If you work your brightness, contrast, shadow, and exposure controls in
the RAW converter, you probably won't have to fool with limits. You can
also set the hue more effectively int he RAW converter. You should also
try upsizing when you convert the RAW. It's superior to interpolating
after conversion. Finally, look at any sharpness changes at 200%. i
think you'll find that a setting of 100 in the RAW converter will cause
artifacts. Some say it's better to sharpen after conversion. I've done
it both ways, but I've never gone above 70 in the RAW converter. More
often I've settled somewhere between 50 and 60. Lately, I've been using
Unsharp Mask after conversion, sometimes with different amounts in
different areas of the pic.
Paul
On May 21, 2005, at 9:51 PM, John Coyle wrote:
Paul has hit the nail on the head here. I have just finished
processing a number of RAW images taken around town (on the same walk
that produced the Pineapple Hotel PESO), and found that all I needed
to do was to:
Set the Sharpness to 100% - from 25%. This does not seem to add
artefacts as Unsharp Mask can do.
Adjust the exposure to give a little more "oomph" if needed
Depending on lighting, adjust the exposure and/or shadows settings -
some high contrast scenes have needed the shadows lightening.
Set the resolution to 300dpi - from 240 (don't know where that came
from: PS seems to remember the last setting here).
All the above in PS Camera Raw - time - about 30 seconds.
Open the file in PS.
Adjust levels or hue as necessary, Unsharp mask if necessary (not much
- about 70-100% at Threshold 0 and Pixels 1)
Save as a PSD or TIFF.
Resize to either 15x10 (at 300 dpi) , 20x 13.3 (at 720 dpi), or 30x 20
(at 720 dpi), as needed, or if necessary Save for Web, as for the
picnic races photos.
Printing the results on my new HP1310, particularly the 30x20's, has
given me some stunning results, very sharp, brilliant and accurate
colour, and very smooth rendition. I'm tempted to say they are as
good as any optical print would be, but I'd need to do a film to print
comparison using a good lab to tell... hmmm, might do that with some
2� square as well!
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stenquist"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: Speaking of exposure....
By the way, once you become very familiar with the RAW converter,
you'll finding shooting RAW is just about as time efficient as
shooting jpeg. The average conversion of a good exposure takes less
than a minute or two, perhaps less than some people spend tweaking
their jpegs.
Paul
On May 21, 2005, at 7:51 AM, Cotty wrote:
