[Tan68]

Right, full color information in every pixel created by the PS function would fit nicely into the 16 bit tiff, but with the 8 bit version they now use it isn't much better then an 8 bit jpeg.

Well, that's fine then.

I had wished for the flattened PS image to have the same latitude for editing as raw files have. But, since comparable latitude is available in the 16-bit TIF, I withdraw the wish :^)

[Tan68]

I just installed the not-Pro version of SPix (upgrade available to owners of PDCU for US$90) and used it to open a PS image of a furry animal. I opened the file, made no adjustments, and saved it as 16-bit TIF.

I had previously used DCU to prepare TIF versions of this file.
I had tried a couple different adjustments with 'fine sharpness'.
I also exported one version with no changes at all.

Well, I had read that fine sharpness unlocks the potential of PS... okay. Well, it opens the gate to something :^) But image quality aint it.

To be fair, DCU is processing the raw file based on the image settings of my camera. I have my camera set for 'natural' with contrast and etc turned down. Still, the synthetic fur of my little animal looked very.. crisp. no halos but close. Some of the fur around his eye is just clipped away. Gone.

I could spend time figuring out how to 'un-JPG' the raw (I mean how to defeat the attempt to produce output similar to camera image settings) but I don't think I will bother.

This was only a quick look, but the image I achieved simply by opening the file to SPix defaults and then exporting to TIF looked much nicer.

Regardless of preferred software to finish an image, I suggest anyone trial this not pro version of Silky Pix and consider it as $90 utility for working with pixel shift images.

I don't know if this SPix works with PS motion correction (haven't started hunting, yet).
I haven't been able to find dcraw/ps but will trial it as well.

[probez]

It is very unfortunate that pixel shift is not supported at all by Adobe (the current state of things makes it completely unusable for me, MC or not, there is a blue veil on every pixel shift picture along with about -1EV loss)

I'm mostly shooting macro and do a lot of focus stacking and it seems my stacking software (Helicon) cannot process those .dng either (it is dng compatible, there is no blue veil but the individual pictures, all PS, are not as sharp as they should be).
I used to have a full raw/dng workflow with my former camera (a Samsung nx500) that is now blown to pieces.

I have tried a lot of raw editors lately for that reason and it seems only Silkypix is compatible with PS dng (without MC but it's not important in my workflow), but it is a slow piece of software, on my macbook pro retina 13' 2k15 it is struggling to display the preview pic, each zoom takes a minute to display properly.

Not really the kind of behavior I expect from a software I'll work with on a daily basis. (I have no such problem with LightRoom)

I have nothing against switching app but DCU5 is out of the question and silkypix is just not worth the money compared to Lightroom (just my opinion).

If anyone knows of another raw editor handling PS dngs (or PEF, I don't really care after all) I'm all ears.

Bottom line is that at the moment we have a camera with the greatest IQ in its range but getting to work with these files happens to be a pain due to lack of support in current software offer. I really hope it will get more support...

[Zen4Life]

It is very unfortunate that pixel shift is not supported at all by Adobe (the current state of things makes it completely unusable for me, MC or not, there is a blue veil on every pixel shift picture along with about -1EV loss)

Blue cast is a known bug in LR and will be fixed in a future release. It ONLY happens when using .DNG format. If you switch to .PEF, there is no blue cast issue. At least that is what I have read online

Blue cast is a known bug in LR and will be fixed in a future release. It ONLY happens when using .DNG format. If you switch to .PEF, there is no blue cast issue. At least that is what I have read online

Thanks! I was wondering about the haze since I have not noticed it. I shoot PEF

[sbh]

So, a raw file is preferable for making.. strong adjustments because it has lots of image information. OK.

The 16-bit TIF should be just as suitable for lifting shadows or adjust WB or whichever.. because it has three channel infos at full bit depth..?

Agree, except for WB in tiff is not the same as in RAW. "True" WB only happens in RAW. Everything else is a color adjustment but not re-calculating colors from raw data, which means they will be a bit off.

That's the headache for me with using tiff instead of raw. Otherwise I would just dump the PS tiffs into Capture One and be fine with it. If the WB is right, a 16 bit tiff should contain most of the advantages of PS.

[probez]

Blue cast is a known bug in LR and will be fixed in a future release. It ONLY happens when using .DNG format. If you switch to .PEF, there is no blue cast issue. At least that is what I have read online

Oh cool, I will try later and report then, thanks.