Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: The View on August 18, 2008, 08:25:32 pm
-
Chris' following post made me curious about RAW developer, and I wonder what your experiences with this RAW editor are (let's call it that way, as "RAW converters" just don't do only conversions any more).
The "neutral" style still transforms pixel values through an input curve. However, there is no color enhancement as far as I can tell. The huge downside to Canon's software is we can't see or edit that curve to our liking. The Neutral style has been saved and "locked" so none of its parameters can be seen or changed in Picture Style Editor.
Raw Developer, on the other hand, does have editable input curve parameters (along with many other input parameters) that allows for incredible control of the image data before the application of RGB curves, chroma curves, sharpening, etc.
Even Capture One uses input curves but they only offer three curves, none of which are viewable or editable ("film standard", "film extra shadow" and "film high contrast").
The input control of Raw Developer makes the program worth testing. My only wish is for an overlay feature like that of Capture One. When working with client approved layouts it is a very powerful feature.
I don't know of anyone who uses advanced Picture Styles, but a complete explanation of Picture Style Editor, along with more additional downloadable Picture Styles, can be found here (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/picturestyle/file/index.html).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215479\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I use lightroom for my commercial work but the RAW developer nearly exclusively for my own work (low volume fine art...).
Lightroom lets your work quickly and get you ok results in a little time (which is what i want if I have to deal with lots of photos). Raw developer on the other hand gives you very sharp and detailed files but it lacks a good highlight recovery and fill light function and CA control (all 3 important to me when working on architectural and interior images, that usualy challenge the recordable dynamic range). To get the most dynamic range out of my mamiya zd files I nearly always have to make 2 conversions (light/dark) and blend them. something that takes to long if you have to deal with lots of pics.
apart from that RD is very very good and fast. even on realy big prints the detail looks very natural and filmlike. I always set the sharpening to quite high (I know one shouldn´t do that) because it gives the file a lovely fine stucture almost like filmgrain. I think the extra detail you get with RD comes from the fact, that you can switch of noise reduction completely (with LR I dont seem to be able to do this. it always smears fine detail a little).
stefan
-
Chris' following post made me curious about RAW developer, and I wonder what your experiences with this RAW editor are (let's call it that way, as "RAW converters" just don't do only conversions any more).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215902\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Great raw converter. The best detail and speed on the market, and the current version is almost one year old... these guys are just in a class of their own as far as demoisacing is concerned. Adobe should have purchased them and not RSP...
The ability to work in Lab space right inside the raw converter is great for these images that lend themselves well to lab space corrections.
For ZD files, it is also the best option to remove hot pixels from long exposures.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For ZD files, it is also the best option to remove hot pixels from long exposures.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
true. the noise removal (as well as the sharpening) menu gives you heaps of fine control.
strangely, the new c1 4.1 cant handle the ZDs long exposure hot pixel at all.
also the option to use contrast curves in RGB and Lightness at the same time (!) makes RD very powerfull.
-
I wish Adobe would give a huge pile of money to this one man band and implement some of the fine processing he's providing in Adobe Raw products. I still use Lightroom for its functionality and its Raw processing is pretty good, but Raw Developer is still my gold standard in terms of rendering quality I judge others on.
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200607_rodneycm.pdf (http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200607_rodneycm.pdf)
-
...Raw developer on the other hand gives you very sharp and detailed files but it lacks a good highlight recovery and fill light function and CA control...
The judicious use of curves in the "In" tab, and again in the "Curves" tab (using Luminosity) do a much better job, providing far more control than a slider.
The default curve of the "In" tab is too strong and blows out highlights way too easily. It's better to make your own curve and set it as the default for your camera. I've photographed a Kodak step scale and a new Color Checker chart to help make a better input curve.
As for chromatic aberrations, my hope is that a future release of RD will provide that function.
-
I wish Adobe would give a huge pile of money to this one man band and implement some of the fine processing he's providing in Adobe Raw products. I still use Lightroom for its functionality and its Raw processing is pretty good, but Raw Developer is still my gold standard in terms of rendering quality I judge others on.
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200607_rodneycm.pdf (http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200607_rodneycm.pdf)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Andrew,
This is interesting - I'm using LR2 now and finding it both satisfactory and convenient. I would very much miss the highlight recovery and fill features if I were to use another raw converter which does not have them, or something similar. I'm interested in your evaluation of what specific aspects of Raw Developer you find perform better than LR2 or ACR 4.x, and whether these differences would be noticeable in a print, say from an Epson 3800.
Mark
-
This is interesting - I'm using LR2 now and finding it both satisfactory and convenient. I would very much miss the highlight recovery and fill features if I were to use another raw converter which does not have them, or something similar. I'm interested in your evaluation of what specific aspects of Raw Developer you find perform better than LR2 or ACR 4.x, and whether these differences would be noticeable in a print, say from an Epson 3800.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216049\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Highlight recovery, Vibrance, all useful and must have rendering features. But download a demo of RD and run the same Raw though it, zoom way in, look at how clean the demosicating is. Its more than just color appearance. The quality of the rendering is "film like" as many have described it. Its clean!
-
Highlight recovery, Vibrance, all useful and must have rendering features. But download a demo of RD and run the same Raw though it, zoom way in, look at how clean the demosicating is. Its more than just color appearance. The quality of the rendering is "film like" as many have described it. Its clean!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Andrew - good advice - the ultimate answer is testing it for oneself. I must say I don't find most film all that clean, but I think I know what you mean
Mark
-
Oops - just went there and discovered it's Mac only. I knew there must have been a reason why I didn't explore this one before!
Mark
-
Oops - just went there and discovered it's Mac only. I knew there must have been a reason why I didn't explore this one before!
Yet ANOTHER reason you need a bloody Mac. You can still run all those ugly Windows products on it too <g>.
-
Gosh, could I have PREDICTED you were going to say that?
Cheers,
Mark
PS. Not to start that issue again, but roughly 50% of the graphic arts market is on PC - it grew a lot as Windoze improved - but with the Intel Mac I think the pure-PC share is starting to recede. Nonetheless big enough that you'd think RawDeveloper would have also been configured for it - quite a large market potential. No?
-
PS. Not to start that issue again, but roughly 50% of the graphic arts market is on PC - it grew a lot as Windoze improved - but with the Intel Mac I think the pure-PC share is starting to recede. Nonetheless big enough that you'd think RawDeveloper would have also been configured for it - quite a large market potential. No?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216094\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually by MSFT's numbers, Mac in pro graphics has more like 60% of the market (and growing) but the thing I was going to point out is there's a real good reason why a developer may only support a single OS...developing for cross-platform is a royal pain. It's far more than just 2x the effort because of system dependancies, stuff must often get re-written from scratch to move to the other platform.
Adobe is VERY unusual in that they will engineer around platform specific issues–which is why apps like Photoshop and Lightroom seem so seamlessly cross=platform. It ain't easy, it ain't fun and one must have a real good reason to do so. Since RD only has a tiny fraction of the Mac markets, until such time as it grows, it may not make sense (economically–something you should know something about) to try to fight those cross-platform battles. Besides, there's a lot of stuff on Windows that we don't get on the Mac (you know, like viruses and malware and computer bots & zombies).
:~)
-
Good thoughts Jeff - yes, clearly, below a certain prospective market size the additional revenue wouldn't justify the additional cost - especially with extensive re-design issues. Of course designing for Windows would capture additional sales, but maybe on balance he decided it just isn't worthwhile. Oh well. I'll have to be content with my viruses and malware - but you should see what they do for image quality!
-
Great raw converter. The best detail and speed on the market, and the current version is almost one year old... these guys are just in a class of their own as far as demoisacing is concerned. Adobe should have purchased them and not RSP...
The ability to work in Lab space right inside the raw converter is great for these images that lend themselves well to lab space corrections.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for adding these details. I'm craving for some extra time to test RAWdeveloper.
It's so easy to overlook, because it has such a modest web page.
The judicious use of curves in the "In" tab, and again in the "Curves" tab (using Luminosity) do a much better job, providing far more control than a slider.
The default curve of the "In" tab is too strong and blows out highlights way too easily. It's better to make your own curve and set it as the default for your camera. I've photographed a Kodak step scale and a new Color Checker chart to help make a better input curve.
As for chromatic aberrations, my hope is that a future release of RD will provide that function.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216005\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for giving more detail to the input curve adjustment. Looks like this RAW editor is a must-have.
Also, regarding the highlight recovery slider (I'm generally not a big slider fan. Often had the impression, that slider actually not only did highlight recovery, but also blunted highlights in general), I was never a fan of that and look forward to the more advanced control in RAWdeveloper.
Highlight recovery, Vibrance, all useful and must have rendering features. But download a demo of RD and run the same Raw though it, zoom way in, look at how clean the demosicating is. Its more than just color appearance. The quality of the rendering is "film like" as many have described it. Its clean!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"Film like"... sounds interesting. I really like DPP for its airy cleanness and fine nuances, so this is very promising.
-
Raw developer on the other hand gives you very sharp and detailed files but it lacks a good highlight recovery and fill light function and CA control (all 3 important to me when working on architectural and interior images, that usualy challenge the recordable dynamic range).
stefan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You be glad to hear this as this is a reply I received from Brian today.
"Hi Doyle,
A highlight recovery slider will be featured in the next RAW Developer 1.8 update. Various lens corrections, including chromatic aberration, are in the plans for future releases.
Brian Griffith
Iridient Digital"
Doyle
-
great news!
RD was the main reason I switched from PC to mac - and I am so glad I did!
one only realizes to witch extend other converters (mamiyas, DPP, LR) are applying noise reduction when you compare with a RD file with all noise reduction switched of.
stefan
You be glad to hear this as this is a reply I received from Brian today.
"Hi Doyle,
A highlight recovery slider will be featured in the next RAW Developer 1.8 update. Various lens corrections, including chromatic aberration, are in the plans for future releases.
Brian Griffith
Iridient Digital"
Doyle
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216145\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
From time to time I have extolled the virtues of RawDeveloper.
I remember Mark commenting on the Win/Mac problem before (Hi Mark!).
I use PS or LR when there is a heap of images to process at once, and the results are for mags etc or for domestic use.
For fine art though, it'd RD most of the time.
Th images are sharper and cleaner. The deconvolution sharpening to correct antialiasing as part 1 of 3 pass sharpening , works much better for me than the options in PS/LR.
If I want further sharpening options I use Astra Image, but alas to use that I must swap to Win via Parallels. Mark would find it much easier. Astra Image has it's own problems, being so algorithm intensive that you are limited to relatively small image sizes.
No program does it all, so it's compromise or devising the best strategy for individual situations.
Fun and games as usual
Cheers,
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
-
I agree with the Digital Dog on this one!
Erik
Yet ANOTHER reason you need a bloody Mac. You can still run all those ugly Windows products on it too <g>.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I agree with the Digital Dog on this one!
Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216613\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know for fact that the Epson professional printers I use or have used print much more seamlessly on WINXP versus Mac OSX; the instability of settings on the latter would drive me nuts, and that hasn't been fixed to this day. For me, this is rather critical functionality and is a key factor causing me to hesitate converting to Mac. In any case, there is VERY little you can do on a Mac that you can't do on a PC, and both are amenable to very satisfactory colour management. Various IT people who work both systems in the graphic arts have confirmed this to me several times over. Yes, there are applications and functionality which work or work better on the one platform but not the other - it goes both ways. As in everything there are compromises. If I seriously believed my image quality was beng compromised by my O/S I'd swallow the printing issues and convert.
But let's move on....not the thread for yet another dreary Mac versus PC thingie with my friends on this site
What would be REALLY interesting - and I'd do it if I could (maybe I can - I have friends here in Toronto with Macs) - is to see an eyeball to eyeball comparison of the same raw image acquired and processed in RD versus LR2 or ACR 4.x. This would need to be done a bit carefully in respect of sharpening to make sure one isn't inadvertantly biasing the results in favour of the one or the other. Perhaps the best approach would be two passes - one with, one without sharpening. One would select several images with rich detail and tonality to bring out the respective qualities of these applications optimally. Any takers?
-
........................For fine art though, it'd RD most of the time.
Th images are sharper and cleaner. The deconvolution sharpening to correct antialiasing as part 1 of 3 pass sharpening , works much better for me than the options in PS/LR.
...................Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216604\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interesting Brian - I made a suggestion just above.
Cheers,
Mark
-
What would be REALLY interesting... is to see an eyeball to eyeball comparison of the same raw image acquired and processed in RD versus LR2 or ACR 4.x.
Although it's Capture One compared to Raw Developer, perhaps this article (http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_28/essay.html) will answer any questions you may have. If not, download the program (the demo is free and fully functional) and test for yourself.
-
Although it's Capture One compared to Raw Developer, perhaps this article (http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_28/essay.html) will answer any questions you may have. If not, download the program (the demo is free and fully functional) and test for yourself.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216643\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Chris, if you are going to issue instructions about what other people should do, perhaps you should digest the previous material first so your comments will be in context. RD is a Mac only program. I use a PC. I thought that was clear from the foregoing. But I am checking with a colleague to see whether we could use his Mac, an option I mentioned above. Thanks for the link to the outbackphoto article - I'll have a look, though Capture One is not a relevant comparator for me, it could be of general interest.
Mark
-
Chris, I just looked at that article and I find it an interesting read, but somewhat inconclusive. The variables could be better controlled for more conclusive testing. But what did impress me is the superior image definition from both raw converters versus 4*5 film. That seems significant, of course not knowing for sure whether the film image was optimized for that medium - perhaps one can surmise it was.
-
...if you are going to issue instructions about what other people should do...
Merely suggestions. No offense intended.
-
Merely suggestions. No offense intended.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216665\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Chris - I wasn't offended - thanks for the consideration - I was just a bit surprised being advised to do something I mentioned I myself couldn't do because I don't have a copestic OS for that application, but I am in touch with a colleague who may be able to assist. Anyhow, others who can should do this comparison too. It's good to have an issue examined with a number of images and pairs of eyes.
Best,
Mark
-
...others who can should do this comparison too. It's good to have an issue examined with a number of images and pairs of eyes.
Not even an iMac, eh? FUI: the 24" is very nice for a studio tethering box.
I have used Capture One extensively, then when I began using the Canon 1Ds3 it didn't return results as expected (soft with poor color). I turned to Digital Photo Pro and found the results outstanding but the program exhibited occasional "saw-tooth" edges along subjects such as plants (which I photograph by the truck load). Since that wasn't acceptable I tried Raw Developer and have been very pleased with the results.
As I use Raw Developer more & more, I discover shortcomings. Mostly in file management and EXIF labeling, but I gotta say that the customer support at Iridient is great. Brian, the programmer/owner/codemaster gets back to me within 12 hours with answers that are astoundingly thorough & complete.
I don't have the latest version of Photoshop and I'm not interested in Lightroom so ACR is not happening here. Maybe with my studio's next purchase of hardware/software it'll happen.
-
I don't have the latest version of Photoshop and I'm not interested in Lightroom so ACR is not happening here. Maybe with my studio's next purchase of hardware/software it'll happen.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lightroom 2 is something to be interested in. The latest version of ACR is also something to be interested in, but you do need CS3 to use it. If your studio isn't regularly up-grading their image processing infrastructure that is a constraint you obviously face, but of course not a general argument validating one piece of software relative to another.
-
Lightroom 2 is something to be interested in. The latest version of ACR is also something to be interested in...
Note that the latest version of Raw Developer can utilize the ACR/DNG (dual matrix) method of color processing as one method of raw processing in addition to using ICC camera profiles and custom camera profiles built with/by the program (max geekdom).
-
Although it's Capture One compared to Raw Developer, perhaps this article (http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_28/essay.html) will answer any questions you may have. If not, download the program (the demo is free and fully functional) and test for yourself.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216643\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am a big RD fan myself, but I guess that C1 4.1 would do a much better job at demoisaicing than 3.7.
On my ZD/D3 files, it is very close now with still a light edge for RD in terms of detail, but I prefer the default color rendition of C1.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
bernard, I just tried the trialversion of C1 (the second time) and - while I like the color rendition very much - I find that C1 cant handle the noise of the ZD at exposures over 1 or 2 seconds at all. looks like salt grain sprinkled all over.
or have I overlooked a noise reduction setting?
both RD and LR are doing a much better job with the ZD´s noise.
for longer exposures, do you use RD? or simply your D3?
stefan
On my ZD/D3 files, it is very close now with still a light edge for RD in terms of detail, but I prefer the default color rendition of C1.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I'm not sure that "colour rendition" per se is an issue with any of these raw converters, because we can pretty well dial-in our own recipes and get what we want. I'd score them more on the basis of how much of the processing pipeline they can handle WELL up-front of conversion, the photographic quality of the files they output to one's selected media (e.g. paper or web) and the seamlessness of their integration with Photoshop. In respect of the latter, it's a real bonus to be able to import a raw file as a Smart Object in Photoshop for all those images which need more tweaking than today's raw converters provide, as this allows one to work iteratively between raw and rendered processing without redoing work other than the specific target of the adjustments.
Last year, on Andrew Rodney's "Iron Chef" panel in which I participated at Photo Expo Plus the topic of which was a comparative exercise in raw file prep using four different converters handed by some of the top pros in the industry, I was impressed with how each photographer could use the application they were assigned to create their vision of the scene. The creativity factor kind of overwhelmed anything else. Also obvious - the different applications do have some differing features and functionality, whence it becomes a matter of one's requirements and workflow expectations which to prefer.
-
I am a big RD fan myself, but I guess that C1 4.1 would do a much better job at demoisaicing than 3.7.
On my ZD/D3 files, it is very close now with still a light edge for RD in terms of detail, but I prefer the default color rendition of C1.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All the way on the bottom of that review is actually an image processed with C1 that has the bug removed.
-
Brian's RAW Developer v1.8 just released:
http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/ra...r_download.html (http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper_download.html)
-
Brian's RAW Developer v1.8 just released.
Sweet!
-
Chris' following post made me curious about RAW developer, and I wonder what your experiences with this RAW editor are (let's call it that way, as "RAW converters" just don't do only conversions any more).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=215902\")
I'm loving the controls here, and I applaud the guys working so hard on this package... but I have the same issue with this, as with any other processor outside of Camera RAW. No Smart Object workflow.
Here's a taste of what I'm talking about... [a href=\"http://www.teddillard.com/2008/08/smart-objects-gone-wild.html]http://www.teddillard.com/2008/08/smart-ob...-gone-wild.html[/url]
The Smart Objects give you an astoundingly powerful process, and totally "non-destructive" (Can't Adobe just say, "Constructive"? SO much more positive...) since you're building the file easily through simple, fast access to the RAW file.
This, to my way of thinking anyway, completely overwhelms any other processor, and I have run and tested them all, just for the record...
-
The Smart Objects give you an astoundingly powerful process, and totally "non-destructive" (Can't Adobe just say, "Constructive"? SO much more positive...) since you're building the file easily through simple, fast access to the RAW file.
This, to my way of thinking anyway, completely overwhelms any other processor, and I have run and tested them all, just for the record...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ted, very interesting - just a little quibble on the terminology. I think what Adobe means by "non-destructive" is that the image processing methodology does not embed changes to the original file data and destroy information through mathematical rounding errors, etc. It is not "constructive" because it doesn't add anything to the file (only creates a set of meta-data instructions applied on the fly to render the image). It is in essence defensive and therefore "non-destructive".
More important, turning to the substance of your observation, I am now using Lightroom 2, and while I haven't tried every raw converter out there (only a few and seen a few others at work), I am very impressed with the scope and depth of control this program offers for a very high percentage of what I need to do with an image. It produces very faithful scene renditions from what I can observe, and the convenience of the layout is great for iterating between organizing, ranking, developing and printing images. The main enhancement it really needs is a softproofing capability, so that once image adjustments are made under soft-proof they can go to print without the need to tweak anything more in Photoshop. Adobe is well aware of the strong client support for this capability and while I have no inside information, I have a sense that within the next year or so we will see that too in both ACR and Lightroom.
I agree with you completely about the advantage of being able to embed a seamless access to the raw file whilst in Photoshop. Saves re-doing a whole lot of work if you realise half way through a bunch of Photoshop-specific moves that you should have done something different at the raw processing stage.
-
Ted, very interesting - just a little quibble on the terminology. I think what Adobe means by "non-destructive" is that the image processing methodology does not embed changes to the original file data and destroy information through mathematical rounding errors, etc. It is not "constructive" because it doesn't add anything to the file (only creates a set of meta-data instructions applied on the fly to render the image). It is in essence defensive and therefore "non-destructive".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
weeeelll... If you take a look at my link, it is actually quite "constructive". 300MB worth, in that case. Every new RAW Smart Object is new data, rendered from that raw sensor file. As Andrew Rodney once commented, "if you can stand the overhead..." because every one you add also adds the total size of a new RAW file.
Adobe and Apple, for that matter, do talk about the source file not being touched, etc as you say, but the layered RAW Smart Object workflow is also included in what they (Adobe only, in this case...) call non-destructive, along with the XMP stuff and even the DNG language.
I know it's quibbling... we need the judicious application of alcoholic berverages to continue this properly... ha!
-
The main enhancement it really needs is a softproofing capability, so that once image adjustments are made under soft-proof they can go to print without the need to tweak anything more in Photoshop. Adobe is well aware of the strong client support for this capability and while I have no inside information, I have a sense that within the next year or so we will see that too in both ACR and Lightroom.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I totally agree on this... especially if you mean, by soft-proofing, including a gamut warning, too.
Since Lightroom and ACR are using the same "engine" (essentially ACR itself), I can't imagine too much longer before LR gives us the Smart Object option, too... something I can't really see any other processors, including Aperture, doing. If we get the workflow, and especially the "Smart Collections" of Lightroom with Smart Objects, I can't really see any other package able to give a solution as powerful, (to try to bring this back to the thread...)
-
I totally agree on this... especially if you mean, by soft-proofing, including a gamut warning, too.
Since Lightroom and ACR are using the same "engine" (essentially ACR itself), I can't imagine too much longer before LR gives us the Smart Object option, too... something I can't really see any other processors, including Aperture, doing. If we get the workflow, and especially the "Smart Collections" of Lightroom with Smart Objects, I can't really see any other package able to give a solution as powerful, (to try to bring this back to the thread...)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lightroom 2 DOES already have the Smart Object option. You go to Photo>Edit In>Open As Smart Object In Photoshop>. Voila! Done. Thence in Photoshop, when you double-click the S.O., it opens the image in ACR, which has the same processing engine as LR. The only issue with this procedure is that changes you make to the S.O. in ACR do not get conveyed to the XMP (they remain with the S.O. in Photoshop), hence the file is not automatically up-dated with your latest changes to the S.O. if re-opened subsequently in LR. The reason for this is that you can have more than one S.O. of the same image each with different settings in the same Photoshop file, so the program wouldn't know which instructions to write to the XMP which informs image appearance in LR. Maybe addressing this could be somewhere down-the-road in the on-going evolution of these applications.
-
weeeelll... If you take a look at my link, it is actually quite "constructive". 300MB worth, in that case. Every new RAW Smart Object is new data, rendered from that raw sensor file. As Andrew Rodney once commented, "if you can stand the overhead..." because every one you add also adds the total size of a new RAW file.
Adobe and Apple, for that matter, do talk about the source file not being touched, etc as you say, but the layered RAW Smart Object workflow is also included in what they (Adobe only, in this case...) call non-destructive, along with the XMP stuff and even the DNG language.
I know it's quibbling... we need the judicious application of alcoholic berverages to continue this properly... ha!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218245\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK, I like a good Merlot............
-
OK, I like a good Merlot............
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218253\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[attachment=8165:attachment]
-
Thanks Ted, nice shot - can just grab out and reach it.
-
Thanks Ted, nice shot - can just grab out and reach it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218258\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
thanks, just happened to have that lying around... but then, you should always have a nice little merlot kicking around, right?
(canon g9, btw... my "always with me" camera)
-
Absolutely.
-
Just tried out Raw Developer 1.8. Very impressed with the improvements not only with the highlight recovery feature but better color rendering with my Pentax K100D PEF's.
Another interesting feature is the Highlight menu on the Input panel that allows control of highlight neutrality that corrects for green/magenta color errors that pop up in scenes with off neutral color temps like clouds at sunset. With this handy tool ETTR is going to be a lot easier to deal with when shooting those types of scenes.
This has always been my favorite raw converter and now it's even better. The sharpening quality and image detail is over the top.
I think Brian should win some type of an award for his work on this wonderful app. And he really does get back to you when emailing.
Below is a sample comparison between RD 1.7.2 and 1.8 showing much improvement recovering highlights in clouds.
[attachment=8167:attachment]
-
And for those that wanted to see a comparison with ACR to this same file I've provided a sample below including edits to achieve the final results.
The only thing about ACR I don't like is its mandatory noise reduction and adjustable sharpening algorithm that makes detail like grass, pebbles and bark viewed at 200% look like they're made of clay. This would only be seen in poster size enlargements, though.
[attachment=8169:attachment]
-
Thanks Tim - two observations: (1) I don't see much difference between the RD1.8 and the ACR renderings. (2) If you were to do the same thing in ACR 4.x (or a downloaded demo version of Lightroom 2), it is possible that you would achieve substantial improvement over ACR 3.7 - it's a much enhanced application.
Mark
-
MarkDS,
I did try out ACR 4-4.5. I didn't see a substantial improvement in highlight recovery, sharpening and texture detail. In fact the clay like texture detail has been more amplified.
I'm pretty happy with the highlight recovery in all versions so I didn't see a need for improvement or take notice if any existed.
I did like all the new color tools of course.
The new DNG Profile Editor and its ability to manipulate color tables on an incredible level of precision is what I've been eyeballing it at the moment. As long as other third party raw converters are DNG 1.2 compliant they'll be able to render these type of color table edits as well.
Raw Developer's Brian Griffith indicated to me in an email he's looking into it since his app does read and process DNG raws already but only those with matrix edited embedded profiles I think. Not sure if there was a previous version of DNG PE that allowed matrix edits only since I just found out about the newer PE several weeks ago. I'm about six months into learning all the aspects of raw processing and I'm still learning.
Just to add something about Raw Developer's method of Highlight Recovery I just noticed and that is it allows edits to isolated areas of highlights without having to use the exposure slider like you do in ACR which can noticeably darken the entire image.
I just messed around with ACR 3.7 and beefed up the brightness to get back the darkened mids but now the highlight detail edit points on the curve have been shoved way too close to the 255 region where you can't place anymore edit points to get back this washed out detail.
Raw Developer allows multiple points practically touching each other as if you're working with the finest 50 band audio EQ in existence. But since I didn't use the expo slider in RD, my edits are further spread out along the curve with enough room away from the 255 region for finer tweaks and even more room if I use the Lightness curve instead of the RGB composite.
-
Normally, you don't need to use the Exposure slider in ACR to recover highlights. I guess much of this depends on exactly how one uses these applications, which is hard to drill down to on a Forum - a bit like picking up dimes with gloves on. RD 1.8 looks like a fine application from what you are showing. I'm going to be testing both sometime over the next week or two when I get access to a Mac. That way I'll have all my own tweaks (and errors) in one place!
-
Mark,
I was referring to Highlight Recovery in ACR 3.7. The only other option besides the exposure slider is the curve tool and I couldn't get any detail out of that cloud using curves alone.
I can't remember the tools used by ACR 4-4.5 for Highlight Recovery since my 30 day trial expired several weeks ago. There is so much to learn with Photoshop with each upgrade (like Smart Objects) that just trying to figure out all the tools in ACR is enough to keep me busy and dizzy with confusion. With the many options available I find it hard to know where to start a workflow plan.
Raw Developer has a much more simplified interface. You can use it as long as you like so you can take the time to see what each tool really does to a variety of images under different exposure parameters. I'm not a pro photographer. I'm looking into using a DSLR to reproduce fine art paintings printing onto wide format inkjet canvas rendering as much detail as I can. And Raw Developer delivers in this regard.
I mean when photographing a painting with multi-layers of tertiary colors in dark regions of shadow detail, digital capture be it a scanner or camera usually renders all these colors next to each other on the color wheel in monochrome. For instance deep greenish blue, next to dark Navy blue, next to cobalt in a layered applique will render as one blue with varying densities. Having Lab and separate RGB curves can bring out these color distinctions without affecting other areas of the image. The DNG Profile Editor would work even better.
-
Hi Tim,
The raw workflow has indeed become a fulsome subject of late. Gone are the days when one just moved a couple fo sliders, pushed a button and did all the heavy lifting in PS. If you want to pursue the ins and outs of raw processing with ACR/LR, the best resources are Jeff Schewe's Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS3 and the video download which Michael and Jeff produced on Camera raw, downloadable on this website. Also their very recent video download on Lightroom 2 is excellent and covers much of the territory also applicable to the latest versions of ACR.
But if RD is meeting your particular requirements to your satisfaction, you're in good shape as it is.
-
BTW, I should add to this, boiled down to the bare essentials, the recommended workflow is top to bottom within each tab and left to right between the tabs.
-
for longer exposures, do you use RD? or simply your D3?
stefan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216799\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Correct, I use RD or Silkypix for ZD files.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just to add something about Raw Developer's method of Highlight Recovery I just noticed and that is it allows edits to isolated areas of highlights without having to use the exposure slider like you do in ACR which can noticeably darken the entire image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218534\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I haven't tried 1.8 yet, but if this is confirmed, it would be a huge time saver for panoramic work since you would be able to paste a highlight recovery to several images without risking exposure variation between the frames...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I haven't tried 1.8 yet, but if this is confirmed, it would be a huge time saver for panoramic work since you would be able to paste a highlight recovery to several images without risking exposure variation between the frames...
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If your exposures are identical for each shot or your blowouts are somewhat equal it might work. I've never done panorama's.
The Highlight Recovery tapers off similar to the Highlight slider in the Adjust panel. I imagine it will depend on the amount of overexposure or ETTR.
I don't know what he did to change the custom ICC matrix profile creator but I can get very accurate looking hues and saturation levels playing around with the RGB and color temp nodes now. It now acts a little bit more like ACR's calibration slider tab.
I've been emailing Brian about this tool because the default color profile for my camera was quite a bit off with the majority of my images in RD 1.7.2. I was trying to come up with a better profile using this tool but color changes didn't make sense and weren't consistant with every node adjust. To get a correct looking cyan I had to tolerate reddish or over saturated skin. Now the newer profile looks even more accurate for the majority of my images but some show colors like magenta-ish pinks and skintone with a bit too much yellow. I can fix skintones easily without affecting other colors using this tool, but I can also do the same using the Lab a/b curves.
-
I'm loving the controls here, and I applaud the guys working so hard on this package... but I have the same issue with this, as with any other processor outside of Camera RAW. No Smart Object workflow.
But doesn't this require the use of ACR? What if one prefers the results from a different raw processor?
-
What if one prefers the results from a different raw processor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218733\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Life is full of compromises - you want a Smart Object - it's only so smart - it opens into ACR. I haven't heard that it can be opened into anything else. So it seems you have two choices: (a) a non-Adobe converter and no Smart Objects, or stick within the Adobe family and get Smart Objects.
-
So it seems you have two choices: (a) a non-Adobe converter and no Smart Objects...
Which results in merely one additional file: the resulting 8- or 16-bit RGB "root" file from which to build a final, finished file. In hard-disk economic terms, that means allocating an additional 130MB for the root image file. In terms of Raw Developer's input parameter file, it's still only 4KB, so it's very cheap in terms of hard disk economics to use a non-Adobe raw processor.
An argument can be made that in order to change that root file, the raw file must be re-processed. This requires time, which is of great value to almost everyone (especially those buried under GBs of files). By using Smart Objects, time spent re-processing is minimal, but still existent. By not using Smart Objects, time spent is perhaps more, but this is variant upon the end user's level of experience.
However, Ted's example of using raw files within smart layers to create an HDR image is intriguing.
-
OK - file size and disk space - another variable to throw into the mix. Let's look at this logically in terms of priorities. Disk space is cheap, time is expensive. The smallest image file is the raw file. Those 4 or 5 KB files are metadata files. ACR and LR have them too; DNG embeds the information. These don't bloat disk space. If we can go from importing the image to print without Photoshop all in the raw converter as Lightroom is structured to do, the disk space is confined to the raw file size and perhaps an XMP of 5 KB.
If we need to work in Photoshop regardless of all the adjusting done in the raw converter, we render the image and then we store at least the size of the rendered image plus the raw file, regardless of which converter we used.
If we import the raw file as an S.O. into Photoshop, yes, the Photoshop file gets bigger, BUT we also have a universe of image adjustment flexibility through the whole processing pipeline without having to redo all the work in PS if we find at some point during the PS work, we should have made some further adjustments at the raw stage which would have been better. So we buy a larger file as an insurance policy for avoiding perhaps considerable wastage down the road. Maybe we draw on that insurance, maybe we don't. After processing the image, if we think we won't need the insurance, we can convert the SO to a Background layer and save as an ordinary PS file.
The bottom line here is that one suite of programs provides this flexibility and others don't. If we need or like the expanded range of options and their associated potential efficiency to work with, file size is not the main distinguishing issue or even the decisive one.
-
OK - file size and disk space - another variable to throw into the mix.
With the underlying assumption that one prefers ACR-processed files.
-
With the underlying assumption that one prefers ACR-processed files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218935\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No - no underlying assumption about converter IQ in what I just said above. Anyone who prefers the image rendition of RD and that preference over-rides all these considerations, so be it - they use RD.