PhotoFlow News and Updates

photoflow
news

#187

@Carmelo_DrRaw is aware of the issue so we just need to be patient.

What do you mean by levels? To open a PFI file, you need the original raw file in the same folder, and only PhotoFlow can open it.


#188

The levels I refer to are the black and white levels in PF (which as you can see in the image) when compared to the saved output image with no more adjustments. I’m sure it would be impossible to get them correct in PF as it is at the moment. I’ve attached the raw imageP1000002.RW2 (22.6 MB)

Regarding the PFI file, everything is in the same folder, I realize it is only a reference file with additional information, but PF will not open it regardless. The waveform has some information in it but that is not related to the image that should load and the image window remains blank.


#189

I opened the raw file and saved it as PFI and JPG. I have no trouble opening the PFI. Below are the images that I see.

Preview (PhotoFlow)

Exported (JPG)

One thing to note is that the mismatch probably has to do with your image viewer not being color managed. If I open the JPG in GIMP 2.9.x, I get this prompt:

image

So, in order for the image to look right in an environment without color management, you would need to convert to sRGB. Converted by GIMP (you could also do it in PhotoFlow via Color profile conversion):

You can find other threads that address color management. I won’t elaborate on the subject here.


#190

You are correct the color space needs converting. Thanks you that, I didn’t even think of that for some reason and I should have, hasn’t been an issue for a long time.

However PFI files do not load on my computer (windows10 Pro). See attached

The other thing how do I change the output quality of JPG images? TIF files are just to big for what I require and to use other software to convert them seems a backwards step.


#191

That’s odd. What happened to RAW developer? Even if I delete RAW developer, the preview should be white not blank.

PS @Carmelo_DrRaw When I open a PFI without a raw file, PF appears to be stuck in a search loop.


#192

On one or two occasions when I have tried to load PFI’s the RAW developer has appeared but still no image.

You didn’t mention if I can change the jpg quality. I would like to try using PF on some jpg images so I can get more used to some of its features.
I probably will not bother if the output quality cannot be changed.


#193

I know a more advanced export function is on the to-do list. I don’t know about JPG quality, so I cannot give you a definitive answer but my guess is it is at 100%. Personally, I rarely export JPG because I tend to want to edit an unbounded TIF in another app afterward.


#194

Its currently at less than 50%.


#195

How do you know that? I noticed some blocking in the JPG but below-50% is kind of extreme to be believable… Observe:

PF JPG, cropped:
image

PF TIF → JPG 50%, cropped:
image

See how much blockier it is. So, it is neither 100% nor below 50%.


#196

I was just guessing the 50% which I judged on file size.
Sorry I was wrong again, its just above 50% according to GIMP
A very detailed image (not the one I sent) saved in GIMP at 100% is 11MB in size
The same image saved at 50% in GIMP is just under 2MB
While saving in PF is just over 2MB
I could repeat the process in RT or DT with a similar result.
Even your results confirm that the jpg output of PF should be adjustable.


(Carmelo Dr Raw) #197

@Goorawin @afre I will look at the lens fun issue under Win as soon as I have access to a win machine, but not before next weekend.

As @afre mentioned, a more detailed export module, with JPEG quality adjustment and much more, is in development…


#198

Thanks for the reply
You have done a great job on this program so far.
To me is seems a very logical and easy to understand layout. I would certainly like to get to use it more.
I do find DT and RT much more complex and difficult to get a handle on, but then they do have their different advantages which do work well.
So keep up the good work


(Carmelo Dr Raw) #199

@Goorawin @afre - I have updated the Win64 and OSX packages, and hopefully fixed the issue of the missing lens corrections.

I’d be grateful if you could check and confirm that the fix works for you as well…

Thanks!


#200

Will investigate in a few days. Had a thought a while back. Would it be possible to make a correction and then emulate the distortions of another lens? That would be neat.


#201

Thank you for the quick update, much appreciated.
Yes, it now allows changing the lens correction and colour profile which is great. However the layout now make selecting some of the options more difficult, see attached.
Which directory on windows is used to store the lens correction profiles. At the moment it does not have my camera profile, a Panasonic DMCFZ2500, so I have to use a DMCFZ1000 profile instead, which is not quite correct.
Interestingly because I can load the colour profile manually, I’m now able to load the correct colour profile for my camera but not the lens correction.

I have not found an option that allows setting these profiles as a default, which means reloading them on each new image, a rather slow process. Am I missing something?

Unfortunately this version appears to be crashing much more frequently. At the moment, I have not been able to narrow anything in particular down, that may be causing this issue. I’ll let you know if I find anything, but I’m only using it for testing, because this and its JPG quality.


#202

@Goorawin Re: Layout. I am using the non-GTK3 versions, with which I am more comfortable.

@Carmelo_DrRaw Using the raw from [PlayRaw] Falkert - Austrian Landscape, I go into the menu and select the closest named lens (exiftool says it is a AF-S Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED). However, when I do anything in PhotoFlow including resizing the app window, the setting changes back into Unknown lens.


(Carmelo Dr Raw) #203

I am looking into that, there is indeed something still fishy in the way lenses are selected and associated to cameras…


(Carmelo Dr Raw) #204

I looked more in detail into this, and it turns out that many Nikon lenses in the lensfun database have been characterized using APS-C sensors, even if they are compatible with FF cameras. Hence, the correction parameters are unfortunately not valid for the D610 used for the PlayRAW shot. Here is an example, which probably corresponds to the lens you have been trying to use:

    <lens>
        <maker>Nikon</maker>
        <model>Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED</model>
        <model lang="en">Nikkor AF 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED</model>
        <mount>Nikon F AF</mount>
        <!-- Average crop factor of Nikon APS-C cameras -->
        <cropfactor>1.528</cropfactor>
        <calibration>
            <distortion model="ptlens" focal="18" a="0.005981" b="-0.024888" c="0"/>
            <distortion model="ptlens" focal="21" a="0.005045" b="-0.019527" c="0"/>
            <distortion model="ptlens" focal="23" a="0.001429" b="-0.00989" c="0"/>
            <distortion model="ptlens" focal="26" a="0" b="-0.00509" c="0"/>
            <distortion model="ptlens" focal="30" a="0" b="-0.003797" c="0"/>
            <distortion model="ptlens" focal="35" a="0" b="-0.002437" c="0"/>
        </calibration>
    </lens>

I need to modify the interface so that it removes from the list all lenses that are not compatible with the selected camera model…


#205

That’s too bad. I suppose the demand is high for crop sensor + lens combos. Could you still provide a checkbox to enable unintended combinations? This request along with the “correction then emulate distortion” one would be great!


(Carmelo Dr Raw) #206

Yes, I can do it, however I have no idea if LensFun works more or less reliably in this case…

Not that the matching criteria used in PhF is already more relaxed than in RT and DT, as I’m only requiring that the minimum crop factor in the database is lower than the one of the camera in use. The standard matching criteria of LensFun also includes the compatibility of the mounts, but we have already seen here that some unforeseen camera/lens combinations are actually perfectly legitimate.

Regarding the “correction then emulate distortion”, I am still trying to figure out if that is possible. More news ASAP.