Topic: "rawshooter Essentials" vs "Capture One" (Read 18235 times)

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

DarkPenguin · « **Reply #1 on:** September 27, 2005, 12:00:16 pm »

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.

kenstrain · « **Reply #2 on:** September 27, 2005, 04:33:50 pm »

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

Ben Rubinstein · « **Reply #3 on:** September 27, 2005, 06:57:46 pm »

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.

61Dynamic · « **Reply #4 on:** September 27, 2005, 08:56:06 pm »

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.

Jack Flesher · « **Reply #5 on:** September 27, 2005, 11:27:25 pm »

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.

Ben Rubinstein · « **Reply #6 on:** September 28, 2005, 06:52:07 am »

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 Flesher · « **Reply #7 on:** September 28, 2005, 09:25:44 am »

Quote

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.

abaazov · « **Reply #8 on:** September 28, 2005, 11:13:05 am »

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

61Dynamic · « **Reply #9 on:** September 28, 2005, 11:26:31 am »

Quote

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.

Ben Rubinstein · « **Reply #10 on:** September 28, 2005, 04:16:47 pm »

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.

Jack Flesher · « **Reply #11 on:** September 28, 2005, 04:38:18 pm »

Quote

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

Quote

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.

Quote

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...

Ben Rubinstein · « **Reply #12 on:** September 28, 2005, 04:41:10 pm »

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.

Ben Rubinstein · « **Reply #13 on:** September 28, 2005, 04:42:15 pm »

hmmm, I was writing that as you posted Jack.

BTW your link doesn't work.

Jack Flesher · « **Reply #14 on:** September 28, 2005, 04:45:55 pm »

Quote

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...

Ben Rubinstein · « **Reply #15 on:** September 28, 2005, 05:34:09 pm »

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.

dandill · « **Reply #16 on:** September 28, 2005, 08:42:11 pm »

The correct link needs a trailing "l":

http://www.outbackphoto.com/contest/contest_15/essay.html

Jack Flesher · « **Reply #17 on:** September 28, 2005, 08:45:44 pm »

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.

Jonathan Wienke · « **Reply #18 on:** September 28, 2005, 10:30:47 pm »

I'm downloading the RAW right now; I'm going to take a whack at it and see what I come up with.

Jack Flesher · « **Reply #19 on:** September 28, 2005, 11:19:31 pm »

Quote

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

Author Topic: "rawshooter Essentials" vs "Capture One" (Read 18235 times)

DarkPenguin