 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2006Couldn't open RAW files in photoshop?
I shot some RAW's with Canon 30D and photoshop CS2 doesn't open either of them...so, could someone be so nice and tell me what is it that i'm doing wrong? I get an error: "Could not complete your request beacause it is not the right kind of document" THX Look on Adobe's site for the plug in for the 30D, the files can't be read with your present setup.  SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Look on Adobe's site for the plug in for the 30D, the files can't be read > with your present setup. Found camera RAW update 3.4 and works! Thanks! Odd...adobe just finished self-update and i wonder why this update wasn't downloaded... >> Look on Adobe's site for the plug in for the 30D, the files can't be read >> with your present setup. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Odd...adobe just finished self-update and i wonder why this update wasn't > downloaded... Adobe's DNG and Camera Raw updates are never included in their auto-updates. You will have to check Adobe's site periodically for the updates. Bob >>> Look on Adobe's site for the plug in for the 30D, the files can't be >>> read with your present setup. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > updates. > Bob aha...good to know...thanks! BTW...do i need DNG? >>>> Look on Adobe's site for the plug in for the 30D, the files can't be >>>> read with your present setup. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > aha...good to know...thanks! > BTW...do i need DNG? Need DNG? Strictly speaking -- no, at least if you simply want to go from your camera's RAW format -- through the Plugin and its potential adjustments -- into PS2 for some final work before saving out to whatever you plan for the final output to be. However, there are those who are using the DNG file format to archive their files (with or without the original RAW file embedded within the DNG file and available for later extraction, should you wish) which has the side benefit of simplifying the handling of the "Sidecar" files for each photo produced by PS2. It works, and it works well. However, I'm sure the "experts" here will chime in with their own workflow scenarios which will differ from mine as, undoubtedly, each individual workflow does differ somewhat. For a excellent reference on the subject I would recommend Bruce Fraser's "Real World Camera Raw With Adobe PS CS2". It really should be considered as required reading. Bob > For a excellent reference on the subject I would recommend Bruce Fraser's > "Real World Camera Raw With Adobe PS CS2". It really should be considered > as required reading. I'll vouch for the book also. Additionally, Bruce Fraser has a 4 page free PDF on Understanding Digital RAW Capture that's a good primer. http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf#search =%22understanding%20digital%20raw%20capture%20bruce%20fraser%22 Cheers, Colin >> For a excellent reference on the subject I would recommend Bruce Fraser's >> "Real World Camera Raw With Adobe PS CS2". It really should be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf#search =%22understanding%20digital%20raw%20capture%20bruce%20fraser%22 great. Thanks to both, guys. I guess this book doesn't come in pdf... right now i'm looking as much as i can find regarding photography - shooting and later working with photos on a PC. I'm determent that i will learn to use it as much as i can, since otherwise purchase will be wasted money---right? > >> For a excellent reference on the subject I would recommend Bruce Fraser's > >> "Real World Camera Raw With Adobe PS CS2". It really should be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'll vouch for the book also. Additionally, Bruce Fraser has a 4 page free > > PDF on Understanding Digital RAW Capture that's a good primer. http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf#search =%22understanding%20digital%20raw%20capture%20bruce%20fraser%22 > great. Thanks to both, guys. I guess this book doesn't come in pdf... > right now i'm looking as much as i can find regarding photography - shooting > and later working with photos on a PC. I'm determent that i will learn to > use it as much as i can, since otherwise purchase will be wasted > money---right? I wish all the good books came in PDF form, freely downloadable - unfortunately, ... If you're making the jump to digital there are about 1/2 doz books that are indispensable. One of the biggest problems those switching to digital face is the misinformation eminating from many who were grand-masters of film, but don't appreciate that with digital, some of the rules have changed. Case in point: With film one would expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights, whereas with digital it's the other way around - blow your highlights and the image is toast (in broad terms) - grossly under-expose and you're throwing away 3/4 of your potential information. Take for example a typical forest scene consisting of even, but subdued lighting. Most modern digitals will expose the scene in a way that makes it look pretty realistic on the built in monitor, but in reality is barely using 1/2 the dynamic range of the sensor. Trying to lighten some of the shadow areas in post-processing they quickly come up against limitations of noise and posterisation - and we hear things like "these digital cameras are convenient and cheap, but in terms of image quality they're not quite up to film standards yet. Whereas in reality 90% of the the issue is lack of understanding of the process - in the above example they needed to "over-expose" to the point where the histogram is maxed out and the sensor is using all 4096 levels - not just the first 512 - 1024. Done correctly the in camera review might look hideously over-exposed, but in post-processing FAR MORE information has been captured and can easily be tamed with lavel and curve adjustments. What's the point? The point is that many professional old timers making the switch just don't understand things like this - and as a result there's a lot of misinformation out there. By working your way through the likes of Real World Camera RAW Bruce really hammers home these fundamentals - in my opinion books like Real World Colour management - and Real World Camera RAW are worth their weight in gold because of the foundation that they lay. >> >> For a excellent reference on the subject I would recommend Bruce > Fraser's [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > RAW > are worth their weight in gold because of the foundation that they lay. i guess you have the point...so, i assume it's always better to have somewhat overexpsosed shot than under- ... it seems logical... I did use compact cameras for years...it's just my first dSLR.... > i guess you have the point...so, i assume it's always better to have > somewhat overexpsosed shot than under- ... it seems logical... Sometimes yes - sometimes no. In an "ideal world" you want to have the brightest thing in the scene taking the sensor to the maximum level it can record - not under, and not over. You're really trying to "max out" (ie expose for) the highlights - which means that all of your shadow detail is captured at higher levels also (ie more tonal info and less noise). In some scenes where you might have light from a flash reflecting off chrome jewelery there may not be a lot that you can do: you may have to settle for shadows with noise when you raise them - or you may have to compromise with some blown highlights. But in a low/even light scene then the world's your oyster - you expose to max out the histogram. Such a scene where the image looks good on the monitor but the histogram only goes 1/2 way is "wrong" (or put another way "is wasting a truck load of information that you could have used to enhance the picture). It's not a case of "always somewhat overexpose" - it's a case of always taking the sensor to the limit (but not over) (I know what you others are going to say, but I'm trying to keep this conceptual - ok!) All covered in the books :) >> i guess you have the point...so, i assume it's always better to have >> somewhat overexpsosed shot than under- ... it seems logical... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > All covered in the books :) right...and i must yet to come to some :-) but, for a start, i think i better set my image preveiw to show histogram also, right? so i'll have a better look into my pics - to be right . Otherwise, i think i know what you mean - if i have, say like you said - woods with,say, bright background, it's better to have brighter bacj and have more details of darker woods than correct back and no details of woods. OH, well...experience and again experience, i think... > but, for a start, i think i better set my image preveiw to show histogram > also, right? so i'll have a better look into my pics - to be right . So long as you're confident in your compostion and focusing I personally would prefer a camera that showed a full-size histogram and no image. > Otherwise, i think i know what you mean - if i have, say like you said - > woods with,say, bright background, it's better to have brighter bacj and > have more details of darker woods than correct back and no details of woods. Pretty much - what you're really after is the brightest thing in the photo ALWAYS maxing out the sensor (ie taking it to the limit of the histogram) - it'll may look aweful on the screen, but it will lift the shadow much further away from the noise and capture shadow areas (that our eyes are most sensitive to) with many more levels (or tonal variations). > OH, well...experience and again experience, i think... Make an investment and buy the book :) >> but, for a start, i think i better set my image preveiw to show histogram >> also, right? so i'll have a better look into my pics - to be right . [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Make an investment and buy the book :) planning to... in very near future. 8< > It's not a case of "always somewhat overexpose" - it's a case of always > taking the sensor to the limit (but not over) (I know what you others are > going to say, but I'm trying to keep this conceptual - ok!) > > All covered in the books :) <pedant mode ON> Not *always*, CJ. The Kodak DSLR (now discontinued, I grant, but very much alive) requires slight overexposure in scenes with very broad tonal ranges, as noise gets into the darker tones very easily. However, due to the sensor characteristics, it is capable of storing more detail in the highlights than most sensors can, so this can later be extracted in PP. > 8< > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the sensor characteristics, it is capable of storing more detail in the > highlights than most sensors can, so this can later be extracted in PP. I was trying to choose my words carefully, but I stand by what I say - the key phrase there really is taking the SENSOR to the limit, not the histogram. But in practice all we have to go on is the histogram (with most cameras you can bust the histogram by 1/3 to 1 full stop without blowing highlights), but don't forget that the histogram we see is based on an image after it's been through gamma conversion (usually the JPEG algorithims). I'm not familiar with the Kodak DSLR, although I'd be surprised if the sensor was non-linear. Having said that though, what you said about high-contrast scenes holds true for most DSLRs, but only experience tells how much for each type). In low contrast (and low light) scenes you're effectively in need of significant over-exposure though. [snip] > BTW...do i need DNG? The following page describes benefits available from DNG. Whether particular photographers can get any benefit from DNG depends on their workflow and the tools they use. (The situation gradually improves over time). Not everyone can get immediate benefit yet, or enough benefit to counter any perceived disadvantages. Others have been exploiting it for up to 23 months. (It was launched 23 months ago today). http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/benefits.htm SignatureBarry Pearson http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ > [snip] >> BTW...do i need DNG? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/benefits.htm thanks. I must yet to find out what exactly is. I'll read above link. > thanks. I must yet to find out what exactly is. I'll read above link. In a nutshell it's a common RAW image format that's fully understood by all. I switched to it some time ago - and am glad I did, if for no other reason than to get rid of the damn sidecar files. >> thanks. I must yet to find out what exactly is. I'll read above link. > > In a nutshell it's a common RAW image format that's fully understood by > all. > I switched to it some time ago - and am glad I did, if for no other reason > than to get rid of the damn sidecar files. i'd say if i have a posibility, the wisest thing is to shoot in RAW, maybe set to RAW+JPG.. but not to use RAW if have it...it's silly, i think. OK; it does consume more memory, but cards are cheap today. And it does allow to correct your (ok, my) mistakes to some degree more than just plain jpg. > >> thanks. I must yet to find out what exactly is. I'll read above link. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > does consume more memory, but cards are cheap today. And it does allow to > correct your (ok, my) mistakes to some degree more than just plain jpg. Unless you don't have the time then I suggest ALWAYS shooting RAW - you can shoot both, but it's a technique usually reserved for those who need an escape plan. You'll be able to fix a far wider range of issues with RAW - Most JPGs fall apart with anything other than minor level changes. By the way, all the advice I've been giving re maxing out the sensor is based on the assumption of shooting RAW - for gawds sake don't try overexposing a JPG by 2 stops and try to recover it. RAW puts a few people off, but it's really very easy and very powerful when you understand it - I'd rather sell my mother than ever shoot JPG again :) >> >> thanks. I must yet to find out what exactly is. I'll read above link. >> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > when > you understand it - I'd rather sell my mother than ever shoot JPG again :) i've done some research in photoshop raw plugin and as i see, there are most of needed settings there, and surely it's better to change what's necesarry there than later on converted photo...at least that's how i understand the point of RAW - to be able to change a lot with minimal loss and distortion. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.