Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/22

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

Subject: [Leica] Photoshop Altamont -- some questions for the wisdom ofthe LUG.
From: passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:57:52 -0400
References: <19b6d42d1003222212u6d3ba45ar4a33c9ce2e0905c1@mail.gmail.com> <8C7AD273-39DD-4613-AA3D-E95A1B897726@gmail.com> <19b6d42d1003222229s33b8fca1o14b7ffae6be735fb@mail.gmail.com> <B85F2D8453DA4431AC74BA36F5BB1809@jimnichols>

Did I say GIF? I meant TIFF.

Actually in my upload software (it's a windows 'wizard') there's an option
for downsizing the images which i should remember to use. I may re upload
these to see the difference. Thanks for hte advice.



On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Jim Nichols <jhnichols at 
lighttube.net>wrote:

> Vince,
>
> Sounds like you have received some good advice on the RAW conversions.  I
> have never tried posting GIF images to the LUG gallery, but they seem to
> have worked ok.  I normally post either JPG or TIFF images.  I have found
> that I get best results by sizing the images to 700 or 800 pixels on the
> long dimension.  Your flower image appears to be 4000 pixels on the long
> side, and, when the gallery software resizes it to fit the normal screen
> size, you get a very soft image.  Enlarging the image using the "double
> square" at the top or bottom gives the full size that was uploaded, which
> cannot be viewed as a whole. You might also experiment with removing the
> default size info in the second edit option block, so that your chosen size
> is displayed as you uploaded it.  I find that they look better that way.
>
> Good luck in mastering all of these options.  I find it has been worth my
> while to do so.
>
> Jim Nichols
> Tullahoma, TN USA
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vince Passaro" <
> passaro.vince at gmail.com>
>
> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 12:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Photoshop Altamont -- some questions for the wisdom
> ofthe LUG.
>
>
>
>  am doing so. many thanks.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Steve Barbour <steve.barbour at gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>>  yes, now for CS4 try Adobe Camera Raw 5.6 support for G1...download and
>>> install, should work OK,
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Vince Passaro wrote:
>>>
>>> > Well.
>>> >
>>> > I fooled around until far far too late an hour last night and learned
>>> some
>>> > things, one of which is CS4 can't open G1 raw files. Further, when I
>>> opened
>>> > a few G1 jpegs in CS4 Camera Raw and messed around with them -- I even
>>> > taught myself how to use lasso tool, how to smooth out my terrible
>>> efforts
>>> > with lasso tool, and reduce the glare on a particular portion of my >
>>> photo
>>> > that had light bouncing off some glass -- these files saved as anywhere
>>> from
>>> > 25MB to 60 (!!!) MB in size. To mount them on the lug gallery I had to
>>> save
>>> > for web, which made them into 5MB tiff files but also stripped away >
>>> some
>>> > layers of the work I'd done and rendered what had been clear and deep >
>>> now
>>> > noisy and fake looking.
>>> >
>>> > But I posted them anyway for your helpful comments and instructions.
>>> >
>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/toast+eatin_+bog+man/Photoshop+Altamont/
>>> .
>>> > Two 'Photoshopped" files and one prior for comparison.
>>> >
>>> > Meanwhile, I went looking for why CS4 could nae open me wee G1 raw >
>>> files,
>>> > and so found an Adobe update/patch to download (Camera Raw 5.2, equiv >
>>> to
>>> > whats in the LR 2.2 beta I believe), downloaded it, but also read the
>>> > following asterisk which I wonder if one of you might take a stab at
>>> > explaining to me. It appears to indicate that the D-Lux-4 and various
>>> > Panasonic models (two of which I own, happy me) have a proprietary raw
>>> > program which Adobe cannot really deal with yet so they advise one not,
>>> for
>>> > now. If one does, files will be three times the size of other converted
>>> raw
>>> > files... because of a tripling of the mosaicing or demosaicing or >
>>> however
>>> it
>>> > works. Any comments on this wil be MOST helpful. Here's the text:
>>> >
>>> > **With the release of Camera Raw 5.2 (and upcoming release of Adobe
>>> > Photoshop? Lightroom? 2.2), there is an important exception in DNG file
>>> > handling for the Panasonic DMC-LX3, Panasonic DMC-FX150, Panasonic
>>> DMC-FZ28,
>>> > Panasonic DMC-G1, and Leica D-LUX 4. For those who choose to convert
>>> these
>>> > native, proprietary files to the DNG file format, a linear DNG format >
>>> is
>>> the
>>> > only conversion option available at this time. A linear DNG file has >
>>> gone
>>> > through a demosaic process that converts a single mosaic layer of red,
>>> > green, and blue channel information into three distinct layers, one for
>>> each
>>> > channel. The resulting linear DNG file is approximately three times the
>>> size
>>> > of a mosaic DNG file or the original proprietary file format.
>>> >
>>> > This exception is a temporary solution to help ensure that Panasonic's
>>> and
>>> > Leica's intended image rendering from their proprietary raw file format
>>> is
>>> > applied to an image when converted DNG files are viewed in third-party
>>> > software titles. The same image-rendering process is applied
>>> automatically
>>> > in Camera Raw 5.2 and Photoshop Lightroom 2.2 when viewing the original
>>> > proprietary raw file format.
>>> >
>>> > In a future release, Adobe plans to update the DNG specification to
>>> include
>>> > an option to embed metadata-based representations of the lens
>>> compensations
>>> > in the DNG file, allowing a mosaic DNG conversion. In the interim, >
>>> Adobe
>>> > recommends only converting these files to DNG to allow compatibility >
>>> with
>>> > third-party raw converters, previous versions of the Camera Raw >
>>> plug-in,
>>> or
>>> > previous versions of Photoshop Lightroom.*
>>> > .
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Leica Users Group.
>>> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


Replies: Reply from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] Photoshop Altamont -- some questions for the wisdom ofthe LUG.)
In reply to: Message from passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro) ([Leica] Photoshop Altamont -- some questions for the wisdom of the LUG.)
Message from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] Photoshop Altamont -- some questions for the wisdom of the LUG.)
Message from passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro) ([Leica] Photoshop Altamont -- some questions for the wisdom of the LUG.)
Message from jhnichols at lighttube.net (Jim Nichols) ([Leica] Photoshop Altamont -- some questions for the wisdom ofthe LUG.)