OK - we have raw files from 10 folks now. I will distribute the raw files tonight and send out the download links.

Raw files received from 10 of 12
AndrewKulin
Brammers
EduPerez
EricM
Jeff Philips
Panopeeper
awolfe
Sigi
Tim Gray
nniko


Participant List: 12 out of 12 slots filled
Tim Gray
Panopeeper
PeterAit
nniko
AndrewKulin
Brammers
Sigi
Jeff Philips
awolfe
EricM
EduPerez
Christopher


The Process

• signup - complete
• upload links provided - complete
• Everyone upload 1 RAW file - 9 out of 12
• Upload your own take on your own RAW file.
• Everyone receives a link for 3 RAW files - not started
• Everyone processes all 3 RAW files and uploads a full resolution jpeg at full quality, and also at 1280x1024
• I will present links for the rendered versions of the files - small, as well as full size.
• I will present links for all the RAW files.

Original Post:
I remember reading something that Brooks Jensen wrote, something about him wondering when we'll get to the point where we sell raw files to other photographers for them to print. All the benefits to the learner, yet none of the risks to the negative. I think I'd have a tough time pulling off "Moonrise, Hernandez" from a scan of the negative.

Buy you know what? I'd love to try.

I'm curious if on some image that I feel is just "not quite there", if someone else could pull it off. I'm also curious if I could pull off the same job on an image that someone else has.

Here is what I'm proposing:

People sign up to participate on this thread.

Everyone that participates will contribute 1 raw file that they are willing to put in the public domain (but still, no cats please) along with their own development of that raw file.

Everyone that participates will be assigned 2 raw files to process.

The photographer's original rendering of the image along with the 2 other renderings will be gathered and posted in the same post once they are all collected and the exchange has finished.

I have server space (VPS) I would be willing to use to host and exchange the raw data (unless the volumes became too large - then we'd have to find something else)

I expect the timeline would be a month or more from end to end.

Some people have hangup about working other people's negatives/files. Think of it more as a workshop with peer review!

Sounds like fun. I'd be interested. Files would be from 1DS MK 3

A Canon 40D here.

It sounds like a good idea in theory but I wonder if it would actually work. For one thing, I don't have the time to process my own photos let alone other people's. Second, I think there's sort of a catch-22: this idea is most appealing for photos I think have a lot of potential, but I would be hesitant to put such photos in the public domain.

Anyway, I'd probably give it a try if you can get some people involved. What would be particularly interesting, I think, is to see the different "takes" that we have on processing the same RAW image.

I like it! Count me in too. (Nikon D70, D200 or D300, depending on how old an image I pick.)

It would be very interesting to see how others would process the same photo differently from me.

Lisa

I'm intrigued by this. A 40D here.

Andrew

This sounds like fun! Would there be any limitiations on our PP - would we be looking to get close to the original, to maintain the style of the original, or could we do whatever we wanted?

Sign me up please

Sounds like fun - I am in

Siegfried

I'm in with a D700 or D300...

I've updated above with the participant list so far.

PeterAit - I agree completely with what you say re: image quality/willingness to give up rights. I think it might be fun to do it with more complex terms to allow everyone to protect/retain IP if this works out well - but wanted to start simple.

We're at 9 participants right now. I plan to cut it off at 12 on the first run.

Does everyone have an FTP client they're comfortable using?

What the heck. Somebody's got to be the worst PP-er in the list, so count me in, too. 

I do have an ftp client that works fine for me.

EricM

Yes, I'm happy with FTP

Looks like fun, add me to the list, please.

I can deal with FTP.

Lisa

Well I could only do it on my notebook screen, so colors might not be 100% like I would like them, but I would be interested if you don't mind that.

We have a full set of participants now.

I'll be PM'ing everyone FTP login information over the next day or two - we'll give it a week to collect everyone's files, then I'll write a quick program to anonymously shuffle them and we'll get them passed out!

I'm glad to see my name at the list!

Is there any guideline / advice / suggestion about which RAW file I must send? Any one I find suitable?

I would suggest:

• Anything you want
• Something that is going to be open to numerous interpretations - tonal ambiguity? multiple cropping options?
• Anything that you want to see how someone else would do it.
• Something that is not going to be offensive or potentially illegal in the processor's jurisdiction (not the place for your Maplethorpe self portrait)

awolfe, I'd actually be interested in trying my hand at processing *more* than two other participants' raw files. Something more like six, maybe. What do the rest of you think?

Or maybe we could each be assigned two (per your original plan), but have the other nine available so we can try out any of those we find interesting if we feel like doing more of them, and a way to communicate our final results back to their original owners like our assigned two. What do you think?

Lisa

I'll second that but also say I don't want to create a lot of work for awolfe. Having additional files available to those that want to process them is a great idea. I agree - keep it at 2 files to participate but make the files available to those that want to do (or see) more. Whatever allows more knowlege base to filter out while keeeping the work-load for awolfe as small as possible...

Jeff

Not a bad idea to make all available in the end. But I'd rather not do that in the beginning, because everyone will cherry pick the same few best images.

Let's do 2 rounds:

Round 1 - everyone is assigned 3 files, returned, aggregated and posted and we have a good discussion on it.
Round 2 - once round 1 complete - I'll provide links for all the raw files to everyone, and then we can have a free for all on all the images.


To save those that have issues with FTP the problems - I built a browser based uploader. I'll be sending out the individual links today.

so how many raw files should I upload now in round 1?

Everyone should have their upload links now. Please begin to upload your 3 files.

Everyone go ahead and upload 3 files - we'll keep this open until the middle of next week.
Everyone will then be given a link for 3 files to download and process themselves - everyone will have a week or so to process the images and then resubmit them through the upload link.

We will present the results at the end of that period, and the the links for all the files will be presented to everyone.

Let's give this a whirl!

Hello Wolfe,

I have just tried to upload a file. Did not work. I pressed "send" it started to work but the progress bar did not move an inch. Have to catch a plane, try it again on Sunday

Siegfried

Hi all,

I'm not particularly sure what files people would like to process, so what I've done is uploaded a load from which I'll let you select 3. For me it's a fine balance between not putting in the public domain anything that I'm proud enough of to want to use in some way, while also not giving you lot utter rubbish to work from. I've split the shots into 2 groups - those which I'm prepared to relinquish all rights to, and those which I'll upload as long as everyone accepts that the usage is restricted to this competition only. I've also included a few notes where necessary.

Simply shout out if you've any preference from the shots below, and I'll bear those in mind when uploading in a few days' time. All shots as they came from the camera - no PP whatsoever on these - I feel a little naked showing you unfinished results to be honest!!!

[Edit]Ignore this - I've uploaded now

[Edit] - Ignore this - I've uploaded.

awolfe, just to clarify - in round 1, we upload 3 images our own? Or just one? If 3, then how many other people will be working on each one? Sorry, it's not yet clear to me...

Lisa

I'm confused too. If everyone uploads three files and everyone processes three files and they are selected by chance, then as far as I can count every raw file is processed only once. Or some not at all if it is random without removing the chosen ones from the pool. However if we upload one each and process three than we get a lot of variety.

I don't have a problem uploading three, just don't see the sense if we only edit three.

I'm now not sure what the original plan was, but like you I originally thought it was upload one, and process multiple ones (2, 3, or whatever), so everyone can see how *several* other people would process their one.

I think we need some clarification...

Thanks,
Lisa

You're all of course right - was answering on the fly in between meetings.

Upload 1 raw file per person, that image will get distributed to 3 different people for 3 different takes on the development.

Brammers - that's exactly the idea. We all understand that raw files straight from the camera are going to look very bad.

Sigi - yes - please try again. There is no status bar, so you just upload and let it sit for several minutes until it is done.

OK, i think I'm ready to upload. I picked a bunch of images that seemed to me to have "problems", so they would provide a challenge to pull a nice image out of them. Narrowing them down wasn't easy. I think I know which one I'll upload.

But: I see that the original 'specs' indicated that I should include my own best processing effort. So I'll upload the raw (Canon .cr2 file from a Canon 5D) file this evening and the processed version later on.

Good luck everybody!

Eric

Right, 1 image then, I was also under the impression it was 3.

In that case if people would care to make a little vote on any image from the ones I've posted above that they feel particularly strongly about, I'll get something up before the end of the week.

Cheers!

Thanks for the clarification! It all makes sense now.

I've uploaded mine. I had some problems at first - about thirty seconds after hitting the "Send" button, I would get the standard IE "cannot connect to the webpage" error message. Similar problem with Firefox on the same PC. But when I tried it on another PC running linux (using Firefox), it worked fine. I would guess that the Windows PC I was originally using had some security settings that were interfering with the uploading. I mention this in case someone else has a similar problem...

Lisa

Should one upload the own rendering together with the raw? What image size?

Good question. I have just uploaded two renderings of my own raw file, one in color and one converted to B&W, which is my preference for this image. I made them both 6.67x10" at 360 dpi as jpegs. Perhaps they should be more like 800 px or so in the long direction, suitable for web posting. Suggestions cordially invited, and I'll upload replacements if a consensus is reached.

Eric

I suggest to stick to image sizes for the monitor, but we need to agree on the size. I don't think printing size is useful, because (I guess) every one of us will want to see all images and different renderings.

And what about the size of rendered image by the "candidates"? The same consideration?

Of course, one could say anyone can downsize a larger image, but if the topic is fine rendering, then that should not occur, because the sharpening depends on the size.

Agreed. My main monitor is 1920x1200 pixels. I suggest we choose a size that will fit on the smallest of our main monitors, so if, for example, someone has one that does 1600x1200 and everyone has one at least that big, then we use 1200 as max height and 1600 as max width for every image. Then the pix would all be as big as possible on screen without anyone needing to scroll.


Does that make sense? If so, then what is the native resolution of everyone's monitor?

Eric

My monitor has the same size. Hpwever, when someone loads the images in an internet browser, the max. size will be less than the monitor size even in "full screen mode", at least with MSIE, and if the image is only one pixel larger, then scroll bar will be added, which makes the available space even smaller.

1920x1200 here too.

Why the concern about the photo size? My 40D native resolution is 2592x3888 so in the end to get to say my screen size I'd have to end up with approx. 1/4 the pixels. I would be fine with submitting the photos for critical review at whichever resolution and zoom in/out using PS, and then make a smaller jpeg version for submission into this thread for easier viewing by the public.

Apologies if I am missing something - my morning coffee is just being brewed up now

Andrew

Why a browser? My processed images aren't SRGB anyway. Go full res and "save as" and view in whatever viewer you want.

If we all go "full res", then most images will not fit on a monitor screen at full res, regardless of the viewer you use, unless the viewer is down-resing to fit on the screen, which will lose some detail anyway.

I'm happy to provide files at whatever size the team agrees on. If it's full res, then I would not apply any output sharpening.


We should probably decide on a common color space for the processed file, too. Since most of us are likely to be viewing them only on-screen, sRGB seems to me to make sense, although I will do all earlier processing in Prophoto, 16-bit.

I guess the ground rules need a bit more clarifying.

Eric

I am traveling and away from my photo computer. I won't be able to upload anything until Tuesday.

Hi,

Another request to all photographers. I am working with DXO and would love to have "virgin" rawfiles. DXO is a bit sensitive if other raw-converters have touched the file already. In case you want to upload raw files that you have already woked on with another raw converter I can always user either ACR or DPP but I just hardly use them.

Siegfried

How long do you wait? That's all you'll see but the message will change once it's been fully loaded.

Yesterday it suddenly worked. I have uploaded.

Siegfried

I would hope we would all be providing "virgin" raw files as you request. That's the point of the experiment, IMHO. The only situation in which a raw file might need to be reworked is if the camera that took it isn't recognized by someone's favorite raw converter, in which case converting it to .dng might be needed.

I decided not to include an image from my ancient Canon S60, since it isn't supported by most decent raw converters (and not by DxO), so my raw is from a Canon 5D. 


Eric

I have just uploaded my files:

• A RAW file, as it left the camera.
• A JPEG file, my best effort with it.

I have also included a PP2 file: it is the 'sidecar' file used by RawTherapee, the convertor I used to process that file, just in case the 'victim' who receives my files is curious. I tried to select a photograph that best matched both this site's name and the spirit of the thread. Hope you like it.

I've updated the first post with the remainder of the process.

Most notably, upload your rendering of a raw file as a full resolution, 100% quality jpeg. I will take care of batch generating the smaller sized jpegs (1280x1024, 800x600) so that everything is consistent across the board with respect to resizing results.

Also, let's upload your own take on your own RAW file as well.

Hello awolfe and others,

as already mentioned above I use DXO - in other words it would be great if we somehow let each other know what camera and lens we have used so that I can download the correction modules if available.

Thanks

Siegfried

I have a problem with this concept, namely that the sharpening depends on the presentation size. The image has to be resized before sharpening, everything else is barbarity.

This means, that we should agree on the size, for example as a from-to width and from-to height.