No. until the subjective decisions are made with respect to how to render the colors of the raw file, and the subjective choice of a tone response curve, there is nothing to be viewed. This is irrespective of the camera colorspace or the monitor. Until those decisions are made you cannot view the raw file.
It seems that not everybody is on the same page regarding the meaning of the term “culling”. If you’re tweaking images you have stepped beyond culling.
I wouldn’t want to tweak during my culling; that’s my own personal opinion. I like to separate my activites. If I’m editing, then I want to edit the whole thing. If I’m looking for things to edit, then I just do that.
I still don’t really understand what you’d do with this information. Even looking at a jpeg histogram and a jpeg thumbnail, I can get a pretty accurate picture about what is clipped and what isn’t. And from experience shooting my camera, I know about what I can squeak out of a shot. If I know I can’t get the whole dynamic range, I’ll bracket, or if it some action, I’ll expose for the subject and if there is clipping, then so be it.
The features of the program in question are nice, but I don’t see a great use for anything other than the raw histogram, personally.
@paperdigits I agree and respect your personal opinion and workflow, as that is what I used to do for culling and processing jobs, keeping them separated till date.
But I came across a situation ,where in having 842 raw images and to select 300 best images and process and convert to jpg in sRGB space ,to be included in the foto book to be designed, this made to look for a faster and better way of culling. To do that , first I thought of what should be my criteria for culling (selecting 300 out of 842 is not a easy task)and the criteria I came up with is as follows:
- Subject ( clicking by mistake and not pointing to subject)
- Composition
- Exposure
- Focusing
- Noise
In that order and I was looking for a culling tool which can do this and during that time I came across these articles and made to me rethink about culling process, which I wanted to share with you all and share your thoughts on this. The tool in the article is not the subject of the topic, it is the concepts in the article I want share nothing else…
1 Like
The underlying problem is that a JPEG contains an image while a raw file only gives you raw data that has to be interpreted before you get an image to display. Let’s ignore the corner case of dumping Bayer data to the screen and looking at a greyscale pixelated version of the image.
@paperdigits [quote=“paperdigits, post:23, topic:3000”]
raw data statistics like the percentage of underexposed raw pixles and over exposed raw pixles
I still don’t really understand what you’d do with this information.
[/quote]
I request you to watch the video clip which is at the bottom of the page in the link given below, for why we need these statistics for proper culling of raw files based on raw data and not on jpg data of the thumbnail.
I watched once, but the speakers English accent is little bit difficult for me to understand ,so I can not say much here,any way I am going through the transcript of the clip which is also available in the same page in PDF format for download. This will give a better understanding of why we need these statistics
My feeling is that, “I was there, I know the lighting conditions, and I know why I made the exposures I did” is enough to cull; I don’t feel that all that extra data would help me, because I know what the good exposure for the type of photo I want to make is. I rarely review my photos and find a surprise because I know what I want at the scene, I know the details of the scene, and I exposed properly.