Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: snapsnap5674 on September 27, 2005, 10:26:24 am
-
Hi
I have read encouraging commentary on the web regarding Pixmantec “Rawshooter essentials” product. However, it is quite evident that it suffers from considerable color issues. Most of the web posts hail its detail rendering capabilities and intuitive workflow. Does anyone know when they will have the color problems resolved? And, are they even aware that this is the main reason the public still favors Capture One over their product?
Nestor
-
I suspect it will be when someone like Magne makes custom profiles for RSE. Without his profiles I wouldn't use Capture One.
The biggest issue I have with RSE is its heavy handed noise reduction. Grasslands and RSE do not seem to mix.
-
Indeed, better profiles would help. Once C1 is paid for the advantage of something free seems quite small.
Contrary to so many, I dislike RSE as it neither has a "curve" tool (I have a C1 curve for every situation), nor particularly logical sharpening/NR settings. I realised this most strongly when I found that RSE is the only free, colour-managed tool to convert raw files from my "pocket" camera (excluding the junk that came with the camera). RSE is still usually better than the in-camera jpegs though. RSE also bugs me with the registration attempt at every startup, my photo computer is not networked!
Ken
-
I find that even with every sharpening/detail option turned off, the files from Rawshooter are still sharpened far more than my ACR files.
I do love the slidehow mode with the ability to flag or number images as they go along. Beats the heck out of the slooooooow bridge.
-
Ah yes, RSE, the little train that could... but still hasn't.
I like RSE. I like the idea behind it and I like the fact that it exists. I like it's potential. Unfortunately it is nothing but potential for anyone who doesn't have a means to calibrate it. The default profiles are just downright poor.
Also mentioned is the overzealous sharpening. I want sharpening off as I'd rather use PK or sometimes need it off for testing.
Another thing not mentioned is the lack of a global contrast adjustment. I can control shadows or highlights but not midtones and no global adjustment?
Oh well. I use a mac now so it's irrelevant to me anyway. BTW, they need to release a Mac version.
-
I for one, L-O-V-E RSE! I have ZERO color problems, but then I know how to adjust color to my liking...
As far as it being sharper than ACR, that is because it is far superior to ACR from a technical conversion standpoint -- don't confuse detail with sharpening.
I also find the RSE workflow supremely easy and intuitive.
-
I also found that the RSE native colour was as good as my customised ACR profile and far better than the canned ACR on my 1Ds.
Jack, the difference in the amount of USM needed on portrait pictures from the 1Ds was: ACR - 250,1,0 RSE - 80,1,0. That big a difference is sharpening not just detail.
I also found that the colour noise reduction on ACR is far superior at it's default setting, to even the maximum setting on RSE.
-
Jack, the difference in the amount of USM needed on portrait pictures from the 1Ds was: ACR - 250,1,0 RSE - 80,1,0. That big a difference is sharpening not just detail.
The reason you need more sharpening in ACR is that conversion is less detailed to begin with -- even if you crank up ACR's conversion sharpening. My point is that RSE (and C1 as well) are better converters from a technical standpoint, and as such they extract more information from the raw file to begin with.
For example, nowhere in the RSE conversion do you get halos from over-sharpening unless you dial it up to a ridiculous amount; I leave sharpening on, but at the default "zero" setting. By contrast, with ACR you almost cannot avoid them just trying to get a similar amount of detail to render as RSE generates out of the gate.
FTR, I am not the only one who has recognized this fact... There are dozens of other posters on other forums saying exactly the same things about both RSE and C1 compared to ACR.
-
just curious.....
are you saying all this time i have been using ACR i should be using RSE?? how can one program "extract" more information than another from the same file?
thanks...
amnon
-
he reason you need more sharpening in ACR is that conversion is less detailed to begin with
I don't buy that. I have not seen any evidence that one converter produces more detail than another converter (amongst the big-dogs). I have seen an improvement over time as the tech improves though, but not a significant difference between what's available now.
No image I have ever loaded into RSE has exhibited any more detail than when developed with ACR or P1. RSE has always been sharper but not more detailed.
RSE certainly has more sophisticated sharpening than ACR. The lack of halos does not indicate more detail. I can get similar results to RSEs sharpening on a non-sharpened ACR file with a couple passes using a plugin like FocalBlade which has the ability to control halos.
-
I'm seeing a lot more noise in the 'detailed' (all sharpening turned off!) images from RSE than unsharpened ACR images. For some reason they don't come out with the same framing either so posting the sky from an ACR coversion onto a RSE image isn't so easy.
I'm sorry Jack but that much a difference, 180% USM, isn't just detail. I'm talking portraiture and the sharpness of eyelashes not the usual suspects for detail extraction. This is with all sharpening and detail extraction switched off.
-
I don't buy that. I have not seen any evidence that one converter produces more detail than another converter (amongst the big-dogs).
You certainly don't have to buy it -- use whatever you want. However I have seen evidence on MULTIPLE occasions where RSE (and C1) generates SIGNIFICANTLY more detail than ACR on the same file. I've done the direct comparisons myself and know what I see.
Here is a raw conversion test that was run on Outback Photo. I think the results speak for themselves -- ACR is not even in the same ballpark as RSE and C1. You can download the raw file and try for yourself. My initial result is posted there with some others: http://www.outbackphoto.com/contest/contest_15/essay.html (http://www.outbackphoto.com/contest/contest_15/essay.html)
No image I have ever loaded into RSE has exhibited any more detail than when developed with ACR or P1. RSE has always been sharper but not more detailed
On this I certainly disagree -- just look at the raw contest I linked to above and the images speak for themselves. Grab the raw, process it yourself in ACR and post your result here showing as much detail as the ones done in RSE or C1. IOW, show me ACR is as good.
The lack of halos does not indicate more detail.
I never said it did. But the presence of halos sure as heck is an indication of over-sharpening...
-
I've put up two files, processed to look as similar as possible, and incidently exactly how I wanted them and how they went to print.
They were shot at within a half stop of perfect exposure, Canon 1Ds, 17-40L @ 34mm 1/80th at f5.6 and Metz auto flash with lightsphere II handheld. WB set in each program using a Whibal.
Neither have had any sharpening, the RSE had sharpening set to -50, ditto detail extraction, ditto noise reduction. Colour noise reduction was set to +50. These are uncompressed jpgs straight from the raw convertors.
The RSE colour is straight out of the can, the ACR using a custom profile.
Keep in mind that these are full size 1Ds files converted from RAW to jpg and are big!
ACR: www.bphotography.co.uk/058ACR.jpg
RSE: www.bphotography.co.uk/058RSE.jpg
Make your own conclusions as to the whether it's detail or sharpening on the RSE file, apply USM and see what you think. Personally this is the picture which I used to come to the conclusion vis a vis sharpening and colour noise.
If anyone is interested, the picture is of two Rabbi's talking at an engagement party. On the left is my old Headmaster, on the right, the head of my Yeshiva (Talmudic college), both wonderful and warm personalities.
-
hmmm, I was writing that as you posted Jack.
BTW your link doesn't work.
-
I'm seeing a lot more noise in the 'detailed' (all sharpening turned off!) images from RSE than unsharpened ACR images. For some reason they don't come out with the same framing either so posting the sky from an ACR coversion onto a RSE image isn't so easy.
I'm sorry Jack but that much a difference, 180% USM, isn't just detail. I'm talking portraiture and the sharpness of eyelashes not the usual suspects for detail extraction. This is with all sharpening and detail extraction switched off.
First, let's not confuse noise, sharpening and detail -- they are three distinct things. I am talking about obtaining the most detail from a raw file.
And again, I disagree. Prove me wrong and post the Outback raw converted 100% crop I linked to above, processed with ACR and sharpened however the heck you want to sharpen it and show me even the same detail as RSE or C1 result generated...
-
You would have to fix the link first. If I'm seeing more noticeable noise in the sky detail from RSE than ACR then would you agree that RSE was sharpening the files? I haven't tried it but it seems to me that sky, without any detail should be as smooth as an ACR conversion. If I'm seeing more noise then it looks like sharpening to me and whatever the detail extraction, I want control over the sharpening stage, not having it done by the RAW convertor.
-
The correct link needs a trailing "l":
http://www.outbackphoto.com/contest/contest_15/essay.html (http://www.outbackphoto.com/contest/contest_15/essay.html)
-
Yes, sorry about that -- my copy dropped the "L" on the end of html... Corrected now. Give the above a look and try both converters out. that image should give us all a good standard to work with.
-
I'm downloading the RAW right now; I'm going to take a whack at it and see what I come up with.
-
If I'm seeing more noticeable noise in the sky detail from RSE than ACR then would you agree that RSE was sharpening the files?
NO! Because there is NO detail in a clear sky, just noise...
I might however agree that ACR is removing more of the existing noise than RSE
-
As sky has no detail, but shows up more noise when sharpened, either RSE is sharpening or ACR is reducing the noise. Given how the rest of the files look in general I would choose the former.
I downloaded that file originally for the contest though I gave up trying to get a decent file using ACR and USM/edge sharpening with masks. Just couldn't get it to look natural on screen. I'll try again with RSE.
Michael Tapes has said that you often need more than one RAW convertor depending on the task. Maybe ACR is just better for people photography which is what I do on a day in day out basis.
-
I downloaded that file originally for the contest though I gave up trying to get a decent file using ACR and USM/edge sharpening with masks. Just couldn't get it to look natural on screen. I'll try again with RSE.
I rest my case.
-
Outback photo is such a great site. The conversions that looked the best to me were the ones done by Jack Flesher and Alan Briot.
One might draw the conclusion that its the person doing the conversion that counts?
-
One might draw the conclusion that its the person doing the conversion that counts?
good point - an expert technician with bad tools will likely do a better job than a poor technician with good tools. But I'll listen with interest to the tools an expert recommends.
-
One might draw the conclusion that its the person doing the conversion that counts?
Thank you for the compliment Les and Tim. However, while I did have have to make some initial decisions about how to convert the image for optimal results, there was really no special skill required to obtain the result in this case. I did no fancy footwork in CS for sharpening or for post (not even a mask), and it was all just the basic Photoshop adjustments and tools as listed...
-
I'm downloading the RAW right now; I'm going to take a whack at it and see what I come up with.
Well I for one am curious as to what you came up with...
,
-
I'll post something tomorrow, the last few days have been rather hectic.
-
What are peoples views of Rawshooter now that there is the professional version?
It addresses some of the previous criticisms in that it now has a good curves facility.
I have used both RSE and RSP as well as C1 and prefer RSP. I find that the colour is fantastic and the images exhibit lots of detail.
Obviously the software isn't the be all and end all of photography, but it's interesting to see what other people think.
Andrew
-
I used RSE from the day it was released (over ACR and C1) and bought the Premium version before the price went up. Works for me - I certainly recommend. The workflow is great and I like being able to get the sharpness and noise reduction (at least up to 800) I want out of the product. My eye isn't trained to the degree a pro portrait or product shooter's is - I've never had occasion to complain about the color. I may be tempted to get the ETC profile when it's out just to see what the controversy looks like to me.
I have to smile at the ongoing controversy over whether/how RS manages to appear sharper or more detailed than the other converters. All I can say is that I like the way it looks once you've got it configured appropriately.
-
I have been using RSP since the day it was announced as well, and really like it a lot.
I wasn't really convinced by the colors of RSE compared to NC for my d2x, and RSP probably still isn't as good as NC 4.3.2, but the gap is now small enough that I use RSP for all but the most critical images.
I am especially fond of the workflow, good (but not great) performance, detail extraction, curve and vibrance functions.
Regards,
Bernard
-
I prefer it in general to C1.
A few things still bug me, tho. The colors can still be a problem. They're better but not C1+Magne good. The noise reduction has a tendency to destroy detail. In particular it likes to smear grass and other fine objects.
I use C1 when either of those is a problem and RSP the rest of the time.