Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/09/07

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] is this a bad pixel? (the bad kind of red dot)
From: photo.forrest at earthlink.net (Phil)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:19:25 -0400
References: <4C86B3A3.2010001@panix.com> <4C86C7C6.4080705@panix.com> <20100908003803.GL28637@jbm.org>

UFRaw has a hot pixel mapper that you can set to be pretty automatic,
but the program would probably mess with your existing workflow. 

Phil Forrest


On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 20:38:03 -0400
Jeff Moore <jbm at jbm.org> wrote:

> 2010-09-07-19:16:22 Rei Shinozuka:
> >  1. I should have noted, the camera in question that produced the
> > images is a Leica M9.
> > 2. also, RAW pictures show the same anomaly.
> > 3. finally, i can just shoot f16 1/4000 second and the image is all
> > black, but the red pixel appears. to me, that rules out dust or
> > reflections.
> 
> Adobe Camera Raw (and thus either Lightroom or Photoshop, as long as
> you're shooting raw) is *supposed* to do some sort of automagical
> bad-pixel identification and hiding:
> 
> http://forums.adobe.com/message/3067006
> 
> ...but I have no idea what the mechanism is under the hood, and what
> circumstances might make it not work as hoped.
> 
> Which would be nice to know, I think.
> 
>  -Jeff
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from shino at panix.com (Rei Shinozuka) ([Leica] is this a bad pixel? (the bad kind of red dot))
Message from shino at panix.com (Rei Shinozuka) ([Leica] is this a bad pixel? (the bad kind of red dot))
Message from jbm at jbm.org (Jeff Moore) ([Leica] is this a bad pixel? (the bad kind of red dot))