Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: plugsnpixels on September 25, 2018, 01:13:42 pm
-
"Version 2019 will include significant updates to both performance and image quality, notable new features like a new non-destructive workflow for layers, Lightroom® photo settings migration, auto-alignment of layers, focus stacking, a new portrait module, a new AI-powered masking tool, a new text tool, new digital asset management updates, and more."
More info here. (http://plugsandpixels.com/blog/just-announced-on1-photo-raw-2019-coming-november/)
-
Supports DNGs?
-
Supports DNGs?
Looks like it does, scroll to last paragraph.
https://www.on1.com/blog/an-all-new-photo-editing-experience-on1-photo-raw-2019/
Seems to combine features of PS and LR so will be interesting to see how it really stands up to comparison
-
Looks like it does, scroll to last paragraph.
https://www.on1.com/blog/an-all-new-photo-editing-experience-on1-photo-raw-2019/
Seems to combine features of PS and LR so will be interesting to see how it really stands up to comparison
Thanks, the page I was looking at didn’t have a mention of it.
-
Thanks Tony for the follow-up!
-
So I can get this new version for $99 which seems a deal OR it and ON1 Plus for $129. WON1 Plus, is this added 'stuff' listed below? Sorry, I'm searching their web site but it's not as clearly outlined as I'd like.
I also see a deal for the 2018.5 version (https://www.on1.com/promo/0818-ads/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwuafdBRDmARIsAPpBmVUXj8dcznbBx5u7iAOX7-pMjLpdcshSVpNQ2t1grquyuwOu7G9MQFoaAoMVEALw_wcB) with what appears to have similar "plus" options for $69. But I suspect no free upgrade to 2019 from it if ordered soon?
-
Andrew, I just wrote them in hopes of clarifying your question.
-
Andrew, I just wrote them in hopes of clarifying your question.
So did I. I don't see DNG listed as supported in 2018.5 so that might be a deal breaker and I'd just go directly to 2019, again if they fully support DNGs.
Always looking for an Adobe exit strategy that supports that format.
-
Might be a great product but again, their web site needs work in clarifying stuff.
When I view info about an older version once found, I see this:
What file types will ON1 Photo 2017 (Photo RAW) work with?
ON1 Photo RAW supports JPEG, TIF, PSD, PSB, PNG, DNG and most raw formats directly from DSLR cameras.
Now I look at the same kind of descriptor for 2018.5, no mention of DNG.
Since it was pointed out the new version supports it, and the old, seems I'm OK but I'll report what I hear back from them.
-
ON1 says,
"The $129.99 option is the way to go.
See this link (https://www.on1.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=102&url=607) for more detailed ON1 Plus info.
-
Well despite their web page confusion, their pre-sales tech-support is superb. I got an email back from them less than an hour after contacting them. The current and new version does indeed fully support DNG. I’m quite impressed.
-
Got another email from them, man, this is really good pre-sales support. I asked about purchasing the current version (2018.5) at their sales price. Will I get a free upgrade if I pull the trigger now. Here's the reply which is enough to pull $69 from my credit card now that I know there is DNG support:
If you purchase the Photo RAW 2018 version today, you will receive the new Photo RAW 2019 for free when it is released later this Fall (mid November).
-
Thanks for the update Andrew! Glad it all worked out for you.
-
The important question is; Is it any good ?
-
The important question is; Is it any good ?
They have a 30 day trial of the current version - ON1 2018.5 (https://www.on1.com/promo/0818-ads/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw3KzdBRDWARIsAIJ8TMSy7eivoeZYT9YGA2i5k3JnotnDsrAgT7ZySrOKyfOJc55OICdZbXcaAt7bEALw_wcB)
I've been working with it since the end of last year, trying to pull away from Lightroom.
I really like it, but the mid-summer update was buggy as heck, with lots of users reporting crashes.
It appears they fixed that in last update and, at least for me, it is now pretty solid.
They have a significant amount of video tutorials available, also.
So is it good? I am too new at this to say, but I will try the 2019 version when it comes out. The new changes sound too good not to at least try.
-
They have a 30 day trial of the current version
Yes, just trying that out now.
Some interesting ideas and different approaches, but the core raw conversions look pretty grim so far. ACR(LR), CO and even Affinity seem significantly better at getting detail out of the files I've tried so far.
-
I have been using their software for some time. They do ok for conversions, the ultimate detail for me is done by Capture One for my Fuji files but also converting to DNG with Iridient is a good option. They have some really nice masking options and some good ways to enhance things, but like a lot of things it is not perfect by any means. Their recent updates have been very good. I am quite happy with it, I liked it a lot better than Luminar. Capture One is still by far the best raw converter but On1 is close behind for me. The new upcoming version will have a lot of nice updates and new features.
Alan
-
Got another email from them, man, this is really good pre-sales support. I asked about purchasing the current version (2018.5) at their sales price. Will I get a free upgrade if I pull the trigger now. Here's the reply which is enough to pull $69 from my credit card now that I know there is DNG support:
If you purchase the Photo RAW 2018 version today, you will receive the new Photo RAW 2019 for free when it is released later this Fall (mid November).
You must have some big pull Andrew. I recently received an email notification referring to the 2019 version, so I checked the site. I can find no reference to a free upgrade for those who own the 2018 version of Photo Raw. Pre-Order pricing -- Full version $100.00USD and Upgrade $80.00USD. Updates are free, but upgrades not so, never have been as far as I recall. Perhaps they are making an exception for 2019, but there is no reference to that on their site, unless I missed it completely.
EDIT: I just remembered that in some cases, when ordering an app near the end of its current version you might be able to step up to the new version gratis. I believe the grace period only applies to an older version purchased within a few months of the launch of the new version. Perhaps that's the reason for the free upgrade in your situation, not sure. If I fudge my receipt for the 2018 version, do you think they would buy that Andrew? I don't think I could get away with that, nor should I of course. ;)
Gary
-
You must have some big pull Andrew. I recently received an email notification referring to the 2019 version, so I checked the site. I can find no reference to a free upgrade for those who own the 2018 version of Photo Raw. Pre-Order pricing -- Full version $100.00USD and Upgrade $80.00USD. Updates are free, but upgrades not so, never have been as far as I recall. Perhaps they are making an exception for 2019, but there is no reference to that on their site, unless I missed it completely.
EDIT: I just remembered that in some cases, when ordering an app near the end of its current version you might be able to step up to the new version gratis. I believe the grace period only applies to an older version purchased within a few months of the launch of the new version. Perhaps that's the reason for the free upgrade in your situation, not sure. If I fudge my receipt for the 2018 version, do you think they would buy that Andrew? I don't think I could get away with that, nor should I of course. ;)
Gary
Big pull indeed. ;D
Here's the copy and paste of the email about the upgrade. I'm keeping it to ensure they honor it (no reason to suspect they would not). Maybe the free upgrade if purchased "today" is just good timing on my part.
James (on1)
Sep 25, 15:40 PDT
Hello Andrew,
Yes. If you purchase the Photo RAW 2018 version today, you will receive the new Photo RAW 2019 for free when it is released later this Fall (mid November). You will be able to purchase here:
https://www.on1.com/products/photo-raw/ (https://www.on1.com/products/photo-raw/)
If there is anything else I can do for you, please feel free to send me an email. I am happy to help.
James
QA & Technical Support Manager
-
I have been using their software for some time. They do ok for conversions, the ultimate detail for me is done by Capture One for my Fuji files but also converting to DNG with Iridient is a good option. They have some really nice masking options and some good ways to enhance things, but like a lot of things it is not perfect by any means. Their recent updates have been very good. I am quite happy with it, I liked it a lot better than Luminar. Capture One is still by far the best raw converter but On1 is close behind for me. The new upcoming version will have a lot of nice updates and new features.
Alan
BIG big fan of the rendering from Iridient Developer too, last time I did a side by side with the ACR engine, it was tops. But I still use LR 99.9% of the time so if On1 can supply a kind of DAM, be about on par with LR (time will tell), and a possible future Adobe exit strategy, I'm cool with the $69 loss. I'm also hoping this company is a bit more responsive in handling software issues much like their tech support as Adobe has been kind of slow in handling LR feature updates I find useful, and kind of dog slow in some areas of functionally.
-
Big pull indeed. ;D
Here's the copy and paste of the email about the upgrade. I'm keeping it to ensure they honor it (no reason to suspect they would not). Maybe the free upgrade if purchased "today" is just good timing on my part.
I sent a similar email today and got the same reply, so it's just a reasonable way of not killing revenue whilst the new version is readied for release after it's been announced.
Having played with the 2018 version a bit today I don't think it's worth getting the credit card out for yet.
-
Not sure about the next version, but the one I got doesn't appear to support custom .DCP profiles that I build from a Passport. :'(
-
It looks as of today that the $69 deal has gone the way of the $5 foot-long. :(
-
It looks as of today that the $69 deal has gone the way of the $5 foot-long. :(
Sorry, I can't find the web page deal either. But I did get 2018.5 for $69.99 and I guess I should be even happier now with the deal. Maybe yesterday was the last day.
-
If previous iterations are any indication of what will happen after the release of this "new" version - you will get offers after the intro of 2019 with steadily reduced pricing. A lot of "last chance at this reduced price" emails. I have tried twice to have my email address removed from their mailbot - i think it finally worked.
I have really tried to give this project the benefit of the doubt, and I bought the original version (2017) and the upgrade (2017.5) but abandoned even testing it after I tested the intro of the 2018 version. It is kludgy and slow and the raw conversions are mediocre. There are some highlights, but application is trying to be all things and not very good at any of them compared to other applications. The original version was essentially a paid invitation to beta test their terrible software. I hope the new version is good for some people's workflow, but I'm pretty sure I will not even bother trialing this iteration.
kirk
-
It is kludgy and slow and the raw conversions are mediocre.
To be fair, the develop section is actually quite responsive, better than LR6 here. The only advantage is that you can see just how horrible the conversion is in real time.
After a day playing with it, it seems to be the sort of package aimed at the filters and preset crowd, rather than creative types who want their own control and the best possible high quality results.
Uninstalled.
-
To be fair, the develop section is actually quite responsive, better than LR6 here. The only advantage is that you can see just how horrible the conversion is in real time.
After a day playing with it, it seems to be the sort of package aimed at the filters and preset crowd, rather than creative types who want their own control and the best possible high quality results.
Uninstalled.
I agree with your assessment - I was referring more to the entire environment (switching between the views, going in and out of the develop and filter environments, etc.). Maybe that has changed for the better since the initial 2018 release that I tested.
kirk
-
They have made a lot of improvements in speed, especially if your video card has a gpu. The next versions sounds promising with the integration of the non-destructive layers workflow I think is a real improvement. Also the ability to align layers etc. which they say will be in the Dec. update as it will not be ready at initial release. Like any major software upgrade there will probably be some hiccups, but their support has been real good and they do respond. I have gotten to really like their masking, it can be quite easy to get the desired results that way. Their highlight recovery is not the greatest but they do control shadows well and have plenty of adjustments, I usually shoot for highlights anyways as a matter of course.
Alan
-
Their highlight recovery is not the greatest
It's pretty terrible adding lots of false colour artifacts, LR has never been that bad, even RAW Shooter wasn't as bad back in 2005.
It's this sort of basic quality issue with the conversions that makes it a non-starter for me.
-
It's pretty terrible adding lots of false colour artifacts, LR has never been that bad, even RAW Shooter wasn't as bad back in 2005.
Not as bad but pretty awful, I have plenty of examples that I sent long ago to Eric Chan which he greatly fixed with PV2012.
-
Not as bad but pretty awful, I have plenty of examples that I sent long ago to Eric Chan which he greatly fixed with PV2012.
Curious. I've never seen the same sort of coloured artifacts in recovered highlights in any other RAW converter, maybe it's the camera format ? I use Canon and Sony.
-
Curious. I've never seen the same sort of coloured artifacts in recovered highlights in any other RAW converter, maybe it's the camera format ? I use Canon and Sony.
Here's one example sent to Eric, I believe at the time, it was off my 5D.
http://digitaldog.net/files/PV2010_2012HighlightRecovery.jpg (http://digitaldog.net/files/PV2010_2012HighlightRecovery.jpg)
-
That's nothing compared to stuff ON1 generated, it was truly horrible. I should have grabbed some screen grabs, but life's too short to waste going back to it now.
-
That's nothing compared to stuff ON1 generated, it was truly horrible. I should have grabbed some screen grabs, but life's too short to waste going back to it now.
Compared how considering you don't have my raw file for comparison? Yes, you should grab some examples, life expediencies or otherwise, if you'd like us to see your actual experiences. Me, I've provided one that illustrates the fixes Eric provided in the new PV with respect to highlight recovery in the ACR engine.
-
BTW, the way in which Highlight Recovery in the ACR engine works, and I know this based on my work with Eric, is that if one or two channels are blown, they are 'recovered' from the 3rd. The best approach is not to blow any color channels. Highlight Recovery in other products, I don't know the process, but would still recommend no blowing out any color channels that you desire to hold image detail.
-
Compared how considering you don't have my raw file for comparison? Yes, you should grab some examples, life expediencies or otherwise, if you'd like us to see your actual experiences. Me, I've provided one that illustrates the fixes Eric provided in the new PV with respect to highlight recovery in the ACR engine.
I'm not sure what your point is here. The example you posted isn't horrendous, almost subtle from what I can see in compassion to the mess I've witnessed with my files into ON1.
The highlight recovery tests I did with ON1 with my files were terrible with very obvious and vivid colour artifacts added to parts of the image. It was so bad I simply uninstalled the program, I didn't bother to save conversions as 'trophy horrors'.
I'm surprised if you find the ON1 conversions comparable to LR.
-
I'm not sure what your point is here. The example you posted isn't horrendous, almost subtle from what I can see in compassion to the mess I've witnessed with my files into ON1.
My point is, you're comparing something that doesn’t yet exist; my examples from my raws showing the differences in Highlight Recovery between two versions of the ACR engine and ON1. You seem to feel ON1 is far worse and that's possible. When you show us an example from that product and ACR, with or without various PV's as I have, we'll have something to compare. In fact, the so called horrendous examples you state as yet are not provided. I'd love to see them but you've told us it's too difficult so let's move on otherwise. ;)
I'm surprised if you find the ON1 conversions comparable to LR.
Where exactly did you see me stating that? :P
-
My point is, you're comparing something that doesn’t yet exist;
Of course it exists, I've seen it with my own files. In time you will too.
I can understand why if you've spent money on the software you don't want it criticised, but once you've spent some time with it and hit it's limitations you'll end up having to regard it as money spent on hoping it will get better. Right now it's pretty poor.
-
Of course it exists, I've seen it with my own files. In time you will too.
Probably not, I don't over expose my raws. If it exists, you could show us but will not.
If you've only imagined it (IF I've only imagined it), you (I) haven't experienced it. When you desire to show your experience with actual examples, again I'm happy to examine them.
YOU asked for examples from ACR, and yeah, I have them and shared them.
I can understand why if you've spent money on the software you don't want it criticised, but once you've spent some time with it and hit it's limitations you'll end up having to regard it as money spent on hoping it will get better. Right now it's pretty poor.
I'm more than happy with criticism that can be backed up. I'm more than happy with my rather inexpensive purchase thus far and wanted to test the product anyway. I'm always looking for Adobe exit strategies for the future and, I'll be getting a free upgrade to the 2019 version. So no, you don't understand but you're doing a good job of assuming, like your text that you're surprised I find ON1 conversions comparable to LR, something I never commented on.
"I never guess/assume. It is a shocking habit -- destructive to the logical faculty." -Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
-
YOU asked for examples from ACR
No, I've never asked for anything from you. Go on, back read the thread and stop being such a....
It's really simple; ON1 just doesn't cut the mustard yet. Capture One is still LR's closest competitor. Who else can compete is still up for argument.
-
It's really simple; ON1 just doesn't cut the mustard yet. Capture One is still LR's closest competitor. Who else can compete is still up for argument.
Opinions are like assholes everyone has one.
-
Opinions are like assholes everyone has one.
So now you hit the credit card on ON1 it's so good it can't be crticised ? Careful, you're loosing credibility here now.
-
So now you hit the credit card on ON1 it's so good it can't be crticised ? Careful, you're loosing credibility here now.
I made absolutely no comments about the quality of ON1 processing. You’re assuming again. And you have lost a lot of credibility here! :P
-
So here's how bad highlight recover is compared to LR & CO.
FWIW the clouds weren't green or pink, just grey.
-
So here's how bad highlight recover is compared to LR & CO.
FWIW the clouds weren't green or pink, just grey.
Thank you for that effort on your part. 8)
Why not consider uploading a raw so we can see how overexposed that image really is. And test highlight recovery on our end.
-
I'll be interested to see how the 2019 version looks. I'm also on the lookout for a LR replacement but not in a hurry (yet).
-
Why not consider uploading a raw
I don't have permission from the person in the photo to do that.
Just try your own files, I'm just confirming someone else's observations anyway.
-
So here's how bad highlight recover is compared to LR & CO.
FWIW the clouds weren't green or pink, just grey.
Interesting. I have been working with ON1 for almost a year, and have never seen this.
Going to see if I can duplicate it.
-
Interesting. I have been working with ON1 for almost a year, and have never seen this.
Going to see if I can duplicate it.
We start by deliberately not exposing correctly.... :o
-
We start by deliberately not exposing correctly.... :o
LOL....That's my problem. I am missing the first step... ;)
-
Highlight reconstruction is all about not "exposing properly," (or is it?) so that one, two or all three channels get clipped in the raw file. The idea is to purposely do this to see how the application deals with sensor saturation (so as to avoid the magenta highlights problem when reducing exposure to recover highlights) and how it infers the missing color channel data from intact data to reconstruct highlights. When you are shooting a high contrast scene, knowing how far you can let the highlights go before your raw converter cannot reconstruct them is critical to setting the best exposure for the scene.
I recently switched from shooting Canon for years, with all of the 5D cameras, to Fujifilm. For each camera I used, I would shoot a sequence of raw files with increasing exposure to probe how to spot meter for the camera and raw conversions. I would set the reference metering on the brightest highlights for which I wanted to retain detail (say, fluffy white clouds, or a white terry cloth towel in direct illumination) and set that spot meter reading as my initial exposure. I would then increment shutter speed to increase exposure in 1/3 stops for about +5 EV total bias from the initial meter reading. I then examined each file in Raw Digger to see what bias value gave me clipping in the green channel (typically, this channel reaches clipping first in daylight). The red and blue were typically 1 to 1.5 stops under the green value, providing plenty of data for reconstructing the missing green channel - especially if the clipped highlights were neutral. Depending on the raw converter, I could spot meter the highlight and add 3 to 4 stops of exposure bias and still have intact highlights with highlight reconstruction added in raw conversion.
I suppose if you wanted to test a bunch of converters to see how they all handle highlights and highlight reconstruction, then you could shoot a few different scenes with 0) the exposure set so that no channels clip - that is the hottest channel is exposed so that it is right next to the right edge of the raw histogram; 1) an exposure that clips the green; 2) a slightly higher exposure that clips both green and blue; and 3) a slightly higher exposure that clips all three channels. For each of these images per test scene, you could then run them through the raw converter you are testing and see how it responds. I would suggest that you test scenes that have both neutral highlights (like clouds) as well as colored highlights (like a towel or some other bright, textured colored surface - this may skew the order in which the channels clip).
As far as I know, Raw Therapee is the only relatively popular raw converter that explicitly exposes several different highlight reconstruction strategies directly to the user.
Kirk
-
On1 has never said their highlight recovery is the best, in fact they say expose for highlights and they deal with shadows much better. If I am in doubt I will bracket an exposure. I am constantly amazed at how much dynamic range my Fuji has over my 5dmII. I believe Iridient and Capture One give the absolute best raw conversion for my Fuji, but I like a lot of what On1 does. The masking is pretty solid and flexible. Like any tool you need to use and learn it to understand limitations. I find I am more interested in how the overall image looks and feels than how the pixels look magnified or the histogram, but that is just me. Everyone else has their own priorities. It is a useful tool that I think is going be improved quite a bit with the new release, I am sure there will be bumps but they work hard to correct them. Bugs and problems exist with all developers, having developed software I am acutely aware of it.
Alan
-
On1 has never said their highlight recovery is the best, in fact they say expose for highlights and they deal with shadows much better.
I don't think that changing your exposure strategy to compensate for a raw converter's poor performance is a very good idea. If they eventually catch up or you change software you're stuck with a lot of under exposed photos to work with.
(this is what I did when I first shot digital before highlight recovery was properly established, so I've too many old, less than optimal exposures sitting on my HDD).
I find I am more interested in how the overall image looks and feels than how the pixels look magnified or the histogram
Absolutely, but when so much detail is lost it does effect the final prints (as per my earlier example and I've seen that on everything else I've looked at). I didn't buy a 5Dii and not care about improving my prints over a 10D. Some people's style doesn't need lots of detail, so maybe ON1 will suit them, but not me.
There also seem to be some curious sharpening artifacts when using CA removal, sharpening doesn't seem very good, noise reduction isn't as good as the competition. Just about everything I've explored doesn't seem as well implemented as other products. The simple task of exporting a rendered TIFF seems clunky and unreliable.
It is a useful tool that I think is going be improved quite a bit with the new release
Certainly there are more features being added, but there's no headlines about improved demosaicing or fundamental conversion quality.
-
While I agree that testing with RAW digger is the absolute best way to determine your limits in exposure I do not always adhere to that and I tend to not rely on highlight recovery since that is a best guesstimate. yes it is better than it used to be but to me blown highlights are still blown highlights. I certainly do not expose until I determine that the recovery looks natural but this is all to taste. There is no right or wrong and it certainly does not matter what the software is at that point, as that is technique. I am still quit happy with what I use but I do not limit myself to one tool. I use C1 as well as On1 as well as what ever gives me the result I wish but I find I am no longer reliant on Adobe, which is not good or bad but a choice.
Alan
-
While I agree that testing with RAW digger is the absolute best way to determine your limits in exposure I do not always adhere to that and I tend to not rely on highlight recovery since that is a best guesstimate. yes it is better than it used to be but to me blown highlights are still blown highlights. I certainly do not expose until I determine that the recovery looks natural but this is all to taste. There is no right or wrong and it certainly does not matter what the software is at that point, as that is technique. I am still quit happy with what I use but I do not limit myself to one tool. I use C1 as well as On1 as well as what ever gives me the result I wish but I find I am no longer reliant on Adobe, which is not good or bad but a choice.
Hi Alan,
I fully agree. Blown highlights are blown, even if only in one channel. HL-recovery is a (useful) cludge at best.
I am also no longer reliant on Adobe for most of my work, there are (arguably) 'better' alternatives available, although at times slightly less convenient. But then, 'convenient' is often a downwards slope.
I think that OnOne offers a useful avenue forwards, although it seems to cater to the more 'creative' (preset) oriented workflow. Personally, I'm more into a 'realistic' looking baseline rendering, hence my preference for Capture One Pro as a top-notch Raw converter for the first (and sometimes final) stage.
I'm not impressed by the Raw conversion quality of On1, to say the least, but then I'm spoiled by Capture One.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I think that OnOne offers a useful avenue forwards, although it seems to cater to the more 'creative' (preset) oriented workflow. Personally, I'm more into a 'realistic' looking baseline rendering...
Agreed on all counts. That's the main reason ON1 was quickly disinstalled after a day trial a while ago.