Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FastStone Alerting images (batch)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    FastStone Alerting images (batch)

    Faststone Viewer.

    I want to batch process Canon 50D cr2 images, at this stage simply to convert to bmp or tiff.

    As far as I can see, I am not asking for any alterations, but when I run the batch Faststone does a "fix' on ones that it thinks are too dark etc. It does a reasonable job, but is aiming for the "the right brightness" overall.

    I untick Use Advanced, and advanced has no action by default anyway.

    Any hints and clues? Be appreciated.

    ....and I am laying odds a familiar name will post

    EDIT: errr...that's Altering Images.

    It does not alter jpgs.

    Nick
    Last edited by oldnick; 07.07.2009, 02:31 AM.

    #2
    Originally posted by oldnick View Post
    ....and I am laying odds a familiar name will post
    Wonder who that could be?

    Have you tried tinkering in the the RAW tab of Settings (F12)? Try to view an example image first in actual size with the settings you want in that tab. That way you'll have an idea how the input images will look before conversion.

    Comment


      #3
      FastStone Altering images (batch)

      HAH! I knew it!

      Ok. I tried that idea, and lo and behold, it is lighter than the original! Something is getting changed, but AFAICS the settings are all neutral.

      The shot that really brought it up was a night-time shot over the city. It was deliberately shot dark to avoid clipping and blowing out the lights. When I view in full size, it's really lightened, and noisy. The black foreground is full of noise and you can even see some details.

      I cannot see any settings that would do this.

      Nick

      Comment


        #4
        Obviously RAW files are interpreted, so you can change how they are rendered. The options in FastStone seem like the same in IrfanView. If you want the images to be darker, then I would think you would lower the brightness (below 1.00 default) in the RAW tab. Make sure you have selected to view the actual image, not the embedded preview created by the camera, which generally would be lighter.

        What is the original you are making comparisons to? Original being the previously converted image compared to the recently viewed CR2? If so, then it sounds like you are seeing the difference between actual and embedded, hence the lighter output. You first have to get the view and input images to match, so you can see what's going into conversion. When you've done that, then you can tweak your settings that will determine your desired input image.

        Comment


          #5
          Sorry about this.

          If I use Irfanview to Save As, on the same file, there is no change in brightness. Since brightness in FS is 1, I assumed that there would be no change here either.

          I am comparing the result with what the shot looks like when viewed by Irfanview, or any other CR2-capable viewer/editor.

          I can see that I _may_ get around it by asking for a brightness of less than 1, but I don't know how much, because it changes from shot to shot. If FS "think" the shot is OK, it does not alter it. It's acting like a print lab, trying to make the shot 'right".

          Nick

          Comment


            #6
            When does the change in brightness occur in FS?

            Comment


              #7
              When you either view full size/screen, or when you Save As, or when you batch convert a dark CR2 image.

              It's obviously doing _something_ because full screen view is instant with a jpg and very slow with the CR2.

              Nick

              Comment


                #8
                So, the only time you get correct brightness is when the image is Best Fit?

                I don't use RAW, so I really don't know what differences exist between programs.

                Comment


                  #9
                  No. The only time I get the original bright is when I am looking at the thumb in Folder View! _Any_ other action lightens the image.

                  I know one guy is using FS on 40D RAW images, on the photo forum. I will ask him whether 40D stuff does the same thing. The swine change the whole structure of their raw images from camera to camera!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The thumb! Wouldn't that be the embedded preview image or a representation of it? Is that what you actually want, the JPG brightness? That's an individually processed image.

                    To me, I thought the purpose of RAW was to do your own processing with each image, instead of having the camera do it. Why do you want to just convert CR2s, instead of editing them? Seems like a waste having a program render them using the same settings, when you could just use the superior JPG. The rendering is kind of a guess anyway, compared to Canon software. Besides, its very time consuming trying to load full RAW files, compared to a quick JPG decoder. Viewing RAWs may be convenient, but it is a compromise.

                    If you don't want the quality of the embedded JPG, then I think you will have to process each image individually to get the desired "look". RAW is not a "free" quality upgrade, it takes considerable effort to get it. Frankly, I don't know how people have time to do that though. That's why shooting JPG is good enough.

                    Have you tried RAW software like RawTherapee?
                    Last edited by Skippybox; 09.07.2009, 03:04 AM.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Well the thumb looks just like the image as I saw it in the camera, and it's what I was after when I took the shot. So yes that is what I want.

                      It seems that FastStone does not suit me.

                      If I compare a shot that I take RAW with the same shot in jpg (the camera stores both at once, if I ask) there is often better colour and detail on the RAW image. There is also a lot more noise and they need sharpening. but I can save to TIFF/BMP and lose nothing. So I do minor (if any) adjustments in RAW, then a tiff take to PSP for further processing.

                      I have tried Raw Therapee. but I think I may use the Canon software. You have to hope they know their own file structure. I was just comparing various programmes to find out.

                      Nick

                      Comment


                        #12
                        You make a good case for bringing back the BMP format to cameras. For users that don't want JPG's lossy compression and don't really need a truly RAW image, it seems like an obvious choice. JPG may be quick to write and ready to publish, but it's not any good for editing, which is so likely to be done afterwards.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Yeah...although if you can batch process RAW after a quick review to see if any need special attention, it's not too bad.

                          I also reckon that while jpg is not _as_ good for editing, it's not _no_ good. You can haul a fair bit out of them and get a really good result. If you run the same processes over the same shot, one jpg and one RAW->TIF (etc) then you can often see differences. But they can be overcome, and unless you see the two side by side, jpg is pretty good.

                          While am a terrible pixel-peeper, in the end I believe that the shot should carry itself regardless of medium. Same for music. This business of more and more technology does not make better music. In fact it seems to get worse, in many cases!

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X