• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About smadell

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,326 profile views
  1. Use “Export” from the menu at top left. Set the size by touching either of the size circles. Then, click the Share button lower left and Save Image into your iPad Photos library. 2301F9F8-FE8B-482B-B54B-2606C7CCBD40.MOV
  2. Hope you can get things to work, Stuart.
  3. In iCab, say “yes” to downloading the file. Then, click on the icon shaped like a circle with the downward-pointing arrow. This opens a list of downloaded files. Click on the movie file and choose Display File from the menu.
  4. Try this...
  5. Hi, Stuart... This is from the xRite Color Munki site:
  6. So, I was tinkering around with DxO some more. I wanted to figure out why it seemed to be adding something to my "no correction" preset. It turns out that DxO will, by default, render the colors according to the camera's default. I'm not even entirely sure what that means! But, if I open the RAW file with no corrections (no geometry corrections, no color or tonal changes, nothing....) but then change the panel labelled "Color Rendering" to a Generic Setting called "Neutral Color, Realistic Tonality (gamma 2.2)" I get an image that is more-or-less in line with the un-corrected images from Affinity and RPP. I believe this is the way to go (for me, at least - and zfor now). This seems to give me a flat image to start with, and gets all my highlights, shadows, and midtones squeezed down into a usable histogram - it seems to avoid the clipping problems that were evident in the setting I had been using previously. Once I get my histogram properly placed and my white balance corrected, most of the other work can be done in the Photo Persona of Affinity Photo.
  7. Truth be told, your JPG file probably has about the same "dynamic range" as your RAW file. (Not entirely, but the process makes this somewhat a moot point.) The difference is that the changes you make to a RAW file offer you tons more flexibility and "latitude" than those same changes made to a JPG file. This will be especially noticeable in shadow detail. If you let your camera create a JPG and then try to fiddle with the shadows, you will end up muddying up the detail and getting posterized levels of grey. If you take a RAW file and do the same thing, and only then develop it to a JPG, the result will be much smoother and cleaner. Sure, everything ends up as a JPG file. But it really does matter what format you're in when you do the "fiddling." My advice? Take it on faith for a little while. Shoot RAW and, at the very least, set your (i) white balance; (ii) exposure; and (iii) shadows and highlights BEFORE you hit the "Develop" button. Meanwhile, read up as much as you can on the benefits gained by utilizing RAW formats. In my mind, the benefits of RAW have less to do with dynamic range (which is really a camera thing, not a software thing) but a lot more to do with the amount of data available within that dynamic range and how extensively you can change things without screwing up your photos.
  8. OK, guys. Now I'm really confused. I have 4 different Raw processors on my drive. I opened the same .ORF file in Raw Photo Processor (RPP), Iridient Developer, DxO PhotoLab, and Affinity Photo (but only with the Serif Engine, since I am using El Capitan which - I assume - will not handle this particular RAW file through the Apple engine). I got interesting results. In summary, the Affinity Photo (Serif Engine) and RPP results are basically the same; the results from DxO and Iridient are the same, but very different from the first two. Here is the Affinity Photo version: Here is the Raw Photo Processor version: Here is the DxO PhotoLab version: Here is the Iridient Developer version: All of these screenshots were taken with the Raw developers set (as close as I could tell) to open the files with no default processing. Obviously, there are at least 2 different methodologies going on here. What"s the explanation? I have no clue.
  9. R C-R... DxO applies a standard preset by default. But this can be changed. And it is possible to remove ALL corrections. When all correction is removed both in Affinity and in DxO, the differences are still quite profound.
  10. So, Gregory... I downloaded your raw file and opened it in both DxO Photo Lab and in Affinity Photo. I've got to admit - you're right. The Affinity version is darker, and flatter. I don't know why. Truth be told, I always use DxO to develop my Raw files, and I find the raw processor in Affinity Photo not as much to my liking. Maybe it is a user interface issue only, but I find DxO easier to use and easier to get good results from. Maybe you have given me confirmation of my underlying suspicions! Anyway, I remain a very strong believer in Affinity Photo. But, I play to its strengths and try to avoid its weaknesses. To me, Affinity's Develop Persona is not one of its strengths. From your screenshots, it seems that you already own a copy of DxO. Why not use that? That's been my choice for a few years, and I still stand by it.
  11. Gregory... Check your Preferences in DxO. The screen shot you posted shows a LOT of saturation, contrast, etc. It seems unlikely that ANY Raw file would be that nicely developed without any processing. Quite frankly, most Raw files, when completely unprocessed, look a lot more like your Affinity screenshot. DxO applies some settings whenever it opens a file. The default choice is set to a DxO Preset with some default processing; you need to go out of your way to change this to “no processing.” Is this really what you’ve got? Your DxO screenshot suggests otherwise.
  12. Hey, Stuart444... As far as the monitor calibration goes, I have a couple of additional suggestions: 1) Try using displayCAL instead of the ColorMunki software. You can still use the hardware (the colorimeter) but the software (free!) is more complete. It’s really a visit to Valley of the Nerds, but try to wade through it. It’s worth trying. 2) In addition to color calibration, choose a White Point. Most monitors are too blue, and throw your other colors off. I set mine to 5000K, so that it’s optimized for daylight viewing. This is also a good white point when you’ll be doing a bunch of prints. 3) Lower the brightness of your monitor. I have mine set to 100 candelas. This is a good way to keep your prints from looking “too dark,” (which really means that your monitor is too bright). 4) Keep the gamma at 2.2.
  13. I don't mean to be condescending at all, but you're missing the point of "shooting RAW." Let's assume for a moment that the end result of your editing will always be a JPG file. In truth, it could be a TIFF file, a PSD or afphoto file, etc. But it can't end up being a RAW file (as an end result, that is) because, as R C-R said, a RAW file is not really an image - it's just data. Consider this: every digital camera, since the first day there WERE digital cameras, shoots every image it takes as a RAW file. This is just a way of saying that the camera produces "raw" data, in the form of RGB triplets for each of its pixels. Also, consider that somewhere along the way, that image always becomes (let's say) a JPG file, which you print, email, post online, etc. The only difference - The ONLY Difference - is where in the whole process the file becomes a JPG. If you "shoot RAW," then you are copying a file containing "raw" sensor data onto your hard drive. You then access that data with editing software and, through a series of adjustments, filters, and such, you produce an image. You save that to disk as a JPG file. It is now (and ONLY now) a usable image file. If you "shoot JPG," then you are letting your camera do the work that you and your software would be doing otherwise. You are telling your camera to demosaic the image, convert it to 8-bit format, choose and apply a white balance and exposure, and to make a whole bunch of other decisions before you ever get the file out of the camera. The reason that "RAW gives you more latitude" is because it lets YOU choose the white balance, exposure, etc. rather than let your camera do it for you. But the end result is always going to be something other than a RAW file - only a JPG (or TIF, or PSD, or .afphoto) is a usable, printable, viewable image. To ask whether you are losing the 10+ stops of shadows and highlights when you use one piece of software or another is, perhaps, the wrong way to think of the question. At some point (when the file is finally converted to a JPG) you will lose the ability to edit those 10+ stops of dynamic range. The right question to ask is: at what point am I willing to lose those 10 stops of range? If you shoot in JPG, then that range is lost before the file gets out of your camera. If you shoot in RAW, then the full dynamic range of your camera is present in the file you are editing. You have latitude throughout the editing process. Only - really, ONLY - when you save the file to another format, which you MUST eventually do, do you commit that file to a narrower dynamic range. So, the question about shooting RAW is simply: do you want to make the decisions, or do you want your camera to make them for you? There are benefits to be had in both approaches. But, for all but the most casual of snapshots, shooting RAW preserves your choices as long as possible, and lets you control those choices.
  14. SF Charter Boat... In order to use a RAW file in any software application, that Raw file has to be "developed." A piece of software that develops Raw files is called, conveniently, a Raw Developer. The process of developing a Raw file involves (i) opening the file; (ii) applying some math to it (demosaicing, etc.); (iii) and choosing certain parameters such as exposure, white balance, and so forth. The result of developing a Raw file is something other than a Raw file - it could be a jpg, a tiff, or some proprietary format (like PSD from Photoshop or afphoto from Affinity Photo). But the process is the same! You open a Raw file, turn it into an editable image, and save it in another format as a second file. Every Raw developer out there does this. Perhaps what you are used to is seeing your original RAW file with a sidecar file next to it, said sidecar containing information about the edits made by the Raw developer. Affinity Photo doesn't create sidecar files (yet). But, like EVERY Raw Developer available, the Raw file does not itself get changed; the changes occur with the process of development. And, yes, when Affinity Photo opens your Raw file, the same information is available to Affinity Photo that would be available to Aperture (or to Adobe Camera Raw, or to DxO Photo Lab, etc. etc.) The manner in which development progresses (which is largely dictated by the application's User Interface) may be different, but the Raw file which opens in these applications is the same and the same information presents itself to each of those Raw Developers. Affinity Photo contains a Develop persona, which is specifically designed to serve as a Raw developer. When you commit your changes, you then enter the Photo persona. This is where the more traditional layers, adjustments, and filters are used. But the Raw Developer in Affinity Photo is essentially the same (in terms of the information available to the program, and the steps taken in development) as it is in other pieces of software. And, when you are finished editing, you can Save As... in .afphoto format, or Export... to a format like jpg, tif, psd, and others. Affinity Photo is NOT a Digital Asset Manager, and does not serve as a catalog or library. It does not yet save sidecar files, so you can't yet go back to your Raw file, re-open it, and edit the development steps you made previously. You cannot yet apply changes to multiple images at once. But, as a Raw Developer, it avails itself of all the information your Raw file offers, just as other applications do.
  15. Converting and Assigning color profiles are definitely different animals. An image’s colors are defined by numerical triplets (assuming you use an RGB model) with values for Red, Green, and Blue. If you open an image, all the pixels have an RGB triplet assigned. The color profile (sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto) is what defines the actual color that the triplet displays. If you open an image in one profile and then Convert it to a different profile, the software will attempt to match the color. Doing this will change the values of the triplets so that the colors match as nicely as possible. If you open that same image and choose Assign color profile, the software will assume that the numerical triplet values are correct and will change the colors you see so that they correspond to the gamut of the new assigned profile. I ran into this issue recently. For some reason, a photo that I know was created in sRGB was opened in Affinity. For reasons unknown, the image had no color profile attached to the file. Affinity was set up to use the ProPhoto color profile if no other profile was available, and this resulted in the sRGB file getting remapped to the much wider gamut of ProPhoto. The image was super-saturated. The fix was to choose Aaaign Color Profile... and reset the image to sRGB. That cured the oversaturation problem.