PhotoFlow News and Updates

photoflow
news

(Carmelo Dr Raw) #146

Yes, gtk3 builds have some issues due to other code I am introducing. I hope to get it sorted out in the next hours…


#148

Could you add “Area” to the non-raw white balance tool? Also, is there a point to a “Camera” mode there?


(Carmelo Dr Raw) #149

Yes, I will do it. However, at the moment I am focusing on the completion of the lens correction module, to allow user-selectable camera and/or lens to be used in the correction (for the moment, the module only uses the EXIF data to automatically determine the camera/lens combination…

Yes, for example to give the possibility to apply the original camera WB to a TIFF file that was created from a RAW image and saved in UniWB mode.

I have no time at the moment to elaborate on this, but the basic workflow would be the following:

  • open a RAW image, adjust the WB to taste (so that the demosaicing is performed with optimal WB coefficients), and keep the image in the camera colorspace
  • add a WB adjustment layer, and set it to UniWB. This will likely produce a green-ish image that restores the RGB values as captured by the sensor, but demosaiced
  • save the image as floating-point TIFF
  • open the TIFF, add a WB adjustment layer, and set the WB as you wish. One can also add multiple instances of the WB adjustment module, combined with masks to selectively adjust the WB of different areas of the image
  • finally, add a colorspace conversion layer and convert from the camera colorspace to your preferred working colorspace (sRGB, Rec.2020, ProPhoto…)

The important thing is to perform the WB adjustments in the camera colorspace, otherwise the results might be wrong (particularly if the RGB colorspace is gamma-encoded).

The TIFF file saved as above can be considered as a “processed digital negative”, ready for further processing but already converted from RAW to RGB format…


#150

Didn’t expect a response but thanks for giving a longish explanation :snowboarder:.


#151

I customarily turn on hot pixel and lens corrections. Recently, I have noticed that lens corrections tool isn’t active. I guess that is because you are working on it. As for hot pixels, it would be nice if there were a prompt that told me whether or not there were hot pixels to clean in the first place.

I have tried turning on and off the hot pixel tool and exporting one of each to compare. One thing I have noticed is that sometimes the difference image yields a slight non-zero grey image when the two exports should probably be equal except for the hot pixels. Then when I re-export one of both, the difference is 0. Haven’t tested this thoroughly.


(nosle) #152

Hi @Carmelo_DrRaw I was planning on building a recent (development) version of PhotoFlow but it seems there are no recent commits in master? The links in first post point to a repo with no recent commits? There’s nothing since august. Am I missing something obvious or have you moved the code elsewhere?


#153

@nosle https://github.com/aferrero2707/PhotoFlow/tree/stable


(Carmelo Dr Raw) #154

As @afre already pointed out, you need to grab the stable branch from github.

The master branch is only updated when I commit a new release, that’s why is currently a bit outdated…


(nosle) #155

ahh. I checked out a few suspicious branches but couldn’t have guessed that stable was development :slight_smile: ! And my git magick isn’t that great.


(Carmelo Dr Raw) #156

I just finished to complete the code that handles the lens corrections. For the moment, the new code is only available in the Raw Developer module, as I would like to get some feedback before adding more code.

The new interface looks like this:

28

The two text boxes are inactive, unless the auto matching box is un-checked. In this case, clicking on the boxes pops-up a menu for selecting the camera and lens model among all those included in the Lensfun database:

I’d really like to get your impressions and suggestions!
As usual, packages are available from GitHub.


#157

Any chance for text searching of such a ridiculously long list of lenses?


#158

I agree with @CarVac. While we are at it, why not add search to the new layer tool?


#159

I like the ability to select correction of some of the old manual focus lens I have so thanks for providing this. I tried it with a ORF file from my Olympus EM-1 with a 50mm f1.8 zuiko from my old OM-1 (bought more then 40 years ago). Although I can select the lens (listed as ‘Olympus Zuiko Auto-S 50mm f/1.8’ in lensfun) whenever I change any other parameters the entry in the lens correction box changes to ‘Unknown Lens’. That particular lens has very little distortion so it is not really a major issue. I don’t know if this affects other lens selections.

I’m using a mac running High Sierra V10.13.3


(Carmelo Dr Raw) #160

This is because Lensfun does not “accept” this camera/lens combination as valid. I did a quick check with RT and DT, and both do not list this lens when the EM-1 is selected.
There might be good reasons why Lensfun does not allow to combine the EM-1 with the Auto-S 50mm, or it might be some kind of bug, I don’t know…

I get a similar behaviour for example when I try to associate a Nikon DX lens with a Nikon FX camera.

EDIT: the next step will be to modify the lens menu such that it only lists the lenses that are compatible with the selected camera. RT and DT seem to work in this way.


#161

How very strange. There are no digital bodies that are ‘valid’ with the auto-s 50mm as it is from the film era Olympus cameras. If adapted lens on mirrorless cameras are to supported it would be better not to restrict the lenses to only those ‘valid’. From my limited knowledge of lensfun I don’t believe it does restrict lens selection other than by crop factors and the ‘auto-s 50mm’ is listed as ok for four thirds cameras.


(Elle Stone) #162

Hmm, well, that seems like a high-handed approach on the part of Lensfun - any way to override it given that a lot of people use lenses that were in no way designed for the camera on which they are mounted? Or does this “not compatible” speak to some basic issue such as perhaps the amount/degree of distortion depends not only on the lens, but also somehow on the camera? Such as maybe a 35mm lens on a crop-factor camera?


(Alberto) #163

hi,

it seems my memory is getting worse lately, so don’t trust me completely, but I don’t think RT works this way. you should be free to select any body/lens combo you want, and if they don’t “match” you should just get a warning icon, which you should be free to ignore… but maybe this is all just in my mind :slight_smile:


#164

Just checked DT and RT with the same ORF file.

DT only shows the mFT native lens (under olympus lens) with EM-1 selected. However if you select a generic Four Thirds camera then all lens show including the 50mm f1.8.

In RT then a longer list of FT lens show and is the same if EM-1 or generic FT camera selected. However in both cases the 50mm f1.8 does not show.

Confusing! It looks like it is not intrinsic to lensfun but how it is implemented in each program.


(Carmelo Dr Raw) #165

For this specific case, the “mount” of the 50mm f1.0 is marked as “Olympus OM” in the Lensfun database, while al Olympus cameras have a “4/3 System” mount. And the online documentation states:
"Also camera mount is taken into account, the lenses with incompatible mounts will be filtered out."
I see two possible solutions:

  • the Lensfun DB should be corrected by adding a “4/3 System” mount compatibility to the 50mm f1.8
  • the software (PhF, RT, DT) should repeat the lens query after having set the Mount field of the lfCamera structure to NULL, so that the type of the mount is ignored

I will try to implement the second option, to see what is the result.


#166

Thanks for the info. Note that in Photoflow I can select the 50mm f1.8 lens so it is not filtered out of the list. The problem is that if I change anything either elsewhere in raw development (eg exposure) or add a curves layer etc the lens designation goes to ‘unknown lens’. I can then reselect it but as soon as I change something else it reverts to ‘unknown lens’. Hope this helps.