If you search for users' experience with PSE 12, the comments are all
about the software continually sending messages back to Adobe. I have
forgotten the specifics.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 12/12/2013 9:56 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I haven't installed it yet but I just bought PSE 12 (at a low price) to
> evaluate what it can do. What to you mean "big brother" type changes?
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 12/12/2013 9:43 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
>> Chuck,
>>
>> I am still using PSElements 11.0, and it does what you say. I go from
>> RAW to 16-bit jpeg, take it as far as I can, then convert to 8-bit to
>> finish. Works fine.
>>
>> I recently looked at the latest version of Lightroom, and Elements 12.
>> Found that I can't run the latest Lightroom on my XP system, and found
>> that many people were unhappy with the "big brother" type changes that
>> Adobe made in PSE 12. Both will expire unused.
>>
>> Jim Nichols
>> Tullahoma, TN USA
>>
>> On 12/12/2013 8:00 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>> Well, when I mentioned a RAW converter I never meant Fast Stone. Fast
>>> Stone only converts RAW files using unknown and unvariable parameters.
>>> It totally defeats the reason for shooting RAW. It would be better to
>>> take the camera's JPEGs where one can at least control some of the
>>> parameters.
>>>
>>> I think Elements does some more things that RAW conversion using 16 bits
>>> but getting documentation of that is difficult. Adobe doesn't lay it
>>> out on the sidewalk for you to find it. But even it it's only 8 bits
>>> after RAW conversion that's still pretty good. I agree, Elements is
>>> probably the best low cost tool.
>>>
>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2013 6:04 PM, Moose wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/2013 1:51 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>>>> <Snip lots of good stuff>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now consider RAW images for a moment. These images typically start life
>>>>> as either 12 or 14 bit images and get converted to 16 bits on the way to
>>>>> editing. But these images don't start with a bunch of holes in their
>>>>> value ranges as does an 8-bit image converted to 16-bits.
>>>> Nicely said.
>>>>
>>>> It's still true that immediately converting a JPEG to 16 bit for editing
>>>> will lead to fewer disappointing surprises, but
>>>> Raw* to 16 bit is much better.
>>>>
>>>>> The full
>>>>> range of brightness ranges is real and the image will survive much more
>>>>> severe editing changes without succumbing to posterization. Compared to
>>>>> a JPEG image there is also much more leeway in recovering dark shadows
>>>>> and blown highlights... typically up to a stop on both ends.
>>>> Would that this were true. Unfortunately, Brian uses 3/4 cameras with
>>>> limited high ISO performance. Pulling up shadows
>>>> is like raising ISO, and one quickly runs into noise problems. Not too big
>>>> an issue, for someone using capable software
>>>> tools, but ...
>>>>
>>>>> For this advantage you only need to use the RAW converter in the first
>>>>> stage of
>>>>> editing.
>>>> Would that this were so simple. FastStone converts Raw to 8 bit THEN
>>>> edits, not the reverse.
>>>>
>>>>> Use the RAW converter to do all of your brightness, contrast,
>>>>> color balance, saturation, etc. changes up front. Then you can convert
>>>>> to 8-bit for cropping and other editing changes with little or no effect
>>>>> on color and brightness. Resizing and sharpening still have some effect
>>>>> on pixel brightness but is minor compared to other edits.
>>>>>
>>>>> My last comment is that FastStone can call external editors. If you
>>>>> open a RAW file in FastStone I'm sure you can pass it to the Oly RAW
>>>>> converter before doing further work in FastStone.
>>>> True, you may browse/view Raw files in FS, then pass them on to other apps.
>>>>
>>>>> Or just do all of your work in the RAW editor first and then move to
>>>>> FastStone after
>>>>> conversion to JPEGs.
>>>> Sigh; again not so simple. Oly Viewer converter does no highlight recovery
>>>> at all, just useless on the top end. One must
>>>> go to something like RawTherapee, free, and slightly odd, or pay a few $
>>>> for PS Elements, AfterShot Pro, or one of the
>>>> other ones. Personally, I'd go with PSE, as I think ACR is still the best
>>>> Raw converter.
>>>>
>>>> That pretty much does what you've suggested, converts in 16 bit, then does
>>>> (most?) further editing in 8 bit, at least
>>>> that's what I read.
>>>>
>>>> Raw Moose
>>>>
>>>> * You convinced me, and now you succumb to the infidels with RAW images?
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/12/2013 7:29 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
>>>>>> I have no practical knowledge of the differences between 64, 32, 16, and
>>>>>> 8-bit images.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I really don't know what my machine works in. I wouldn't know where to
>>>>>> look to find out ...
>>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|