Question for Nikon D810 shooters

[BernardLanguillier]

Hello Bernard,
Maybe you ( or anybody else...) could post some perfect OTUS-D810-f5.6 Raw file for everybody to convert with their favourite way so this discussion gets some bones...?
(and make this forum even more interesting)

Yes, definitely, here is one. It is shot at f4 and handheld, but it seems reasonably sharp and not too poorly exposed.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/k5kkl893bs4cz27/AAA6bIQn3OxYIkB7PvbyAFBla?dl=0

Cheers,
Bernard

[Hans Kruse]

I get more pleasing colors, a more "natural"/more detailed demoisaicing (especially on the files of AA filter less bodies such as the D810), more natural/pin pointed highlight recovery/shadow brightening,... You don't get any of the fake/cheap HDR look often seen in landscape shots.

Could you give us some examples of what you call fake/cheap HDR look from Lightroom?

[BernardLanguillier]

Could you give us some examples of what you call fake/cheap HDR look from Lightroom?

I'd rather not, I don't intend to hurt anyone's feelings, there is often a photographer behind the keyboard.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Hans Kruse]

I'd rather not, I don't intend to hurt anyone's feelings, there is often a photographer behind the keyboard.

Cheers,
Bernard

You could make an edit of one of your own pictures in C1-8 and one in Lightroom with the same look and then show us how the LR has a cheap/fake HDR look where the C1-8 has not. I'd be interested in seeing that.

[BernardLanguillier]

You could make an edit of one of your own pictures in C1-8 and one in Lightroom with the same look and then show us how the LR has a cheap/fake HDR look where the C1-8 has not. I'd be interested in seeing that.

Yep, if I find the time. There is an extremely long list of other things with actual value I need to do before embarking on such niceties.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Hans Kruse]

Yep, if I find the time. There is an extremely long list of other things with actual value I need to do before embarking on such niceties.

Cheers,
Bernard

I'd say that the statement you made begged for a proof. I'll bet you can't make it If it looks like you say it is not the fault of Lightroom but rather the guy behind the keyboard.

[BernardLanguillier]

I'd say that the statement you made begged for a proof. I'll bet you can't make it If it looks like you say it is not the fault of Lightroom but rather the guy behind the keyboard.

It may very well be both.

Sorry Hans, prooving this point to you is low in my list of priorities. End of story.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Hans Kruse]

It may very well be both.

Sorry Hans, prooving this point to you is low in my list of priorities. End of story.

Cheers,
Bernard

That's fine. I have had a license for C1 up and til version 7. I have downloaded a trial version of version 8 and I use Lightroom daily. I have not seen what you claim, so I was interested in seeing what I might have missed.

[kers]

OK after throwing the first stone here is the second one:

Bernards image ( thanks you!)  at my basic way in ACR
sharpness  70 0,5 70 0
camera profile  neutral
everything else set to zero ( colour 5200 K as shot)

(- i would usually lighten the shadows a bit in ACR and sharpen it a bit more in photoshop but that is now besides the point of interest)

download

http://www.beeld.nu/LL/ACR-base.zip


PS i have included the XMP file - but changed its name  ( so you have to change the name back to use it on the original NEF) 

[BernardLanguillier]

It's only your view that this is a mine against yours discussion. I own both licenses and only care about the best possible image quality.

Feel free not to believe me, your loss.

Cheers,
Bernard

[kers]

Ok Bernard never mind...
Enough people with C1 ( and other Raw converters)  that can make the conversion...
I am just wondering how different they will be...

Thanks for dropping the NEF in the group...

PK

[BernardLanguillier]

Then please show us, by way of a comparison.

What we have here is two guys arguing the toss and presenting no evidence to back up their claims. What are we meant to think?

My opinion is pretty clear cut, how about trying it out yourself?

Both software have free trial options as far as I know.

Cheers,
Bernard

[John Koerner]

My opinion is pretty clear cut, how about trying it out yourself?

Both software have free trial options as far as I know.

Cheers,
Bernard

You say you "don't have the time," but it seems you spend half your life on this forum arguing almost exclusively, "mine's bigger and better."

Perhaps if you'd cut back on your posting volume, you could devote more time to backing up what you say with examples/proof?

Jack

[dwswager]

You say you "don't have the time," but it seems you spend half your life on this forum arguing almost exclusively, "mine's bigger and better."

Perhaps if you'd cut back on your posting volume, you could devote more time to backing up what you say with examples/proof?

Jack

He expressed an opinion that he gets better images using the software he has chosen.  It's not a blanket indictment of other software.  I think the real point is that it doesn't matter if Bernard can make a better image with Capture One or ACR or anything else.  He won't be the guy doing it.  Everyone has to do it for themselves.  And the fact is that some people are so good with Software X that even if Software Y is better at this or that, they have learned to manipulate Software X to overcome those limitations.

Personally, I would argue that for the D810, Nikon's raw conversion is the best.  But when I first tried to use it, I learned that Nikon couldn't write software to save their lives.  I was better with ACR in Photoshop.  I never adopted Lightroom, because I am way too invested in ACR and Photoshop to spend the time and effort, even understanding that Lightroom is probably the better platform for me.

[SanderKikkert]

As i was amused yet also intrigued by this discussion and a more recent one about LR standard settings apparently not doing real justice to raws (i.e. zero contrast not really being 'zero' in all cases etc.) and at the same time I did not know what "DAM" meant as used by Bernard I googled that term and the words raw + converter.....

And then came across this:

http://www.nomadlens.com/raw-converters-comparison

Certainly not specifically aimed at D810 files, I am aware, but a very fine article imo which looks at most converters out there and gives to me very clear info about which ones to use what for.

Other than that there's not much I may add to this discussion, a D810 costs about as much as all of my favourite gear (Pentax K5 IIs, FA31Ltd, DA 50-135, DA 12-24 and a set of Lee filters) all together....

Regards, Sander

[kers]

...
And then came across this:

http://www.nomadlens.com/raw-converters-comparison  ...

Regards, Sander

Sander Thanks for the link to this detailed RAW comparison...
Although there is a lot of universal information in it, it also shows how difficult it is to compare RAW converters...

One example... the detail section starts of with a - in my opinion- bad example looking through a few hunderd meters of air... dry air he claims , but still i see heavy clouds..
In this case no pixel level details are to be uncovered.
Also it is so difficult to compare the details - some are clearly more processed than others... - it is not his fault, but the different programs have different sharpening and cannot be easily compared.
Then for instance ACR works on the base of a camera profile - choosing a different one gives very different results in colour- contrast- sharpening etc...
Also i think that if you like a specific RAW converter- you know better than others how to get to the best possible outcome.

So i think it is better to start with one perfect RAW image from one camera - like the clear and sharp one Bernard provided- and let the person being best at their RAW converter do the conversion...
(although for sure one example will only cover some aspects of the story - it is a start... )

so now we wait...

[BernardLanguillier]

You say you "don't have the time," but it seems you spend half your life on this forum arguing almost exclusively, "mine's bigger and better."

Perhaps if you'd cut back on your posting volume, you could devote more time to backing up what you say with examples/proof?

All I said is that I found C1 Pro 8 to deliver superior results on my D810 images. How is this opinion more "mine is better than yours" than the opinion of those feeling that Lightroom is better/just as good/...? Especially those who don't own/haven't tried both?

As a demonstration of your above average brain power, care to explain why on earth I would want not to use the better of 2 tools I own? Because I do use Lightroom to covert the DNG files from my Betterlight back.

Either you respect my opinion and you take this in as a reason to try out C1 Pro 8 on your own D810 files or you don't respect my opinion (which must be your case) and then happily stick to Lightroom.

I will happily share the C1 Pro 8 settings I am using to help you extract the best out of your D810.

But yes... I forgot... you don't own a D810... What the heck are you doing in this thead???

Cheers,
Bernard

[Hans Kruse]

All I said is that I found C1 Pro 8 to deliver superior results on my D810 images. How is this opinion more "mine is better than yours" than the opinion of those feeling that Lightroom is better/just as good/...?

As a demonstration of your above average brain power, care to explain why on earth I would want not to use the better of 2 tools I own? I do use Lightroom to covert the DNG files from my Betterlight back.

Either you respect my opinion and you take this in as a reason to try out C1 Pro 8 or you don't respect my opinion (which must be your case) and then happily stick to Lightroom.

Finally, I am not sure to understand how can you contribute usefully to a thread about the conversion of raw files of a camera you'll never own?

Cheers,
Bernard

No, you wrote "...more natural/pin pointed highlight recovery/shadow brightening,... You don't get any of the fake/cheap HDR look often seen in landscape shots." in reply #17 and that's what some of us thought had a deeper meaning that you might share with us. But I think it is clear that it was stray comment that should not be taken seriously. So as you say... end of story

[Hulyss]

I'm with Bernard on this one.

C1 is by far the best raw software I ever used for D810, and I must say for every Nikon gear supported by C1 ( View NX is very good at it too, seriously). Proving it by posting pictures here and here are just time consuming. Nikon files just have, suddenly, more "soul" in C1. This kind of soul wasn't/isn't present in ACR, at all. It is maybe just matter of interpretation. Anyway, for serious work, I do not use mainstream LR decipher sorcery. I use ACR only with native DNG pictures and they are not legion.

I was a fervent user of LR since the start till October, when darn Fuji forced me to look in other directions. By hazard I felt on C1 and it was a kind of revelation so to say.

The Highlight and Shadows recovery tools in C1 are just superior to ACR. As Bernard said, just download and try the damn thing and stop attacking the guy on the facts he is pointing. For fighting, DPR is a far better suited place.

EDIT: By far, Bernard's comment can be taken very seriously. Most of you do not even own the gear he is speaking about...

[Hans Kruse]

I'm with Bernard on this one.

C1 is by far the best raw software I ever used for D810, and I must say for every Nikon gear supported by C1. Proving it by posting pictures here and here are just time consuming. Nikon files just have, suddenly, more "soul" in C1. This kind of soul wasn't/isn't present in ACR, at all. It is maybe just matter of interpretation. Anyway, for serious work, I do not use mainstream LR decipher sorcery. I use ACR only with native DNG pictures and they are not legion.

The Highlight and Shadows recovery tools in C1 are just superior to ACR. As Bernard said, just download and try the damn thing and stop attacking the guy on the facts he is pointing. For fighting, DPR is a far better suited place.

Oh, now it is soul Wow, can you show us?