Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Topic started by: jrp on August 05, 2015, 08:12:17 pm
-
What is the state of the art for current cameras.
I have found some older comparisons, but wonder if there is something that covers the latest versions of the current main contenders.
- Frank Doorhof, looking at now previous versions of the software, prefers Capture One http://www.frankdoorhof.com/site/2014/06/which-raw-software-dxo-vs-capture-one-vs-lr/ (http://www.frankdoorhof.com/site/2014/06/which-raw-software-dxo-vs-capture-one-vs-lr/)
- nomadlens finds Capture One and DXO more comparable http://www.nomadlens.com/raw-converters-comparison/10 (http://www.nomadlens.com/raw-converters-comparison/10)
- Joseph Eckert also prefers Capture One http://josepheckertphotography.zenfolio.com/blog/2015/1/capture-one-pro-8-1-review-and-comparison-vs-dxo-optics-pro-10 (http://josepheckertphotography.zenfolio.com/blog/2015/1/capture-one-pro-8-1-review-and-comparison-vs-dxo-optics-pro-10)
- as does lifeafterphotoshop http://www.lifeafterphotoshop.com/dxo-vs-lightroom-vs-capture-one-pro-best/ (http://www.lifeafterphotoshop.com/dxo-vs-lightroom-vs-capture-one-pro-best/)
- photpapps.expert also goes for capture one https://photoapps.expert/tips/2015/3/16/aperture-capture-one-and-lightroom-walk-bar-part-2-2#.VcKlaJNVhBc (https://photoapps.expert/tips/2015/3/16/aperture-capture-one-and-lightroom-walk-bar-part-2-2#.VcKlaJNVhBc)
I have stuck to Lightroom because I am used to the workflow, because it supports the cameras and lenses that I use (Sony, Leica, Nikon, etc) and, for architectural / landscape photography the lens correction and leveling save a lot of work, but I the resulting images could, sometimes, do with a bit of extra zip. I did try Capture One 7, but it didn't like network drives and I needed to do a lot of clicking to get results.
I'm sure that some of this may be my lack of creativity / expertise (although I think that I understand the theory pretty well).
Can anyone point to more up to date comparisons?
-
Can anyone point to more up to date comparisons?
To what end? The first "comparison" was done at default. Several of the other "comparisons" were done wit older versions which are no longer useful (software changes ya know). But what none of these "comparisons" offer is just how much image quality to can get if you actually know how to use the applications. I'm an expert at ACR/LR and only a middling user of C1 (which I do use).
But rather than compare different apps at their defaults, it would be much more useful to compare the results of expert users and that ain't easy to find.
So, what is the best use of your time? Becoming expert at the app you want to use. I get excellent results from ACR/LR and other than using C1 for tethered shooting with my Phase One camera/back, I have no need to change raw processors...there is no such thing as a magic bullet.
-
Can anyone point to more up to date comparisons?
Only you can. With our own images, with your own opinion of a sound workflow.
-
Hi,
I am also working with Lightroom. Changing workflow never comes easy.
I have a way of working my images in Lightroom which works for me. But very clearly I see Lightroom as a workflow solution and not as a raw converter. In my view, demosaic in Lightroom is not really good on my P45+ back, but I would say the problems are not very critical in real world.
Making camera profiles for Lightroom may be advantageous. With my Sony I mostly use Adobe Standard profile but with the P45+ I mostly use a profile I created with Adobe DNG Profile Editor (which is free).
Anders Torger has developed a tool called DCamProf that has great promise.
I have published a sample illustrating the demosaic errors in Lightroom here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=94812.0
With Capture One I found it has some tricks. It normally uses a film curve which makes image appear far to bright. I also found that it oversaturates deep blues and greens.
I have a small write up on this here (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/OnColor.pdf) that never got published.
I don't do think both Capture One and Lightroom can produce pretty accurate colour. But, accurate colour can be quite boring because it dosn't work well our perception. So each raw processor adds an own look.
Best regards
Erik
Update: Wording changed.
What is the state of the art for current cameras.
I have found some older comparisons, but wonder if there is something that covers the latest versions of the current main contenders.
- Frank Doorhof, looking at now previous versions of the software, prefers Capture One http://www.frankdoorhof.com/site/2014/06/which-raw-software-dxo-vs-capture-one-vs-lr/ (http://www.frankdoorhof.com/site/2014/06/which-raw-software-dxo-vs-capture-one-vs-lr/)
- nomadlens finds Capture One and DXO more comparable http://www.nomadlens.com/raw-converters-comparison/10 (http://www.nomadlens.com/raw-converters-comparison/10)
- Joseph Eckert also prefers Capture One http://josepheckertphotography.zenfolio.com/blog/2015/1/capture-one-pro-8-1-review-and-comparison-vs-dxo-optics-pro-10 (http://josepheckertphotography.zenfolio.com/blog/2015/1/capture-one-pro-8-1-review-and-comparison-vs-dxo-optics-pro-10)
- as does lifeafterphotoshop http://www.lifeafterphotoshop.com/dxo-vs-lightroom-vs-capture-one-pro-best/ (http://www.lifeafterphotoshop.com/dxo-vs-lightroom-vs-capture-one-pro-best/)
- photpapps.expert also goes for capture one https://photoapps.expert/tips/2015/3/16/aperture-capture-one-and-lightroom-walk-bar-part-2-2#.VcKlaJNVhBc (https://photoapps.expert/tips/2015/3/16/aperture-capture-one-and-lightroom-walk-bar-part-2-2#.VcKlaJNVhBc)
I have stuck to Lightroom because I am used to the workflow, because it supports the cameras and lenses that I use (Sony, Leica, Nikon, etc) and, for architectural / landscape photography the lens correction and leveling save a lot of work, but I the resulting images could, sometimes, do with a bit of extra zip. I did try Capture One 7, but it didn't like network drives and I needed to do a lot of clicking to get results.
I'm sure that some of this may be my lack of creativity / expertise (although I think that I understand the theory pretty well).
Can anyone point to more up to date comparisons?
-
Thanks for these responses. Mastering the devil that you know seems to be the way to go. I'll see whether I can find some more expert resources to draw on, beyond the usual "here is what the sliders do and here are some presets".
-
Thanks for these responses. Mastering the devil that you know seems to be the way to go. I'll see whether I can find some more expert resources to draw on, beyond the usual "here is what the sliders do and here are some presets".
Schewe's 'The Digital Negative" might help you as might Martin Evening's' The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom CC/Lightroom 6 Book:
The Complete Guide for Photographers'.
-
Thanks for these responses. Mastering the devil that you know seems to be the way to go. I'll see whether I can find some more expert resources to draw on, beyond the usual "here is what the sliders do and here are some presets".
just google for postings of Eric Chan (you can also use his nickname : madmanchan) here and elsewhere (Adobe itself has several forums for ACR & LR users) - then reading those threads (there will be other participants with their inputs) you shall all the information that you need about the raw conversion part in ACR/LR
-
Thanks, yes, I have used those books when starting out, albeit in the Photoshop 4 incarnation. (Actually I'm a Dan Margulis sort of man: he seems to get closer to the heart of the matter.)
-
Thanks, yes, I have used those books when starting out, albeit in the Photoshop 4 incarnation. (Actually I'm a Dan Margulis sort of man: he seems to get closer to the heart of the matter.)
Then you probably don't want to mess with ACR as Dan once famously said to his list, it's unfit for professional work. Of course, Dan wouldn't know a raw file or how to render it in that product if either hit him on the head. :o
-
I can see why you call yourself dog.
-
I can see why you call yourself dog.
He is not a fan of Dan. Jealousy possibly because he has written award winning books. :(
-
He is not a fan of Dan. Jealousy possibly because he has written award winning books. :(
Ouch, busted! Actually I'm not jealous of Dan's Nebula award or Pultzer. Im so jealous of his six-pack abs!
Not that this has anything to do with his text to his minions on his Color Theory (?) List when he wrote that ACR was unfit for professional use.
Maybe you guys are not pro's like Dan and might find ACR works well for you???
I still think this guy's text makes sense, for pro's or not who want to investigate a software product with an open mind:
Only you can. With our own images, with your own opinion of a sound workflow.
-
The reasons for his reasoned disdain for ACR is set out, slider by slider, in his recent books. (I don't happen to agree with his assessments, but understand his reasoning.)
Sounds like "Digital Salieri" would be a more apt handle. :D
-
The reasons for his reasoned disdain for ACR is set out, slider by slider, in his recent books. (I don't happen to agree with his assessments, but understand his reasoning.)
Is he still stating it's not fit for pro use?
-
If I remember correctly Dan is what used to be called a numbers guy who could color correct from black and whites of the channels. He lives in A CMYK world.
-
From memory, he is not fond of PV2010. He concedes that some sliders in PV2012 have their uses, but can get better results from curves and channel mixing. His last two books at least have been focused on RGB.
As Schewe says "it would be much more useful to compare the results of expert users and that ain't easy to find". If not Margulis' books, then what do you suggest? (I'll look at the Chan threads idc.)
-
Hi,
I don't think so. I would suggest that there is some pretty good research behind PV 2012 tone mappings. But hi, I think we are in need of 2015 tone mappings!
Best regards
Erik
From memory, he is not fond of PV2010. He concedes that some sliders in PV2012 have their uses, but can get better results from curves and channel mixing. His last two books at least have been focused on RGB.
-
Yes, but even the best tone mapper can't tell what the subject of your image is supposed to be, how you want to spend your contrast budget across the tonal range and in the picture.
I find PV2012 OK, but it's hard to figure out how all the different settings interact (contrast, shadow, highlight, tone curve, for example), you end up doing a rough set of adjustments for maximum tonal range and painting on d+b or doing what needs to get done in photoshop.
Microsoft software has the same -- hamburger-ware -- characteristics. Demos well, but as soon as you try to do something slightly off the beaten track, you'll struggle. (We'll see how Cortana does in competition with the paper clip or dog or Siri.)
-
I find PV2012 OK, but it's hard to figure out how all the different settings interact (contrast, shadow, highlight, tone curve, for example), you end up doing a rough set of adjustments for maximum tonal range and painting on d+b or doing what needs to get done in photoshop.
You'll probably find you can do the vast majority if not all global and some local adjustments in ACR/LR. The key is understanding and being comfortable with the product and what each slider provides. Here's a really great resource for doing that (George Jardine, former Adobe evangelist):
http://mulita.com/blog/?page_id=724
http://mulita.com/blog/?page_id=3084
-
If I remember correctly Dan is what used to be called a numbers guy who could color correct from black and whites of the channels. He lives in A CMYK world.
I think you will find it is the LAB world he inhabits. I suspect his followers have dwindled in numbers because LR has become increasingly popular but if somebody prefers alternative methods then his books are worth reading but they are a bit dense.
-
What do you really want to compare? I want to get a natural looking detail when viewed at 100%. That allows future proof display in print or on hi res screen. I want accurate color as a base point for adding a style.
Have the various leading softwares advanced much in the last year? I like what I can get out of RT based on last year's comparisons. I am tempted to dxo for high iso images.
-
I think you will find it is the LAB world he inhabits. I suspect his followers have dwindled in numbers because LR has become increasingly popular but if somebody prefers alternative methods then his books are worth reading but they are a bit dense.
I am a Beta reader of his latest books. I put in the time because I think that the content is worth the effort. It helps you to understand what is going on under the hood in a way that the likes of Dog's journeyman material never really approaches.
The basic issue I have is that (a) I think that ACR is no longer state of the art when it comes to demozaicing and (ii) there is more than one way of achieving something in ACR / Lightroom and the settings interact in unpredictable ways: you have to use several adjustments to get to the right answer, For example. increasing contrast seems to also increase saturation (which may be the "correct thing to do", but I really don't like saturated shadows..)
-
I own two of Dan's books. Looks to me they are all about Color Correction without a lick of color management (he's kind of a color management denier). I can't find one "Before" image in either book that appears it was captured by someone who has a clue about creating good images or image data. So if you as a pro photographer and find out that your uncle (who's day job is an accountant) was hired to shoot your sisters wedding or annual report (because he owns a DSLR), Dan's book will be a good read for your uncle. If any of those photo's in Dan's book were uploaded here for a critique, the poster might be laughed out of the forums. Dan is the master at fixing bad images! There is a market and need for that. Probably not much around here...
My material as you call it, doesn't at all approach Color Correction. It's about color management! Yes, both have the word color in them.
I put in the time because I think that the content is worth the effort. It helps you to understand what is going on under the hood in a way that the likes of Dog's journeyman material never really approaches.
That statement appears to me, perhaps others, to imply either you don't know the difference between color management and color correction or you do and haven't really looked into my so called material which indeed never approaches color correction!
The basic issue I have is that (a) I think that ACR is no longer state of the art when it comes to demozaicing...
So perhaps you can provide us what raw converter you use that is state of the art and maybe some examples of it and ACR. That would allow us to see your POV and better, attempt to illustrate to Adobe what work they need to do on their converter to make it more state of the art. Least we forget your original post: What is the state of the art for current cameras. and Can anyone point to more up to date comparisons?
...and (ii) there is more than one way of achieving something in ACR / Lightroom and the settings interact in unpredictable ways: you have to use several adjustments to get to the right answer, For example. increasing contrast seems to also increase saturation (which may be the "correct thing to do", but I really don't like saturated shadows..)
It's not unpredictable, it was designed that way for a reason!** The right reason if we're to believe the large number of ACR users and the perhaps hundreds of thousands if not million of images processed through that product. FWIW, this contrast/saturation 'issue' has been a bone of contention of Dan's for years, I only hear complaints about it from his minions.
**From: Thomas Knoll <member@adobeforums.com>
Subject: Re: Color reproduction in digital photography
Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 at 12:32:05 PM Mountain Daylight Time
To: adobe.photoshop.camera.raw@adobeforums.com
Delivered-To: andrew@digitaldog.net
A new message was posted by Thomas Knoll in
Adobe Camera Raw --
Color reproduction in digital photography
While developing Camera Raw, I experimented with a pure luminance curve (as Simon suggests). However, based on my testing results, I rejected this algoirthm since it produced results that were most often visually worse looking that the tone curve algorithm actually used by Camera Raw (which is a special hue-preserving curve, NOT three indepent curves as Simon incorrectly assumed). The saturation effects that Simon considers a defect is actually something that most users actually want.
-
You raise a number of different points:
People can make their own minds up about the quality of the photos in Dans (recent) books.
Several demosaicing comparisons with other raw converters are available in the links in the first post in this thread.
Yes, I am bought into the idea that treating contrast and saturation separately is desireable, for more control, so that I can choose what to accentuate and what to mute. (I can of course do that in Photoshop, but it would be good to do it in Lightroom.) And yes, I can fiddle with the sliders with the best of them, but would prefer to better understand what they do and how they interact with each other (ideally without spending $30 on a video). I can get perfectly satisfactory images from Lightroom, quickly, which seems to be the product's forte. It would be better to be able to get great images without so much experimentation.
-
People can make their own minds up about the quality of the photos in Dans (recent) books.
IF they own them or there's somewhere we can see them.
I'm referring to the two I own; Professional Photoshop (5th edition) and Photoshop Lab Color. The photography ranges from OK at best to just awful.
Several demosaicing comparisons with other raw converters are available in the links in the first post in this thread.
So which is and isn't 'state of the art' and why?
I can get perfectly satisfactory images from Lightroom, quickly, which seems to be the product's forte.
Which is identical to ACR FWIW.
-
As primarily a film photographer, my first digital images were jpegs taken with simple compact cameras. Lately I've upgraded my digital equipment and technique but I still have about 5 years of jpegs of indifferent quality. I heard of Dan's work on another forum and managed to find a used copy of Photoshop LAB Color (complete with CD) on Amazon for a ridiculously low price. I use Photoshop Elements but a free plug-in exists called Smartcurve which gives you Curves and the ability to work in l*a*b colorspace. Sounds like smoke and mirrors but it works and I compared my results to the images on the CD. I got identical results from his methods.
So my take on DM and his methods is that it is very useful if you are stuck working with 8 bit jpegs. If you are starting out with raw data, well, I don't see the point.
Allan
-
So my take on DM and his methods is that it is very useful if you are stuck working with 8 bit jpegs. If you are starting out with raw data, well, I don't see the point.
Exactly.
GIGO:Garbage In Garbage Out.
Or
Better to spend a little time at the front end, producing optimal image quality and photography then a lot of time at the back end, polishing a turd. :P
-
These platitudes are getting us no closer to an answer to the question posed.
-
These platitudes are getting us no closer to an answer to the question posed.
us? You got answers! Test with your own images,come to your own conclusions!
-
What is the state of the art for current cameras.
I have found some older comparisons, but wonder if there is something that covers the latest versions of the current main contenders.
Can anyone point to more up to date comparisons?
For my Sigma SD1M, SPP 5.5.3 is still the best for all-round purposes. Mac Users say Irridient Developer is "better".
Since the SD15, Adobe has abandoned Sigma cameras, so my computer is currently Adobe-free. Including no Flash and no Reader.
Sacrilege, I know . . .
-
Mac Users say Irridient Developer is "better".
Can't comment if it's better, it is a very, very good product. If I ever abandoned LR/ACR, I'd use it exclusively and it fully and correctly supports DNG.
-
I would be an Iridient evangelist if he needed one. I love the way it produces images that need hardly any work, from my cheapie Fuji. I wonder if he is going to work on Lytro .lpf files so there would be an alternative to Lytro Desktop for processing. I got an ad to buy a Lytro 1.1 mp f/2 for 80 bucks the other day and might do it just for laughs. The real Lytro 40 mp is about 1300 bucks.
-
Irident Developer seems to produce smoother gradients and smoother tonality changes. ACR/Lr needs some work in that area.
-
I did try Iridient at one point but did not stick with it merely because I found the user interface to be very hard work. Lots of settings, but quite hard to see what they were doing because of the slow screen redraw. Even cropping to a given ratio involved more clicks than I would have preferred. Perhaps for the 5-10% of pictures that warrant extra care.
-
I did try Iridient at one point but did not stick with it merely because I found the user interface to be very hard work. Lots of settings, but quite hard to see what they were doing because of the slow screen redraw. Even cropping to a given ratio involved more clicks than I would have preferred. Perhaps for the 5-10% of pictures that warrant extra care.
True.
-
Easy enough to download trial copies of the software and easy enough to take various images and see which applications provide the best results and what workflow issues may be involved. For batch processing of thousands of images I like ACR as time is money if you are doing work for clients. For difficult scenes I use Nikon Capture NX2 as it provides the best results for converting Nikon RAW to TIFF. This should not come as a surprise as all software from third party companies has to be reverse engineered from the RAW files and so their engineers are at a disadvantage to the engineers working inside of Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, etc.
I like DXO Optics Pro as it is fast and has the most comprehensive database of lens corrections for my Nikon gear. I disliked Capture One as it is like Lightroom and requires loading and processing the RAW files before I can do my first pass review and deletion and sorting of the images. I process from RAW to TIFF less than 5% of my image captures. So I use set of applications to review my images and another to process RAW to TIFF which depends on the intended use. For RAW to JPEG for Web use the Adobe ACR is good enough. For RAW to TIFF for most files the DXO Optics Pro works well. For the odd image where Optics Pro is not up to the task I fall back to the Nikon RAW converter.
No single tool is "best" for each and every situation.
-
Quote "No single tool is "best" for each and every situation."
Very wise and logical observation.
-
The Iriridient developer says he has no plans to incorporate Lytro .lpf file processing