[emsee]

Unfortunately there is no good solution for that. Dpthoughts is protected by DPR (by some mods there or whatever) - he's filling the comment sections with hundreds of messages which are nothing else than bashing.
It's as if that's DPR's official stance.

I am even thinking that the user ‘dpthoughts’ is a fake name of one of the DPR editors (the same
Deputy Editor) who is arrogant and lacks any kinds of journalistic integrity. I can definitely see some unfair activities by DPR mods and editors. But it’s their site and they can do whatever they want. The best thing to do is - boycott the site (Yes, 1 less visitor is nothing for them). If this type of trend continues, many people will do similar things and then they would learn.

---

Last edited by emsee; 06-06-2018 at 07:35 AM.

[texandrews]

I am even thinking that the user ‘dpthoughts’ is a fake name of one of the DPR editors (the same
Deputy Editor) who is arrogant and lacks any kinds of journalistic integrity. I can definitely see some unfair activities by DPR mods and editors. But it’s their site and they can do whatever they can and the best is needed t to visit (1 less visitor is nothing for them). If this type of trend continues, many people will do similar things and then they would learn.

I have thought the exact same thing about dpthoughts.

[Erictator]

I don't think this is worth starting a new thread on, but I had a thought... (I know, so rare for me... heh) but I was thinking of all the hub bub about the one review that said PEF got more DR out of the file than DNG, and that unleashed a bunch of dismay because it flew in the face of logic, that RAW means RAW, period... and I thought hmm... maybe there is actually something to it, that maybe the new CPU bakes the PEF but not so much the DNG, hence eliminating or simulating the ability to turn the NR On/Off? Wouldn't that be a hoot? If that were true, Ricoh should be touting it as a feature, not a bug, just like being able to turn off AA filters! This should be a rumor forum post. LOL!
Eric

[Kunzite]

PEF or DNG are just the containers storing the RAW image data. The claim that PEF has more DR (or the other way around) makes no sense, and it wasn't supported in any way.

[Erictator]

PEF or DNG are just the containers storing the RAW image data. The claim that PEF has more DR (or the other way around) makes no sense, and it wasn't supported in any way.

I guess I could make all the disclaimers stating I already knew that but wasnt going to avoid hearing it anyway, heh heh. Yeah, I get that, but RAW is supposed to be RAW too and Ricoh figured a way around that too.

[Kunzite]

RAW is the pre-processed output from the sensor.

[normhead]

I guess I could make all the disclaimers stating I already knew that but wasnt going to avoid hearing it anyway, heh heh. Yeah, I get that, but RAW is supposed to be RAW too and Ricoh figured a way around that too.

At some point in the design process, someone figured out how to compile a RAW image. It wasn't done in vacuum,it was done to produce the best image results. The "purity " of the RAW image is a joke in that context.

This should really end soon.

No one really knows what proprietary image processing goes into any one company's "raw" files, I have rarely seen so much time devoted to discussing something no one knows anything about.

Raw fikes are not like gold. There is pure gold and there is contaminated or compounds of gold. There is no "pure raw". It's all a creation of internal digital processing.

There is not one person here conversant in what goes into the production of raw images. DPRs allegations are baseless. Everything in this thread is written from a position of ignorance.

There has been not one contribution in this whole thread from someone that actually knows what goes into creating a "raw" file from even one camera company, forget about all of them. But raw is just a name. It's crazy there is so much baggage around the term. SO much that DPR can create controversy by poking everyone with their "raw purity" stick.

And the funny thing is. there are people on the forum so influenced by the whole concept of "pure raw" that they have started compiling evidence to support the concept, and are seeing big issues, where I see nothing or nothing that couldn't be explained by different exposure values and processing technique.

The whole thing is made up click bait.

Y'all been had.

[beholder3]

Has somebody ever mentioned that the standard consumer raw processor used by many beginners and forum users alike are the Adobe products?

And that these very products interfere /manipulate heavily with raw files exposure, sharpness and noise (the latter two being unavoidable even when the sliders are at zero), before their UI even lets users influence the image. So whoever uses Adobe products is showing that he is absolutely happy with major manipulation of raw. And these hidden and often non-counteractable manipulations are way more invasive than what the difference is between the K-1 and K-1 II.


I bet 9 out of 10 forum raw fundamentalists use Adobe products and make a fool of themselves with each post.


The same make-yourself-a-fool method as lamenting lack of contrast when comparing images in Adobe products for the K-1 II without having a proper K-1 II dedicated raw profile, which is controlling the base tone curve. Build a nice camera profile and suddenly your camera is king of contrast.

It's like children whining about tiny differences in the taste of french fries - after burying them under a pound of ketchup.

Anyhow it certainly is a stupid idea from Ricoh to not offer a software switch. I bet 95% wouldn't switch it off after a week of comparing.

[house]

so whoever uses Adobe products is showing that he is absolutely happy with major manipulation of raw.

That's a great perspective on the issue.

Not using Adobe myself though so I'm in the clear for further raw purism. 😀

[BigMackCam]

Anyhow it certainly is a stupid idea from Ricoh to not offer a software switch. I bet 95% wouldn't switch it off after a week of comparing.

A similar thing happened in the Sony user community. For the longest time, people complained profusely about the lossy compression in RAW files which causes high contrast edge artefacts that can be seen when pixel-peeping. Then, when Sony finally offered lossless uncompressed RAW capability via a firmware update, everyone installed it and realised the file sizes were much, much bigger. That was enough to convince most users to go back to shooting lossy compressed RAW... and gave the complainers something else to moan about

[MJKoski]

That was a failure from Sony's part. Why not offer lossless compressed? A7R2 gave 90MB files uncompressed and while they are big, there are notable differences in photos having smooth tonal transitions in highlight part of the histogram which is where the compression is not ideal.

[Rondec]

Has somebody ever mentioned that the standard consumer raw processor used by many beginners and forum users alike are the Adobe products?

And that these very products interfere /manipulate heavily with raw files exposure, sharpness and noise (the latter two being unavoidable even when the sliders are at zero), before their UI even lets users influence the image. So whoever uses Adobe products is showing that he is absolutely happy with major manipulation of raw. And these hidden and often non-counteractable manipulations are way more invasive than what the difference is between the K-1 and K-1 II.


I bet 9 out of 10 forum raw fundamentalists use Adobe products and make a fool of themselves with each post.


The same make-yourself-a-fool method as lamenting lack of contrast when comparing images in Adobe products for the K-1 II without having a proper K-1 II dedicated raw profile, which is controlling the base tone curve. Build a nice camera profile and suddenly your camera is king of contrast.

It's like children whining about tiny differences in the taste of french fries - after burying them under a pound of ketchup.

Anyhow it certainly is a stupid idea from Ricoh to not offer a software switch. I bet 95% wouldn't switch it off after a week of comparing.

Did DP Review use Lightroom to process their K-1 II files? I just wondered because I didn't think it was supported yet.

But you are exactly right. Darktable may allow you to turn off all noise reduction and processing in the background, but Lightroom definitely doesn't.

[beholder3]

But you are exactly right. Darktable may allow you to turn off all noise reduction and processing in the background, but Lightroom definitely doesn't.

They do use Adobe products to generate "test" and "comparison" results.

And it is not only noise reduction. Basically Adobe LR and ACR screw around in absolutely all key visually effective raw development areas, before you even start to move sliders in the UI and when you manually reset them to neutral/zero.

1. Exposure
2. Sharpening
3. Noise reduction
4. Contrast

So what you see upon opening a DNG/PEF file in Adobe is not a "raw" file and it is not just a debayered raw file (which is what would be the purist expectation).
It is a fully cooked JPG, which depends on Adobe's proprietary decisions to manipulate the above four processings.
If they decide to give a camera model less contrast or more out of the box sharpening, that is what the user gets presented as "raw".

If it is a stupid idea from Ricoh not not have a software switch for NR, then it is even more a stupid idea from Adobe to not have multiple software switches to turn off the multitude of their hidden raw2jpg cooking.

[BigMackCam]

Did DP Review use Lightroom to process their K-1 II files? I just wondered because I didn't think it was supported yet.

But you are exactly right. Darktable may allow you to turn off all noise reduction and processing in the background, but Lightroom definitely doesn't.

They do use Adobe products to generate "test" and "comparison" results.

And it is not only noise reduction. Basically Adobe LR and ACR screw around in absolutely all key visually effective raw development areas, before you even start to move sliders in the UI and when you manually reset them to neutral/zero.
...
So what you see upon opening a DNG/PEF file in Adobe is not a "raw" file and it is not just a debayered raw file (which is what would be the purist expectation).

It's reasonable that DPR uses Lightroom for testing and comparisons, since it's the most popular RAW development tool. Most people probably don't want to see what a file looks like in Darktable with all tone and detail-related processing switched off. It simply won't mean anything to them, and would be terrifying for some as the files look extremely flat, noisy and soft. Lightroom, with its default processing, at least shows something that looks like a real photograph. The problem is, it doesn't truly represent the output from the camera, and a lot of folks don't understand that...

[Class A]

So whoever uses Adobe products is showing that he is absolutely happy with major manipulation of raw.

You should tell that DPReview.

Rishi Sanyal asked whether it would be better to use dcraw for the camera comparisons. I answered "yes" and so should many more.

The trouble with ACR (Lightroom and Photoshop) is not just all the "under the hood" processing that happens even if you think you are using "neutral" settings, it is also highly problematic that they change their processing depending on the camera and that their processing is "adaptive", i.e. depends on image content. ACR is just a bad, bad choice for doing comparisons.

If it is a stupid idea from Ricoh not not have a software switch for NR, then it is even more a stupid idea from Adobe to not have multiple software switches to turn off the multitude of their hidden raw2jpg cooking.

I disagree.

Although it would be desirable if Adobe gave one a way to turn off all their processing, there isn't necessarily an expectation towards a RAW processor that one is able to see a neutral version of the RAW file; the latter would look very unappealing. RAW processors are typically not meant to be used for scientific measurements or to support sound comparisons of cameras. If someone doesn't like what Adobe is doing, they are free to choose another RAW converter. There are excellent alternatives available.

It is an entirely different matter for RAW files. These come with the promise that they contain all information the sensor captured. Some kinds of modification to the data are fine, as long as they are not destructive. If a RAW file is in some way compromised, however -- say due to lossy compression, clipping black levels, smoothing out noise (independently of whether it is system-generated or scene-inherent noise) -- then one has no recourse at all. One cannot simply choose another software to circumvent the issue.

...and gave the complainers something else to moan about

I generally value your contributions, but I feel with this one, you are not living up to your usual standard.

This statement seems to be expressing that some people are complaining because that's what they enjoy doing, implying that there is no real cause for complaint. I don't know whether Sony's lossless compression algorithm is sub-par, but assuming it isn't then of course the "complainers" have nothing to complain about. However, anyone complaining about lossy compression or mandatory RAW denoising has a point. One may not feel that these concerns cross one's own threshold for complaining, but one should be tolerant about the needs and desires of others and not label them as "complainers".