Comments on: Aperture: RAW 1.0 vs. 2.0 (Self Portrait in Red) http://www.friday.com/bbum/2008/07/19/aperture-raw-10-vs-20-self-portrait-in-red/ ...so google can index my head. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:09:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: bbum’s weblog-o-mat » Blog Archive » Roger in Red http://www.friday.com/bbum/2008/07/19/aperture-raw-10-vs-20-self-portrait-in-red/comment-page-1/#comment-188447 bbum’s weblog-o-mat » Blog Archive » Roger in Red Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:50:47 +0000 http://www.friday.com/bbum/?p=1059#comment-188447 [...] is but days away from his 8th birthday. In this photo, he is illuminated by the same LEDs I used to illuminate my self-portrait with a bit of emphasis on the less extreme range of [...] [...] is but days away from his 8th birthday. In this photo, he is illuminated by the same LEDs I used to illuminate my self-portrait with a bit of emphasis on the less extreme range of [...]

]]> By: Peter http://www.friday.com/bbum/2008/07/19/aperture-raw-10-vs-20-self-portrait-in-red/comment-page-1/#comment-188397 Peter Sun, 20 Jul 2008 05:51:27 +0000 http://www.friday.com/bbum/?p=1059#comment-188397 It's unclear: is the 2.0 picture less correct, or do you just like it less? The 2.0 picture looks flatter, but LEDs are essentially monochromatic. Narrow bands of color, indeed! Could the 1.0 pipeline be "helpfully" expanding the dynamic range across the color space because it can't deal with this? Put another way, can the 2.0 picture be adjusted by hand to give the 1.0 picture, but not the other way around? It’s unclear: is the 2.0 picture less correct, or do you just like it less? The 2.0 picture looks flatter, but LEDs are essentially monochromatic. Narrow bands of color, indeed! Could the 1.0 pipeline be “helpfully” expanding the dynamic range across the color space because it can’t deal with this? Put another way, can the 2.0 picture be adjusted by hand to give the 1.0 picture, but not the other way around?

]]> By: Mike http://www.friday.com/bbum/2008/07/19/aperture-raw-10-vs-20-self-portrait-in-red/comment-page-1/#comment-188395 Mike Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:20:10 +0000 http://www.friday.com/bbum/?p=1059#comment-188395 Interesting discovery. I wonder what the differences between 1.0 and 2.0 are when using blue or green as primary light. @rama - From what I've read and seen on dpreview.com's tests, Canon's RAW converters tend to get more detail from images compared to Adobe's RAW converter, but it's a minor difference, from what I recall. Interesting discovery. I wonder what the differences between 1.0 and 2.0 are when using blue or green as primary light.

@rama – From what I’ve read and seen on dpreview.com’s tests, Canon’s RAW converters tend to get more detail from images compared to Adobe’s RAW converter, but it’s a minor difference, from what I recall.

]]> By: rama http://www.friday.com/bbum/2008/07/19/aperture-raw-10-vs-20-self-portrait-in-red/comment-page-1/#comment-188388 rama Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:50:02 +0000 http://www.friday.com/bbum/?p=1059#comment-188388 try using the raw converter from canon for comparison (assuming they provide one). the nikon converter is supposedly better than CS3/LR conversion at the moment, could be true for canon as well. try using the raw converter from canon for comparison (assuming they provide one). the nikon converter is supposedly better than CS3/LR conversion at the moment, could be true for canon as well.

]]>