10.1Mp RAW and Adobe Camera RAW

Bend The Light

In ACR, when I open my CR2 file, I can select op[tions at the bottom to have the image as:

Adobe RGB,
8bit or 16bit,
size (from 1024x1256 @ 1.6Mp up to 4096x6144 @ 25.2Mp),
Resolution,
Sharpening (for screen, glossy, matt)

Does my camera capture 16 bit? Should I then have this set as 16 bit?
And secondly, if I change the size setting, what effect will that have on quality? Obviously reducing the size will degrade quality as I will throw away pixels (I assume), but what about increasing it? Is there any reason to change this size up (to 4096x6144 at 25.2Mp) or am I also introducing problems. I assume I am adding (interpolating) pixels?

Does anyone sharpen at this point, with these controls?

It just seems silly to me, that if these are changed and that degrades the image, why have them? The program can still deal with any input, but there'd be no need to change those settings.

Cheers

MarkR

Your camera captures raw data in either 12-bits or 14-bits per channel. So to retain all that data, you'll want to set it to 16 bits on output.

I would not change the size unless you have a specific reason to.

The sharpening is output sharpening, based on Bruce Fraser's work. I'm not sure I'd apply that until you know you're ready for final publication. So if you are rendering a TIF to do editing in PS, I'd leave it off. If you're rendering a TIF for final output, turn it on using the settings based on the correct output device (screen, glossy paper, matte paper.)

Peano

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/graphics-programs-photo-gallery/255049-10-1mp-raw-adobe-camera-raw.html#post2330806

Bend The Light

Peano wrote: »

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/graphics-programs-photo-gallery/255049-10-1mp-raw-adobe-camera-raw.html#post2330806

Ha ha...just read it.
Thanks.

Bend The Light

MarkR wrote: »

Your camera captures raw data in either 12-bits or 14-bits per channel. So to retain all that data, you'll want to set it to 16 bits on output.

I would not change the size unless you have a specific reason to.

The sharpening is output sharpening, based on Bruce Fraser's work. I'm not sure I'd apply that until you know you're ready for final publication. So if you are rendering a TIF to do editing in PS, I'd leave it off. If you're rendering a TIF for final output, turn it on using the settings based on the correct output device (screen, glossy paper, matte paper.)

Thanks for that. Seems like a common answer, and answers my main concerns well.
Cheers.

Peano

MarkR wrote: »

The sharpening is output sharpening, based on Bruce Fraser's work. I'm not sure I'd apply that until you know you're ready for final publication.

+1

Also, for output sharpening, an advantage to doing it inside Photoshop is that you can use an edge mask (and I almost always do) to protect uniform areas that you don't want sharpened.

Bend The Light

Peano wrote: »

+1

Also, for output sharpening, an advantage to doing it inside Photoshop is that you can use an edge mask (and I almost always do) to protect uniform areas that you don't want sharpened.

Thanks again. I really need to investigate the whole sharpening issue in PS, too. I tend to stick to unsharp Mask, and have dabbled in High Pass layers, but am never completely satisfied. Time to read some tutorials, I think!

Cheers

basflt

i am very satisfied with Noiseware
gives better result then sharpening in PS , IMO

Bend The Light

basflt wrote: »

i am very satisfied with Noiseware
gives better result then sharpening in PS , IMO

Thanks. For added software, aside from PS, I have Topaz suite. That's it...for the time being I have to use those.

I will look out for it in the future, however, thanks.

Peano

Bend The Light wrote: »

Thanks again. I really need to investigate the whole sharpening issue in PS, too. I tend to stick to unsharp Mask, and have dabbled in High Pass layers, but am never completely satisfied. Time to read some tutorials, I think!

I use USM with a layer mask. I also have Topaz Detail and use it quite a lot. You can sharpen at three different frequency levels, which is very handy.

Bend The Light

Peano wrote: »

I use USM with a layer mask. I also have Topaz Detail and use it quite a lot. You can sharpen at three different frequency levels, which is very handy.

Thanks. I am going to spend time this evening researching sharpening on t'interweb, I think. I have Topaz Detail, so I can look more into that. As with all these things, I am still at the bottom of the learning curve...only a few things I do that move away from auto settings...I'll keep trying!

arodney

Bend The Light wrote: »

Thanks again. I really need to investigate the whole sharpening issue in PS, too. I tend to stick to unsharp Mask, and have dabbled in High Pass layers, but am never completely satisfied. Time to read some tutorials, I think!

Start here:
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html

Bend The Light

Thanks for the link. I'll read that for sure. Cheers.