Nope
May 18, 2023
439
-
-
-
I should really go out and shoot some actual photos. but im looking after my 86yo mother and havnt a lot of time, but these threads are filling in some time while she sleeps. again lots of fun and solid debates.
-
i love my jpeg camera setups. so i can use this program rather than ACR and take the tiff files straight into Photoshop with my settings applied , is that correct ?
-
Sony are embedding JPEG previews into ARWs, for your camera they are 7008x4672 in FF mode, about 3 MB each. You can extract them and open in Photoshop.
-
so they are not the same as 16 bit files from ACR to Photoshop .
edit. mind you the detail from your program is pretty darn good for 3meg cant really tell the difference between the 20meg out of camera. -
mine shows clipping at 0.67 and no clipping at 0.33
-
trust me i doubt very much your skill would even go close to embarrassing me.
-
It's your answers that are potentially embarrassing. I avoid engaging in unsolicited criticism of photographs.
-
We discussed Adobe hidden exposure compensation already, turn it off to see the truth.
-
Details are just what Sony put there. The application applies no enhancements.
-
That will be in your top 5 stupidest posts you have made here :-)
You are "judging" other people's images with your very limited raw processing skills and on monitors that are not profiled and are calibrated by eye. How dumb is that!! 🤣
The images you see on your screens are highly unlikely to match in colour and brightness the image seen on the image creator's screen, so how does it matter to anyone what you think of their images? :-)
It simply doesn't because you are basing your opinion on what you see on your monitor which is not necessarily what was on the image creator's monitor 😄
-
Are you referring to the teeth switching between odd and even values across the range, and the crossover between? That is bizarre.
-
Prove that the white in the dog is what you think white should be and I will show you a yellow Polar Bear
Using the white fur of an animal is the worst way to set your WB -
That's most likely just another of your lies.
Post the image you say is mine so I or anyone else can see if it is actually the one I posted and post a screenshot of the histogram you refer to.
-
Whites measure rather neutral
-
Its all about the numbers. obviously you have no idea how to process an image from numbers. your monitor could be bright red and it wouldnt make a difference if you process to numbers.
-
No it isn't all about the numbers and that clearly proves your very limited skills and understanding in post processing raw files 😄 and even sooc jpegs.
You are using unprofiled and calibrated by eye monitors to form your opinions of other people's images. What you see on your screen is clearly not what I see on my screen and I explained why that is very common.
Post the image and screenshot of the histogram you claim shows there is a yellow cast in the image I posted.
