Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-18-2018, 04:18 PM   #61
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 34,747
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
apparently the K-1 sensor produces fourteen bits per pixel, while that of the K-50 generates twelve.
This true.

QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
Moreover, there appears to be no difference between raw and jpeg in terms of the amount of data recorded (given assumptions stated above) - see p.115 of the K-1 operation manual. what I haven't been able to find out is how many bits per pixel are recorded (as opposed to those produced by the sensor) in the two formats.
A few points:
  • The capture data (post A/D converter) is 14-bit. Note that there are no pixels defined by the capture data.
  • DNG or PEF files also contain no pixel data, though they do contain the 14-bit capture data to be used for future rendering using a RAW converter. In other words, RAW files are not image files per se.
  • In-camera JPEGs are created from the 14-bit capture data, though as an 8-bit image. The derived image has less information than its source data, a lot less. A full-size JPEG rendering is created as part of the processing for every exposure. If JPEG output is specified, it is this image that is written to file.
  • If DNG or PEF RAW output is specified the file also contains the full-sized JPEG in the point above as well as thumbnail JPEGs for display purposes. This is in addition to the capture data.
  • When using the camera's "Replay" feature, what is displayed on the rear LCD is the JPEG image from the SD card, either a JPEG file or extracted from a DNG/PEF file


Steve

11-20-2018, 12:39 PM   #62
Veteran Member
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,631
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
As I pointed out earlier, I didn't do an exhaustive comparison of editing features, I compared the quality of the resultant image from the conversion from raw data as imported by the programs. Any editing of the resultant images would have blown the value of the comparison. So my view of the editing capability of the programs I looked at (a limited list, since I never purported to have reviewed "every single" program) is entirely subjective and intuitive. I agree, though, that such a comparison would be valuable. Perhaps one could get a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts to fund six months of work researching that issue, compiling test results and writing up a report.

As to your photo, well, that's a great picture. Looks like you used a polarizing filter on it. However, I've been able to do exactly the same thing you're describing on JPEG data using both PhotoImpact 7 (running under XP) and Affinity (Win 7*64). The important thing is to make sure the JPEG is 100% uncompressed, because any compression results in a loss of data. It occurs to me that I should have checked to see how many bits per pixel are being stored in the camera with both formats. The "depth" reported by those programs will necessarily be limited to that of the incoming data.[COLOR="Silver"]
Except, that doesn't seem like a great way to compare software, and I don't understand how editing blows the value of the comparison unless your goal is to not actually use the software. If I wasn't going to do any editing / processing with RAW software, I wouldn't shoot RAW; I would trust my camera to give me a better JPG than any RAW software could by default. Afterall, most RAW software has to accommodate 100's of cameras while my camera is designed to give me the best JPG it can for itself.

I look at RAW software as a means of providing control to the user to get as much out of that RAW data in the creative fashion they want.

For my usage, a comparison of raw software is really all about processing the file to an end product I like and seeing how much effort it takes to get there with each software and whether I can get there. These days, 90% of the time I can get where I want with raw software, and with the slow increase of layers being added to software that percentage creeps upward. But I always look at how many steps it takes me to get to the end and how easy it is to sync settings, create presets, etc for batch processing.

Now don't get me wrong, being able to start from a good spot is useful. I've chosen DxO PhotoLab as my RAW software because the default settings end up being pretty close to where I want to be, and I am making few edits afterward to get to an end. Lightroom on the other hand always required me to use a lot of steps, but once I created a preset that worked for most of those steps and its superior batch worklow system makes it difficult to say that it isn't better. If I was a professional shooting portraits, weddings, etc, I'd actually choose Lightroom, but I generally don't shoot batches, so DxO it is.

The beauty, however, is that once you get used to a software and you get a style or workflow, presets can get you close to your vision, and short of automatically applying a preset on opening a program and image, it can take one click to get there.

But if I didn't really want to do anything, I would shoot JPG (or perhaps use DCU with my raw files).

As others have mentioned elsewhere regarding the fact that JPGs aren't necessarily bad, I could probably be done 95% of the time with images as they come straight out of the camera. But, like the example photo from Iceland, I find myself in odd circumstances where I severely under-expose (or even over-expose) images to find that the ability of a good RAW software to adjust exposure, shadows, highlight control, etc as critical when a JPG file would leave you lost. This has been especially the case since I had a Pentax K5. I didn't realize how great having 14-bits of data was until I found myself (in Iceland too) chasing a histogram on my K5 because of an extreme contrast shot only to find that the RAW file had captured all the data without losing any highlights or shadows.

5 years later with a 3 year old daughter and a K3, I love being able to take photos of my daughter in manual or TAv mode and only having to worry about focus because the RAW file will have what I need. There are too many moments with children that can be lost if you are thinking too much about the camera and not about the shot itself.
11-20-2018, 01:16 PM   #63
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
BruceBanner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Posts: 4,444
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
Here are two copies of that shot, cropped to 1:1. First is a crop of my RAW file developed in Lightroom. The second is a jpg converted in-camera then exposure compensated and cropped with RawTherapee, but no other changes. The jpg is clearly much blotchier less sharp, less details. Maybe there's minimal difference at smaller sizes, viewed on a phone or a tablet.

You'll have to do a lot more convincing to make me switch from RAW to jpg.
QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
Except, that doesn't seem like a great way to compare software, and I don't understand how editing blows the value of the comparison unless your goal is to not actually use the software. If I wasn't going to do any editing / processing with RAW software, I wouldn't shoot RAW; I would trust my camera to give me a better JPG than any RAW software could by default. Afterall, most RAW software has to accommodate 100's of cameras while my camera is designed to give me the best JPG it can for itself.

I look at RAW software as a means of providing control to the user to get as much out of that RAW data in the creative fashion they want.

For my usage, a comparison of raw software is really all about processing the file to an end product I like and seeing how much effort it takes to get there with each software and whether I can get there. These days, 90% of the time I can get where I want with raw software, and with the slow increase of layers being added to software that percentage creeps upward. But I always look at how many steps it takes me to get to the end and how easy it is to sync settings, create presets, etc for batch processing.

Now don't get me wrong, being able to start from a good spot is useful. I've chosen DxO PhotoLab as my RAW software because the default settings end up being pretty close to where I want to be, and I am making few edits afterward to get to an end. Lightroom on the other hand always required me to use a lot of steps, but once I created a preset that worked for most of those steps and its superior batch worklow system makes it difficult to say that it isn't better. If I was a professional shooting portraits, weddings, etc, I'd actually choose Lightroom, but I generally don't shoot batches, so DxO it is.

The beauty, however, is that once you get used to a software and you get a style or workflow, presets can get you close to your vision, and short of automatically applying a preset on opening a program and image, it can take one click to get there.

But if I didn't really want to do anything, I would shoot JPG (or perhaps use DCU with my raw files).

As others have mentioned elsewhere regarding the fact that JPGs aren't necessarily bad, I could probably be done 95% of the time with images as they come straight out of the camera. But, like the example photo from Iceland, I find myself in odd circumstances where I severely under-expose (or even over-expose) images to find that the ability of a good RAW software to adjust exposure, shadows, highlight control, etc as critical when a JPG file would leave you lost. This has been especially the case since I had a Pentax K5. I didn't realize how great having 14-bits of data was until I found myself (in Iceland too) chasing a histogram on my K5 because of an extreme contrast shot only to find that the RAW file had captured all the data without losing any highlights or shadows.

5 years later with a 3 year old daughter and a K3, I love being able to take photos of my daughter in manual or TAv mode and only having to worry about focus because the RAW file will have what I need. There are too many moments with children that can be lost if you are thinking too much about the camera and not about the shot itself.
+1 ^

This guy gets it.

Right now I feel I am exploring the aspect even further by comparing just how much recovery I can manage with Jpgs only. There is a significant advantage of shoot Jpg only vs Raw or Raw+. I recently snapped our school kids at camp during archery. I wanted to capture the moment the arrow leaves the bow. RAW High Continuous burst was not cutting it, I needed to be in Jpg and getting those far longer burst sessions (as well as quicker buffer resets).
You can apply that trend more so to capturing kids running around, AF.C mode, Jpg, and triple now the amount of shots captured vs doing that RAW, it simply equates to increased higher chances of capturing that one excellent shot of the kid in the best focus with the best expression. I'd rather have a High burst and 27 images to have a look through rather than 9.

So now I am exploring just how much I need those extra RAW bits of data vs the Jpg. If I make certain provisions in camera first to ensure I don't blow highlights (Av mode, -0.7EV etc), can I find that sweet compromise spot where Jpg actually does make the best sense (for that kinda scenario).

Of course there will always be other events I wouldn't dream of shooting only Jpg. I think I may however reserve one of my User Modes to being an 'action AF.C Jpg only' kinda affair and use that for those kinda moments.

This all ties in with this recent thread I posted about RAW vs Jpg and has gotten a lot of traction; Is This Jpg Somehow Better (Recovery) Than It's RAW Version? - PentaxForums.com
11-20-2018, 01:41 PM - 1 Like   #64
Veteran Member
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,631
QuoteOriginally posted by BruceBanner Quote
+1 ^

This guy gets it.

Right now I feel I am exploring the aspect even further by comparing just how much recovery I can manage with Jpgs only. There is a significant advantage of shoot Jpg only vs Raw or Raw+. I recently snapped our school kids at camp during archery. I wanted to capture the moment the arrow leaves the bow. RAW High Continuous burst was not cutting it, I needed to be in Jpg and getting those far longer burst sessions (as well as quicker buffer resets).
You can apply that trend more so to capturing kids running around, AF.C mode, Jpg, and triple now the amount of shots captured vs doing that RAW, it simply equates to increased higher chances of capturing that one excellent shot of the kid in the best focus with the best expression. I'd rather have a High burst and 27 images to have a look through rather than 9.

So now I am exploring just how much I need those extra RAW bits of data vs the Jpg. If I make certain provisions in camera first to ensure I don't blow highlights (Av mode, -0.7EV etc), can I find that sweet compromise spot where Jpg actually does make the best sense (for that kinda scenario).

Of course there will always be other events I wouldn't dream of shooting only Jpg. I think I may however reserve one of my User Modes to being an 'action AF.C Jpg only' kinda affair and use that for those kinda moments.

This all ties in with this recent thread I posted about RAW vs Jpg and has gotten a lot of traction; Is This Jpg Somehow Better (Recovery) Than It's RAW Version? - PentaxForums.com
This really just goes to the point, that usage is all a matter of preference and need. Many professional photographers shoot JPG for a similar reason as you suggest when talking about burst rates and so forth. And, because of their usage needs, they likely process less looking more for the sharp shot than the perfect color and exposures. My style is more about the fact that my exposures can be imperfect, Pentax cameras are not great at continuous focus, and I like to focus on getting a few good and sharp images. My other purpose in shooting RAW has been the inevitable issues where white balance is incorrect by a lot. Then finally, it is psychological. I don't want 10 times as many photos. When I started with digital photography, I shot jpgs (because that was all there was), and I took 10 photos to get 1 image. Sometimes I would get 1 good image, which theoretically makes life easy, but makes one feel bad because you had 9 bad images. Conversely, there are the instances where you take 10 photos and get 9 good images. I ended up with way more photos than I needed.

Going to your example, I'd venture that if I shot 27 jpg or 9 raw photos, given my shooting style, I would end up with 2 or 3 keepers either way. Perhaps I'd save time because once I identify the keepers out of the 27 jpg, I would be essentially done or have fewer edits to make or the RAW would save time because I had fewer photos to go through and presets allow me to get to an end even if it would manually have taken more work. And, in the off chance I screw exposure or white balance up, I loose every shot in the jpg bunch while I can salvage something out of the raws.

So, it is just preference and need as I said before, and it is your comfort level and usage. As I stated in the earlier post, if I was a professional shooting portraits or weddings or even press events, I'd probably stick with LR and Adobe. I'd be of course (hopefully) making money and the subscription wouldn't matter. But I am a hobbyist that mostly shoots landscapes and my family. I generally edit images 1 by 1 and go from there.

But to throw one more wrinkle, with my wife's camera, a Canon P&S, we shoot RAW+ because the grandparents don't care how the image looks as long as it has the granddaughter in it. Those JPGs, are gold in buying time while I process RAWs for holiday gifts and family books.

11-21-2018, 03:43 AM   #65
dlh
F.O.G. (fat old geezer)
Loyal Site Supporter
dlh's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Northern Piedmont of Virginia
Posts: 1,324
QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
Except, that doesn't seem like a great way to compare software, and I don't understand how editing blows the value of the comparison unless your goal is to not actually use the software. If I wasn't going to do any editing / processing with RAW software, I wouldn't shoot RAW; I would trust my camera to give me a better JPG than any RAW software could by default. Afterall, most RAW software has to accommodate 100's of cameras while my camera is designed to give me the best JPG it can for itself.

I look at RAW software as a means of providing control to the user to get as much out of that RAW data in the creative fashion they want.

For my usage, a comparison of raw software is really all about processing the file to an end product I like and seeing how much effort it takes to get there with each software and whether I can get there. These days, 90% of the time I can get where I want with raw software, and with the slow increase of layers being added to software that percentage creeps upward. But I always look at how many steps it takes me to get to the end and how easy it is to sync settings, create presets, etc for batch processing. ...
Good points. My purpose was initially to determine which of the programs on my list appeared to have produced the best conversion from DNG, I wasn't really testing the user interface or the "tools". I say, "appeared", because the image I see on the screen is a rendering of the data that the software imported. I'm not sure how accurately that rendering may have been produced, or the degree to which it is a faithful representation of the data - there's a conversion process that goes on at that point which is completely hidden from the user in translating the data into an image that can be displayed. But since that's all I had to go on, the result of that process is what I compared.

I reckon the user interface is a whole different world, since everyone will have his own peculiarities and intuition that govern his predeliction. The gold standard for me, as I mentioned before, is a version of Ulead Photoimpact from the days of Windows 95 (I think, might have been Win-98). Clean, neat, and easy to use. As to that, I thought Gimp was a disaster, and I thought that Affinity was the best for editing, but that's an entirely subjective judgment. I'd like to try that Dxo product, maybe I can download a "trial version", since you and many others seem to like it.

As to batch processing, I can't see me setting up some standard set of parameters to be applied to the data, because each picture is different. I reckon it's because I monkey with settings a lot while I'm shooting, probably a habit from the days when burning and dodging was an tricky and irreversible process that required a lot of time sitting at an enlarger, and encouraged by the fact that I can take a hundred pictures in just a few minutes, and then throw away the 96 or 98 pictures that aren't good enough, and it costs me nothing but that few minutes of time.

---------- Post added 2018-11-21 at 06:04 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Riggomatic Quote
In which the author said, "Almost all cameras that shoot raw capture at least 12 bits, or 4096 shades, of tonal
information per pixel. The JPEG format, however, is limited to 8 bits per channel per
pixel, so when you shoot JPEG, you’re trusting the camera’s built-in raw converter to
throw away a large amount of the captured data in a way that will hopefully do the
image justice."

This quotation from a noted author and published by Adobe, exemplifies the kind of thinking that I found confusing. Notice that he's comparing twelve bits per pixel stored as raw against eight bits per channel stored as JPEG with the conclusion that raw stores more data. I hear the computer voice from TV saying, "ERR-OR, ERR-OR, ERR-OR!!!". Since the JPEG's storing three channels of color data per pixel, that suggests that the JPEG's are storing twice as much data, twenty-four bits compared to twelve. It don' make no sense. I came to the conclusion that the real kicker in this discussion is the fact that the camera isn't storing uncompressed JPEG's. The specs say that the camera's storing JPEGs and their raw counterparts with equal numbers of pixels and equal resolution (in terms of number of rows and columns of dots, as opposed to "real" resolution which would be expressed in dots per unit of distance). There are so many stages of processing, and we tend to compare one side of the equation from one stage with the opposite side but from a different stage, from what happens when you press the shutter, to what happens when the data is converted and stored in the camera, to how it's imported by a program, to what happens as the result of editing, etc. But I feel I need to figure this stuff out in order to be able use the camera most effectively. In order to use any tool effectively, it's important to know what the hell the dam'thing DOES. I find that the authoritative sources (Ricoh's instructions, faq's, etc., Adobe and other S/w mfgrs., for example) only create more confusion by their descriptions and specifications. Which is why threads like this one are necessary.
11-21-2018, 08:30 AM   #66
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Riggomatic's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Auburn, Indiana
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,657
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
Good points. My purpose was initially to determine which of the programs on my list appeared to have produced the best conversion from DNG, I wasn't really testing the user interface or the "tools". I say, "appeared", because the image I see on the screen is a rendering of the data that the software imported. I'm not sure how accurately that rendering may have been produced, or the degree to which it is a faithful representation of the data - there's a conversion process that goes on at that point which is completely hidden from the user in translating the data into an image that can be displayed. But since that's all I had to go on, the result of that process is what I compared.

I reckon the user interface is a whole different world, since everyone will have his own peculiarities and intuition that govern his predeliction. The gold standard for me, as I mentioned before, is a version of Ulead Photoimpact from the days of Windows 95 (I think, might have been Win-98). Clean, neat, and easy to use. As to that, I thought Gimp was a disaster, and I thought that Affinity was the best for editing, but that's an entirely subjective judgment. I'd like to try that Dxo product, maybe I can download a "trial version", since you and many others seem to like it.

As to batch processing, I can't see me setting up some standard set of parameters to be applied to the data, because each picture is different. I reckon it's because I monkey with settings a lot while I'm shooting, probably a habit from the days when burning and dodging was an tricky and irreversible process that required a lot of time sitting at an enlarger, and encouraged by the fact that I can take a hundred pictures in just a few minutes, and then throw away the 96 or 98 pictures that aren't good enough, and it costs me nothing but that few minutes of time.

---------- Post added 2018-11-21 at 06:04 AM ----------



In which the author said, "Almost all cameras that shoot raw capture at least 12 bits, or 4096 shades, of tonal
information per pixel. The JPEG format, however, is limited to 8 bits per channel per
pixel, so when you shoot JPEG, you’re trusting the camera’s built-in raw converter to
throw away a large amount of the captured data in a way that will hopefully do the
image justice."

This quotation from a noted author and published by Adobe, exemplifies the kind of thinking that I found confusing. Notice that he's comparing twelve bits per pixel stored as raw against eight bits per channel stored as JPEG with the conclusion that raw stores more data. I hear the computer voice from TV saying, "ERR-OR, ERR-OR, ERR-OR!!!". Since the JPEG's storing three channels of color data per pixel, that suggests that the JPEG's are storing twice as much data, twenty-four bits compared to twelve. It don' make no sense. I came to the conclusion that the real kicker in this discussion is the fact that the camera isn't storing uncompressed JPEG's. The specs say that the camera's storing JPEGs and their raw counterparts with equal numbers of pixels and equal resolution (in terms of number of rows and columns of dots, as opposed to "real" resolution which would be expressed in dots per unit of distance). There are so many stages of processing, and we tend to compare one side of the equation from one stage with the opposite side but from a different stage, from what happens when you press the shutter, to what happens when the data is converted and stored in the camera, to how it's imported by a program, to what happens as the result of editing, etc. But I feel I need to figure this stuff out in order to be able use the camera most effectively. In order to use any tool effectively, it's important to know what the hell the dam'thing DOES. I find that the authoritative sources (Ricoh's instructions, faq's, etc., Adobe and other S/w mfgrs., for example) only create more confusion by their descriptions and specifications. Which is why threads like this one are necessary.
In non math terms, a jpg would be similar to texting now.

WTH is the "jpg" of What the heck ( keeping it G rated ).

Enough of the information is there to communicate, and your brain fills in the gaps to understand "What the heck".

If you are up for some technical information, then check out this site

Imaging Tutorials


Tons of information to put anyone to sleep.
11-21-2018, 10:56 AM - 1 Like   #67
Veteran Member
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,631
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
Good points. My purpose was initially to determine which of the programs on my list appeared to have produced the best conversion from DNG, I wasn't really testing the user interface or the "tools". I say, "appeared", because the image I see on the screen is a rendering of the data that the software imported. I'm not sure how accurately that rendering may have been produced, or the degree to which it is a faithful representation of the data - there's a conversion process that goes on at that point which is completely hidden from the user in translating the data into an image that can be displayed. But since that's all I had to go on, the result of that process is what I compared.

I reckon the user interface is a whole different world, since everyone will have his own peculiarities and intuition that govern his predeliction. The gold standard for me, as I mentioned before, is a version of Ulead Photoimpact from the days of Windows 95 (I think, might have been Win-98). Clean, neat, and easy to use. As to that, I thought Gimp was a disaster, and I thought that Affinity was the best for editing, but that's an entirely subjective judgment. I'd like to try that Dxo product, maybe I can download a "trial version", since you and many others seem to like it.

As to batch processing, I can't see me setting up some standard set of parameters to be applied to the data, because each picture is different. I reckon it's because I monkey with settings a lot while I'm shooting, probably a habit from the days when burning and dodging was an tricky and irreversible process that required a lot of time sitting at an enlarger, and encouraged by the fact that I can take a hundred pictures in just a few minutes, and then throw away the 96 or 98 pictures that aren't good enough, and it costs me nothing but that few minutes of time.[COLOR="Silver"]
Part of the reason I posted the earlier is that I think in this day and age, it is really about the user interface. As far as I can tell, most the software will get you a result you want. It's just about how intuitive it is to get there. For instance, you reference Ulead Photoimpact, which is a software few people reference to, but it is what worked for you, which really is quite important. A big reason Lightroom is so loved is because they have a relatively simple user interface that worked for most people. They've rarely been considered the best when it comes to output, although they have improved quite a bit.

Part of my reason for liking DxO isn't so much for interface (it can be nice but it takes work) but rather because the initial input renders and image that is really close to an output I like 99% of the time. It is somewhat equivalent to pressing auto correct in LR or other software.

Of course all RAW software is just interpreting the data. Just like a jpg, our monitors really can't display all the data in a raw file, and the raw data and software isn't necessarily trying to make it pretty or make its own interpretation of what we want, so it doesn't necessarily apply curves or color corrections from the start (or it keeps it subtle). DxO, however, does seem to do so a little more than most while keeping its efforts from clipping at either end of the luminosity spectrum. Additionally, DxO seems to do an excellent job at auto-correcting for various lenses that LR did ok but not nearly as well. I've honestly never needed to use presets for DxO except in some rare cases where I had a uniform flaw through a batch of photos (white balance, exposure, or noise reduction). LR, I created a preset based around auto-correct that got me 95% to a finish no matter the photo; my photography is similar to yours in that rarely are images uniform enough to create a preset that I can just click and go.

As far as other editing software like Photoshop, Affinity, Gimp, well, I've never fully wrapped my head around any of them. Photoshop I've gotten ok with because that was a bit of the defacto and when I was a student I had affordable access. I rarely use it, but I still have CS6, and I will resort to it just on the basis that youtube can get me tutorials through many tasks that I can implement. Affinity seems to have decent features for photo / bitmap editing, but learning a new interface can be challenging, and I haven't dived into that even though I've purchased it and dabbled in it. Gimp had a UI I could not get along with and when I wanted to try and rely on it, it didn't do a lot with anything more than 8-bit, which bothered me.

But you see, it again comes down to UI and your own preferences.

It's really futile for people to argue over what is best but rather just give a perspective on what works best for them and why. I actually find the group here is pretty good at that philosophy versus other forums where it reminds me of a political debate over what software is better and the feeling that by default any other software is terrible.
11-21-2018, 02:18 PM   #68
dlh
F.O.G. (fat old geezer)
Loyal Site Supporter
dlh's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Northern Piedmont of Virginia
Posts: 1,324
QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
... It's really futile for people to argue over what is best but rather just give a perspective on what works best for them and why. I actually find the group here is pretty good at that philosophy versus other forums where it reminds me of a political debate over what software is better and the feeling that by default any other software is terrible.
too true.

I've read up a bit on DxO, reviews as well as their user guide, and I've come to the conclusion that it's not really what I think of as a photo editor. Not only that, but there don't actually seem to BE any real photo editors available anymore. That's based on my perception that a photo editor is software that I could use to edit an image myself - i.e., to select a pixel or group of pixels which I can then copy/cut and paste, redefine the color of, blur or sharpen, etc. All the stuff I've been looking at recently is falling over itself trying to do everything for me, and doing that with very imprecise language. DxO, in particular, seems to want to replicate the function of the local Wal-Mart photo development station back when they still did film developing and printing in the store. All sorts of global this-and-that performed automagically, replicating someone else's view of how a photo ought to look. I realize that one can control all the global gobblety-gook if he wishes, but that's still a development function, not an editing function. In an act of desperation, I opened Microsoft Paint on a large TIFF that I converted earlier today using DCU. It's dumb and clunky, but you know, it's actually an editing program. I'd taken the picture at a park this morning to test out some user-defined profiles I'd set up on the K-1, so it was one of those standard, "isn't it neat how the trees are reflected in the lake" pictures. There was a bird house across the lake and somewhat to the side that was just sort of a gray blob to the eye in the full sized photo. I used MS Paint to copy individual pixels from the adjacent scenery which I pasted over bits of the birdhouse until it was gone and looked like natural vegetation - undetectable at full size, and if I'd used a Gaussian blur with a two-pixel bias (which Paint doesn't do) I reckon the NSA could detect it, but no one else would. Funny thing, there was an upside down bird house reflection in the lake with no bird house to be reflected! That, to me, is editing. Global modification of color saturation is development. I know some of the smarter programs can detect an object and wipe it out and even attempt to replicate the background that would have been behind the object, but they can't do it was well (as precisely) as I want to do. And I don't want those things trying to attempt to do what they think I ought to want. It's all about control. The smarter the program, the less control the user has over the image. Seems like the sort of thing a person with a snapshot camera ought to have.

You understand that I rant, rave, and pontificate because I really want someone to tell me where I'm wrong, what the error was, and why.

11-21-2018, 03:24 PM   #69
Veteran Member
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,631
I think you need to start with understanding what the software is.

Most of what you are thinking of as photo editors are paint software and pixel editors. This includes Affinity Photo and Photoshop. Lightroom, DxO, Capture 1, On1 Raw, etc... those are all RAW editors, which are basically there to act as developers. Their purpose is NOT to act as pixel editors (although that line is blurring a bit as they advance). These are the software photographers use because they generally want to avoid pixel editing. I occasionally will go to Photoshop to remove a powerline or object from a photo. Heck CS6 and now the CC versions can do a fairly good job of it easily these days (almost automatically), but I still hate doing it.

But what you are referring to as editing is a slightly narrower definition than what many people here are talking about. Pixel editing takes time (and patience), so many of us want the software to act like a developer and to make adjustments more globally like we might in a darkroom. I would argue that is editing too. But, rather than editing a pixel at a time, we are editing all the pixels. But development is still editing, and I would argue that most of us are using these software because we want control of our development.

Now given everything you said and ranted and raved about, you really probably should look at Photoshop. Photoshop has never abandoned the ability of users to control what it is doing, even as it develops great AI for getting to an endpoint. And, if you are really getting usage out that side of Photoshop, then the subscription really is a bargain. I think most of us that are against the subscription as against it because we don't use Photoshop enough to justify the cost. We're mostly LR users, and while Photoshop is nice to have, it doesn't matter if you aren't using it.

When most of us then compare developing software, we're focused on everything that had been discussed before. DxO is fantastic for development because it does a good job of trying to get to an end product. Alternatively, you could go with other software that attempt less development up front requiring the user to do more of it. What I would argue, however, is that if anyone generally uses a software without making any adjustment, then they might be better off with DCU or straight out of the camera JPGs. I use DxO not because I start with an end product but because it develops me close to the end products I want, and I only have to make a few tweaks to get to an end.
11-24-2018, 04:56 PM   #70
dlh
F.O.G. (fat old geezer)
Loyal Site Supporter
dlh's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Northern Piedmont of Virginia
Posts: 1,324
My reasons for objecting to Adobe are related to technical, marketing, and legal things, rather than functionality. People who use it generally say it's the best available in terms of functionality, but I sure wouldn't do business with them or run their software on my computer. Having been a lawyer, among other things, I'm somewhat compelled to read licensing agreements more than would the average software purchaser. For example, DxO's agreement says if there's a mistake somewhere, the customer has to reimburse them for anything it costs them, even if it was caused by a third party, and for which you are agreeing to show up for trial in Paris, France, and no where else. Yeah, right. And how about Paypal - you willing to go to arbitration in Santa Clara, California and indemnify them for their expenses? Not me, Bro'.
12-08-2019, 12:35 PM   #71
Pentaxian
zzeitg's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South Bohemia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,518
As a MacBook newbie I bought Affinity yesterday and tried to integrate it with my favourite Nik Collection plug-ins. I downloaded the Nik trial version and managed to implement them into Affinity.

This seems to be fine (I can see them in the Filters -> Plugins menu).

However, most of them are crashing shortly after start.

Somewhere I've read that the older Google version (i.e. not the DxO version) should work fine (or at least better) -> any idea where this Google version (free if I remember correct) might be downloaded?

EDIT: I found it...


Last edited by zzeitg; 12-08-2019 at 12:50 PM.
12-08-2019, 01:49 PM   #72
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
BruceBanner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Posts: 4,444
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by zzeitg Quote
As a MacBook newbie I bought Affinity yesterday and tried to integrate it with my favourite Nik Collection plug-ins. I downloaded the Nik trial version and managed to implement them into Affinity.

This seems to be fine (I can see them in the Filters -> Plugins menu).

However, most of them are crashing shortly after start.

Somewhere I've read that the older Google version (i.e. not the DxO version) should work fine (or at least better) -> any idea where this Google version (free if I remember correct) might be downloaded?

EDIT: I found it...

How to download the Nik Collection for Free (LEGALLY) - YouTube
Thanks man, I had the DxO plugins for PS, updated PS and lost the plugins... I was gonna follow this thread to find out, guess the download link is in the description of the youtube link? <goes to watch youtube link now>
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
affinity, affinity photo, batch, camera, comparison, data, files, flickr, function, images, ipad, jpeg, k-1, lightroom, pentax, photo, photography, photoshop, pixel, process, program, programs, software, specifications, term, time, wonder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Affinity Photo BullsOnParade81 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 9 07-08-2017 06:41 PM
Affinity Photo mohb Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 21 12-15-2016 07:07 PM
Affinity Photo for Windows Beta now released BigMackCam Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 20 12-04-2016 01:31 PM
Affinity Photo raw beta for windows jevans Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 5 11-30-2016 04:44 PM
No need for traditional Luminosity Masks with Affinity Photo MJSfoto1956 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 3 08-12-2016 07:02 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:31 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top