Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Robert Ardill on April 15, 2016, 05:50:15 am
-
Hi,
I've been very disappointed in my efforts to get a good result from C1 on my A7RII images, compared to Lightroom. This seems to go against others' experience (at least with other cameras). I would be very grateful if you would try this image to see if you can get a better result in C1 than LR. The dng has the LR settings ... just exposure adjustments (with luminance noise reduction and sharpening off).
Here is a link to the image: Link to A7RII image (http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/R03851---Mayo-Westport.dng)
I've picked this photo because it has a wide dynamic range and a mix of high-frequency and low-frequency detail. What I did in LR was to open up the shadows and bring back the highlights and pretty much nothing else. I can't get C1 to come near to the result I'm getting with LR, even after multiple attempts.
Cheers,
Robert
-
Hi,
I've been very disappointed in my efforts to get a good result from C1 on my A7RII images, compared to Lightroom. This seems to go against others' experience (at least with other cameras). I would be very grateful if you would try this image to see if you can get a better result in C1 than LR. The dng has the LR settings ... just exposure adjustments (with luminance noise reduction and sharpening off).
Here is a link to the image: Link to A7RII image (http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/R03851---Mayo-Westport.dng)
I've picked this photo because it has a wide dynamic range and a mix of high-frequency and low-frequency detail. What I did in LR was to open up the shadows and bring back the highlights and pretty much nothing else. I can't get C1 to come near to the result I'm getting with LR, even after multiple attempts.
Cheers,
Robert
1) if you try to achieve in C1 the output from ACR/LR - then just use ACR/LR ...
2) if you want "open up the shadows and bring back the highlights" in C1 then what is exactly that you did not like in C1's HDR tool (highlight/shadow sliders) ? unless you want something else from C1 that you did not mention in the original posting...
-
Hi,
Both Higlights and Shadows sliders do tone mapping in LR. Those tools work very differently in C1.
I have the same issues with C1 as you, but I am a happy camper with LR...
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
I've been very disappointed in my efforts to get a good result from C1 on my A7RII images, compared to Lightroom. This seems to go against others' experience (at least with other cameras). I would be very grateful if you would try this image to see if you can get a better result in C1 than LR. The dng has the LR settings ... just exposure adjustments (with luminance noise reduction and sharpening off).
Here is a link to the image: Link to A7RII image (http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/R03851---Mayo-Westport.dng)
I've picked this photo because it has a wide dynamic range and a mix of high-frequency and low-frequency detail. What I did in LR was to open up the shadows and bring back the highlights and pretty much nothing else. I can't get C1 to come near to the result I'm getting with LR, even after multiple attempts.
Cheers,
Robert
-
Hi,
Both Higlights and Shadows sliders do tone mapping in LR. Those tools work very differently in C1.
I have the same issues with C1 as you, but I am a happy camper with LR...
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for the reply Erik. There's no question in my mind that for the A7RII files that LR does a much better job (in my hands, that is) ... and this is not at all restricted to shadows and highlights. Here is the image processed in C1 and LR to the best of my ability (multiple tries in C1, one try in LR) to try to show the differences. However, to really see them it's much better to have the files opened as layers in Photoshop and then just to toggle the layers ... it's pretty dramatic.
So what I see is:
- much better local contrast in LR - and I don't see how to correct that in C1. What would be needed would be a micro-contrast adjustment. Clarity doesn't do it.
- much better high-frequency detail in LR (I have sharpening off in both)
- better color in LR (not too worried about that as that would be easily adjusted I think)
Overall this makes the LR image look sharper and punchier.
Of course I could just ditch C1 and stick to LR ... which is what I'll probably do. But I do wonder if this is an issue only with the A7II/A7RII images, because it seems that pretty much everyone thinks that C1 is a far superior raw converter to LR. If the issue is just with the Sony images then Phase One should be able to correct it ... especially as C1 is the raw converter that comes with the Sony cameras (Light version, admittedly).
Cheers,
Robert
(http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/R03851---C1-LR.jpg)
-
1) if you try to achieve in C1 the output from ACR/LR - then just use ACR/LR ...
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/Themes/lula/images/bbc/left.gif
2) if you want "open up the shadows and bring back the highlights" in C1 then what is exactly that you did not like in C1's HDR tool (highlight/shadow sliders) ? unless you want something else from C1 that you did not mention in the original posting...
1) I'm not trying to make C1 images look like LR images. I'm trying to get the best from each converter and I'm finding that the best from LR is significantly better that the best from C1 ... for the A7RII images.
2) What I said in the original posting was that I chose the image because it has a high dynamic range but ALSO because it has a mix of high frequency and low frequency detail. On the whole C1 does a good job with shadows and highlights (different to but no better than LR) ... the issues are with local contrast and detail.
Cheers
Robert
-
(1) You're working on a .dng file. How did you get from an .arw file to a .dng one ?
(2) Have you imported the .arw file directly into C1 and compared the two ...
Edit:
.. and what version of Lr are you using ?
-
1) I'm not trying to make C1 images look like LR images.
you do - you started with ACR/LR rendering, you liked it and you are trying to achieve the same a little hdr-ish like rending in C1 converter
I'm finding that the best from LR is significantly better that the best from C1
the right wording is = you find that you subjectively like ACR/LR rendering that you can achieve
for example I might say that I actually like what I can get from C1 (left from ACR using DNG settings, right from C1) = http://s26.postimg.org/7axyngh9j/ACR_vs_C1.jpg
(http://s26.postimg.org/7axyngh9j/ACR_vs_C1.jpg)
-
(1) You're working on a .dng file. How did you get from an .arw file to a .dng one ?
Adobe products (ACR, LR, DNG converter) will do that for you
(2) Have you imported the .arw file directly into C1 and compared the two ...
recent C1 versions almost achieve the good work with converted DNGs... C1 is almost there
-
Adobe products (ACR, LR, DNG converter) will do that for you
yup, we know - it was a rhetorical question ...
point being that the OP is introducing another variable - whereas best to compare C1 v ACR on an .arw file directly.
recent C1 versions almost achieve the good work with converted DNGs... C1 is almost there
'almost' isn't comparing like with like
-
point being that the OP is introducing another variable - whereas best to compare C1 v ACR on an .arw file directly.
while I am not using DNG myself I say - Sony A7* converted (from native raw) DNGs are very much doable in in C1 v9.1.* at this moment ... the OP is advised either to actually invest the time & effort before coming swinging that raw converter that he abandoned long time ago suddenly can't reproduce output in ACR/LR in 1 minute of him moving sliders around (may be rereading the manual, "The Image Quality Professor's Blog", etc)... or stop looking to replace what is working for him (ACR/LR).
-
Hi,
I actually have similar issues with C1 on the P45+ I have. If you are a long time user of say LR I guess you would adopt to the philosophy of Adobe. So, if you switch to say C1 the tools you are familiar with ain't there or work differently.
C1 is sort of pretty aggressive in sharpening for instance, default settings definitively over sharpen my Planar 100/3.5 on the P45+, while LR has very little sharpening as default. C1 also applies a lot of noise reduction by default. LR is much more conservative.
C1 has a lot of advocates, but oddly enough I never met a single photographer in person who is actually using C1. I have been trough two workshops with Hans Kruse, and no single participant did use C1. We had a guy at our camera club who was sold on C1 but now days he is sold on LR.
I would say that those tools are different. I have actually bought C1 in version 7 and version 8 and it is actually free if used with Phase One backs, so it is not an economic issue for me, but I have never felt that C1 was a program I wanted to use. I have probably spent some hundred hours with it and it doesn't work for me.
But , I do see a tiny advantage with C1 when pixel peeping crops from say 40"x60" prints at 10" viewing distance compared to LR.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for the reply Erik. There's no question in my mind that for the A7RII files that LR does a much better job (in my hands, that is) ... and this is not at all restricted to shadows and highlights. Here is the image processed in C1 and LR to the best of my ability (multiple tries in C1, one try in LR) to try to show the differences. However, to really see them it's much better to have the files opened as layers in Photoshop and then just to toggle the layers ... it's pretty dramatic.
So what I see is:
- much better local contrast in LR - and I don't see how to correct that in C1. What would be needed would be a micro-contrast adjustment. Clarity doesn't do it.
- much better high-frequency detail in LR (I have sharpening off in both)
- better color in LR (not too worried about that as that would be easily adjusted I think)
Overall this makes the LR image look sharper and punchier.
Of course I could just ditch C1 and stick to LR ... which is what I'll probably do. But I do wonder if this is an issue only with the A7II/A7RII images, because it seems that pretty much everyone thinks that C1 is a far superior raw converter to LR. If the issue is just with the Sony images then Phase One should be able to correct it ... especially as C1 is the raw converter that comes with the Sony cameras (Light version, admittedly).
Cheers,
Robert
-
I pulled down the file, not sure what the LR/Adobe looks like and the real place, but to me C1 can do a fine job.
This is quick run in C1, a few layers for foreground shadows and sky. I did not correct what I see is slight vignetting on the upper corners. Shadows look good to me, plenty of details and no noise (nice camera!) and lens.
Again no two folks will process a file the same way, and I did pull it into LR, just ran it in C1. Sharpening is set to defaults for C1. I believe in sharpening raw, many don't, just works for me.
Thanks for sharing, this corner of the world.
Paul C
-
I can hardly see a difference in the OP's posted LR/C1 crops, but I do note that the C1 is compressing highlights on the far right example. LR's PV2012 does this as well but can be over ridden by setting Highlight slider all the way to the left (-100) and increasing White slider which restores the linear behavior of PV2010's Exposure slider when zeroing out all settings and retaining Medium Tone Curve.
Other than that I can't see a difference. Maybe he could find the same linear brightening slider in C1 that doesn't compress highlights.
-
the OP is advised either to actually invest the time & effort before coming swinging that raw converter that he abandoned long time ago suddenly can't reproduce output in ACR/LR in 1 minute of him moving sliders around (may be rereading the manual, "The Image Quality Professor's Blog", etc)... or stop looking to replace what is working for him (ACR/LR).
Thanks for your helpful advice. My own to you would be not to assume that others just come whingeing about things after spending only 1 minute playing around with sliders. I've spent many hours with C1 and the reason why I have is that if I find that if it is better than the raw converter that I currently use, I intend to use it instead. I am not in the business of knocking software just for the fun of it. The reason for my post was that I thought that perhaps I was not using C1 as well as I could and that others with more experience than me might have a better shot at it.
Robert
-
I've spent many hours with C1
indeed...
-
Hi,
I actually have similar issues with C1 on the P45+ I have. If you are a long time user of say LR I guess you would adopt to the philosophy of Adobe. So, if you switch to say C1 the tools you are familiar with ain't there or work differently.
C1 is sort of pretty aggressive in sharpening for instance, default settings definitively over sharpen my Planar 100/3.5 on the P45+, while LR has very little sharpening as default. C1 also applies a lot of noise reduction by default. LR is much more conservative.
C1 has a lot of advocates, but oddly enough I never met a single photographer in person who is actually using C1. I have been trough two workshops with Hans Kruse, and no single participant did use C1. We had a guy at our camera club who was sold on C1 but now days he is sold on LR.
I would say that those tools are different. I have actually bought C1 in version 7 and version 8 and it is actually free if used with Phase One backs, so it is not an economic issue for me, but I have never felt that C1 was a program I wanted to use. I have probably spent some hundred hours with it and it doesn't work for me.
But , I do see a tiny advantage with C1 when pixel peeping crops from say 40"x60" prints at 10" viewing distance compared to LR.
Best regards
Erik
I've tried the acr image and it's no different to the dng, as far as I can tell, so C1 Pro 9 seems to handle dngs fine.
But I think you've put your finger on the issue. I was using the HDR sliders in C1 pretty much as I would use the Shadows/Highlight sliders in LR, and the effect is a loss of local contrast. In order to retain the local contrast I had to adjust the sliders to these sort of settings:
(http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/C1-settings.jpg)
The LR & C1 versions then are pretty comparable in terms of low frequency detail (again, both converters set to no sharpening and no luminance noise reduction) ... except that C1 is clearly applying luminance noise reduction even with the setting at zero. This does clean up the dark noise well at the cost of some loss of high frequency detail. If some noise reduction is applied in LR then the two converters pretty much equalize on high frequency detail.
So I've learnt a couple of things;
- raw converters may apply sharpening and / or noise reduction under the hood with no user override. In this case I would say that C1 is the culprit with noise reduction.
- the HDR sliders in C1 are not at all equivalent to the Shadows/Highlight sliders in LR. For a high dynamic range image like the one posted here, and one that has quite a lot of local contrast detail, it's necessary to use the sliders in C1 in a very non-intuitive way to get the best result. If I had not been comparing the C1 image to the LR image I would not have spotted the need to do so.
Cheers,
Robert
-
I pulled down the file, not sure what the LR/Adobe looks like and the real place, but to me C1 can do a fine job.
This is quick run in C1, a few layers for foreground shadows and sky. I did not correct what I see is slight vignetting on the upper corners. Shadows look good to me, plenty of details and no noise (nice camera!) and lens.
Again no two folks will process a file the same way, and I did pull it into LR, just ran it in C1. Sharpening is set to defaults for C1. I believe in sharpening raw, many don't, just works for me.
Paul C
Thanks Paul ... C1 certainly does an excellent job, I'm not denying that. It's just that when I compared the image processed in LR to the one processed in C1 I found that the LR image was quite significantly better in many areas of the image. I deliberately did not add Local Adjustments and tried to compare apples to apples as much as possible and tried to keep the comparison as simple as I could, so I turned off things like sharpening and noise reduction.
I think Eric called it right when he said that one needs to adopt (or adapt to) a different mindset when using a different raw converter.
Cheers,
Robert
-
I've tried the acr image and it's no different to the dng, as far as I can tell, so C1 Pro 9 seems to handle dngs fine.
Hi Robert,
I'm not so sure, yet. I've downloaded your DNG file with some hesitation, because it adds another unknown variable to the equation (and I do not know from experience, how good the Camera profiles are). When I use the DNG's "as shot" White Balancing, I get 4978 Kelvin and 16.9 tint. The latter 16.9 tint is in my experience an extreme correction value that I do not feel comfortable with, since my experience with Canon cameras and with an incandescent illuminant (which the sun is, even with some sky.cloud filtration) rarely shows a tint value exceeding +/- 1. But that's about colo(u)r.
Next observation is that you probably are not using a "Linear Response" tone curve, which in my opinon is much better than the default "Film curve" based profiles that were useful for CCD based profiles for Phase One backs to avoid hard clipping of specular highlights (and with the limited DR of those, clipping was a major issue to avoid). Unfortunately, as per our Anders "Torger" contributions, supplied profiles are mostly filmcurve based. So, tuned profiling may be a better basis for comparison, as far as colo(u)r is concerned, but it also appears to have a significant influence on things like noise, yes noise (due to pushing color differences near clipping).
But I think you've put your finger on the issue. I was using the HDR sliders in C1 pretty much as I would use the Shadows/Highlight sliders in LR, and the effect is a loss of local contrast. In order to retain the local contrast I had to adjust the sliders to these sort of settings:
Another problem in comparion is in which image is taken as the basis, for the other image to look similar to. Had you started with the Capture One image, it would perhaps also be hard to achieve something similar in LR. Let's face it, they both give different results by default, and it takes more or less effort to match the 'looks'.
The LR & C1 versions then are pretty comparable in terms of low frequency detail (again, both converters set to no sharpening and no luminance noise reduction) ... except that C1 is clearly applying luminance noise reduction even with the setting at zero.
Not my experience, but that's mostly based on Canon Raws, not Sony Raws. Anyway, for my Canons I have noise Reduction practically disabled, maybe an amount of merely '1' color noise reduction. This is also based on ETTR shot exposure levels, and the fact that I mostly shoot at ISO 100 (adding illumination or exposure time when possible).
This does clean up the dark noise well at the cost of some loss of high frequency detail. If some noise reduction is applied in LR then the two converters pretty much equalize on high frequency detail.
To repeat, it matters which converter (and tuning) is taken as 'base' for conversion. Most 'other' converters will have a difficult challenge to match the results.
So I've learnt a couple of things;
- raw converters may apply sharpening and / or noise reduction under the hood with no user override. In this case I would say that C1 is the culprit with noise reduction.
Don't blindly use the defaults. I use mostly zero noise reuction, but the I also use ETTR and (rarely, but if needed) external specialized NR applications. In fact, Raw converters rarely perform better than specialized Noise Reduction applications.
- the HDR sliders in C1 are not at all equivalent to the Shadows/Highlight sliders in LR.
Correct, and an issue for simple comparisons.
{quote]For a high dynamic range image like the one posted here, and one that has quite a lot of local contrast detail, it's necessary to use the sliders in C1 in a very non-intuitive way to get the best result. If I had not been comparing the C1 image to the LR image I would not have spotted the need to do so.[/quote]
Correct, as I pointed out earlier. The base conversion may be hard to match by any alternative converter.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. I'll post my conversion when questions about profile and creative intent are more clear to me.
-
supplied profiles are mostly filmcurve based.
and so are Adobe's... in the sense that they have tone curve typically already inside the profile
-
Hi Robert,
I'm not so sure, yet. I've downloaded your DNG file with some hesitation, because it adds another unknown variable to the equation (and I do not know from experience, how good the Camera profiles are). When I use the DNG's "as shot" White Balancing, I get 4978 Kelvin and 16.9 tint. The latter 16.9 tint is in my experience an extreme correction value that I do not feel comfortable with, since my experience with Canon cameras and with an incandescent illuminant (which the sun is, even with some sky.cloud filtration) rarely shows a tint value exceeding +/- 1. But that's about colo(u)r.
Next observation is that you probably are not using a "Linear Response" tone curve, which in my opinon is much better than the default "Film curve" based profiles that were useful for CCD based profiles for Phase One backs to avoid hard clipping of specular highlights (and with the limited DR of those, clipping was a major issue to avoid). Unfortunately, as per our Anders "Torger" contributions, supplied profiles are mostly filmcurve based. So, tuned profiling may be a better basis for comparison, as far as colo(u)r is concerned, but it also appears to have a significant influence on things like noise, yes noise (due to pushing color differences near clipping).
Another problem in comparion is in which image is taken as the basis, for the other image to look similar to. Had you started with the Capture One image, it would perhaps also be hard to achieve something similar in LR. Let's face it, they both give different results by default, and it takes more or less effort to match the 'looks'.
Not my experience, but that's mostly based on Canon Raws, not Sony Raws. Anyway, for my Canons I have noise Reduction practically disabled, maybe an amount of merely '1' color noise reduction. This is also based on ETTR shot exposure levels, and the fact that I mostly shoot at ISO 100 (adding illumination or exposure time when possible).
To repeat, it matters which converter (and tuning) is taken as 'base' for conversion. Most 'other' converters will have a difficult challenge to match the results.
Don't blindly use the defaults. I use mostly zero noise reuction, but the I also use ETTR and (rarely, but if needed) external specialized NR applications. In fact, Raw converters rarely perform better than specialized Noise Reduction applications.
Correct, and an issue for simple comparisons.
{quote]For a high dynamic range image like the one posted here, and one that has quite a lot of local contrast detail, it's necessary to use the sliders in C1 in a very non-intuitive way to get the best result. If I had not been comparing the C1 image to the LR image I would not have spotted the need to do so.
Correct, as I pointed out earlier. The base conversion may be hard to match by any alternative converter.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. I'll post my conversion when questions about profile and creative intent are more clear to me.
Thanks Bart ... I'll check this all out when I get home tonight (I'm travelling at the moment). I'll also post the arw file (and check out things like the white balance myself).
C1 appeared to me to be applying quite a bit of noise reduction on the image, with luminance noise reduction slider at zero. This can be seen in the darks under the bridge ... in LR noise is visible whereas there is none in C1. Perhaps this is because the image was shot at ISO 400 and the shadow noise is being boosted a lot (perhaps C1 is being 'intelligent' here and applying noise reduction selectively?). I would need to check it out with an ISO100 image.
Cheers,
Robert
-
It's not clear to me in how far this capture is complicated to handle.
Just select the "extra shadow" film curve in base characteristics, push exposure by 0.6EV and Shadow in the HDR tool to 45 and you'll have all the image content within the histogram (except for some specular highlights). From there on adjust the image by your liking.
Best practise to exchange settings is to use the original raw file (the arw file) and pack the image as "EIP". This way we can open the RAW with your C1-settings and can send you back the RAW files with our modified settings...
-
It does appear that C1 isn't too happy with dng files - the as-shot white balance between the dng and arw files is wildly different. LR shows the same white balance with the dng and arw files (4750, +5), whereas C1 shows 5628,-1.6 for the arw and 4978, 16.9 for the dng. Why there are such differences between the two converters with the as-shot white balance is a bit strange.
I've re-developed the file using the arw original in C1 with the tone curve set to Linear as suggested by Bart. The result is certainly much better with pretty much equivalent detail in the C1 and LR versions. The look of the images is certainly different, with LR giving a more HDR-look ... a question of taste, but I prefer the C1 version as I've developed it as it looks more natural. However it would be easy to achieve a similar look in LR ... and no doubt equally easy to get a more HDR-look in C1.
I was wrong in thinking that C1 applies luminance noise reduction even with the luminance slider set to zero ... at least there is no evidence of that using the Linear tone curve with the arw original.
I only used basic tonal adjustments. Except for color noise reduction all other settings were zeroed.
All of the files are available here (please re-download the dng file if you have already downloaded it as I've saved the development settings to it in this version):
DNG File with LR adjustments (http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/R03851---Mayo-Westport.dng)
EIP File with C1 adjustments (http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/R03851---Mayo-Westport.eip)
ARW original (http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/R03851---Mayo-Westport.arw)
Rendered TIF with C1 adjustments (http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/R03851---Mayo-Westport-C1.tif)
Rendered TIF with LR adjustments (http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/R03851---Mayo-Westport-LR.tif)
Cheers,
Robert
-
P.S. I'll post my conversion when questions about profile and creative intent are more clear to me.
Hi Bart - I'm happy to go with the linear tone curve (if that is what you mean). Regarding creative intent, in this case I have none. I was just looking at detail, artifacts, local contrast, shadow and highlight recovery. As before, with luminance noise reduction and sharpening off.
Cheers
Robert
-
Hi Bart - I'm happy to go with the linear tone curve (if that is what you mean).
Yes, especially if you want to avoid blowing highlights (the film curve suggests to do that even if the file was ETTR). A linear tonecurve also retains more highlight detail, such as in clouds.
Regarding creative intent, in this case I have none. I was just looking at detail, artifacts, local contrast, shadow and highlight recovery. As before, with luminance noise reduction and sharpening off.
What I was l aiming to get was something close to what you were pleased with in the LR rendering, not what I would have made of the image without knowing the original scene and mood. Now that the Original Camera Raw is available I'll use that.
Cheers,
Bart
-
What I was l aiming to get was something close to what you were pleased with in the LR rendering, not what I would have made of the image without knowing the original scene and mood. Now that the Original Camera Raw is available I'll use that.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
Here is the file developed in LR to be close to what I recall the scene being. I've lightened the blue and desaturated the red (to reduce the HDR look) and added a touch of clarity. I've added no sharpening (I would do a 1/150 sharpening in FM probably).
TIF - LR-Developed (http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/R03851---Mayo-Westport-LR-Developed.tif)
Cheers,
Robert
-
Yes, especially if you want to avoid blowing highlights (the film curve suggests to do that even if the file was ETTR). A linear tonecurve also retains more highlight detail, such as in clouds.
as I illustrated in my C1 conversion above ( left part with OP's settings embedded in DNG he posted originally, right side C1 conversion with film curve set to "auto", which selects "film standard" curve - unless your profile for C1 has a specific instruction to select recorded in 'P1FC' private tag in icc/icm camera profile - see "repro" profiles for C1 CH edition for example ) there is absolutely no need to use linear curve to retain more highlight details for that particular shot - there are absolutely the same level of details as in his original ACR/LR rendering (that was recorded in DNG)... you just use contrast slider to bring it back closer to linear curve... and I used a camera profile compensated for C1 'transfer function' for A7R2 camera.
-
I've checked out C1's processing of dng/arw and there are differences.
The most obvious is the wrong white balance value (dng: 5131/16.7 arw: 5812,-1.4) although the actual white balance is identical (comparing the TIFFs). So this seems just to be a display issue.
Much more concerning is that there is a small but noticeable difference in the rendered TIFFs. In order to see this I placed the files as layers in Photoshop with the top layer blend mode set to Difference. With a levels adjustment applied it's clear that the files are different. However the differences are slight.
LR renders the arw and dng identically and the white balance reading on both is 4850,-6.
(RT shows different white balance readings also: arw: 5276, 1.085 dng: 4924, 1.041)
I'll report the issue to Phase One.
Cheers,
Robert
-
Robert ... just a short note on your settings in C1: color noise reduction is set to 50 ... way too high for the A7R2 even at ISO400 and further pushed in C1.
Besides I agree with "AlterEgo" regarding the linear response curve.... it's not needed for this capture to preserve highlight details.
Generally I also do use the linear response curve ... but not as my standard... only for certain captures when need is (I rarely shoot subjects with super high dynamic range, though). When you use the linear curve in base characterics you should be familar with using the curves tool. When you use the linear curve and only work with the contrast slider and the levels tool you may end up with "flat" and "dull" looking areas somewhere in your photos... sometimes things may look artificial (not film-like).
-
Robert ... just a short note on your settings in C1: color noise reduction is set to 50 ... way too high for the A7R2 even at ISO400 and further pushed in C1.
Besides I agree with "AlterEgo" regarding the linear response curve.... it's not needed for this capture to preserve highlight details.
Generally I also do use the linear response curve ... but not as my standard... only for certain captures when need is (I rarely shoot subjects with super high dynamic range, though). When you use the linear curve in base characterics you should be familar with using the curves tool. When you use the linear curve and only work with the contrast slider and the levels tool you may end up with "flat" and "dull" looking areas somewhere in your photos... sometimes things may look artificial (not film-like).
Thanks tho-mas. Yes, the color noise reduction is way too high. And I should have applied a tone curve with the Linear Response selected, so that should make a difference to the comparison.
One thing that I really don't like about C1 is the way that it leaves garbage behind in the image folders (specifically the .cop, .cot and .cof files in the Cache subdirectory). Is there any way of moving the cache to a specific folder? Or failing that, to have the cache cleared automatically on exit? What I do at the moment is to run a batch file periodically to clean out the cache files, but it's a nuisance.
regards,
Robert
-
Generally I also do use the linear response curve ...
I, myself, always use linear curve = but then I always postprocess /sometimes a lot/ in PS afterwards....
-
I, myself, always use linear curve = but then I always postprocess /sometimes a lot/ in PS afterwards....
Yes, me too. When a Film curve response is baked into the output, the highlight details are compressed. That will make it harder (not impossible at 16-b/ch, but harder) to recreate subtle differences in postprocessing. While still processing in Capture One, there is little if anything lost, since all operations are parametric until rendered as output (display or file).
Since I would be postprocessing in Photoshop anyway, Clarity / Detail / deconvolution sharpening / etc., I prefer to start with a non-compressed tonecurve in highlights and shadows, and boosted midtone contrast. It especially makes shadows harder to recover if the micro contrast is already compressed (not as much as highlights, but still) before e.g. Clarity can access is.
When a subject needs decompression of certain tone ranges, I can do that with the Curves tool. It's often easy to see where the histogram steeply rises or falls, and at what levels there is a lot of tonality scattered in the image already. The control point picker also helps with addressing local issues or exploiting opportunities. It gives much more control than a generic film curve can do. And with adjustment layers one can apply multiple different adjustments locally.
The film-curve response does have another IMHO negative aspect to it, and that is that Exposure seems to be almost a stop higher than it actually is in Raw or with a linear curve. That will lead to the need to pull exposure a lot, and apply highlight recovery which affects more than just the quasi 'clipped' highlights.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, me too. When a Film curve response is baked into the output, the highlight details are compressed. That will make it harder (not impossible at 16-b/ch, but harder) to recreate subtle differences in postprocessing. While still processing in Capture One, there is little if anything lost, since all operations are parametric until rendered as output (display or file).
Since I would be postprocessing in Photoshop anyway, Clarity / Detail / deconvolution sharpening / etc., I prefer to start with a non-compressed tonecurve in highlights and shadows, and boosted midtone contrast. It especially makes shadows harder to recover if the micro contrast is already compressed (not as much as highlights, but still) before e.g. Clarity can access is.
When a subject needs decompression of certain tone ranges, I can do that with the Curves tool. It's often easy to see where the histogram steeply rises or falls, and at what levels there is a lot of tonality scattered in the image already. The control point picker also helps with addressing local issues or exploiting opportunities. It gives much more control than a generic film curve can do. And with adjustment layers one can apply multiple different adjustments locally.
The film-curve response does have another IMHO negative aspect to it, and that is that Exposure seems to be almost a stop higher than it actually is in Raw or with a linear curve. That will lead to the need to pull exposure a lot, and apply highlight recovery which affects more than just the quasi 'clipped' highlights.
Cheers,
Bart
yes, for a general use - but for a specific raw conversion comparison (in this topic, w/o further postprocessing, just ACR/LR vs C1, no PS) film curve works just fine (see the clouds on both sides - they are the same - http://postimg.org/image/veoqbqzqd/ ).... granted there are many ways to achieve the same result - with linear curve or film extra shadow, I personally found that standard film curve works here too... again not that I am using it myself ever or recommend to use in general.
-
The main objective of the tone curve is to make a typically 10+ stop DR image look good on a 6-8 stop output medium. Here is what Adobe's standard curve looks like (from DNG Profile Editor):
(http://i.imgur.com/mEvIXBK.png)
If it looks good without it, don't use it because it will mess with chromaticities.
Jack
-
The main objective of the tone curve is to make a typically 10+ stop DR image look good on a 6-8 stop output medium. Here is what Adobe's standard curve looks like (from DNG Profile Editor):
(http://i.imgur.com/mEvIXBK.png)
If it looks good without it, don't use it because it will mess with chromaticities.
Jack
Interesting ... I've created a dng profile (for use with LR) with a linear tone curve and it works very well. The highlights clearly benefit, but so do the shadows.
So ... getting less disappointed with both C1 and LR :)
Robert
-
yes, for a general use - but for a specific raw conversion comparison (in this topic, w/o further postprocessing, just ACR/LR vs C1, no PS) film curve works just fine (see the clouds on both sides - they are the same - http://postimg.org/image/veoqbqzqd/ ).... granted there are many ways to achieve the same result - with linear curve or film extra shadow, I personally found that standard film curve works here too... again not that I am using it myself ever or recommend to use in general.
It's hard to see side-by-side, but the left image (linear one I guess) seems to have smoother transitions in the sky; and also less contrast. The water is significantly darker and the image is less saturated. It seems overall more natural to me. I developed the image with both Film Standard and Linear and got pretty much identical results to yours (smoother skies, darker water, less saturated). I found the same thing happens in Lightroom ... pulling back the highlights and bumping the shadows appears to increase the image saturation. There is also less noise and more detail in the shadows under the bridge with the Linear curve.
Robert
-
It's hard to see side-by-side, but the left image (linear one I guess) seems to have smoother transitions in the sky; and also less contrast.
The water is significantly darker and the image is less saturated.
It seems overall more natural to me. I developed the image with both Film Standard and Linear and got pretty much identical results to yours (smoother skies, darker water, less saturated). I found the same thing happens in Lightroom ... pulling back the highlights and bumping the shadows appears to increase the image saturation. There is also less noise and more detail in the shadows under the bridge with the Linear curve.
Robert
no doubt that you like your own conversion more... because the left one as I clearly noted was from ACR using the conversion parameters recorded by you in your DNG 8) ... the point is however not to try to repeat ACR/LR conversions... if you want to switch totally then just try not to use or think about ACR/LR at all for sometime
-
no doubt that you like your own conversion more... because the left one as I clearly noted was from ACR using the conversion parameters recorded by you in your DNG 8) ... the point is however not to try to repeat ACR/LR conversions... if you want to switch totally then just try not to use or think about ACR/LR at all for sometime
Well, that's funny! I guess that what is 'clearly noted' to you is not clearly understandable to me :)
In that case, I would say that the (film curve & C1) image on the right is giving a harsh result. If you try the same image with a Linear curve you will see that it will be easier to process the image to be more muted and less saturated.
Robert
-
Yes, me too. When a Film curve response is baked into the output, the highlight details are compressed. That will make it harder (not impossible at 16-b/ch, but harder) to recreate subtle differences in postprocessing. While still processing in Capture One, there is little if anything lost, since all operations are parametric until rendered as output (display or file).
Since I would be postprocessing in Photoshop anyway, Clarity / Detail / deconvolution sharpening / etc., I prefer to start with a non-compressed tonecurve in highlights and shadows, and boosted midtone contrast. It especially makes shadows harder to recover if the micro contrast is already compressed (not as much as highlights, but still) before e.g. Clarity can access is.
The film-curve response does have another IMHO negative aspect to it, and that is that Exposure seems to be almost a stop higher than it actually is in Raw or with a linear curve. That will lead to the need to pull exposure a lot, and apply highlight recovery which affects more than just the quasi 'clipped' highlights.
Bart,
while I basically agree I think it depends on the workflow. The "film curves" are designed to work in conjunction with a conventional lighting meter. But I'm sure I don't tell you any news :-)
Therefore when you shoot subjects with a high dynamic range and expose to the right the film curves provided in C1 may clip (and/or compress) highlights.
But when ETTR is not required so that you can roughly expose according to the lighting meter (to 18% grey so to say… or 1 stop above or so) while at the same time the dynamic range of the scene can be covered by your camera then the film curves may provide a great starting point for further editing.
Anyway… when you start editing with a linear curve you have to apply a curve sooner or later in the image editing process to gain a „natural“ or „filmic“ look. And I think the point in time when you apply a curve to create a certain look doesn’t really matter - provided you are editing in high bit (16bit) and the image content fits within the histogram (so no clipping in the shadows and highlights). Or to put it differently…: I think it doesn’t really matter whether you apply a curve in C1 or in later in Photoshop.
I for one do adjust the approximate look of my images in C1. I am a big fan of C1’s color editor and the whole thing only makes sense when you don’t alter anything later in Photoshop. I do, however, adjust my RAW files somewhat softer (contrast-wise) in C1 than the final image will look like to preserve „everything that has been captured“. Therefore all the subtile details that matter to me are there when I am processing to 16bit TIF (sharpening disabled on output, mostly with the camera profile embedded)… so no need to regain theoretically lost differentiation later in post.
To gain this I do use all the curves provided (except for the „high contrast“ curve) … depending on the image content and on how I’ve exposed the scene…
-
Update: Raw image is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/CanoeStadium/_DSC6262.ARW
Hi,
This is coming from my Alpha 99, not A7rII, but I would say it is an interesting case:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/CanoeStadium/20141109-_DSC6262.dng (I will post the ARW image this evening, the DNG has the ARW imbedded).
The image has very bright sky, with the disc of the sun recoverable, it also has dark detail. This is a typical high flare situtaion, however, so luminance ratio on sensor will be limited by lens flare.
This page points to some interesting details and has raw histograms and stuff.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/CanoeStadium/DS2.html
Regarding C1 processing, my take is that C1 sort of makes you underexpose, thus giving up on SNR (Signal Noise Ratio) and shadow detail to protect highlights. Capture One has pretty intensive noise suppression as default, probably to compensates for the low exposures.
To explain it a bit better, the film curve makes the image look much brighter than the linear curve, so an ETTR image will look overexposed at default settings. With LR ETTR images in contrasty situations look pretty good.
Best regards
Erik
-
... (if) the dynamic range of the scene can be covered by your camera then the film curves may provide a great starting point for further editing.
I agree. Also, I find that it is better to have the standard film curve as default for image selection (otherwise the images look too dark). Then if a particular image has difficulties in the highlights or shadows we can go to a linear curve (which I do think helps a lot in these cases).
Anyway… when you start editing with a linear curve you have to apply a curve sooner or later in the image editing process to gain a „natural“ or „filmic“ look. And I think the point in time when you apply a curve to create a certain look doesn’t really matter - provided you are editing in high bit (16bit) and the image content fits within the histogram (so no clipping in the shadows and highlights). Or to put it differently…: I think it doesn’t really matter whether you apply a curve in C1 or in later in Photoshop.
That's something I've been wondering about. Bart suggests that it would be better to apply Topaz Clarity (for instance) before applying the tone curve in the case of shadow recovery. I think you're saying that it should not matter once we keep to 16-bits.
Of course, applying a filter like Clarity on a linear image is going to be difficult to judge as the image will be rather dark, so from a visual editing point of view it would be better to apply the tone curve beforehand.
I for one do adjust the approximate look of my images in C1. I am a big fan of C1’s color editor and the whole thing only makes sense when you don’t alter anything later in Photoshop. I do, however, adjust my RAW files somewhat softer (contrast-wise) in C1 than the final image will look like to preserve „everything that has been captured“. Therefore all the subtile details that matter to me are there when I am processing to 16bit TIF (sharpening disabled on output, mostly with the camera profile embedded)… so no need to regain theoretically lost differentiation later in post.
To gain this I do use all the curves provided (except for the „high contrast“ curve) … depending on the image content and on how I’ve exposed the scene…
How important is it to edit colors as few times as possible? In theory I would assume that the less the better, but even if everything is done in C1 or LR, presumably each of the adjustments are applied one after the other rather than as one combined adjustment? In other words, let's say that there is a global saturation adjustment and a local saturation adjustment, presumably the global adjustment would be done first followed by the local adjustment.
If that's the case then it wouldn't seem to matter where the adjustments are made, providing we have a large enough color space and are working in 16 bits.
Just a question: do you think that using the embedded camera profile is a good idea? The profiles are very small (around 200KB) which may result in interpolation errors (although I expect that P1 makes good profiles .. . and as the cameras are quite linear, small tables are probably OK). I would have thought that if you want to keep as large a color space as possible that it would be better to go to a large working space like ProPhoto, rather than stay in the camera profile.
Cheers
Robert
-
To explain it a bit better, the film curve makes the image look much brighter than the linear curve
one can also use film extra shadow... it is a better one than film standard
-
Just a question: do you think that using the embedded camera profile is a good idea? The profiles are very small (around 200KB) which may result in interpolation errors (although I expect that P1 makes good profiles .. . and as the cameras are quite linear, small tables are probably OK). I would have thought that if you want to keep as large a color space as possible that it would be better to go to a large working space like ProPhoto, rather than stay in the camera profile.
C1 works in "camera space" till output, you can not avoid to stay there, you can only alter where you output to (and then as you ultimately need to do a color transform may be what CMM is going to do, and when, that transform - you can do on C1 side or you can postpone it till later in postprocessing, using the data in icc/icm container)... and then that has nothing to do w/ interpolation errors from LUTs... regular (P1 supplied) C1 profiles are 33x33x33 LUTs, you can make (on purpose) 45x45x45 lut but with such bends that it will be ugly.
and as the cameras are quite linear, small tables are probably OK
this again has nothing to do with cameras being "linear" but with what was/is (if at all) the "creative" intent when camera profile was created... the linear input (and it is not linear when you come in C1 to the point when color transform happens - see 'transfer function' + your own edits) does not preclude such bends in LUTs aiming @ certain things that you will see harsh transitions/posterization and other ill effects.
PS: not that profiles included in C1 aim to do that
-
Update: Raw image is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/CanoeStadium/_DSC6262.ARW
This is coming from my Alpha 99, not A7rII, but I would say it is an interesting case:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/CanoeStadium/20141109-_DSC6262.dng (I will post the ARW image this evening, the DNG has the ARW imbedded).
The image has very bright sky, with the disc of the sun recoverable, it also has dark detail. This is a typical high flare situtaion, however, so luminance ratio on sensor will be limited by lens flare.
Yes, it is an interesting (and very nice) image. In fact, I found that I got the best result with C1 and a linear curve. Of course I also applied some local adjustment gradients as you did:
(http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/ek-2.jpg)
I didn't try to pull back too much detail from the rowers and boats (as you did), but the detail is there. BTW ... your processing of the image gives a finer result (I was just trying my hand at processing the image in LR and C1). It would be interesting to try the image in LR with a linear curve.
Regarding C1 processing, my take is that C1 sort of makes you underexpose, thus giving up on SNR (Signal Noise Ratio) and shadow detail to protect highlights. Capture One has pretty intensive noise suppression as default, probably to compensates for the low exposures.
To explain it a bit better, the film curve makes the image look much brighter than the linear curve, so an ETTR image will look overexposed at default settings. With LR ETTR images in contrasty situations look pretty good.
Yes, I think that it's easier to pull back the highlights in LR. However, if you use a linear curve in C1 it's pretty easy to get both the shadows and highlights, even in this image.
All the best,
Robert
-
Hi Robert,
I like your processing of that image. In a way that image can probably be processed in an infinite number of ways.
That day was in a way very interesting. I was taking pictures with a lady friend. She was shooting with her Panasonic GH4 and I was mostly shooting with my Hasselblad. With the blad I was not getting any good pictures with the canoeists. A couple paddling asked for some pictures, we had no pen and paper but we recorded a video on my Alpha 99 with her e-mail address. My lady friend posted them some great pictures. My pictures collect binary dust on a dusty hard disk…
Best regards
Erik
Yes, it is an interesting (and very nice) image. In fact, I found that I got the best result with C1 and a linear curve. Of course I also applied some local adjustment gradients as you did:
(http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/ek-2.jpg)
I didn't try to pull back too much detail from the rowers and boats (as you did), but the detail is there. BTW ... your processing of the image gives a finer result (I was just trying my hand at processing the image in LR and C1). It would be interesting to try the image in LR with a linear curve.
Yes, I think that it's easier to pull back the highlights in LR. However, if you use a linear curve in C1 it's pretty easy to get both the shadows and highlights, even in this image.
All the best,
Robert
-
That day was in a way very interesting. I was taking pictures with a lady friend. She was shooting with her Panasonic GH4 and I was mostly shooting with my Hasselblad. With the blad I was not getting any good pictures with the canoeists. A couple paddling asked for some pictures, we had no pen and paper but we recorded a video on my Alpha 99 with her e-mail address. My lady friend posted them some great pictures. My pictures collect binary dust on a dusty hard disk…
Well you did get at least one lovely picture! Perhaps you should dust off your hard disk and have another look :). But yes, it is a bit annoying when your Maserati gets overtaken by a Mini ... so to speak.
Cheers,
Robert
-
Hi,
My lady friend sort of feels that she has a Mini (Cooper), so she got a Mercedes Station Wagon (called A7r) but she is not lusting for my 2006 vintage Toyota RAV 4 (a 2006 vintage Toyota Raw 4, but you can substitute my P45+).
Best regards
Erik
Well you did get at least one lovely picture! Perhaps you should dust off your hard disk and have another look :). But yes, it is a bit annoying when your Maserati gets overtaken by a Mini ... so to speak.
Cheers,
Robert
-
I think it doesn’t really matter whether you apply a curve in C1 or in later in Photoshop.
That's something I've been wondering about. Bart suggests that it would be better to apply Topaz Clarity (for instance) before applying the tone curve in the case of shadow recovery. I think you're saying that it should not matter once we keep to 16-bits.
Well, in my opinion Bart provides excellent info and I have yet to see a contribution of Bart I couldn’t agree with.
However, it also depends on the workflow…. I process „Master-Images“ from my RAWs. If you want so a 1:1 copy of my intended RAW-conversion. I also store these 16bit TIFs together with my RAW files in my long time archive. Any further editing is done in Photoshop on layers. When finished I do store the layered TIF and a non-layered copy of the final edit. This single layered 16bit TIF is what I call my „photo“. (Also the single layered copy of the final editing goes into my long time archive.) In such a „Master File“ (both the unedited and the edited version) you don’t want sharpening and/or clarity applied. These files should be as „clean“ and as „detailed“ as possible … well, at least for me.
In my workflow clarity and sharpening first come into play with regard to a specific output. And as far as clarity goes I have never needed it to edit my actual „photos“ … I only use it occasionally when preparing my files for print. But maybe this has also to do with the cameras I use (they all lack an anti-aliasing filter) … but maybe also has to do with my esthetical perception. Finally - at least referring to my serious works - my files are prepared to be printed pretty large (120cm / = ~47’’ on the short side) and I try to avoid any kind of „harshness“ before uprezzing. Some images go through a (very) mild deconvolution sharpening before uprezzing, though.
To cut a long story short, I think it depends on your particular workflow and on how you are used to do things…
How important is it to edit colors as few times as possible? In theory I would assume that the less the better, but even if everything is done in C1 or LR, presumably each of the adjustments are applied one after the other rather than as one combined adjustment? In other words, let's say that there is a global saturation adjustment and a local saturation adjustment, presumably the global adjustment would be done first followed by the local adjustment.
In a parametrical workflow it shouldn’t matter…
Just a question: do you think that using the embedded camera profile is a good idea?
yes, I do. I do not recommend it to anyone since those table based input profiles have limitations when used as editing spaces in Photoshop. But we talked about this in another thread some time ago, no? :-)
I would have thought that if you want to keep as large a color space as possible that it would be better to go to a large working space like ProPhoto, rather than stay in the camera profile.
Now, I really don’t want to go into yet another color management debate. But if you use Capture One ProPhoto-RGB is not needed at all. I would recommend to process to ACES, ACEScg or Rec2020 (if you don’t want to embed the camera profile).
When we had said talk about camera profiles in the other thread a user of this forum dropped me a line about the use of the camera profiles. He compared various captures processed with the camera profile embedded and processed with ProPhoto-RGB set on output. He then compared all the respective TIFs in Color Think Pro and analysed the number of unique colors contained in each version of the same images. Independent of the contrast and/or the saturation of the scenes the ProPhoto-RGB output contained always way less unique colors than the images processed with the camera profile embeded. I’ve verified his findings and even compared random images with different source profiles (sRGB, Adobe-RGB etc.) converted to ProPhoto-RGB and converted to ACES, Rec2020 and ECI-RGB in Photoshop (all conversions performed in 16bit - all target profiles used feature Gamma 1.8 ). The ProPhoto versions constantly contained remarkably less unique colors than the other color spaces. Now… there are rounding errors and possibly other factors that affect the results of Color Thinks readout of unique colors. However, it was apparent that - independent of the source profile and the image content - the images converted to ProPhoto showed always the lowest number of unique colors (around 10% less and sometimes even more). Since ProPhoto RGB is a pretty dated color space (back then designed with film based workflows in mind) and since it doesn’t encompass all the colors digital cameras can capture it has no particular merit (other than being pretty large … and being the internal color space in Adobe RAW softwares).
Back to the initial question: you are effectively editing in the camera’s color space in Capture One. Whether you convert to any other color space right on output or later in Photoshop (with the help of color warning and the info palette) doesn’t make a difference (in theory and in practice). Since Photoshop provides much more control I embed the camera profiles on output when processing from Capture One. Mostly I also edit in the camera’s color space.
As to the film curves vs. the linear curve… attached the capture from above loaded in C1 as is (no adjustments as far as exposure, levels or contrast or so goes).
Top left: Standard Film Curve
Bottom left: Linear Curve
Top right: Standard Film Curve & HDR: shadows and highlight recovered both by 100%
Bottom right: Linear Curve & HDR: shadows and highlight recovered both by 100%
As you can see even from these small screenshots you can achieve the same amount of details/differentiation with the Standard Film Curve. It just looks more „natural“.
To finalize the image according to your creative intend you have to edit it differently… but technically you don’t lose anything when using the Standard Film curve at this stage.
But that’s easy to show with this example. There are other scenes that are more complicated to edit with the film curve in conjunction with "ETTR"…
-
In a parametrical workflow it shouldn’t matter…
except layers break parametricity... because they are applied in the specific order you arranged them and by definition everything parametric shall not depend on what user does.
-
Since Photoshop provides much more control I embed the camera profiles on output when processing from Capture One. Mostly I also edit in the camera’s color space.
did Adobe fix the bug when ACR being used as a filter in PS (CC) couldn't work when embedded 'camera color space' was used ?
-
except layers break parametricity... because they are applied in the specific order you arranged them and by definition everything parametric shall not depend on what user does.
true ... if you are nitpicking about the definition of "parametric" :-)
But with regard to the example Robert asked about it shouldn't make a difference. Well, visually it does make a difference, but "technically" it does not. Besides, I would adjust global and selective saturation on the same layer in the saturation tool and would not apply two layers with saturation... :-)
-
did Adobe fix the bug when ACR being used as a filter in PS (CC) couldn't work when embedded 'camera color space' was used ?
I have no idea. I have never used ACR for something... especially not on a layer since it roundtrips through ProPhoto-RGB.
-
if you are nitpicking
I do 8)
-
I have no idea. I have never used ACR for something... especially not on a layer since it roundtrips through ProPhoto-RGB.
I much prefer to clone out skin blemishes in ACR vs C1, even when conversion was with C1
-
I do 8)
I know :-) ... and that's perfectly fine. Except that too often I need Google to actually get what you are talking about :-)) I don't have the deep technical knowledge about color management you have ...
I much prefer to clone out skin blemishes in ACR vs C1, even when conversion was with C1
now, that's an application I use very rarely. If I have to, I process 2 versions of the same RAW out of C1 (the first providing the intended look the second with skin tones adjusted in the advanced color editor to paint it in the first picture selectively - "uniformity" in the advanced color editor's skin tone tool is gorgeous). Or I do make the respective edits on a layer in C1. But, again, I am not at all an expert in editing and/or repairing skins...
-
did Adobe fix the bug when ACR being used as a filter in PS (CC) couldn't work when embedded 'camera color space' was used ?
No ... not in the latest version of Photoshop.
-
Wll, in my opinion Bart provides excellent info and I have yet to see a contribution of Bart I couldn’t agree with.
Absolutely agree. In fact I wouldn't even be looking at C1 if it were not that Bart uses it.
In my workflow clarity and sharpening first come into play with regard to a specific output.
Yes, I would agree with that, at least regarding sharpening and also with regard to Clarity if you are just using it for output sharpening. However Clarity (and other plug-ins that affect contrast) may be needed to process your original (or at least my original) photo.
In a parametrical workflow it shouldn’t matter…
As alter-ego pointed out, just because the workflow is parametric doesn't mean that the adjustments are applied in one go. Certainly local adjustments would be applied sequentially. But there's no reason to assume that, for example, Exposure, HDR adjustments, Levels and Curves are not also applied sequentially (it would be very difficult to apply them as a single adjustment).
The main advantage of a parametric workflow to my mind is that it is non-destructive and compact. But apart from the compactness, the same can be done with layers and smart objects/smart filters in Photoshop (and these are clearly applied sequentially).
yes, I do. I do not recommend it to anyone since those table based input profiles have limitations when used as editing spaces in Photoshop. But we talked about this in another thread some time ago, no? :-)
Now, I really don’t want to go into yet another color management debate. But if you use Capture One ProPhoto-RGB is not needed at all. I would recommend to process to ACES, ACEScg or Rec2020 (if you don’t want to embed the camera profile).
When we had said talk about camera profiles in the other thread a user of this forum dropped me a line about the use of the camera profiles. He compared various captures processed with the camera profile embedded and processed with ProPhoto-RGB set on output. He then compared all the respective TIFs in Color Think Pro and analysed the number of unique colors contained in each version of the same images. Independent of the contrast and/or the saturation of the scenes the ProPhoto-RGB output contained always way less unique colors than the images processed with the camera profile embeded. I’ve verified his findings and even compared random images with different source profiles (sRGB, Adobe-RGB etc.) converted to ProPhoto-RGB and converted to ACES, Rec2020 and ECI-RGB in Photoshop (all conversions performed in 16bit - all target profiles used feature Gamma 1.8 ). The ProPhoto versions constantly contained remarkably less unique colors than the other color spaces. Now… there are rounding errors and possibly other factors that affect the results of Color Thinks readout of unique colors. However, it was apparent that - independent of the source profile and the image content - the images converted to ProPhoto showed always the lowest number of unique colors (around 10% less and sometimes even more). Since ProPhoto RGB is a pretty dated color space (back then designed with film based workflows in mind) and since it doesn’t encompass all the colors digital cameras can capture it has no particular merit (other than being pretty large … and being the internal color space in Adobe RAW softwares).
Back to the initial question: you are effectively editing in the camera’s color space in Capture One. Whether you convert to any other color space right on output or later in Photoshop (with the help of color warning and the info palette) doesn’t make a difference (in theory and in practice). Since Photoshop provides much more control I embed the camera profiles on output when processing from Capture One. Mostly I also edit in the camera’s color space.
I certainly didn't intend starting another ProPhoto versus the World debate :). No, we can happily leave that. I was only questioning the use of the camera profile, and your answer is much appreciated and very complete: thank you.
Alter-ego's point regarding using the Photoshop ACR filter is currently valid though ... I certainly often use it as it is an incredibly powerful filter (all of the LR/ACR adjustments are available, so things like color adjustments, moire removal etc., are available without having to go back to your raw file (although if you use LR and smart objects then you can just jump back to your raw file to make these changes if you wish).
As to the film curves vs. the linear curve… attached the capture from above loaded in C1 as is (no adjustments as far as exposure, levels or contrast or so goes).
Top left: Standard Film Curve
Bottom left: Linear Curve
Top right: Standard Film Curve & HDR: shadows and highlight recovered both by 100%
Bottom right: Linear Curve & HDR: shadows and highlight recovered both by 100%
As you can see even from these small screenshots you can achieve the same amount of details/differentiation with the Standard Film Curve. It just looks more „natural“.
To finalize the image according to your creative intend you have to edit it differently… but technically you don’t lose anything when using the Standard Film curve at this stage.
But that’s easy to show with this example. There are other scenes that are more complicated to edit with the film curve in conjunction with "ETTR"…
Is this image not effectively ETTR? Certainly the highlights around the sun are well blown out.
I must say that I'm not sure I agree. I think you can achieve exactly the same look as a film curve starting from a linear curve, but not necessarily the other way around. It does mean having to use the Curves adjustment with most images ... but then you have all of the flexibility of applying just the curve that you want.
And there is also Bart's point that detail can be lost in the shadows and highlights, even at 16 bits, with the Film curves. I have seen this on my image of Westport that I posted above: I was able to get quite a lot more detail in the shadows with the linear curve.
Cheers,
Robert
-
except layers break parametricity... because they are applied in the specific order you arranged them and by definition everything parametric shall not depend on what user does.
It does not, at least in C1. You can reorder the layers the way you want and the result will be the same.
The local adjustments are applied to the background image always, not to the effect of the stacked layers. For instance if you blow out the previous layer beyond saturation, by increasing the exposure, you can bring it back in the next layer by reducing the exposure.
Another example, if you clone, it is based on the background layer, not in the effect of the adjustment layers.
In relation to LR, it is absolutely irrelevant in which order you applied the adjustments and/or how may history steps you have in an image. The end result is based on the actual settings of the sliders.
-
It does not, at least in C1. You can reorder the layers the way you want and the result will be the same.
That's indeed how I've understood it to work (the rearragement of layers ability is just for convenience in logical grouping). For example a +1 stop Exposure layer correction (at a given mask opacity) is fully reversed by a -1 stop Exposure correction in another layer (with the same mask opacity). Whether there are differences due to rounding errors or non-linear behavior is another matter, but even e.g. Saturation adjustments cancel each other out (despite the fact that Saturation behaves more like Vibrance if positive, and more like traditional (de)Saturation if negative). So the adjustment amounts are summed and then applied on the Background. It also allows to amplify the maximum effect of an adjustment by adding another layer with the same adjustment type (a maximum of 100 becomes a maximum of 200), should one need that.
The important point is that it works in a different way compared to Photoshop and similar layer implementations, which are designed more like Print layers, ink stacked upon ink, correction stacked upon previous corrections.
The local adjustments are applied to the background image always, not to the effect of the stacked layers. For instance if you blow out the previous layer beyond saturation, by increasing the exposure, you can bring it back in the next layer by reducing the exposure.
Yes, which makes it easier to address things like highlight clipping by locally painting in a negative Exposure, or a HDR highlight adjustment. It also prevents unnecessary amplification of noise and aggregation of rounding errors. They are adjustment layers, not image compositing layers.
Another example, if you clone, it is based on the background layer, not in the effect of the adjustment layers.
Yes, an important distinction, which helps creativity and hides technical considerations.
The only downside I can think of is that it would be harder to create future functionality that does depend on mutiple layers, like e.g. averaging (for noise reduction) of multiple image layers, or using the Median to reduce moving objects in a stationary scene, or using layer blending modes where the order of application does matter.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It does not, at least in C1.
I see - I do not use layers in C1 at all and hence certainly misunderstood that part
-
I must say that I'm not sure I agree. I think you can achieve exactly the same look as a film curve starting from a linear curve, but not necessarily the other way around. It does mean having to use the Curves adjustment with most images ... but then you have all of the flexibility of applying just the curve that you want.
And there is also Bart's point that detail can be lost in the shadows and highlights, even at 16 bits, with the Film curves. I have seen this on my image of Westport that I posted above: I was able to get quite a lot more detail in the shadows with the linear curve.
It is possible to start with the linear curve and replicate the behaviour of the Input Film Curve in the curves tool. Vice versa it also possible to start with a Film Curve and replicate the behaviour of the Input Linear Curve in the curves tool.
Inverted curves cancel each other out when working in 16bit. Attached an image with a curve followed by the same curve inverted (prepared in Photoshop) showing that you can recover the full range of details even when you are working on a really narrow band of tonal values. Now, the Film Curve in C1 is far less steep than the curves applied in my example. According to this I don't think that you are effectively losing details ... but maybe it is more intuitive for you to start editing with the linear curve in your Westport image. As said above I also use the linear curve ... but mostly when I want to work out very fine nuanced tonal differentiation in bright image areas. The cool thing is we have the choice ...
-
It is possible to start with the linear curve and replicate the behaviour of the Input Film Curve in the curves tool. Vice versa it also possible to start with a Film Curve and replicate the behaviour of the Input Linear Curve in the curves tool.
Inverted curves cancel each other out when working in 16bit. Attached an image with a curve followed by the same curve inverted (prepared in Photoshop) showing that you can recover the full range of details even when you are working on a really narrow band of tonal values. Now, the Film Curve in C1 is far less steep than the curves applied in my example. According to this I don't think that you are effectively losing details ... but maybe it is more intuitive for you to start editing with the linear curve in your Westport image. As said above I also use the linear curve ... but mostly when I want to work out very fine nuanced tonal differentiation in bright image areas. The cool thing is we have the choice ...
Yes, I think you're right. Also, from the comments above it does seem (surprisingly to me) that C1 does in fact combine adjustments and apply the net effect. I have tried this with applying saturation and exposure and then reversing it in a local adjustment and as far as I can see the two are combined into one effect, which is very cool (although there is a color shift with saturation, presumably because of Bart's Saturation/Vibrance point).
In LR this seems to work for exposure but not saturation. Also, there are far fewer local adjustments possible in LR.
Robert
-
This is probably nit-picking, but it seems (with C1) that if parts of the image have some channel that is blown out (at least I think that this is the issue), setting the background to exposure to +2 (say) and a local adjustment layer set to -2 with the mask selecting the whole image, that the adjustment layer negates the background adjustment, except for the blown channels. You can see this here:
(http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/c1-reverse.jpg)
(The image shows the result of the original tif exported to Photoshop with the adjusted tif as a layer above it, set to Difference, and with a Levels adjustment layer applied).
-
Regarding white balance in C1, this is the comment from Phase One support:
"The WB difference you see simply has to do with how the WB number is determined. In capture One we use a single scale and convert from the raw file to our scale - therefore a DNG being a different raw file with slightly different properties falls at a different place on the scale."
In other words, the differences we see in WB between DNG and ARW files is not relevant, according to P1 ... they're just numbers. A bit odd, but there you go.
Robert
-
Regarding white balance in C1, this is the comment from Phase One support:
"The WB difference you see simply has to do with how the WB number is determined. In capture One we use a single scale and convert from the raw file to our scale - therefore a DNG being a different raw file with slightly different properties falls at a different place on the scale."
In other words, the differences we see in WB between DNG and ARW files is not relevant, according to P1 ... they're just numbers. A bit odd, but there you go.
I would tend to agree, it's not what the absolute numbers are but how they are used - and color temperatures correlated to a blackbody radiator maybe representative in some cases but not in others.
Incidentally, and simplifying for clarity, ideally first the converter levels the raw data (i.e. applies multipliers so that the r,g,b values on a gray card are all the same) then it multiplies the raw data by a color matrix (the result of which can further be tweaked by profiles etc. later on in the processing). The color matrix is typically a mix of two matrices specific to lighting at two ends of the spectrum (often 2850K and 6500K). If a gray card (or other neutral object) is used to 'sample' white balance, the only reason why CCT is needed is to interpolate between the two. It is often calculated like so (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature#Approximation): the input to the equation are the WB multipliers expressed as xy chromaticities.
Jack
-
This is probably nit-picking, but it seems (with C1) that if parts of the image have some channel that is blown out (at least I think that this is the issue), setting the background to exposure to +2 (say) and a local adjustment layer set to -2 with the mask selecting the whole image, that the adjustment layer negates the background adjustment, except for the blown channels.
Hi Robert,
Interesting.
What is the maximum delta of the differenced layers? Is the original really clipped there in Raw?
I wonder what happens if you leave the background layer as it is, and add two adjustment layers, one +2 and one -2, with full (inverted default) mask. Maybe the adjustment on the background layer dominates and totally clipped info is not (fully) recoverable, but layer adjustments are aggregated by control type before being applied and are therefore fully reversible.
Another approach worth testing is a -2 exposure background layer (as if focusing on highlight protection) with a single +2 adjustment layer, so the other way around from your +2 with -2 adjustment scenario.
Single channel clipping is often aggravated by White balancing, so maybe a modified Background WB (with compensation in an adjustment layer with full mask and erased highlights) will also reduce the differences.
I'm tempted to consider it a bug (from the point of reversible parametric editing with adjustment layers), but maybe it's temporarily solvable by only using masks, for those cases that need totally clipped highlight control. Once it's clear what is going on, I'm sure that Phase One support is interested in being made aware.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, I think you're right. Also, from the comments above it does seem (surprisingly to me) that C1 does in fact combine adjustments and apply the net effect. I have tried this with applying saturation and exposure and then reversing it in a local adjustment and as far as I can see the two are combined into one effect, which is very cool (although there is a color shift with saturation, presumably because of Bart's Saturation/Vibrance point).
In LR this seems to work for exposure but not saturation. Also, there are far fewer local adjustments possible in LR.
So it seems it's about time to change the title of this thread into: "Capture One on the A7RII giving me pleasant results" :-))
-
So it seems it's about time to change the title of this thread into: "Capture One on the A7RII giving me pleasant results" :-))
Yes, I think it is going in that direction :).
BTW, I have involved Phase One in this 'issue' and this is what they have said:
"Thanks for making the files available.. what I am currently missing though is exactly what it is you believe that Capture One is not doing well? For instance I can see there are a few finer details in the stone in Lightroom, however this really realities to base level, un-removable sharpening in the rendering. At the same time Capture One appears to handle tree detail better and shows much less noise in the lightpost.*
It's important to keep in mind that certain elements of image rendering are set as default for a reason in software, and the true judge of a software is what happens when you optimize an image, rather than what happens when you turn off certain features**. Bear in mind that things like noise reduction, sharpening, color and gamma are established and edited very differently by different software, and when we program, we program based on expected end use, rather than what an item looks like with adjustments turned off. "Turned off" after all can mean two very different things in different software.".
Which means that in the demosaicing or rendering that C1 applies some base level sharpening and noise reduction. Presumable so does LR. So it would seem that it is pretty well impossible to compare like with like by completely turning off sharpening and noise reduction. This would also explain why the 1DSIII images are clearly sharper in C1 with sharpening and noise off, whereas they are not for the A7RII (or at least not consistently so, presumably depending on the frequency of the detail).
One for thing for sure though, and that is that Phase One support appears knowledgeable and responsive.
Cheers
Robert
* not sure I totally agree with this, but I would have to go back to look at the image again.
** which is not really applicable if one does the sharpening and noise reduction on the TIFF.
-
What is the maximum delta of the differenced layers? Is the original really clipped there in Raw?
The differences are very very small but I don't know how to compute the maximum delta of the differenced layers. If you let me know how to I'll do it, otherwise here is the difference file: Difference File (http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/difference.tif). What I have done is to sample a point on one of the lines and (obviously with the Levels turned off) I'm getting a Lab value of 1,0,0 and RGB of 2,2,3 (so it's not visible without a Levels adjustment). Erik's image, which is more blown out in the sun, has a Lab value of 1,0,0 also and RGB of 3,3,3. With the Levels applied to it it looks like this:
(http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/ek-difference.jpg)
C1 does show an exposure warning on the parts of the image giving problems (even with Exposure Warning set to 255) but it's not possible to see the clipping on the histogram.
I wonder what happens if you leave the background layer as it is, and add two adjustment layers, one +2 and one -2, with full (inverted default) mask.
This works perfectly. I tried with both a linear and film curve ... both are fine.
Maybe the adjustment on the background layer dominates and totally clipped info is not (fully) recoverable, but layer adjustments are aggregated by control type before being applied and are therefore fully reversible.
Another approach worth testing is a -2 exposure background layer (as if focusing on highlight protection) with a single +2 adjustment layer, so the other way around from your +2 with -2 adjustment scenario.
This also works fine.
I'm tempted to consider it a bug (from the point of reversible parametric editing with adjustment layers), but maybe it's temporarily solvable by only using masks, for those cases that need totally clipped highlight control. Once it's clear what is going on, I'm sure that Phase One support is interested in being made aware.
It may be a bug, but it's so minor that I wonder if it's worth reporting to P1? If it ever became a problem, which I doubt, it can be worked around by using only adjustment layers.
I guess I might report it in case it is a bug and they can fix it at their leasure.
Cheers
Robert
-
Which means that in the demosaicing or rendering that C1 applies some base level sharpening and noise reduction. Presumable so does LR.
Hi Robert,
I'm not so sure that it is specific sharpening or noise reduction, but rather a method of convertion that preserves the original data better without amplifying noise.
So it would seem that it is pretty well impossible to compare like with like by completely turning off sharpening and noise reduction.
Well, turning those off in LR and in C1, IMHO, does establish a baseline (including different artifacts) which then gets adjusted with controls that do a different attempt at getting less noise and preserve sharpness, or boost acutance (and in the case of deconvolution, attempts to restore signal resolution more than noise).
This would also explain why the 1DSIII images are clearly sharper in C1 with sharpening and noise off, whereas they are not for the A7RII (or at least not consistently so, presumably depending on the frequency of the detail).
My star target test does show that more resolution is extracted from the same Raw image, and that cannot be achieved by sharpening alone. In fact, C1 attempts to recreate detail finer than the Nyquist frequency (which doesn't exist, so cannot be present nor sharpened to become more visible). It is a direct result of a different Demosaicing algorithm that makes intelligent assumptions (more often right than wrong) based on undersampled Bayer CFA information. So it seems to adapt to the kind of signal it is fed, but still has to do that with the same undersampled data we feed it.
The algorithm changed when C1 version 7 was introduced, until that time LR and C1 resolved a similar amount of detail. After the change, C1 also rendered high contrast lines/edges in a less jagged way compared to C1 version 6.
One for thing for sure though, and that is that Phase One support appears knowledgeable and responsive.
It seems to have improved, but can at times also get a bit less responsive after introduction of a major new version, due to the flood of questions that such a new release generates. Let's hope they do not outsource their helpdesk to some far away low labor cost country where communication between the development team and the support people is much harder.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Robert,
I'm not so sure that it is specific sharpening or noise reduction, but rather a method of convertion that preserves the original data better without amplifying noise.
Well, turning those off in LR and in C1, IMHO, does establish a baseline (including different artifacts) which then gets adjusted with controls that do a different attempt at getting less noise and preserve sharpness, or boost acutance (and in the case of deconvolution, attempts to restore signal resolution more than noise).
My star target test does show that more resolution is extracted from the same Raw image, and that cannot be achieved by sharpening alone. In fact, C1 attempts to recreate detail finer than the Nyquist frequency (which doesn't exist, so cannot be present nor sharpened to become more visible). It is a direct result of a different Demosaicing algorithm that makes intelligent assumptions (more often right than wrong) based on undersampled Bayer CFA information. So it seems to adapt to the kind of signal it is fed, but still has to do that with the same undersampled data we feed it.
The algorithm changed when C1 version 7 was introduced, until that time LR and C1 resolved a similar amount of detail. After the change, C1 also rendered high contrast lines/edges in a less jagged way compared to C1 version 6.
It seems to have improved, but can at times also get a bit less responsive after introduction of a major new version, due to the flood of questions that such a new release generates. Let's hope they do not outsource their helpdesk to some far away low labor cost country where communication between the development team and the support people is much harder.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart ... yes I'm sure you must be right regarding the 'base level' sharpening/noise reduction. I know nothing about demosaicing algorithms, but it does stand to reason that creating a single RGB value from multiple R, G and B values will involve quite complex decisions in terms of the luminance of the single value ... and therefore the detail and local contrast.
Which makes one wonder why the P1 technician says that there is a base level sharpening applied ... perhaps he doesn't know, or it's just a way of explaining it to a customer without going into technicalities ... or perhaps it's a way of explaining away the areas where C1 appears a bit weaker than does LR for the A7RII images.
A question for you: is it likely that there would be a demosaicing algorithm difference for different cameras? The Imatest results from the tests I did showed C1 being clearly superior to LR for the 1DSIII, but not for the A7RII. Perhaps there is an algorithmic difference for cameras that have an AA filter and those that do not?
I could test LR/C1 with your star target test ... but is it possible to print this using an inkjet printer? (I have a Canon iPF6400).
As for P1 support ... they do seem quite knowledgeable, but they aren't quick! I wouldn't like to try to get an urgent problem fixed using email, but I suppose it would be possible to call one of their offices and ask to be put through to technical support.
BTW ... I have reported the adjustment 'issue' to P1, so it will be interesting to see what they say.
-
The differences are very very small but I don't know how to compute the maximum delta of the differenced layers.
I usually look at the histogram in Photoshop, and drag over it till the pixel count changes or stops to change.
If you let me know how to I'll do it, otherwise here is the difference file: Difference File (http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/difference.tif). What I have done is to sample a point on one of the lines and (obviously with the Levels turned off) I'm getting a Lab value of 1,0,0 and RGB of 2,2,3 (so it's not visible without a Levels adjustment). Erik's image, which is more blown out in the sun, has a Lab value of 1,0,0 also and RGB of 3,3,3.
That's indeed a minor difference which would need a lot of boosting to become even visible in a normal scene. But it should not be there, so one never knows if it has other side effects.
C1 does show an exposure warning on the parts of the image giving problems (even with Exposure Warning set to 255) but it's not possible to see the clipping on the histogram.
This works perfectly. I tried with both a linear and film curve ... both are fine.
This also works fine.
Good to know.
It may be a bug, but it's so minor that I wonder if it's worth reporting to P1? If it ever became a problem, which I doubt, it can be worked around by using only adjustment layers.
I guess I might report it in case it is a bug and they can fix it at their leasure.
I agree, it's only a very minor issue, not worth a lot of their resources to immediately hunt it down, but still something to keep in mind if one has to deal with a lot of clipped (really clipped in Raw, not after White balancing) image data.
I've been shooting a lot of shiny silverware and glossy ceramic objects lately, and have managed with an exposure adjustment layer to selectively 'tame' highlight clipping. Some clipping is okay, since it is just the mirror image of the lightsource which should Whitebalance to 'white' anyway, but it usually is nice to have a bit of the underlying design/colors in ceramics shining through.
I have tried it the other way around as well, starting with a highlight controlled background, and adjusting the overall exposure with an adjustment layer, but doesn't really make a clearly visible difference. The drawback is that some features for the background layer, are not available for adjustment layers, so it would be more than a simple change in workflow to tackle a minor issue. Also Saturation applied on the background comes out a bit different after changing exposure than the same after a correction on an adjustment layer, so I'll stick to my usual workflow, and only correct minor local issues with adjustment layers after getting a general baseline tonality in the background that is correct.
There are also other aspects of image quality that may be different between the Raw converters. I'm also quite pleased with the new resampling quality of C1 (LR was already pretty decent, unlike Photoshop). I'll see if I can produce a comparison between LR and C1 with very small amounts of rotation and or keystone correction. Very small rotations or skews usually cause a fading in and out of sharpness (like it's shown here ( figure 8 ) (https://pixinsight.com/doc/docs/InterpolationAlgorithms/InterpolationAlgorithms.html#__section004__)) that can look quite bad, and orientation and distortion correction are typical operations that trigger that.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart ... yes I'm sure you must be right regarding the 'base level' sharpening/noise reduction. I know nothing about demosaicing algorithms, but it does stand to reason that creating a single RGB value from multiple R, G and B values will involve quite complex decisions in terms of the luminance of the single value ... and therefore the detail and local contrast.
Yes, there is a lot of secret sauce involved (otherwise they'd all produce the same results). Of course, C1 has a legacy of having to deal with captures from sensors without aliasing filter (not because that's superior, but because there are no affordable AA-filters at those Medium Format sizes).
Which makes one wonder why the P1 technician says that there is a base level sharpening applied ... perhaps he doesn't know, or it's just a way of explaining it to a customer without going into technicalities ... or perhaps it's a way of explaining away the areas where C1 appears a bit weaker than does LR for the A7RII images.
They are probably not telling the whole story (patented stuff), or do not know how to explain in a few lines. C1 probably adapts to the AA-filter being present or not. That could be interpreted as more or less sharpening, but I'd say that's not really what happens. It's more likely some different weighting during the demosaicing, to avoid AA-artifacts on some cameras. The A7RII is probably not pushed as far as a camera with an AA-filter. That BTW will probably mean that deconvolution sharpening also works better, because there are fewer artifacts that will be amplified along with the genuinely blurred signal.
A question for you: is it likely that there would be a demosaicing algorithm difference for different cameras? The Imatest results from the tests I did showed C1 being clearly superior to LR for the 1DSIII, but not for the A7RII. Perhaps there is an algorithmic difference for cameras that have an AA filter and those that do not?
Yes, I think that is likely. An adjusted demosaicing weighting for cameras with and without AA-filter seem a logical approach. Aliasing artifacts are usually larger versions of the spatial frequencies that caused them. So it makes sense to avoid, or at least not amplify, them. Aliases have the largest modulation near the Nyquist frequency, and micro-contrast of the real signal is dropping to a minimum, so near the physical limit of resolution they show there ugliness 'best'. It makes sense to take special care and not make matters worse.
I could test LR/C1 with your star target test ... but is it possible to print this using an inkjet printer? (I have a Canon iPF6400).
Yes, I have a version for Canon printers (at 600 PPI) and one for Epson printers (at 720 PPI). When shot from a distance of 25-50x the focal length, the target will have higher resolution than the capture system, and it will be very hard (especially at 50x FL distance) to resolve all the way to Nyquist (which is located at a central blur radius of 92 pixels diameter). There is some more info about my targets here (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13217).
As for P1 support ... they do seem quite knowledgeable, but they aren't quick! I wouldn't like to try to get an urgent problem fixed using email, but I suppose it would be possible to call one of their offices and ask to be put through to technical support.
BTW ... I have reported the adjustment 'issue' to P1, so it will be interesting to see what they say.
Good, they'll probably pass the info on to their software engineers, who will then prioritize based of frequency of reports and potential impact on stability and such. I've also reported non-critical issues in the past, and one is not yet fixed, others have been fixed in recent minor version updates. Some issues are hard to solve, because they are dependent on the (continuously changing version of) video drivers and the interaction with hardware acceleration, and hardware behavior can differ a lot between machines, not to mention operating systems.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I've been shooting a lot of shiny silverware and glossy ceramic objects lately, and have managed with an exposure adjustment layer to selectively 'tame' highlight clipping. Some clipping is okay, since it is just the mirror image of the lightsource which should Whitebalance to 'white' anyway, but it usually is nice to have a bit of the underlying design/colors in ceramics shining through.
Yes, the blown highlights in that image were reflections off shiny metal, glass and ceramic.
There are also other aspects of image quality that may be different between the Raw converters. I'm also quite pleased with the new resampling quality of C1 (LR was already pretty decent, unlike Photoshop).
Did you find that LR resampling was better for both up-sampling and down-sampling than PS?
I'll see if I can produce a comparison between LR and C1 with very small amounts of rotation and or keystone correction. Very small rotations or skews usually cause a fading in and out of sharpness (like it's shown here ( figure 8 ) (https://pixinsight.com/doc/docs/InterpolationAlgorithms/InterpolationAlgorithms.html#__section004__)) that can look quite bad, and orientation and distortion correction are typical operations that trigger that.
Very interesting ... I look forward to your comparisons :)
Cheers
Robert
Cheers,
Bart
[/quote]
-
They are probably not telling the whole story (patented stuff), or do not know how to explain in a few lines. C1 probably adapts to the AA-filter being present or not. That could be interpreted as more or less sharpening, but I'd say that's not really what happens. It's more likely some different weighting during the demosaicing, to avoid AA-artifacts on some cameras. The A7RII is probably not pushed as far as a camera with an AA-filter. That BTW will probably mean that deconvolution sharpening also works better, because there are fewer artifacts that will be amplified along with the genuinely blurred signal.
Good point.
Yes, I think that is likely. An adjusted demosaicing weighting for cameras with and without AA-filter seem a logical approach. Aliasing artifacts are usually larger versions of the spatial frequencies that caused them. So it makes sense to avoid, or at least not amplify, them. Aliases have the largest modulation near the Nyquist frequency, and micro-contrast of the real signal is dropping to a minimum, so near the physical limit of resolution they show there ugliness 'best'. It makes sense to take special care and not make matters worse.
Well that may well explain why the 1DSIII Imatest results seem better near Nyquist than do the A7RII images (compared to LR, that is) ... perhaps C1 is deliberately toning down the signal near Nyquist whereas LR is not.
Yes, I have a version for Canon printers (at 600 PPI) and one for Epson printers (at 720 PPI). When shot from a distance of 25-50x the focal length, the target will have higher resolution than the capture system, and it will be very hard (especially at 50x FL distance) to resolve all the way to Nyquist (which is located at a central blur radius of 92 pixels diameter). There is some more info about my targets here (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13217).
Many thanks Bart ... I'll give this a go and let you know the results.
-
Continuing on with my evaluation of C1 v LR, I haven't been able to get the C1 development of this image to match LR's (the shadows, not the highlights and midtones):
R03998---.ARW (http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/R03998---.ARW)
The LR- developed image looks like this:
(http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/R03998---LR.jpg)
I used a linear curve in LR in this case, but using a standard (DNG Profiler) curve works just as well.
For comparison purposes, in case anyone would like to give the image a go in C1, here is the LR-developed TIFF
R03998---LR.tif (http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/R03998---LR.tif)
Cheers,
Robert
-
Continuing on with my evaluation of C1 v LR, I haven't been able to get the C1 development of this image to match LR's (the shadows, not the highlights and midtones):
[...]
For comparison purposes, in case anyone would like to give the image a go in C1, here is the LR-developed TIFF
Hi Robert,
Indeed, C1 cannot bridge the difference with a simple tone adjustment, but it can get a much better result when using an adjustment layer for the shadows (my interpretation attached). Unfortunately, it is also not perfect, due to limitations in the masking accuracy.
C1 expects less extreme illumination differences, e.g. by using fill flash indoors, or as I would personally approach it, with a dual conversion and a good HDR tonemapping program. This particular image would also be better when using a better masking program in Photoshop on a dual exposure conversion.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Robert,
Indeed, C1 cannot bridge the difference with a simple tone adjustment, but it can get a much better result when using an adjustment layer for the shadows (my interpretation attached). Unfortunately, it is also not perfect, due to limitations in the masking accuracy.
C1 expects less extreme illumination differences, e.g. by using fill flash indoors, or as I would personally approach it, with a dual conversion and a good HDR tonemapping program. This particular image would also be better when using a better masking program in Photoshop on a dual exposure conversion.
Thanks for looking at this Bart. I'm still very new to C1 so I thought that there was a reasonable chance that a more expert user could do a better job than me. LR is very good at pulling the shadows. Of course there is the question of noise ... which I haven't really looked at yet.
Robert
-
Hi Robert,
Lightroom does a lot of what I (or they?) would call content aware local contrast enhancement. I think you get this whenever you move the "Higlights" slider below -50 or the "Shadows" over 50. It is sort of HDR like mapping.
This was introduced in processing variant 2012. Ta that time I experimented with blending HDR toning with normally processed images, but I mostly dropped that technique with arrival Lightrooms's PV2102.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for looking at this Bart. I'm still very new to C1 so I thought that there was a reasonable chance that a more expert user could do a better job than me. LR is very good at pulling the shadows. Of course there is the question of noise ... which I haven't really looked at yet.
Robert
-
Hi Bart,
I've tried your resolution test and it's very elegant and easy to use! Great!
Here is a result with the A7RII and Zeiss Loxia 21mm lens, photographed at around 1m.
C1 0.477 cy/px 105 lp/mm Horizontal
LR 0.45 cy/px 99 lp/mm
C1 0.445 cy/px 98 lp/mm Vertical
LR 0.445 cy/px 98 lp/mm
C1 0.453 cy/px 100 lp/mm 45 degrees
LR 0.468 cy/px 103 lp/mm
C1 0.44 cy/px 97 lp/mm 135 degrees
LR 0.44 cy/px 97 lp/mm
(http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/bart-test.jpg)
(LR on left, C1 on right)
So the measured resolutions are pretty much the same, subject to operator error, that is. However LR clearly has much more severe color artifacts than does C1.
Cheers
Robert
-
Lightroom does a lot of what I (or they?) would call content aware local contrast enhancement. I think you get this whenever you move the "Higlights" slider below -50 or the "Shadows" over 50. It is sort of HDR like mapping.
This was introduced in processing variant 2012. Ta that time I experimented with blending HDR toning with normally processed images, but I mostly dropped that technique with arrival Lightrooms's PV2102.
Hi Eric,
I agree ... LR does a really good job with its Shadows/Highlights adjustments. It's amazing how much the shadows can be pumped up.
Cheers
Robert
-
Hi,
What you see here is limited by sensor resolution. Both C1 and LR yield the same resolution, name the one the sensor. Both converters yield a lot of artefacts.
Try shooting the test target at f/8, f/11, f/16 and see when aliasing goes away and try to compensate using sharpening.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Bart,
I've tried your resolution test and it's very elegant and easy to use! Great!
Here is a result with the A7RII and Zeiss Loxia 21mm lens, photographed at around 1m.
C1 0.477 cy/px 105 lp/mm Horizontal
LR 0.45 cy/px 99 lp/mm
C1 0.445 cy/px 98 lp/mm Vertical
LR 0.445 cy/px 98 lp/mm
C1 0.453 cy/px 100 lp/mm 45 degrees
LR 0.468 cy/px 103 lp/mm
C1 0.44 cy/px 97 lp/mm 135 degrees
LR 0.44 cy/px 97 lp/mm
(http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/bart-test.jpg)
(LR on left, C1 on right)
So the measured resolutions are pretty much the same, subject to operator error, that is. However LR clearly has much more severe color artifacts than does C1.
Cheers
Robert
-
What you see here is limited by sensor resolution. Both C1 and LR yield the same resolution, name the one the sensor. Both converters yield a lot of artefacts.
Hi Erik ... yes, the test was to compare the two raw converters near Nyquist to see if one was significantly better than the other. From this test I would say that C1 shows less color artifacts but in terms of resolving ability there's nothing between them. On the whole the color artifacts are not something that would concern me much for my type of photography.
I have to say that at this stage, having done a whole load of tests on different images, that for the A7RII it pretty much comes down to how well one processes the images in C1 or LR - either are capable of absolutely excellent results. C1 has a very nice color editor and the local adjustments are significantly better than LRs, so if all development was done in the raw converter then C1 would come out on top (IMO). Also, the way that C1 background adjustments can be reversed or negated by local adjustment layers is impressive, so, again, if local adjustments are used a lot then C1 would have an advantage.
As for me, I only use the raw converter for basic tonal and color adjustments and do the rest in Photoshop, which pretty much makes the greater power of the C1 color editor and local adjustments irrelevant. So using both LR and C1 doesn't make much sense for me ... the very different controls would only confuse me: better to know one converter really well than two half-well, I think :). As LR has so much better integration with Photoshop than does C1, and as it does so many things that C1 does not (like panoramas, plug-in support, slideshows, map/gps, web, publish-services etc) it's got to be LR for me. And I have to say that I find LR easier to use than C1, so that is also a consideration.
At any rate, I've concluded to my satisfaction that (at least for the A7RII), C1 is not a 'far superior' raw converter than LR, as quite a number of photographers claim. I think the two are neck-and-neck.
All the best,
Robert
-
FYI, I have received a reply from Phase One regarding the differences that I noticed between a rendered DNG and the original ARW file:
In Capture One 9 a DNG file is considdered a "Genric" document with no camera specific settings unless:
1. The DNG files comes from a supported camera and that camera shoots DNG as its only format nativly.
2. The DNG files contain the original RAW data from a camera which is supported by Capture One.
My question: "Can you quantify the loss of quality in Capture One DNG processing, or do you intend to fix the issue so that DNG files are correctly processed?"
You question is a bit difficult.
I will try to break it up in two parts.
We do support DNG, but as I mention it is a generic document so there is no loss between a supported cameras DNG and DNG which is generic. But the software does not come with camea specific adjustments so you will have to do this all manually. You can later save this as a style and have it applied every time.
When it comes to quality loss, there is certain parameters which DNG does not support which can result in loss of quality with DNG, not always the case but is with some manufacturars/camera models.
My question: "Thank you for your reply. Could you tell me if there is a loss of quality for the Sony A6000, A7II, A7RII and for the Canon 1Ds, 1Ds3 and 7D please?"
I would say there is but it is not massive as such and I believe it will be hard to spot unless you do extreme handling of the files. (Not normal photographic use)
... whatever that means.
Cheers,
Robert