[BarryE]

Indeed, you do have something wrong.

I'm not sure how you are attempting to discern the difference; with some lenses and images there is no visual difference between PS and non PS due to the limiting factor of the lens' sharpness, etc.

f

Maybe - I was supplied the files, though I'd be surprised if could not tell the difference when looking closely over the whole frame at 100%.

I'm still disappointed that PS images cannot be processed in ACR as RAW images and not as an inferior TIFF. Hopefully, Adobe will be able sometime to work properly with PS dng s straight from camera, or dcu will output RAW files that ACR can use.

Maybe - I was supplied the files, though I'd be surprised if could not tell the difference when looking closely over the whole frame at 100%.

I'm still disappointed that PS images cannot be processed in ACR as RAW images and not as an inferior TIFF. Hopefully, Adobe will be able sometime to work properly with PS dng s straight from camera, or dcu will output RAW files that ACR can use.

ACR can develop the PS image and as long as nothing is moving and creates artefacts it is fine. You just need to sharpen alot more than a normal image to make it pop.

There is a tutorial somewhere in the articles section I think.

[BarryE]

ACR can develop the PS image and as long as nothing is moving and creates artefacts it is fine. You just need to sharpen alot more than a normal image to make it pop.

There is a tutorial somewhere in the articles section I think.

But I've been told that they are TIFFs and not RAW files. As I don't have access to a PS camera I'm trying to understand if I would have RAW processing capability in ACR, rather than the lesser TIFF. I been told it's only tiff, via dcu. That's what I'm disappointed about.

But I've been told that they are TIFFs and not RAW files. As I don't have access to a PS camera I'm trying to understand if I would have RAW processing capability in ACR, rather than the lesser TIFF. I been told it's only tiff, via dcu. That's what I'm disappointed about.

Well, since ACR can not, so far, fix the moving parts in a scene there will be artifacts when in ACR unless a stationary subject. I think there is alot of info in the 16 bit TIFF exported from DCU since it is larger than the original RAW-PS file and when processing it in ACR I have alot of dynamic range to play with.
I tested an extremely underexposed image and came to the exact, more or less, as far as I can see, the same outcome comparing a PEF and the DCU exported TIFF.

I have found that the quality of the PS is much better i DCU and I tried to only use ACR but for now, I open in DCU, export to TIFF after setting sharpness to Fine and crank it up two notches. Then do my edit in ACR.

[BarryE]

Well, since ACR can not, so far, fix the moving parts in a scene there will be artifacts when in ACR unless a stationary subject. I think there is alot of info in the 16 bit TIFF exported from DCU since it is larger than the original RAW-PS file and when processing it in ACR I have alot of dynamic range to play with.
I tested an extremely underexposed image and came to the exact, more or less, as far as I can see, the same outcome comparing a PEF and the DCU exported TIFF.

I have found that the quality of the PS is much better i DCU and I tried to only use ACR but for now, I open in DCU, export to TIFF after setting sharpness to Fine and crank it up two notches. Then do my edit in ACR.

Thanks for that. It's reassuring. I'm considering a k-3ii so I can use the pixel shift facility to reproduce artwork. So I'm not bothered with any movement issues, but colour accuracy is key. (I have a colour managed set-up and I'll be using an x-rite colorchecker)

What I next need to understand is if the PS images will allow me to make enlargements that are superior to an original k-3. I'll be taking the shots with controlled lighting and setup and likely using a 35mm limited. I'm assuming the answer is yes/probably ...

[enoeske]

Thanks for that. It's reassuring. I'm considering a k-3ii so I can use the pixel shift facility to reproduce artwork. So I'm not bothered with any movement issues, but colour accuracy is key. (I have a colour managed set-up and I'll be using an x-rite colorchecker)

What I next need to understand is if the PS images will allow me to make enlargements that are superior to an original k-3. I'll be taking the shots with controlled lighting and setup and likely using a 35mm limited. I'm assuming the answer is yes/probably ...

Yes, PS will be better for enlargements. However, be aware that it does not work with flash. You have to use hot lights or a long shutter work around

[Oakland Rob]

Artwork and still life work would be a great use for PS. And you'd have the benefit of RAW for color work, WB, etc. The only downside is the huge size of the files. And strobe is problematic (since it's a burst of four frames in essence), so you'd have to use other lighting probably.

And just to sum up, since misinformation seems to echo through these forums:

ACR/Lr DOES process pixel shift images.

ACR/Lr does NOT, at this time, do motion correction.

[enoeske]

Artwork and still life work would be a great use for PS. And you'd have the benefit of RAW for color work, WB, etc. The only downside is the huge size of the files. And strobe is problematic (since it's a burst of four frames in essence), so you'd have to use other lighting probably.

And just to sum up, since misinformation seems to echo through these forums:

ACR/Lr DOES process pixel shift images.

ACR/Lr does NOT, at this time, do motion correction.

ACR/LR CC does not work with MY pixel shift images -- hence the point of this thread (with photo evidence included!)

[Oakland Rob]

ACR/LR CC does not work with MY pixel shift images -- hence the point of this thread (with photo evidence included!)

Yeah, sorry...the blue shift thing I think is still a problem with some K-1 files (Adobe said high ISO ones, but people seem to have disputed that).

I keep forgetting which PS thread in which camera forum I'm submitting in.

BTW, did you put a sample up anywhere? Be interesting to see if other viewers/converters, like dcrawps or FastRawViewer, have the same issues.

[enoeske]

Yeah, sorry...the blue shift thing I think is still a problem with some K-1 files (Adobe said high ISO ones, but people seem to have disputed that).

I keep forgetting which PS thread in which camera forum I'm submitting in.

BTW, did you put a sample up anywhere? Be interesting to see if other viewers/converters, like dcrawps or FastRawViewer, have the same issues.

I think this link should work

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jm0t7u9dhul9jmp/IMGP0207.DNG?dl=0

[Zen4Life]

I heard a temporary work-around for the blue-shift problem is to shoot in PEF then import into LR. Adobe has the blue-shift issue as a bug and will fix in a future release of LR.

[Oakland Rob]

Here are some renderings, and boy Lr screws up the color at least (resolution is OK). For comparison some screen shots of FastRawViewer's own rendering and the embedded preview. Note the histogram.

[Zen4Life]

Try a test with a PEF instead of DNG...