Comments on: Feedback, please: Adobe raw processing vs. others

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:12:43 +0000

For decades, I seemed to be the only person who noticed that extreme wide angle lenses shift colors slightly at the edges. Most ultrawide lenses get a little cooler in the corners.
I’m the only one who reports on in in lens tests, as I do in my report on the Nikon 14mm and my report on the Zeiss 21mm lenses.
Lo and behold, yesterday I was learning how to use Phase One Capture One 5 PRO, and it has the ability to calibrate and correct for this problem! Heh heh, I have a few ideas of what I’m going to do with this.
Phase One Capture One 5 PRO is software for professional use in converting raw files into final images. It is a few steps above Photoshop and amateur programs like Lightroom in being designed for exacting, ultra-high quality conversions.
For $400, this software is a bargain, considering that it’s the same software real studio pros use with Phase One digital backs that can cost as much as a new Mercedes C-Klasse.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:11:00 +0000

By: PECourtejoie

PECourtejoie — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:40:59 +0000

Jim, Rob, heikkipekka. John asked for examples, not statements. If you really want ACR/LR to evolve, match or surpass those other raw conversion engines, please post the different results you get, and better, the raw files themselves…

By: heikkipekka

heikkipekka — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:44:34 +0000

Used LR1 but changed to NX1 and then NX2 for better COLOR ACCURACY, COLOR HANDLING and COLOR APPEARANCE, especially when using recover highlights and fill light.
Tried LR2.5 with camera profiles which seemed to do better but still not well. LR3 beta version seems much better for rendering colour. Also noise and sharpening seemed to do better.
When sunset looks more like just one shade of orange instead of rich colors of red, yellow AND orange, it makes no sense using LR for rendering those images.

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:17:07 +0000

I have done innumerable head to head comparisons of LR2 vs. DxO 5.3. DxO’s IQ is superior, and in the case of lenses for which it has specific correction modules, it is WAAAY superior. A blind person could see the difference. Also, DxO’s geometric correction tools are great.
LR wins in terms of localized edits and DAM, and I also prefer its color rendering for my camera. For this reason, I process in DxO with all color corrections disabled and then export DNGs to LR for fine tuning. But the best images end up in PS, where I use the Nik Suite extensively, so localized edits in LR are not truly essential to my workflow.
I have recently been testing Capture One 5, and I am impressed by the detail, sharpness and color. LR3/ACR will have to make big improvements in IQ in order to stay in the game, as far as I am concerned.

By: Jim Lafferty

Jim Lafferty — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:22:16 +0000

With the same WB setting, I get nicer skin tones straight out of C1Pro version 5 than I do straight from the LR3 beta. I’m a huge fan of LR for its file management, tagging and web gallery exporting functions, but I think C1 beats it out for skin, which unfortunately for me and my workflow, means I will have to use two RAW managers.
I’d be happy to provide samples once I have the time and return to my studio computer. In short, LR3′s defaults render skin more washed out and yellow. I’m shooting with a Nikon D300 in 14 bit RAW.

By: Jean-Romain

Jean-Romain — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:35:32 +0000

Hello,
I’ve just finished a comparison for skin tones with 4 RAW software converters :
- Capture NX
- Adobe Lightroom 2
- Capture One 5
- DXO Optics 6
The result (comparison) is available here :
Comparison of 4 RAW converters regarding skin tones
Enjoy !
Jean-Romain.

By: Mark Alan Thomas

Mark Alan Thomas — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:28:58 +0000

Re-posting* my first example of Sigma Photo Pro doing a better job with an .x3f raw file than Lightroom: http://homepage.mac.com/markalanthomas/.Public/spp-vs-lr.jpg Notice how the Sigma Photo Pro version on the left preserves the color information in the white areas of the cat’s face, while Lightroom loses it. Clearly the color information is in the raw file. So what’s happening to it in Lightroom? Is it clipped in the conversion to linear DNG? *Not sure why this didn't post the first time. Maybe because I linked to a file (the DNG)?

By: Mark Alan Thomas

Mark Alan Thomas — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:17:30 +0000

Here’s another example of Sigma Photo Pro doing better with an .x3f raw file than Lightroom: http://homepage.mac.com/markalanthomas/.Public/daisy.jpg The Sigma Photo Pro version on the left preserves the yellow color information in the highlights of the flower’s petals, whereas Lightroom makes the petals look waxy. Also, the green leaves in the dark background look cleaner and greener in the Sigma Photo Pro version, while Lightroom makes them look somewhat dull and dirty. And let me say that I'm not trying to make the Lightroom image look worse. I really want it to look better so I can stop using SPP altogether.

By: Carsten Whimster

Carsten Whimster — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:09:55 +0000

I haven’t tried LR3 Beta yet, so take these comments as being more relevant to LR2.5.
I love LR (except for the existence of the pointless and political word ‘Photoshop’ in the program name), and have used it almost exclusively since version 1.0, and even prior to that. I did a shootout compared to Aperture at the time, and found the interface cleaner, the speed greater, and the two programs otherwise comparable.
I haven’t regretted, but I do find the occasional need to jump to some other program for adjustments, including C1, NoiseWare and Photoshop CS4.
Apart from the fact that many of sliders have too short ranges (such as the white balance sliders; why not be more generous with the range?), the primary weaknesses of LR2.5 were the white balance tools (I often found that even after clicking on a grey, there was a colour cast; this is not the case in C1), sharpening, noise reduction and detail from the demosaicing. I also found that I would like to have a stronger system of profiles, more like C1 or Aperture’s support for ICC profiles, more accessible to the user. The problem often is simply that the algorithms used don’t work that well with my cameras (Leica M8, Sinar eMotion e54 LV), or the ranges of the sliders are too short, and so although I can see the image improve, I hit the end of the slider before I get where I want to be.
I have heard good things about LR3 w.r.t. noise reduction, which I will be sure to try out. I am reluctant to jump to LR3 Beta right now, since I am in the middle of reworking the structure of my library, but will upgrade when the final is released. I look forward to it.

By: Rick McCleary

Rick McCleary — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:57:37 +0000

J – I just sent you an email with a comparison file attached…

By: Marky

Marky — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:20:33 +0000

Ok. It looks like Adobes RAW processing algorithm needs to be looked at from the ground up. Unfortunately no tweaking the interface and localized adjustments is going to patch this gap.
So I humbly suggest that Adobe with their resources, try and commandeer whoever it was at Phase One who came up with their ‘extremely sophisticated and patented algorithm’ which they brag about.

By: Rick McCleary

Rick McCleary — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:30:46 +0000

My experience parallels what Marky has shown with his “Smile” image.
C1 displays a greater openness and dimensional depth in the shadows and more elegant transitions in the mids and highlights. It’s subtle, but obvious. I’m working on my own set of examples to post.
I’ve had limited success getting ACR to mimic the C1 “look” (both tonal and color) via the DNG Profile Editor.
All of this said, I still use a Bridge/ACR/Photoshop workflow because of speed. But I covet that C1 look.

By: Marky

Marky — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:14:40 +0000

Well I did attempt to provide this. But for some strange reason the jpegs I carefully made up and posted, have not appeared. Hmmm
[Ah—was caught in my spam trap for some reason. Publishing now. --J.]

By: Marky

Marky — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 09:31:00 +0000

Ok fair request. I’ve made an attempt to ‘break apart’ the differences in these jpegs.
The first is an easy to achieve Capture One process.
[IMG]http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af173/tankforth/smileC1.jpg[/IMG]
The second is a much more difficult to achieve ACR process. (using point curves and very careful tweaking) in an attempt to even come close to what Capture One can achieve. A typical ACR process would be even worse than this.
[IMG]http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af173/tankforth/smileACR.jpg[/IMG]
When I was talking about tonal relationships, – this image attempts to show the difference. Capture One seems to pull out better tonal definition always. This is done in a completely natural way and not processed looking like ‘clarity’ or ‘contrast’.
[IMG]http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af173/tankforth/smilecopy.jpg[/IMG]
These cannot be up for that long so please take them. Thanks