It seems the forum software don't let me quote third time. I think it's better to raise those limits than leave them out of sight.
There is still much room in tones beyond 250 before the real clipping. Not pessimistic but very safe for print production. I don't remember if those were C1 defaults or my own custom settings. There was (in RGB values from 0 to 255) 6 and 250. With that said, I still prefer to use an instrument designed for giving me repeatable, standard values - a light meter.Ĭlick to expand.I did check my settings in C1 for clipping warnings. It really doesn't matter how it's done or with what tool, as long as it's something that you understand and can get repeatable results. There's too much "magic" behind the scenes that we don't know about for each manufacturer to make their tool "the better choice". In the end, histograms are still not accurate, guaranteed, or standardized. Even for document imaging and repro, they recommend "Linear Response". P1/C1 has recommended that Scientific shouldn't be used except for calibration purposes, sensor profiling, or extreme situations where raw data accuracy was needed. LR doesn't have a linear response in that their "flat" curve isn't flat all and has all kinds of muddying to make it "easier" to use. Once you get to "Linear Scientific", it's a true flat profile with absolutely no curve attached - and no clipping protection at all. In reality, it's "no" curve with just some high points tweaked to prevent clipping. And I still prefer the use of sessions in C1.Īlso remember that "Linear Response" in C1 is a profile with a very minimal curve attached. You still can't fade the opacity of layer in LR (it's not really a layer anyway, just an adjustment via brush or ND filter. Overall I tend to prefer the rendering of the C1 file especially the blue hue in the sky.Ĭ1 with the use of layers, and the selection tools within the layers and selection tools to create various layers, and the ability to handle opacity within a layer, just offers to much more than LR and ACR. Note that even though C1 shows the clouds to be blown even with the linear curve selected, the actual image produced shows none of this. There are some images where I prefer it, but it can and will get possibly overpowering.Īlso, Eric, thanks for the post. C1 loads by default a strong curve, in the Auto selection. The highlight tool also seems to accentuate this effect also. This is when you select a sky especially blue, with few clouds to help break it up, if you work within the sky selection you often see a lighter band of sky towards where the sky hits the foreground subject matter (for example a mountain). It can and will save many images in C1, that appear to have blown highlights, and IMO it also helps prevent an issue I have noticed in C1 for years. Use of the Linear Curve is very important, glad Eric mentioned it. So, to get cleanest tonal response we would try to keep exposure at maximum, still avoiding clipping significant highlights in the raw data. Increasing exposure by one EV yields a 41% advantage in noise. Noise in the image is directly coupled to exposure. What are the benefits of 'Exposing to the right'? While this one is my conversion in Lightroom. The image above is my raw conversions in Capture One What I think the images above illustrate is that the histograms in the raw converter are no true representations of the raw data. Opening the file in Lightroom at default setting, we got no overexposure at all. Now, looking at the same image in Capture One at defaults the clouds seem to be clipped.Ĭhanging tone curve to 'Linear Scientific' we get: So, this shows a very small overexposed area. In a way, I would suggest that photographers interested in image quality would be interested in a tool for viewing the raw data.