete control of how their image should look and only wants the lab to push PRINT on their fancy machine, but is also technically savvy enough to work with the photographer to help him get what he wants.
Second, the histogram is only one factor in how a picture is going to look. The histogram can say you have good exposure, but that might mean turning black to dark gray or bright white to light gray in order to get there. If you don't want your black to be dark gray then you'll probably have to adjust the image in a way that pulls the histogram towards the underexposed side. The histogram is just a tool that lets you know where the information is in the image. When you're making the images with the camera, you want to strive for a histogram scale that shows you that all the pixels have a good range of values because that means you're not loosing any image information. When you're printing your images, the goal is to make the image look the way you want it to look. That might mean making the picture look under or over exposed to some degree. It might even mean that you tear the histogram to utter shreds.
Third, it seems like you need to decide what your goal is here because you're pulling yourself in too many conflicting directions.
If your goal was to get good 4x6 prints via a cheap photolab, which IIRC was the original intent in buying the camera in the first place, then it sounds like you're pretty much there. Try to make sure your images are exposed properly, using the in-camera histogram as a guide to help you keep all the pixels between 0 and 255, and let Penn handle the printing.
If your goal is to learn how to take control of the process and make your prints look way YOU want them to then get a copy of Photoshop or Photoshop Elements, a good book to help you learn the concepts and how to use the program, a device to calibrate your monitor, and a decent printer.
Whatever you do, stop trying to adjust the images in-camera. That will just cause nothing but confusion. The displays in the cameras are not designed for any kind of color or exposure accuracy.
-
There are a few factors at play here.
First, you really don't know how Penn has configured their equipment. Remember, their bread and butter is taking image files straight out of the customer's camera or memory card and printing them. Their machine is programmed to apply some kind of correction as a rule, and you probably have no way of knowing if the guy running the machine that day honored your request to print without correction or not. In short, outfits like Penn are the wrong kind to use to establish a baseline on anything. You need to find a lab that is geared towards handling a customer that takes complete control of how their image should look and only wants the lab to push PRINT on their fancy machine, but is also technically savvy enough to work with the photographer to help him get what he wants.
Penn supposedly will print files exactly as delivered. They also annotate the back of the print to show what they did, if anything. I learned that today, so I don't know what's on the back of the "light" prints. I know they're not the best place to be doing this with, but they're convenient and I'm still learning what the camera does.
Second, the histogram is only one factor in how a picture is going to look. The histogram can say you have good exposure, but that might mean turning black to dark gray or bright white to light gray in order to get there. If you don't want your black to be dark gray then you'll probably have to adjust the image in a way that pulls the histogram towards the underexposed side. The histogram is just a tool that lets you know where the information is in the image. When you're making the images with the camera, you want to strive for a histogram scale that shows you that all the pixels have a good range of values because that means you're not loosing any image information. When you're printing your images, the goal is to make the image look the way you want it to look. That might mean making the picture look under or over exposed to some degree. It might even mean that you tear the histogram to utter shreds.
Ok. I think you said that before and it was lost on me.
If your goal was to get good 4x6 prints via a cheap photolab, which IIRC was the original intent in buying the camera in the first place, then it sounds like you're pretty much there.
That will be the most common use of the camera, but I do shoot some things to be printed larger to hang on the wall, etc. I want to make sure I have a complete understanding of my camera and how the image goes from "subject" to print in a digital environment.
Whatever you do, stop trying to adjust the images in-camera. That will just cause nothing but confusion. The displays in the cameras are not designed for any kind of color or exposure accuracy.
I'm not adjusting anything on the camera display, just using it for a spot check as I take pictures.
Chris
-
I second the motion for color-correction of your computer monitor.
They vary wildly from device to device, and from CRT to LCD.
Even my 42" plasma TV benefited from it.
I couldn't believe how dark my Half-Life 2 ran, until I ran the game's internal gamma correction settings.
Same for Adobe CS3 and Quark. You'd be surprised how "off" things can be. :O
-
I'm going to get a color-correction device tonight. I was getting confused by what Penn apparently sees in my image (one that's overexposed) vs what I'm seeing at home (properly exposed to slightly under) vs what Brad Johnson reported (about 1 stop under).
In all three cases, the camera settings were static and no change was made in software on the PC. File was taken from the camera and uploaded the web (for the image Brad saw) or to Penn's server (for the prints). I was under the impression Brad and Penn calibrated their gear.
Chris
-
I ran into this when I configured my Canon to record in the Adobe RGB 1998 color space
My prints from microsoft sRGB calibrated hardware looked washed out,
sometimes you have to go with "joe sixpack" settings even though there are better formats
The drycreek calibration profile network is pretty cool, you can use their data to run a calibrated job on the local Costco Noritsu
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/
Costco #204: 4725 West Ox Rd., Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: 703-332-3208
Store info: Noritsu 34-Pro, Fuji Crystal Archive Paper.
Glossy paper profile, January 17, 2009
Lustre paper profile, January 17, 2009
This printer uses our enhanced accuracy custom profiles.
Note: This lab has multiple printers. Request your profiled prints be run onthe Noritsu QSS 34-Pro.
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/color_management.htm
I used to run monthly/weekly color calibrations with screen spiders on Natty Geos layout machines
I soon discovered that overdriving a CRT to "properly calibrate" the gamma & saturations soon killed a CRT
big boy tools:
http://www.color.com/products.html
match printing an inkjet to contract a gravure print job are serious business
-
You have to learn how to think like the camera. Think of the histogram as the "evaluative metering" mode (or whatever Nikon calls it). It takes the entire photo and analyzes it for overall values. It takes whatever is most prevalent in the picture and uses that for the exposure basis.
Example:
You take a picture of Mike standing on your back porch, getting kicked in the crotch by Abby. The sun is shining brightly but Mike is in the shade, doubled over in pain. If you set the camera to properly expose the now suffering-stricken Mike the background will be blown out. Presuming the actual image is 2/3 yard and only 1/3 Mike, the camera will see the image as overexposed since the "majority" of it is way too hot (the brightly lit yard vs the subjects in shade). In that case the histogram will be skewed way over into the highlights.
For purposed shots I usually set the camera to center-weighted meter. That way I can properly expose for the subject and ignore the background. For generic snapshots I set it to evaluative. If your Nikon is like my Canon the Full Auto mode uses evaluative metering by default.
I was under the impression Brad and Penn calibrated their gear.
I've calibrated my monitor, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. I can say that, in my case, the camera histogram, Photoshop's "Does this need correcting?" functions, and my MkI eyeball all seem to see the same thing as gets printed. As to what Penn does, can't say.
Brad
-
Chris, check you PM's.
Brad
-
Replied via email.
Chris
-
Should be sitting in your In Box.
Brad
-
Got it. I'll have to wait till tonight to check it out though. My monitors here at work are much darker than the one at home (they're wearing out).
Thanks
Chris
-
Oh yeah, I got a Spyder2Express and used it last night. It turned the brightness down a hair and increased the "warmth" of the WB. Minor changes though.
Chris
-
How good is your home monitor? When I first went digital I had a generic monitor and was having fits making things look good even after I'd calibrated it multiple times. I went to a Dell Ultrasharp and the diff was amazing.
Brad
-
It's the standard LCD on a 3yo Dell Inspiron B130.
Chris
-
I'd be VERY tempted to hook up an external monitor for it and see if there's a diff in what you're seeing.
Brad
-
The only other monitor I have is an even older Dell LCD.
Chris
-
Ok, I made 9 prints today.
3 prints at Penn with no corrections at all.
1 Original
1 As supplied by Brad
1 adjusted by me
I also sent the same 3 a second time, but told Penn to adjust as they see fit.
My file and Brad's look very similar. Might is very, very slightly overexposed compared to his, but the difference is subtle (you have to have them next to each other and really look for it). The original, untouched file is slightly underexposed (this is the file linked above). My file, Brad's file, and the Penn interpretation are all very similar and what I remember seeing when I took the picture. To get my file, I took the original underexposed image and hit "auto color correction" on Irfanview. Brad did something similar with Adobe. So, it looks like taking pictures with those settings and using "auto color correction" results in a good print at Penn, even if they're a tad bright on my screen at home.
I also sent the same images to Walmart just to see what they do with them. Since I can't specify "no corrections", I expect to see a "proper" exposure, but it will be interesting to see if there's any difference between the three files and how they compare to the others.
Chris
-
Actually I all I used was the auto contrast correction (corrects for both brightness and contrast). I didn't correct for colors as they seemed to be spot-on.
Auto color correction can be a tricky thing. The software looks for a bright spot it can use to calibrate the white balance. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Depends on what the software thinks it's seeing.
Brad
-
Irfanview calls it "auto adjust colors", but it seems to only affect factors such as contrast, brightness, etc. The colors don't change at all.
Chris
-
Dan Margulis can teach a color blind man how to color correct a file
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Margulis