Exposure warning
Logged
Currently the exposure warning will only reflect the current image settings which is certainly useful. It would be very helpful to also have access to the exposure warning for the
- rawfile, i.e. see which regions are really over- and underexposed without any exposure, HDR, curve ... changes
- output file also taking into account the current recipe as well as the levels tools.
Btw, I think there is currently a bug in the exposure warning. If there are regions in with overexposure in an image and one reduces the output level to below the threshold they disappear. In reality, i.e. the printout the regions of overexposure do not disappear they actually got bigger.
Best
Frank
-
Ho Frank,
Thank you for your post.
Indeed, the enabled Exposure Warning option reflects clipped areas of the current image state.
In case you need to see the exposure warnings on RAW files, just right-click on the thumbnail in the Browser and select New Variant. This will create a new variant based on the original state of the RAW file.
The exposure warning for the output file will be the same as for the current version of the variant displayed in the Viewer.
0 -
Hi Lily,
your answer is incorrect. A new variant will still have the default tone-curve that is embedded in the camera profile applied to it. A user would have to (at least) also select "Linear Response" in the "Base Characteristics" and then the exposure warning would still depend on white balance settings and/or default settings of other parameters.
Furthermore, the exposure warning shown by the Viewer will only be directly applicable to the output file, if the output file will be generated using the recipe that is currently used by the Viewer. Even setting the "Proof Profile" to "Selected Recipe" won't guarantee that, as the user may choose one or more different output recipes.
There is of course no way to predict the exposure warning for an output file with an unknow recipe, so using the "Selected Recipe" functionality is the best option.
0 -
Agree with you. This is what I send to Lily nearly at the same time:
this is what I expect, however it does not work.1) The RAW file already includes several adjustments from CO during import, i.e. the curve. Even with linear there are deviations as can be easily seen when comparing the date with the tool „Rawdigger“. I think this has to do with the „standard“ settings such as input sharpening, noise reduction and so on used on the image during import. The different can be very significant, i.e 10 or more out of 255.2) With respect to output try the follwing:Set the exposure warning to something like 250 in the settings. Take an image and increase the exposure so that there are lots of blown out regions. Activate exposure warning -> lots of colored areas with overexposure. Go to the curve tool and reduce the output (not input) setting to 249 and then all blown out regions disappear but of course in reality nothing has changed and the regions are still overexposed. To me a clear bug!-1 -
You need to consider Paul Reiffers explanation of what the warning is intended to do and how it can be used.
It does what it does. It may not be what you want. That does not mean it is wrong.
0 -
@SFA
"It does what it does."
This could be a generic - very unhelpful - response to any suggestion for improving C1."It may not be what you want."
Why "may"? If Frank were satisfied with what is available, he wouldn't have written a feature request."That does not mean it is wrong."
But (not in this case, but in general) it could be wrong, or (in this case) not enough, or (in general) improvable.I think I'm not alone in asking myself how you think that your posts that defend C1 are helping anyone.
Apart from that I don't think you should be suggesting to Frank to read up on how a certain tool works when he is clearly asking for additional functionality that currently is not available. Note that he wrote "...to also have access...".
-1 -
@Frank
"Go to the curve tool and reduce the output (not input) setting to 249 and then all blown out regions disappear but of course in reality nothing has changed and the regions are still overexposed. To me a clear bug!"It's not a bug with the view that "exposure warnings" are concerned with output levels.
What you are looking for is a "clipping warning". Note that such a "clipping warning" would be best based on output levels, as opposed to RAW data.
Do you want both information about RAW data clipping and output level clipping or would one of them be sufficient?
0 -
@SFA
I have enjoyed many of Paul's videos and learned a lot and I agree that he explains well how to use the tool. The issue I have is the description of the "Exposure Warning" in the Capture One manual: "You can preview clipping in the highlight and shadows while working on various tools in Capture One that alter the exposure. The warnings are an essential aid in determining when image detail is lost during adjustment..."
As soon as I start changing the output levels in the levels tool there are images where this is not true any more. This is why I called it a "bug", maybe broken functionality would have been more appropriate.
@Class A
I actually would like to have both but for different reasons.
Clipping warning in the output as I use the levels tool for adjusting the levels for the specific paper I will be using.
Clipping warning in the RAW file in order to find the optimum exposure (if I have several) or at least see that I will have an issue / challenge with color cast due to one (or more) channel clipping. Here it would also help if one could zoom into the exposure evaluation tool.
I know workarounds for both topics but they take time / extra steps and therefore are easily integrated in a fast workflow.
Best
Frank
0 -
@ Frank Lison.
Nice to see someone providing a reasonable critique of a perceived problem and suggestion an additional idea for a new or enhanced feature.
That's a much more constructive approach to the aims of this particular part of the forum in my opinion.
Is your additional suggestion for output clipping related primarily to the Proofing process approach or do you see it as some new additional feature in the print area?
However I do wonder if you may be a member of a small but rather specialist of C1 users working at that level of precision.
Have you ever checked the Cultural Heritage version to see if the sort of functionality you are seeking has some sort of presence there? If so there could be some hope.
0 -
@SFA
Thanks for the hint.I have been looking into the Cultural Heritage versions. To me it seems like a specialised version of Capture One for archiving material (photos, paintings,..) with focus on keeping the details including the colours as close as possible to the original.
Best
Frank
0
Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.
Kommentare
9 Kommentare