Comments on 2006-04-28 1453 Photography: Revert spam

Amasing!

logtar 2006-04-28 15:32 UTC


And the file size ;)
RAW is a lot better if you want to get details in an image to stand out, but jpg is closer to how much information the naked eye can register when we look at something. Not that my eye sight have been normal in a loooooooong time, but there’s no way I can see that kind of detail even with my glasses on.

christa 2006-04-28 15:36 UTC


OMG! What do you use to convert your RAW?

Snoo 2006-04-28 15:38 UTC


Heh. That’s true! The detail that comes out of HDR images is nothing short of amazing, but the price you pay is filesize.

Quick comparison from my camera:

In-camera JPG = c. 2.5Mb
RAW = 7.2Mb
JPG converted from RAW = 2.75Mb
HDR = RAW + 3 x 18Mb TIFS to create a tone-mapped 6Mb JPG = 67Mb !!!!

Of course, you can delete the TIFs and burn the RAW files to CD when you’ve done, but a batch of 100-ish RAWs ready to convert to HDR will need around 7Gb of free space. Ouch! :)

Start fiddling with 25-megapixel HDRs and steam starts to come from the drive…

I think the end results are worth it though.

GreyWulf 2006-04-28 15:47 UTC


Snoo: I use RAWShooter Essentials (or Adobe’s RAW handling within Photoshop if I want to create 25-megapixel images) to create three TIFs (at -2, 0 and +2 stops of “exposure”) then create a tone-mapped HDR using Photomatix Pro.

Here’s where I go into detail how it’s done.

GreyWulf 2006-04-28 15:53 UTC


Snoo – I believe that he’s using Rawshooter Essentials.

christa 2006-04-28 15:54 UTC

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *