Colour correction of snow landscapes

Peter wrote:

I have lots of pics of snow covered mountains.

Often there is also haze which messes up the colours.

Example: http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/locarno/alps3-big.jpg
However, we all know that snow is meant to be white, so there should be an wasy way to fix up the image – the colour balance (I use Auto) at least.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Currently I remove the haze by using the adjust levels feature and then I manually and separately do the r,g,b, sliders; this is normally a lot less crude than Auto Levels. But it doesn’t do a lot to make snow "white".

I use Photoshop CS3.

It’s pretty much similar techiqnue I responsed to a gentleman named Pete (or Peter I don’t remember).

LEVEL should be the right or good tool *but* you may need tp play with the EYEDROPPER a little. Example

1. Select the WHITE eyedropper from the Level tool

2. Move the eyedropper to the white area/spot where you like it to be whitetest. Click it then the magic should happen.

3. If it’s too white, not white enough, or effect the DARKER area then select different spot, or use BLACK eyedropper to control the BLACK

Hmmm I looked at the header and it’s the Peter. I wonder how we can get Peter to learn

Joel wrote

Peter wrote:

I have lots of pics of snow covered mountains.

Often there is also haze which messes up the colours.

Example: http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/locarno/alps3-big.jpg
However, we all know that snow is meant to be white, so there should be an wasy way to fix up the image – the colour balance (I use Auto) at least.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Currently I remove the haze by using the adjust levels feature and then I manually and separately do the r,g,b, sliders; this is normally a lot less crude than Auto Levels. But it doesn’t do a lot to make snow "white".

I use Photoshop CS3.

It’s pretty much similar techiqnue I responsed to a gentleman named Pete (or Peter I don’t remember).

Cannot remember asking this here before. I did ask in a Pentax forum. How long ago?

LEVEL should be the right or good tool *but* you may need tp play with the EYEDROPPER a little. Example

1. Select the WHITE eyedropper from the Level tool

2. Move the eyedropper to the white area/spot where you like it to be whitetest. Click it then the magic should happen.

Oh yes, very clever! Took me a little while to find what you were talking about. It is under the adjust levels function, where the three eyedropper tools sit side by side. One sets the black, another sets the white.

3. If it’s too white, not white enough, or effect the DARKER area then select different spot, or use BLACK eyedropper to control the BLACK
Hmmm I looked at the header and it’s the Peter. I wonder how we can get Peter to learn

I don’t think it is me.

Many thanks, anyway.

In article ,
Peter wrote:

I have lots of pics of snow covered mountains.

Often there is also haze which messes up the colours.

Example: http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/locarno/alps3-big.jpg
However, we all know that snow is meant to be white, so there should be an wasy way to fix up the image – the colour balance (I use Auto) at least.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Currently I remove the haze by using the adjust levels feature and then I manually and separately do the r,g,b, sliders; this is normally a lot less crude than Auto Levels. But it doesn’t do a lot to make snow "white".

I use Photoshop CS3.

You know how to fix the tones, but in the future you might consider using a proper filter to obviate the second-hand, inferior post processing. You cannot fix details that never made it to the sensor. A B+W brand 81A filter would help. Put a polarizer under it for even more control.

John J Stafford wrote

In article ,
Peter wrote:

I have lots of pics of snow covered mountains.

Often there is also haze which messes up the colours.

Example: http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/locarno/alps3-big.jpg
However, we all know that snow is meant to be white, so there should be an wasy way to fix up the image – the colour balance (I use Auto) at least.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Currently I remove the haze by using the adjust levels feature and then I manually and separately do the r,g,b, sliders; this is normally a lot less crude than Auto Levels. But it doesn’t do a lot to make snow "white".

I use Photoshop CS3.

You know how to fix the tones, but in the future you might consider using a proper filter to obviate the second-hand, inferior post processing. You cannot fix details that never made it to the sensor. A B+W brand 81A filter would help. Put a polarizer under it for even more control.

I use a Hoya Super Pro1 Skylight 1B filter (genuine Ebay :)).

Doesn’t that remove the UV?

These pics are from a light aircraft – up to 20000ft – via a plastic window.

Do you mean this:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/B-W-67mm-81A-Warming-Filter-MRC-Multi- Coated-67-mm-81-A-/360342829664?pt=Camera_Filters&hash=i tem53e61b3a60

I also have a Hoya Pro1 PL-C polarised filter. I used polarised filters many years ago with film, to get a very dark blue sky…

Peter wrote:

Joel wrote

Peter wrote:

I have lots of pics of snow covered mountains.

Often there is also haze which messes up the colours.

Example: http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/locarno/alps3-big.jpg
However, we all know that snow is meant to be white, so there should be an wasy way to fix up the image – the colour balance (I use Auto) at least.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Currently I remove the haze by using the adjust levels feature and then I manually and separately do the r,g,b, sliders; this is normally a lot less crude than Auto Levels. But it doesn’t do a lot to make snow "white".

I use Photoshop CS3.

It’s pretty much similar techiqnue I responsed to a gentleman named Pete (or Peter I don’t remember).

Cannot remember asking this here before. I did ask in a Pentax forum. How long ago?

One of the Photoshop forums and just about 1-3 weeks ago.

LEVEL should be the right or good tool *but* you may need tp play with the EYEDROPPER a little. Example

1. Select the WHITE eyedropper from the Level tool

2. Move the eyedropper to the white area/spot where you like it to be whitetest. Click it then the magic should happen.

Oh yes, very clever! Took me a little while to find what you were talking about. It is under the adjust levels function, where the three eyedropper tools sit side by side. One sets the black, another sets the white.

3. If it’s too white, not white enough, or effect the DARKER area then select different spot, or use BLACK eyedropper to control the BLACK
Hmmm I looked at the header and it’s the Peter. I wonder how we can get Peter to learn

I don’t think it is me.

Probably not. I usually never look at the header (the poster’s name) to remember. Also, I remember the previous Pete/Peter seemed to use P&S camera or cellphone, the quality of the image was pretty poor and the color was way out of wax.

Many thanks, anyway.

Peter wrote:

John J Stafford wrote

In article ,
Peter wrote:

I have lots of pics of snow covered mountains.

Often there is also haze which messes up the colours.

Example: http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/locarno/alps3-big.jpg
However, we all know that snow is meant to be white, so there should be an wasy way to fix up the image – the colour balance (I use Auto) at least.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Currently I remove the haze by using the adjust levels feature and then I manually and separately do the r,g,b, sliders; this is normally a lot less crude than Auto Levels. But it doesn’t do a lot to make snow "white".

I use Photoshop CS3.

You know how to fix the tones, but in the future you might consider using a proper filter to obviate the second-hand, inferior post processing. You cannot fix details that never made it to the sensor. A B+W brand 81A filter would help. Put a polarizer under it for even more control.

I use a Hoya Super Pro1 Skylight 1B filter (genuine Ebay :)).
Doesn’t that remove the UV?

These pics are from a light aircraft – up to 20000ft – via a plastic window.

Do you mean this:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/B-W-67mm-81A-Warming-Filter-MRC-Multi- Coated-67-mm-81-A-/360342829664?pt=Camera_Filters&hash=i tem53e61b3a60

I also have a Hoya Pro1 PL-C polarised filter. I used polarised filters many years ago with film, to get a very dark blue sky…

The answers are.

1. Yes, you should be able to fix/adjust/change (whatever you want to call it) the color/brightness (whatever you want to call it) using few of Photoshop’s basic command’s. LEVEL is one of them *and* you may have to use the right command of LEVEL to be able to get what you one.

2. Many camera owners sometime talking about Polarizer Filter which is a good filter for landscape photography. But it may depend on the condition, style, as well as the type of Polarizer Filter.

As you describe the ".. dark blue sky" so I think you can image how the filter may do to the SNOW. By looking at the photo I don’t think you will benefit much or any from the filter.

And if you do lot of landscape photography then I would suggest you to the filter holder Adapter, then get a Polarizer Filter with 2 tones (1) the upper part is darker to deal with bright sky (2) the lower part is clear (white) to capture the landscape.

And for future investment you may want to get a LARGE SIZE just incase you may use on larger lens in the future. Below is the image of Filter Holder and it happens to have the type of filter I mentioned above.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hewmatt/2515436256/

P.S. Years ago when I was using film camera, I had lot of those filters and stopped using it when switched to digital camera.

On 28.Mar.11 12:53 h, Joel wrote:
….

And if you do lot of landscape photography then I would suggest you to the filter holder Adapter, then get a Polarizer Filter with 2 tones (1) the upper part is darker to deal with bright sky (2) the lower part is clear (white) to capture the landscape.

this plain rubbish. What you’re describing is a split density filter.

In article ,
Joel wrote:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hewmatt/2515436256/

P.S. Years ago when I was using film camera, I had lot of those filters and stopped using it when switched to digital camera.

Too bad. You cannot recapitulate details that never reach the sensor.

In article ,
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.Mar.11 12:53 h, Joel wrote:
…

And if you do lot of landscape photography then I would suggest you to the filter holder Adapter, then get a Polarizer Filter with 2 tones (1) the upper part is darker to deal with bright sky (2) the lower part is clear (white) to capture the landscape.

this plain rubbish. What you’re describing is a split density filter.

Absolutely true. The poster hasn’t a clue what polarization is, or he chooses to ignore it.

On 2011-03-27 04:21:06 -0700, Peter said:

I have lots of pics of snow covered mountains.

Often there is also haze which messes up the colours.

Example: http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/locarno/alps3-big.jpg
However, we all know that snow is meant to be white, so there should be an wasy way to fix up the image – the colour balance (I use Auto) at least.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Currently I remove the haze by using the adjust levels feature and then I manually and separately do the r,g,b, sliders; this is normally a lot less crude than Auto Levels. But it doesn’t do a lot to make snow "white".

I use Photoshop CS3.

There is a WB issue, and you haven’t said if you shoot RAW or JPEG only. I am making the assumption that you only have JPEG’s.

I used your image and used a "Levels" adjustment layer. Then only using the "Gray Point" measuring "eyedropper" I looked for a spot which was as close to a neutral gray as possible.
You will not necessarily get a good WB fix by selecting a "White point" or "Black Point". Neutral gray is always the better choice. The haze you can fix by making contrast adjustments with curves or levels adjustment layers.

If you are shooting RAW, find the image in Bridge. Use the WB tool in ACR, and make the WB adjustment. Click on "Done". Now in Bridge select all the images with similar lighting characteristics. Then edit-> Develop Settings -> Previous Conversion, and you have the entire batch WB set.

Here is what I came up with compared with your original: < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Peter-WB-01w.jpg >

—
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2011-03-27 04:21:06 -0700, Peter said:

I have lots of pics of snow covered mountains.

Often there is also haze which messes up the colours.

Example: http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/locarno/alps3-big.jpg
However, we all know that snow is meant to be white, so there should be an wasy way to fix up the image – the colour balance (I use Auto) at least.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Currently I remove the haze by using the adjust levels feature and then I manually and separately do the r,g,b, sliders; this is normally a lot less crude than Auto Levels. But it doesn’t do a lot to make snow "white".

I use Photoshop CS3.

Many thanks.

There is a WB issue, and you haven’t said if you shoot RAW or JPEG only. I am making the assumption that you only have JPEG’s.

I have only Jpegs but can shoot raw (Pentax K5).

I used your image and used a "Levels" adjustment layer. Then only using the "Gray Point" measuring "eyedropper" I looked for a spot which was as close to a neutral gray as possible.

I am not sure what an adjustment layer is (need to go on a Photoshop course) but I take you you refer to the middle one of the 3 eyedroppers in the Levels dialog.

You will not necessarily get a good WB fix by selecting a "White point" or "Black Point".

I noticed that. Using the white point makes the bits which you think should be white white but just washes out half the image.

Neutral gray is always the better choice.
The haze you can fix by making contrast adjustments with curves or levels adjustment layers.

I amazes me that one can indeed do that, because haze reduces contrast so information *is* lost.

If you are shooting RAW, find the image in Bridge. Use the WB tool in ACR, and make the WB adjustment. Click on "Done". Now in Bridge select all the images with similar lighting characteristics. Then edit-> Develop Settings -> Previous Conversion, and you have the entire batch WB set.

Here is what I came up with compared with your original: < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Peter-WB-01w.jpg >

That is nice. A very subtle effect though.

Many thanks again.

The other thing which suprises me is that while the ex-camera Jpeg, top quality setting, is say 10MB, the Photoshop-saved version, even in max res, is perhaps half that.

Is this because PS has a superior compression algorithm? It almost certainly does have, because it is not CPU/memory limited.

On 2011-03-29 08:47:57 -0700, Peter said:

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2011-03-27 04:21:06 -0700, Peter said:

I have lots of pics of snow covered mountains.

Often there is also haze which messes up the colours.

Example: http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/locarno/alps3-big.jpg
However, we all know that snow is meant to be white, so there should be an wasy way to fix up the image – the colour balance (I use Auto) at least.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Currently I remove the haze by using the adjust levels feature and then I manually and separately do the r,g,b, sliders; this is normally a lot less crude than Auto Levels. But it doesn’t do a lot to make snow "white".

I use Photoshop CS3.

Many thanks.

There is a WB issue, and you haven’t said if you shoot RAW or JPEG only. I am making the assumption that you only have JPEG’s.

I have only Jpegs but can shoot raw (Pentax K5).

Memory is cheap. At least shoot RAW + JPEG.

I used your image and used a "Levels" adjustment layer. Then only using the "Gray Point" measuring "eyedropper" I looked for a spot which was as close to a neutral gray as possible.

I am not sure what an adjustment layer is (need to go on a Photoshop course) but I take you you refer to the middle one of the 3 eyedroppers in the Levels dialog.

It seems you are just selecting "adjustments" from the "Image" menu. You are missing out on one of the very powerful features of Photoshop.

I am going to make another assumption here, that you have not set up your work space to give you "Layers" in a window. To do so go to menu item "Windows" and check Layers. You can play around with the various work spaces or customize one which works for you. If you don’t like it you can always go back to default. You can’t break it.

If you don’t want to try that just yet, and just need an adjustment layer, go to Menu item "Layer"->"New Adjustment Layer" and select the adjustment layer you want.

By using adjustment layers rather than making the adjustments directly to your image file you have a much greater degree of flexibility.

I would suggest getting Matt Kosklowski’s book "Layers" (Check Amazon.com or Kelby training < http://www.kelbytraining.com/ > ). This will give you a lot of information and tools you don’t seem to be using now.

You will not necessarily get a good WB fix by selecting a "White point" or "Black Point".

I noticed that. Using the white point makes the bits which you think should be white white but just washes out half the image.

Neutral gray is always the better choice.
The haze you can fix by making contrast adjustments with curves or levels adjustment layers.

I amazes me that one can indeed do that, because haze reduces contrast so information *is* lost.

If you are shooting RAW, find the image in Bridge. Use the WB tool in ACR, and make the WB adjustment. Click on "Done". Now in Bridge select all the images with similar lighting characteristics. Then edit-> Develop Settings -> Previous Conversion, and you have the entire batch WB set.

Here is what I came up with compared with your original: < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Peter-WB-01w.jpg >

That is nice. A very subtle effect though.

Many thanks again.

The other thing which suprises me is that while the ex-camera Jpeg, top quality setting, is say 10MB, the Photoshop-saved version, even in max res, is perhaps half that.

Is this because PS has a superior compression algorithm? It almost certainly does have, because it is not CPU/memory limited.

Just remember JPEG is ultimately always lossy regardless of some claims of lossless jpeg. Always consider what it is you are going to do with your final output, print online sharing web publishing, or whatever.

—
Regards,

Savageduck

Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.Mar.11 12:53 h, Joel wrote:
…

And if you do lot of landscape photography then I would suggest you to the filter holder Adapter, then get a Polarizer Filter with 2 tones (1) the upper part is darker to deal with bright sky (2) the lower part is clear (white) to capture the landscape.

this plain rubbish. What you’re describing is a split density filter.

I agree that you are plain rubbish. Because you are totally rubbish to understand that I described 2 types of filters and at least 2 types of filters (round and square), and 2 types of filters (directly to lens and adapter), and probably few others but you are tô rubbish to understand it/them

John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.Mar.11 12:53 h, Joel wrote:
…

And if you do lot of landscape photography then I would suggest you to the filter holder Adapter, then get a Polarizer Filter with 2 tones (1) the upper part is darker to deal with bright sky (2) the lower part is clear (white) to capture the landscape.

this plain rubbish. What you’re describing is a split density filter.

Absolutely true. The poster hasn’t a clue what polarization is, or he chooses to ignore it.

Yes, another rubbish

John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hewmatt/2515436256/

P.S. Years ago when I was using film camera, I had lot of those filters and stopped using it when switched to digital camera.

Too bad. You cannot recapitulate details that never reach the sensor.

Hey rubbish, you and your sister have tô much sensor in your brain.

Peter wrote:

I have only Jpegs but can shoot raw (Pentax K5).

It doesn’t really what format you use, different program has different tool. And if you use the right technique or combination then you should be able to get what you want, and if you do is right then you may do better than the one using RAW or whatever program.

You should not buy any fairy tale.

In article ,
Joel wrote:

John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hewmatt/2515436256/

P.S. Years ago when I was using film camera, I had lot of those filters and
stopped using it when switched to digital camera.

Too bad. You cannot recapitulate details that never reach the sensor.

Hey rubbish, you and your sister have t

John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hewmatt/2515436256/

P.S. Years ago when I was using film camera, I had lot of those filters and
stopped using it when switched to digital camera.

Too bad. You cannot recapitulate details that never reach the sensor.

Hey rubbish, you and your sister have tÙ much sensor in your brain.

Snow at altitude is not really white. It reflects the predominant blue of the sky. The human eye wants to see it as white, and does so. Adjust to your own taste. A sky-filter will help. Not a UV filter. You cannot recover detail that did not exist before it entered the filter/lens
Joel is full of shit.

Heck, I treat you just like shit but you are too stupid to realize how stink you are.

You are too stupid to think white is really white, or black is truely black. And as I said (you are too stupid to get it) just use the White eyedropper to pick whatever spot/area you (not you stupid but the OP) think it’s white enough to his liking. And I didn’t say anything about UV or any Photography technique, so don’t play stupid with me.

And to the OP, just enjoy whatever you have, don’t listen to RAW or COOKED, there is no fairy tale but skill and right tool. Just remember that many of us have been using JPG for living for decades before RAW was (RAW isn’t really born yet) born.

Also, the snow color often be differences between P&S (you may like the result of P&S more than DSLR) and DSLR, between manufactures, and between lens. Before I get too old to handle the freezing cold weather, and even I don’t like landscape, but I happen to love snow and winter sence so I used to go to many crazy places to snap the winter sense during or after snow storm.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 02:42:09 -0500, Joel scribbled:

John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hewmatt/2515436256/

P.S. Years ago when I was using film camera, I had lot of those filters and
stopped using it when switched to digital camera.

Too bad. You cannot recapitulate details that never reach the sensor.

Hey rubbish, you and your sister have tÙ much sensor in your brain.

Snow at altitude is not really white. It reflects the predominant blue of the sky. The human eye wants to see it as white, and does so. Adjust to your own taste. A sky-filter will help. Not a UV filter. You cannot recover detail that did not exist before it entered the filter/lens
Joel is full of shit.

Heck, I treat you just like shit but you are too stupid to realize how stink you are.

And people vilify me… sheesh.

You are too stupid to think white is really white, or black is truely black. And as I said (you are too stupid to get it) just use the White eyedropper to pick whatever spot/area you (not you stupid but the OP) think it’s white enough to his liking. And I didn’t say anything about UV or any Photography technique, so don’t play stupid with me.

So who DO you want to play stupid with you? I bet it’s one of your favorite games!

And to the OP, just enjoy whatever you have, don’t listen to RAW or COOKED, there is no fairy tale but skill and right tool. Just remember that many of us have been using JPG for living for decades before RAW was (RAW isn’t really born yet) born.

Can I have mine over-easy. Then there’s no effort involved. Boy, do I love puns.

Also, the snow color often be differences between P&S (you may like the result of P&S more than DSLR) and DSLR, between manufactures, and between lens. Before I get too old to handle the freezing cold weather, and even I don’t like landscape, but I happen to love snow and winter sence so I used to go to many crazy places to snap the winter sense during or after snow storm.

So you’re old and senile and no one should trust your failing memory for anything, is that it?

Joel wrote:

Peter wrote:

I have only Jpegs but can shoot raw (Pentax K5).

It doesn’t really what format you use, different program has different tool. And if you use the right technique or combination then you should be able to get what you want, and if you do is right then you may do better than the one using RAW or whatever program.

You should not buy any fairy tale.

Well I did a quick test yesterday. Went up to 7500ft looking for a blue sky to test a PL-C filter with but the cloud was just a little too high. However, these two pics show what a dramatic improvement a (appropriately rotated) PL filter does

http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/temp-files-ph/IMGP1216.JPG http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/temp-files-ph/IMGP1217.JPG

The difference is not just in the sky looking a bit better but also in the much richer colours on the wingtip.

I stopped using PL filters many years ago – except in "dramatic" high altitude locations – because they lost so much light, but the very latest generation of DSLRs has good enough low light performance to make them generally useful again.

The Pentax K5 is an order of magnitude better than the K200D and that was an excellent camera in itself. I think Nikon, Canon and others now all offer the same type of sensor, in their $1500-2000 cameras.

If I use the camera in TAV mode (speed and aperture hold, ISO auto adjust) the PL filter drops the light from say 100 to 400. With goode olde film, ISO400 was basically totally crap. You could see the grain on an A5 printout 🙂 But on the K5, you can’t see the CCD noise until you get to ~3000.

Its a start. The haze is the biggest problem with the stuff I shoot.

BTW the reasons I don’t shoot RAW is because Photoshop CS3 cannot open it (I used to convert the image using some Pentax prog), and it is very hard to see any difference against top-level Jpeg

http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/odds/raw-jpeg-k5-comparison-wh ole%20image.tif http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/odds/raw-jpeg-k5-comparison-ma gnified.tif

I do understand the reasons for RAW, with the appropriate tools, because you get the full 24 bits (+/- the sensor noise, etc) but for my usage there doesn’t seem to be any point. I never print to a large size, some of my shots do go into glossy mags but only again small size, and the most I do is cropping and/or colour correction. Do you think colour correction on the type of shooting I do would benefit from RAW?

Also the raw files are ~ 25MB and I already have ~ 60GB of images. I back them up to a 160GB DLT tape drive…

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:29:55 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2011-03-27 04:21:06 -0700, Peter said:

I have lots of pics of snow covered mountains.

Often there is also haze which messes up the colours.

Example: http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/locarno/alps3-big.jpg
However, we all know that snow is meant to be white, so there should be an wasy way to fix up the image – the colour balance (I use Auto) at least.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Currently I remove the haze by using the adjust levels feature and then I manually and separately do the r,g,b, sliders; this is normally a lot less crude than Auto Levels. But it doesn’t do a lot to make snow "white".

I use Photoshop CS3.

There is a WB issue, and you haven’t said if you shoot RAW or JPEG only. I am making the assumption that you only have JPEG’s.
I used your image and used a "Levels" adjustment layer. Then only using the "Gray Point" measuring "eyedropper" I looked for a spot which was as close to a neutral gray as possible.
You will not necessarily get a good WB fix by selecting a "White point" or "Black Point". Neutral gray is always the better choice. The haze you can fix by making contrast adjustments with curves or levels adjustment layers.

If you are shooting RAW, find the image in Bridge. Use the WB tool in ACR, and make the WB adjustment. Click on "Done". Now in Bridge select all the images with similar lighting characteristics. Then edit-> Develop Settings -> Previous Conversion, and you have the entire batch WB set.

Here is what I came up with compared with your original: < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Peter-WB-01w.jpg >

That blueish overcast can be minimised by going to Hue/Saturnation – Master – Blue and bring back the Blueslider slowly.

wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:29:55 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2011-03-27 04:21:06 -0700, Peter said:

I have lots of pics of snow covered mountains.

Often there is also haze which messes up the colours.

Example: http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/locarno/alps3-big.jpg
However, we all know that snow is meant to be white, so there should be an wasy way to fix up the image – the colour balance (I use Auto) at least.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Currently I remove the haze by using the adjust levels feature and then I manually and separately do the r,g,b, sliders; this is normally a lot less crude than Auto Levels. But it doesn’t do a lot to make snow "white".

I use Photoshop CS3.

There is a WB issue, and you haven’t said if you shoot RAW or JPEG only. I am making the assumption that you only have JPEG’s.
I used your image and used a "Levels" adjustment layer. Then only using the "Gray Point" measuring "eyedropper" I looked for a spot which was as close to a neutral gray as possible.
You will not necessarily get a good WB fix by selecting a "White point" or "Black Point". Neutral gray is always the better choice. The haze you can fix by making contrast adjustments with curves or levels adjustment layers.

If you are shooting RAW, find the image in Bridge. Use the WB tool in ACR, and make the WB adjustment. Click on "Done". Now in Bridge select all the images with similar lighting characteristics. Then edit-> Develop Settings -> Previous Conversion, and you have the entire batch WB set.

Here is what I came up with compared with your original: < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Peter-WB-01w.jpg >

That blueish overcast can be minimised by going to Hue/Saturnation – Master – Blue and bring back the Blueslider slowly.

That is a really complicated function in PS. I would need to go on a Photoshop course 🙂

Which of the 3 sliders would you suggest?

There is also a slider on the bottom which moves a couple of markers along.

On 2011-03-30 02:30:11 -0700, said:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:29:55 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

On 2011-03-27 04:21:06 -0700, Peter said:

I have lots of pics of snow covered mountains.

Often there is also haze which messes up the colours.

Example: http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/locarno/alps3-big.jpg
However, we all know that snow is meant to be white, so there should be an wasy way to fix up the image – the colour balance (I use Auto) at least.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Currently I remove the haze by using the adjust levels feature and then I manually and separately do the r,g,b, sliders; this is normally a lot less crude than Auto Levels. But it doesn’t do a lot to make snow "white".

I use Photoshop CS3.

There is a WB issue, and you haven’t said if you shoot RAW or JPEG only. I am making the assumption that you only have JPEG’s.
I used your image and used a "Levels" adjustment layer. Then only using the "Gray Point" measuring "eyedropper" I looked for a spot which was as close to a neutral gray as possible.
You will not necessarily get a good WB fix by selecting a "White point" or "Black Point". Neutral gray is always the better choice. The haze you can fix by making contrast adjustments with curves or levels adjustment layers.

If you are shooting RAW, find the image in Bridge. Use the WB tool in ACR, and make the WB adjustment. Click on "Done". Now in Bridge select all the images with similar lighting characteristics. Then edit-> Develop Settings -> Previous Conversion, and you have the entire batch WB set.

Here is what I came up with compared with your original: < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Peter-WB-01w.jpg >

That blueish overcast can be minimised by going to Hue/Saturnation – Master – Blue and bring back the Blueslider slowly.

I think this is a case of one thing at a time for Peter. All I was showing him was my way of dealing with WB issues in his particular case. He really does need to get a better grasp of all that PS has to offer.

—
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2011-03-30 02:19:47 -0700, Peter said:

Joel wrote:

Peter wrote:

I have only Jpegs but can shoot raw (Pentax K5).

It doesn’t really what format you use, different program has different tool. And if you use the right technique or combination then you should be able to get what you want, and if you do is right then you may do better than the one using RAW or whatever program.

You should not buy any fairy tale.

Well I did a quick test yesterday. Went up to 7500ft looking for a blue sky to test a PL-C filter with but the cloud was just a little too high. However, these two pics show what a dramatic improvement a (appropriately rotated) PL filter does

http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/temp-files-ph/IMGP1216.JPG http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/temp-files-ph/IMGP1217.JPG
The difference is not just in the sky looking a bit better but also in the much richer colours on the wingtip.

Yup!
That is exactly the effect I would expect to see using a CPL filter. That should help you for future shoots, but you still have a batch of shot which need fixing in PS.

I stopped using PL filters many years ago – except in "dramatic" high altitude locations – because they lost so much light, but the very latest generation of DSLRs has good enough low light performance to make them generally useful again.

The Pentax K5 is an order of magnitude better than the K200D and that was an excellent camera in itself. I think Nikon, Canon and others now all offer the same type of sensor, in their $1500-2000 cameras.
If I use the camera in TAV mode (speed and aperture hold, ISO auto adjust) the PL filter drops the light from say 100 to 400. With goode olde film, ISO400 was basically totally crap. You could see the grain on an A5 printout 🙂 But on the K5, you can’t see the CCD noise until you get to ~3000.

Its a start. The haze is the biggest problem with the stuff I shoot.

A CPL is not going to solve that problem.

BTW the reasons I don’t shoot RAW is because Photoshop CS3 cannot open it (I used to convert the image using some Pentax prog), and it is very hard to see any difference against top-level Jpeg

OK! there are two things to consider here;
First, CS3 will open DNG files, and your K5 gives you the option of selecting which RAW format to shoot in. "PEF" or "DNG". CS3 is not going to deal with the current version of "PEF" but it should handle the K5 "DNG" output without issue. So go back into your camera’s manual & menus and select DNG as your RAW format.

Second, RAW gives you so much more than an image which you can compare with the jpeg output. In fact in most cases the jpeg at first glance will appear acceptable, until you are faced with the type of issues you are trying to fix now. Remember when you are making that comparison you are looking at a RAW image with no adjustment, or correction vs. a jpeg which has already had in-camera processing applied.

http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/odds/raw-jpeg-k5-comparison-wh ole%20image.tif http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/odds/raw-jpeg-k5-comparison-ma gnified.tif
I do understand the reasons for RAW, with the appropriate tools, because you get the full 24 bits (+/- the sensor noise, etc) but for my usage there doesn’t seem to be any point. I never print to a large size, some of my shots do go into glossy mags but only again small size, and the most I do is cropping and/or colour correction. Do you think colour correction on the type of shooting I do would benefit from RAW?

Yes.

Also the raw files are ~ 25MB and I already have ~ 60GB of images. I back them up to a 160GB DLT tape drive…

Memory is cheap.

You should be able to get an outboard Hard drive with 500GB, 750GB, 1TB of storage for a very reasonable price, even in the UK. For example I use OWC Mercury-On-The-Go portable Hard Drives, a 1TB costing me $167.99, and it gives me Firewire 800 and USB connectivity. < http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/firewire/ >

—
Regards,

Savageduck

Voivod found these unused words:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 02:42:09 -0500, Joel scribbled:

And to the OP, just enjoy whatever you have, don’t listen to RAW or COOKED, there is no fairy tale but skill and right tool. Just remember that many of us have been using JPG for living for decades before RAW was (RAW isn’t really born yet) born.

Can I have mine over-easy. Then there’s no effort involved. Boy, do I love puns.

Butt, of his qualifications, no pun in ten did!

Also, the snow color often be differences between P&S (you may like the result of P&S more than DSLR) and DSLR, between manufactures, and between lens. Before I get too old to handle the freezing cold weather, and even I don’t like landscape, but I happen to love snow and winter sence so I used to go to many crazy places to snap the winter sense during or after snow storm.

So you’re old and senile and no one should trust your failing memory for anything, is that it?

Not eben abel two use a spill chukker!

Peter found these unused words:

That blueish overcast can be minimised by going to Hue/Saturnation – Master – Blue and bring back the Blueslider slowly.

That is a really complicated function in PS. I would need to go on a Photoshop course 🙂

The -=best=- learning course is to move the sliders and look!

Curiosity beats formal ‘tutorials’ any day.

On 2011-03-30 08:47:24 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien said:

Voivod found these unused words:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 02:42:09 -0500, Joel scribbled:

And to the OP, just enjoy whatever you have, don’t listen to RAW or COOKED, there is no fairy tale but skill and right tool. Just remember that many of us have been using JPG for living for decades before RAW was (RAW isn’t really born yet) born.

Can I have mine over-easy. Then there’s no effort involved. Boy, do I love puns.

Butt, of his qualifications, no pun in ten did!

Also, the snow color often be differences between P&S (you may like the result of P&S more than DSLR) and DSLR, between manufactures, and between lens. Before I get too old to handle the freezing cold weather, and even I don’t like landscape, but I happen to love snow and winter sence so I used to go to many crazy places to snap the winter sense during or after snow storm.

So you’re old and senile and no one should trust your failing memory for anything, is that it?

Not eben abel two use a spill chukker!

For Joel, it is a case of, "My hovercraft is filled with eels!"

—
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
Peter wrote:

Joel wrote:

Peter wrote:

I have only Jpegs but can shoot raw (Pentax K5).

It doesn’t really what format you use, different program has different tool. And if you use the right technique or combination then you should be able to get what you want, and if you do is right then you may do better than the one using RAW or whatever program.

You should not buy any fairy tale.

Well I did a quick test yesterday. Went up to 7500ft looking for a blue sky to test a PL-C filter with but the cloud was just a little too high. However, these two pics show what a dramatic improvement a (appropriately rotated) PL filter does

http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/temp-files-ph/IMGP1216.JPG http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/temp-files-ph/IMGP1217.JPG

No fair! You used an airplane. When I was in the service we never jumped from higher than 1000 feet …. unless we had a parachute.

I do understand the reasons for RAW, with the appropriate tools, because you get the full 24 bits (+/- the sensor noise, etc)

Only 14 bits with Leica’s M9 DNG.

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> found these unused words:

On 2011-03-30 08:47:24 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien said:

Voivod found these unused words:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 02:42:09 -0500, Joel scribbled:

And to the OP, just enjoy whatever you have, don’t listen to RAW or COOKED, there is no fairy tale but skill and right tool. Just remember that many of us have been using JPG for living for decades before RAW was (RAW isn’t really born yet) born.

Can I have mine over-easy. Then there’s no effort involved. Boy, do I love puns.

Butt, of his qualifications, no pun in ten did!

Also, the snow color often be differences between P&S (you may like the result of P&S more than DSLR) and DSLR, between manufactures, and between lens. Before I get too old to handle the freezing cold weather, and even I don’t like landscape, but I happen to love snow and winter sence so I used to go to many crazy places to snap the winter sense during or after snow storm.

So you’re old and senile and no one should trust your failing memory for anything, is that it?

Not eben abel two use a spill chukker!

For Joel, it is a case of, "My hovercraft is filled with eels!"

"Hovercraft", wasn’t he the guy who wrote about the Cthulhu Mythos ?

On 2011-03-30 15:27:19 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien said:

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> found these unused words:

On 2011-03-30 08:47:24 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien said:

Voivod found these unused words:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 02:42:09 -0500, Joel scribbled:

And to the OP, just enjoy whatever you have, don’t listen to RAW or COOKED, there is no fairy tale but skill and right tool. Just remember that many of us have been using JPG for living for decades before RAW was (RAW isn’t really born yet) born.

Can I have mine over-easy. Then there’s no effort involved. Boy, do I love puns.

Butt, of his qualifications, no pun in ten did!

Also, the snow color often be differences between P&S (you may like the result of P&S more than DSLR) and DSLR, between manufactures, and between lens. Before I get too old to handle the freezing cold weather, and even I don’t like landscape, but I happen to love snow and winter sence so I used to go to many crazy places to snap the winter sense during or after snow storm.

So you’re old and senile and no one should trust your failing memory for anything, is that it?

Not eben abel two use a spill chukker!

For Joel, it is a case of, "My hovercraft is filled with eels!"

"Hovercraft", wasn’t he the guy who wrote about the Cthulhu Mythos ?

That might be so, however mine is a Monty Python reference: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Hungarian_Phrasebook >

—
Regards,

Savageduck

Peter wrote:

Joel wrote:

Peter wrote:

I have only Jpegs but can shoot raw (Pentax K5).

It doesn’t really what format you use, different program has different tool. And if you use the right technique or combination then you should be able to get what you want, and if you do is right then you may do better than the one using RAW or whatever program.

You should not buy any fairy tale.

Well I did a quick test yesterday. Went up to 7500ft looking for a blue sky to test a PL-C filter with but the cloud was just a little too high. However, these two pics show what a dramatic improvement a (appropriately rotated) PL filter does

Most professional don’t use filter because they want the best quality they can get. And

1. For protection, most if not all of them have learned how to protect the lens, and the hood provides plenty of protection.

2. For the lens, probably only wildlife photographers who spend lot of time around dirt, mud then they use filter for easy clean up.

Or polarizer filter that some landscape photograhers use to deal with bright sky.

http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/temp-files-ph/IMGP1216.JPG http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/temp-files-ph/IMGP1217.JPG
The difference is not just in the sky looking a bit better but also in the much richer colours on the wingtip.

I don’t care much about the color of sky or which can be easily change to whatever color you wish by using software. When I was using film, I sometime used a filter to brighten and adding warmer tone to the landscape (pretty much like some sunglasses). Or when I was using film, I did use filter and I had around 60-70 of them.

I stopped using PL filters many years ago – except in "dramatic" high altitude locations – because they lost so much light, but the very latest generation of DSLRs has good enough low light performance to make them generally useful again.

I too stopped using fancy filter, and even lens protection when I switched to digital camera.

The Pentax K5 is an order of magnitude better than the K200D and that was an excellent camera in itself. I think Nikon, Canon and others now all offer the same type of sensor, in their $1500-2000 cameras.

I don’t own any digital Pentax (except old film cameras), I am Canon user and besides the Sigma 50-500 f4-5.xx and 1 super wide angle lens all others are f2.8 and faster

If I use the camera in TAV mode (speed and aperture hold, ISO auto adjust) the PL filter drops the light from say 100 to 400. With goode olde film, ISO400 was basically totally crap. You could see the grain on an A5 printout 🙂 But on the K5, you can’t see the CCD noise until you get to ~3000.

I am indoor photographer and never happy with most of my landscape photos so I am not pretty good with landscape comparing to indoor especially closeup portraiture. I am guessing you are talking about outdoor photography by reading you use "AT" and "TV" mode.

IOW, when I was using film camera I did much more outdoor than indoor, and I did quite afew while using P&S, but not happy with the result of DSLR so I really do landscape. Even I have super wide angle lens for landscape but rarely use it (and I use it more indoor than outdoor)

Its a start. The haze is the biggest problem with the stuff I shoot.

Haze is usually happen base on several things or combination

1. The quality of the lens. Some manufacture may have brownish, greenish, muddy, cooler, or warmer color tone. And it often happen on cheapie lens

2. Image quality is one of several ways to reduce haze. Top-Of-The-Line lens is one of them, then with the combination of Aperture, ISO, Shutter Speed etc.. Digital camera is different wth film camera, some do OK with ISO-100, some do fine or better with ISO-200 etc.. so you may have to play with your to see what it does its best and with which lens.

You may want to try F-1x or even F-2x, and play with the shutter-speed depending on the lighting condition. Hmmm, it sounds like I am moving into MANUAL mode which doesn’t work very well for me outdoor (in my mind I am looking at the pretty bright outdoor, different background brightness/colors that may cause some problem to some digital DSLR). Anyway, as indoor photographer I always use Manual Mode (I could say 99.9-100%) so my mind won’t react very quick with outdoor situation.

So, just work on the Aperture and Shutter-Speed those are the important parts of sharpness, quality, and it should help reducing haze. Then Photoshop

Below, the sample photos is not exacty what I have in mind, but the basic setting is pretty much the same with nearly all cameras/lenses

http://www.digital-cameras-help.com/basic-photography-tips.h tml

BTW the reasons I don’t shoot RAW is because Photoshop CS3 cannot open it (I used to convert the image using some Pentax prog), and it is very hard to see any difference against top-level Jpeg

LightRoom can do many RAW formats and popular graphic formats like JPG, TIF, BMP etc.. and I think newer ARC comes with newer Photoshop does too (not 100% sure). I started with ACR before LightRoom was born, but don’t remember it was CS2 or CS3

http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/odds/raw-jpeg-k5-comparison-wh ole%20image.tif http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/odds/raw-jpeg-k5-comparison-ma gnified.tif

I looked at both of them and I can say that the color of salt/peper shakers (and part of the table) look pretty nice, colors are rich. But lighting is not evently. But that can be easily fixed..

Now about you mention RAW vs JPG. It’s a different ball game and it doesn’t mean much or anything. Cuz

1. The JPG displaying may depend on your camera and camera setting. JPG is a fully processed format.

1. RAW is a semi-processed format, with option to undo most of the temp-processed.

In general, RAW means not yet processed. But you know nothing will exist without being processed (created), and different cameras, models don’t have the exact same result (same value) because they process different than other. Same with RAW Converter software, the same image may not display the same on different RAW programs or version. Because different software may set the default different than others, and it took some years for software developers to come up with a better displaying (or default setting whatever I don’t pay much attention to it).

When RAW was new, some RAW converter displayed RAW file in grayscale or something like that not in color. I don’t remember much about it cuz I was playing with different RAW converters, and created the default setting (color displaying).

IOW, with the photo of both JPG and RAW displaying. You should be able to use software to make the JPG to look like RAW photo and RAW to look like JPG photo. BTW, I zoomed in 300% and the photo look pretty good.

And just by looking at the photo, I think if you just use LEVEL alone to adjust the brightness (white side) then the color-tone of the salt-peper shakers may look warmer/deeper color-tone (more wooden) than the RAW part.

Also, if you only need to do those simple color/brightness adjusting then LightRoom, ACR, or any RAW converter etc. is a good tool for the job, and RAW format may be a better choice (not me but in general). But if you need to do more than some simple basic adjusting then Photoshop is the way to go. And I would suggest to stick with Photoshop instead of RAW fairy tale

I do understand the reasons for RAW, with the appropriate tools, because you get the full 24 bits (+/- the sensor noise, etc) but for my usage there doesn’t seem to be any point. I never print to a large size, some of my shots do go into glossy mags but only again small size, and the most I do is cropping and/or colour correction. Do you think colour correction on the type of shooting I do would benefit from RAW?

Some people may benefit from RAW, but as you know that many photographers doing their living on TIFF and JPG for decades before the first version of RAW was born. So, if you know Photoshop very well then you don’t really need RAW to do all the tricks and much more than RAW can.

I made good $$$$ using Photoshop (now retired), and I started learning and working with RAW when it was first available. But I am still using JPG and none of the photo goes to print without going through Photoshop (JPG).

In general, if you know Photoshop well then you do not need RAW. If your photo is the top quaity and hi-rez then you do not need more than 8-bit. If it’s in little poor shape and you need to do some modification then you can always switch your 8-bit JPG into 16-bit or 32-bit MODE to work on it. Remember that JPG is 8-bit format so it will return to 8-bit when you save to JPG

The benefit of 16-bit or 32-bit mode (I never worked on 32-bit) that it will increase the number of pixel, so when fixing some damaged channel (I have seen quite afew RAW users overdone their RAWs and damaged the photos real bad) the fixing area will be smoother.

CS3 comes with ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) and I think it can handle JPG too (pretty sure but not 100% sure). So you may want to give it a try. Then.

1. Save to JPG, PNG, TIFF or whatever you wish

2. Load it to Photoshop then ZOOM IN like 200-300-400+% to study the result

3. You may want to try to print some of them see how you like it.

Also the raw files are ~ 25MB and I already have ~ 60GB of images. I back them up to a 160GB DLT tape drive…

25MB RAW file then your camera is about 20-2x MP camera? I don’t do TIFF so never have any file so large. When printing 30-40" size I usually reduce the PPI to around 150-180 PPI and the size is usually in around 100-180MB range (depending on my mooth, and they are all JPG format).

Peter wrote:

That blueish overcast can be minimised by going to Hue/Saturnation – Master – Blue and bring back the Blueslider slowly.

That is a really complicated function in PS. I would need to go on a Photoshop course 🙂

Which of the 3 sliders would you suggest?

There is also a slider on the bottom which moves a couple of markers along.

Those are pretty basic, but you will need quite a bit of practicing with combination of several different tricks to be able to solve the issue. And better yet, with the combination of photography technique will be a bonus. Why

1. Because you may not be dealing with only object but could be many other objects. Or it may effect the color of some object in the photo, and that’s why I don’t want to get involved into this specific case (not normal, not perfect).

2. Most Photoshop commands have sub-commands (sub-menus), and just for fixing/adjusting the casting color’s you may find around 5-10 basic commands, then each command may have sub-commands.

Not in all cases, but in general if you have BLUE casting issue then you may just pick one of the tools, then go to the sub-command to select the BLUE color then trying to reduce the BLUE. In some case you may need to increase other color to take over the blue.

Example, when working on a closeup portraiture and you want to fix yellow color teeth, then you may use Dodge/Burn, Hue/Sat, Color Balance, Color Mixer whatever you know best, and most of the time you do not just need to remove the yellow color but you also need to change to some other color. So you may need to use multiple sliders, and combination of different tools.

IOW, the basic idea is to reduce whatever color you want to get rid of, but you may need to replace it with other color for it to look normal.

AGAIN – START with LEVEL tool

In article ,
Joel wrote:

Most professional don’t use filter because they want the best quality they can get.

That os one philosophy. Another is to use the proper filters, stacked in the proper order so you get the very best on the film or sensor, and then you can post-process if necessary

John Stafford wrote

I do understand the reasons for RAW, with the appropriate tools, because you get the full 24 bits (+/- the sensor noise, etc)

Only 14 bits with Leica’s M9 DNG.

OK, I thought RGB was 8 bits per pixel.

12 bits with the newer 36-bit RGB?

Joel wrote:

In general, if you know Photoshop well then you do not need RAW.

An advantage to using RAW is that there is more processing power available on a PC to, errr, process it. Other benefits are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

Using jpegs from the camera is almost like using a scan of a print from a negative: you’re never really going to get all the information back.

Using an appropriate filter on a camera gets you better data in the first place.

—
Andrew

John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

Most professional don’t use filter because they want the best quality they can get.

That os one philosophy. Another is to use the proper filters, stacked in the proper order so you get the very best on the film or sensor, and then you can post-process if necessary

It’s your philosophy not ours.

Some stupid may say s/he/it isn’t us.

"Andrew Morton" wrote:

Joel wrote:

In general, if you know Photoshop well then you do not need RAW.

An advantage to using RAW is that there is more processing power available on a PC to, errr, process it. Other benefits are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

This is your bible not mine.

Using jpegs from the camera is almost like using a scan of a print from a negative: you’re never really going to get all the information back.
Using an appropriate filter on a camera gets you better data in the first place.

We don’t have time and energy to make error, and most if not all professional don’t repair damaged photo to begin with. So using program to fix error when you can avoid making error isn’t my type of game.

You seems to know more about filter than this old goat.

In article ,
Joel wrote:

John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

Most professional don’t use filter because they want the best quality they
can get.

That os one philosophy. Another is to use the proper filters, stacked in the proper order so you get the very best on the film or sensor, and then you can post-process if necessary

It’s your philosophy not ours.

Some stupid may say s/he/it isn’t us.

Learn up.

John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

Most professional don’t use filter because they want the best quality they
can get.

That os one philosophy. Another is to use the proper filters, stacked in the proper order so you get the very best on the film or sensor, and then you can post-process if necessary

It’s your philosophy not ours.

Some stupid may say s/he/it isn’t us.

Learn up.

Rubbish! rubblish!

Peter wrote:

John Stafford wrote

I do understand the reasons for RAW, with the appropriate tools, because you get the full 24 bits (+/- the sensor noise, etc)

Only 14 bits with Leica’s M9 DNG.

OK, I thought RGB was 8 bits per pixel.

12 bits with the newer 36-bit RGB?

RAW files are 14 bits PER PIXEL. Image editors like Photoshop can only work in 8 bits, 16 bits or 32 bits per pixel however, so RAW files should be opened in 16 bits to retain all their information.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com