Un-retouched photos - Galleries

Un-retouched photos - Galleries

It is my understanding that in any digital cameras, image processing
is made inside the camera using the image sensor processing engine. In
some advanced digital cameras, they let the users keep the unprocessed
photos (RAW files), instead of the JPG files (which had been processed
by the camera).
My questions are as follows:
- what is the extension file for RAW ? (like .jpg in jpeg files)
Could this RAW files be viewed using any photo viewer software (as
they are, i.e. without interference or retouching from the
software?) . Or everytime you open the RAW files in a certain viewer
(like picasa, PSP, PS, etc), it is automatically semi-processed by the
software before they are shwon on the screen.
- Do all or most available photo galleries in the websites contain
photos which have been modified or re-touched? How do you identify
gallery sites which contain photos that are NOT retouched? Are there
such websites which only promote unretouched photos?

If I want to see how the various cameras compare in producing its
pictures, I consider the "inside" processing by the camera for the
first time is considered as original pictures (one chance for the
camera's processing engine to form the picture). However, I heard that
some cameras now allow for re-touching while viewing in the camera. It
is another manipulation addition, and I would not considered the
manipulated photos as original. I would be interested to know if
there is a way to find out that a JPEG file has been re-touched by a
software (PSP, PS, etc), or even if it has been retouched inside the
camera. Is there a way to find out?

I saw incredible portraiture photos in a number of the photo sharing
websites, and they have colourful, sharp photos. The ones that I
particularly like appeared to be taken using a D2X, D70 or D200. My
question is again, whether any manipulations are done on the photos.
Could someone show me similar kind of portraiture photos taken using
other brand name pro cameras (i.e. with similar rich colour and razor
sharp images)?

On similar line of thought, I also saw photos which are presented by
camera reviewer websites - photos taken out of the box as part of the
review of the camera. I assume these photos are nor manipulated (other
than done inside the camera). Unfortunately, I can see that NONE have
good, rich colour and sharpness that I like. Someone suggested that it
is perhaps my computer monitor that needs adjustment. But, I am seeing
the photos on the same computer. There are a contrasting difference
between these photos and the one I saw at photo galleries.

Thanks for info and discussion.

Re: Un-retouched photos - Galleries

<aniramca@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:1188825060.889667.65840@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
> It is my understanding that in any digital cameras, image processing
> is made inside the camera using the image sensor processing engine. In
> some advanced digital cameras, they let the users keep the unprocessed
> photos (RAW files), instead of the JPG files (which had been processed
> by the camera).
> My questions are as follows:
> - what is the extension file for RAW ? (like .jpg in jpeg files)
> Could this RAW files be viewed using any photo viewer software (as
> they are, i.e. without interference or retouching from the
>
The filename extention for RAW is .raw.
You may view & process RAW files using IrfanView
* w w w .irfanview . net /
Regards Mike.

Re: Un-retouched photos - Galleries

I think it depends upon the camera...

My (EOS 1D IIN) outputs as .CR2

Re: Un-retouched photos - Galleries

"Rich" <rich@richhead.biz> wrote in message
news:59qdnUlC14GNvEHbnZ2dnUVZ8s6gnZ2d@bt . com ...
>I think it depends upon the camera...
>
> My (EOS 1D IIN) outputs as .CR2
>
OK, I don't have that facility on my camera, I just went on what IrfanView
saves the files as.
Regards Mike.

Re: Un-retouched photos - Galleries


"Mike Cawood, HND BIT" <me@privacy . net > wrote in message
news:5k2gmsF1q08fU1@mid.individual . net ...
> <aniramca@gmail . com > wrote in message
> news:1188825060.889667.65840@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
>> It is my understanding that in any digital cameras, image processing
>> is made inside the camera using the image sensor processing engine. In
>> some advanced digital cameras, they let the users keep the unprocessed
>> photos (RAW files), instead of the JPG files (which had been processed
>> by the camera).
>> My questions are as follows:
>> - what is the extension file for RAW ? (like .jpg in jpeg files)
>> Could this RAW files be viewed using any photo viewer software (as
>> they are, i.e. without interference or retouching from the
>>
> The filename extention for RAW is .raw.
> You may view & process RAW files using IrfanView
> * w w w .irfanview . net /
> Regards Mike.
>
>
I use a Nikon DSLR and the RAW file it produces use the extension .nef which
stands for Nikon Electronic Image File. Generally RAW files such as Nikon's
NEF files are edited in RAW conversion software, then saved and stored as
digital negatives, after which they are converted to tiff or jpeg files for
additional editing, saving, storage, printing or viewing.

RAW files are 4 or 5 times larger than jpeg files so viewing them in viewing
software, if possible, would be a slow going process. For electronic
viewing they should be converted to jpeg.

Re: Un-retouched photos - Galleries

On Sep 3, 9:32 am, "Mike Cawood, HND BIT" <m...@privacy . net > wrote:
> <anira...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:1188825060.889667.65840@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...> It is my understanding that in any digital cameras, image processing
> > is made inside the camera using the image sensor processing engine. In
> > some advanced digital cameras, they let the users keep the unprocessed
> > photos (RAW files), instead of the JPG files (which had been processed
> > by the camera).
> > My questions are as follows:
> > - what is the extension file for RAW ? (like .jpg in jpeg files)
> > Could this RAW files be viewed using any photo viewer software (as
> > they are, i.e. without interference or retouching from the
>
> The filename extention for RAW is .raw.
> You may view & process RAW files using IrfanView * w w w .irfanview . net /
> Regards Mike.

That's funny. My Pentax raw files are .PEF.

Re: Un-retouched photos - Galleries

On Sep 3, 8:32 am, "Mike Cawood, HND BIT" <m...@privacy . net > wrote:
> <anira...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:1188825060.889667.65840@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...> It is my understanding that in any digital cameras, image processing
> > is made inside the camera using the image sensor processing engine. In
> > some advanced digital cameras, they let the users keep the unprocessed
> > photos (RAW files), instead of the JPG files (which had been processed
> > by the camera).
> > My questions are as follows:
> > - what is the extension file for RAW ? (like .jpg in jpeg files)
> > Could this RAW files be viewed using any photo viewer software (as
> > they are, i.e. without interference or retouching from the
>
> The filename extention for RAW is .raw.
> You may view & process RAW files using IrfanView * w w w .irfanview . net /
> Regards Mike.

Olympus RAW format uses the .ORF extension

Re: Un-retouched photos - Galleries


"Mike Cawood, HND BIT" <me@privacy . net > wrote in message
news:5k2gmsF1q08fU1@mid.individual . net ...
> <aniramca@gmail . com > wrote in message
> news:1188825060.889667.65840@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
>> It is my understanding that in any digital cameras, image
>> processing
>> is made inside the camera using the image sensor processing engine.
>> In
>> some advanced digital cameras, they let the users keep the
>> unprocessed
>> photos (RAW files), instead of the JPG files (which had been
>> processed
>> by the camera).
>> My questions are as follows:
>> - what is the extension file for RAW ? (like .jpg in jpeg files)
>> Could this RAW files be viewed using any photo viewer software (as
>> they are, i.e. without interference or retouching from the
>>
> The filename extention for RAW is .raw.
> You may view & process RAW files using IrfanView
> * w w w .irfanview . net /
> Regards Mike.
>
That's strange. My Nikon D80 produces Raw images with a .dng
extension.

Re: Un-retouched photos - Galleries

aniramca@gmail . com wrote:
> It is my understanding that in any digital cameras, image processing
> is made inside the camera using the image sensor processing engine. In
> some advanced digital cameras, they let the users keep the unprocessed
> photos (RAW files), instead of the JPG files (which had been processed
> by the camera).
> My questions are as follows:
> - what is the extension file for RAW ? (like .jpg in jpeg files)
> Could this RAW files be viewed using any photo viewer software (as
> they are, i.e. without interference or retouching from the
> software?) . Or everytime you open the RAW files in a certain viewer
> (like picasa, PSP, PS, etc), it is automatically semi-processed by the
> software before they are shwon on the screen.
> - Do all or most available photo galleries in the websites contain
> photos which have been modified or re-touched? How do you identify
> gallery sites which contain photos that are NOT retouched? Are there
> such websites which only promote unretouched photos?
>
> If I want to see how the various cameras compare in producing its
> pictures, I consider the "inside" processing by the camera for the
> first time is considered as original pictures (one chance for the
> camera's processing engine to form the picture). However, I heard that
> some cameras now allow for re-touching while viewing in the camera. It
> is another manipulation addition, and I would not considered the
> manipulated photos as original. I would be interested to know if
> there is a way to find out that a JPEG file has been re-touched by a
> software (PSP, PS, etc), or even if it has been retouched inside the
> camera. Is there a way to find out?
>
> I saw incredible portraiture photos in a number of the photo sharing
> websites, and they have colourful, sharp photos. The ones that I
> particularly like appeared to be taken using a D2X, D70 or D200. My
> question is again, whether any manipulations are done on the photos.
> Could someone show me similar kind of portraiture photos taken using
> other brand name pro cameras (i.e. with similar rich colour and razor
> sharp images)?
>
> On similar line of thought, I also saw photos which are presented by
> camera reviewer websites - photos taken out of the box as part of the
> review of the camera. I assume these photos are nor manipulated (other
> than done inside the camera). Unfortunately, I can see that NONE have
> good, rich colour and sharpness that I like. Someone suggested that it
> is perhaps my computer monitor that needs adjustment. But, I am seeing
> the photos on the same computer. There are a contrasting difference
> between these photos and the one I saw at photo galleries.
>
> Thanks for info and discussion.
>

There is no one standard for the extension for a raw file.
There are some viewing programs that can view raw files, but anytime you
view a raw file there has to be some processing done. Most viewing
programs do a fairly poor job of converting the raw images.

There really is not such thing as an untouched image sitting inside the
camera, the choices of how much saturation, contrast and sharpness
always have to be made in order to view the image.

In reviews they tend to leave the camera on its default settings, which
will look a bit drab to many people, it is possible to ether adjust the
setting in the camera or to convert the raw image into something with
more contrast, saturation and sharpness.

Scott

Re: Un-retouched photos - Galleries

aniramca@gmail . com wrote:
> It is my understanding that in any digital cameras, image processing
> is made inside the camera using the image sensor processing engine. In
> some advanced digital cameras, they let the users keep the unprocessed
> photos (RAW files), instead of the JPG files (which had been processed
> by the camera).
> My questions are as follows:
> - what is the extension file for RAW ? (like .jpg in jpeg files)
> Could this RAW files be viewed using any photo viewer software (as
> they are, i.e. without interference or retouching from the
> software?) . Or everytime you open the RAW files in a certain viewer
> (like picasa, PSP, PS, etc), it is automatically semi-processed by the
> software before they are shwon on the screen.
> - Do all or most available photo galleries in the websites contain
> photos which have been modified or re-touched? How do you identify
> gallery sites which contain photos that are NOT retouched? Are there
> such websites which only promote unretouched photos?

Ansel Adams as well as most photographers "retouched" their
images. Ever hear of dodging and burning? There is a technical
reason for the need to "retouch" and this is discussed below.
>
> If I want to see how the various cameras compare in producing its
> pictures, I consider the "inside" processing by the camera for the
> first time is considered as original pictures (one chance for the
> camera's processing engine to form the picture). However, I heard that
> some cameras now allow for re-touching while viewing in the camera. It
> is another manipulation addition, and I would not considered the
> manipulated photos as original. I would be interested to know if
> there is a way to find out that a JPEG file has been re-touched by a
> software (PSP, PS, etc), or even if it has been retouched inside the
> camera. Is there a way to find out?
>
> I saw incredible portraiture photos in a number of the photo sharing
> websites, and they have colourful, sharp photos. The ones that I
> particularly like appeared to be taken using a D2X, D70 or D200. My
> question is again, whether any manipulations are done on the photos.
> Could someone show me similar kind of portraiture photos taken using
> other brand name pro cameras (i.e. with similar rich colour and razor
> sharp images)?
>
> On similar line of thought, I also saw photos which are presented by
> camera reviewer websites - photos taken out of the box as part of the
> review of the camera. I assume these photos are nor manipulated (other
> than done inside the camera). Unfortunately, I can see that NONE have
> good, rich colour and sharpness that I like. Someone suggested that it
> is perhaps my computer monitor that needs adjustment. But, I am seeing
> the photos on the same computer. There are a contrasting difference
> between these photos and the one I saw at photo galleries.
>
> Thanks for info and discussion.
>
<cynicism on>
You have an uneducated and biased view of reality.
<cynicism off>

Question: do you believe that film, developed printed using standard
methods is real, accurate, and "un-manipulated?" Is Kodachrome
accurate? is Fuji Velvia accurate? Is Fuji Sensia accurate?
All produce very different looking images, even with standard
manufacturer recommended processing and printing (or direct
slide viewing). Is a digital camera image straight from the
camera "un-manipulated?"

The only way to record something close to reality is to record
the light with a linear detector (film IS NOT LINEAR), and display
it on a device what produces LINEAR output over the entire
dynamic range of the input data. Neither film, nor prints
will do that, and neither will the typical CRT, LCD or plasma
monitor. The general chore for the photographer is to
compress the recorded dynamic range (film or digital) into
the range of the output media (e.g. photographic paper,
ink-jet print, LCD display, film transparency, etc).
The problem with compressing dynamic range is that contrast
drops so the image looks flat and dull to us, and does
not have the contrast of the original scene. So the
photographer typically emphasizes one part of the image with
normal contrast so we can perceive part of the image similar
to the way we perceive real scenes, at the sacrifice of
other parts of the dynamic range.

In a digital camera, there is a "standard" characteristic
curve that each camera manufacturer decides for each model
digital camera, much like film manufacturers do with
designing film, and photographic paper with different contrasts
and color response.

Film and paper have characteristic curves that have a shoulder
and toe. The shoulder compresses highlights and the toe compresses
shadows. Levels are generally set so the shadows on a print look
near black and the highlights near white. The standard
characteristic curves of digital cameras are similar to that of
print film, but lack the toe. The lack of a toe results in a
flat looking response to digital images, and many people add that
toe back in in post processing to give the perception of better
blacks. So what it correct?

So, if you want to really have a purist attitude, insist only on
images with a true linear response (note: digital cameras record
light in linear proportion to the input intensity, and some
raw converters will allow a true linear output; other, like
photoshop do not give the option of linear output).
Of course, none will look good in a print. E.g., Figure 2
on this page is a true linear image:
* w w w .clarkvision . com /imagedetail/dynamicrange

Figure 8 on this page shows transfer curves of print film,
slide film, and a digital camera:
* w w w .clarkvision . com /imagedetail/dynamicrange2

So, in summary, no image you see is a true representation of
reality. Whether the decision is what the camera or film
manufacturer decided on how to warp the image data in terms of
the response or characteristic curve, or what the
photographer decided in processing a raw digital image file
is in reality little difference compared to the huge modifications
from linear response.

So, if a digital photographer processed a raw file to give
a characteristic curve like that of Kodachrome, some purists
would scream and holler that the image was modified.
But the same scene taken at the same time on kodachrome would
be accepted. Why?

If you visit my web galleries, the Fuji Velvia images have
higher contrast and more vivid colors than my digital images.
Yet which was "modified" more? I would argue the film
manufacturer modified the image more.

Enjoy life's images and stop worrying about being manipulated ;-).

Roger
Photos at: * w w w .clarkvision . com

Re: Un-retouched photos - Galleries

Hi Roger. Thanx for your words of wisdom and the references to your web
galllery pages. All very interesting and educational. However, nothing beats
your advice given in the last sentence of the reply!!!!


.................. Enjoy life's images and stop worrying about being
manipulated ;-).
>
> Roger
> Photos at: * w w w .clarkvision . com

Re: Un-retouched photos - Galleries

Interesting but there is another question have you calibrated your display?
a few video cards are supplied with software and a colour comparison card in
order to get a true display of the image which allows even different
monitors to show a true colour image. Happy as I am with the display in
front of me I am positive that in some respects it fails to show images
truly so some images I may percieve to be perfect in fact may be saturated
bleached or have a colour shift. Don't get me started on Wysiwyg printing
though.
Derek

Re: Un-retouched photos - Galleries


<aniramca@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:1188825060.889667.65840@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
> It is my understanding that in any digital cameras, image processing
> is made inside the camera using the image sensor processing engine.
> In
> some advanced digital cameras, they let the users keep the
> unprocessed
> photos (RAW files), instead of the JPG files (which had been
> processed
> by the camera).
> My questions are as follows:
> - what is the extension file for RAW ? (like .jpg in jpeg files)
> Could this RAW files be viewed using any photo viewer software (as
> they are, i.e. without interference or retouching from the
> software?) . Or everytime you open the RAW files in a certain viewer
> (like picasa, PSP, PS, etc), it is automatically semi-processed by
> the
> software before they are shwon on the screen.
> - Do all or most available photo galleries in the websites contain
> photos which have been modified or re-touched? How do you identify
> gallery sites which contain photos that are NOT retouched? Are
> there
> such websites which only promote unretouched photos?
>
> If I want to see how the various cameras compare in producing its
> pictures, I consider the "inside" processing by the camera for the
> first time is considered as original pictures (one chance for the
> camera's processing engine to form the picture). However, I heard
> that
> some cameras now allow for re-touching while viewing in the camera.
> It
> is another manipulation addition, and I would not considered the
> manipulated photos as original. I would be interested to know if
> there is a way to find out that a JPEG file has been re-touched by a
> software (PSP, PS, etc), or even if it has been retouched inside the
> camera. Is there a way to find out?
>
> I saw incredible portraiture photos in a number of the photo sharing
> websites, and they have colourful, sharp photos. The ones that I
> particularly like appeared to be taken using a D2X, D70 or D200. My
> question is again, whether any manipulations are done on the photos.
> Could someone show me similar kind of portraiture photos taken using
> other brand name pro cameras (i.e. with similar rich colour and
> razor
> sharp images)?
>
> On similar line of thought, I also saw photos which are presented by
> camera reviewer websites - photos taken out of the box as part of
> the
> review of the camera. I assume these photos are nor manipulated
> (other
> than done inside the camera). Unfortunately, I can see that NONE
> have
> good, rich colour and sharpness that I like. Someone suggested that
> it
> is perhaps my computer monitor that needs adjustment. But, I am
> seeing
> the photos on the same computer. There are a contrasting difference
> between these photos and the one I saw at photo galleries.
>
> Thanks for info and discussion.

Why would anyone not enhance (retouch) an image to improve it if it
were possible to do so.

Re: Un-retouched photos - Galleries


"Frank Arthur" <Art@Arthurian . com > wrote>

> Why would anyone not enhance (retouch) an image to improve it if it
> were possible to do so.

This depends upon the purpose of the image. For instance, the retouching of
news photographs can be of serious concern if it alters a relatively
straightfoward depiction of reality. (This is a legal minefield so my words
are just a rough description.) And then there are photos such as in
holiday brochures where retouching can give a false impression of the
resort. (Although in this case it is unusual for them not to be retouched).
There are countless other examples.

Roger

Re: Un-retouched photos - Galleries


anira...@gmail . com wrote:
> It is my understanding that in any digital cameras, image processing
> is made inside the camera using the image sensor processing engine. In
> some advanced digital cameras, they let the users keep the unprocessed
> photos (RAW files), instead of the JPG files (which had been processed
> by the camera).
> My questions are as follows:
> - what is the extension file for RAW ? (like .jpg in jpeg files)
> Could this RAW files be viewed using any photo viewer software (as
> they are, i.e. without interference or retouching from the
> software?) . Or everytime you open the RAW files in a certain viewer
> (like picasa, PSP, PS, etc), it is automatically semi-processed by the
> software before they are shwon on the screen.
> - Do all or most available photo galleries in the websites contain
> photos which have been modified or re-touched? How do you identify
> gallery sites which contain photos that are NOT retouched? Are there
> such websites which only promote unretouched photos?
>
> If I want to see how the various cameras compare in producing its
> pictures, I consider the "inside" processing by the camera for the
> first time is considered as original pictures (one chance for the
> camera's processing engine to form the picture). However, I heard that
> some cameras now allow for re-touching while viewing in the camera. It
> is another manipulation addition, and I would not considered the
> manipulated photos as original. I would be interested to know if
> there is a way to find out that a JPEG file has been re-touched by a
> software (PSP, PS, etc), or even if it has been retouched inside the
> camera. Is there a way to find out?
>
> I saw incredible portraiture photos in a number of the photo sharing
> websites, and they have colourful, sharp photos. The ones that I
> particularly like appeared to be taken using a D2X, D70 or D200. My
> question is again, whether any manipulations are done on the photos.
> Could someone show me similar kind of portraiture photos taken using
> other brand name pro cameras (i.e. with similar rich colour and razor
> sharp images)?
>
> On similar line of thought, I also saw photos which are presented by
> camera reviewer websites - photos taken out of the box as part of the
> review of the camera. I assume these photos are nor manipulated (other
> than done inside the camera). Unfortunately, I can see that NONE have
> good, rich colour and sharpness that I like. Someone suggested that it
> is perhaps my computer monitor that needs adjustment. But, I am seeing
> the photos on the same computer. There are a contrasting difference
> between these photos and the one I saw at photo galleries.
>
> Thanks for info and discussion.