Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-03-2019, 03:23 PM   #76
Pentaxian
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,615
My finding, in general, has been that most of the software is not very good at keeping up to date on Pentax cameras (and lenses). I'm saying this as a generalization and recognize there are obvious going to be exceptions, but I think the big problem is the fact we are using Pentax cameras. It doesn't mean its right, but we are in a minority out there, and if you are making software to process RAW files, your efforts will be on the few companies that make up the largest part of the camera market first.

What I would like is for the software companies to at least use embedded profiles up front because that could at least get a user started with a software. I am a bit of a novice when it comes to profiles although I know I see the benefits of the quality of default profiles (i.e. my choice of using DxO seems to be a result of a great profiling by the company for my cameras [and lenses]). But, I recognize that when it comes to the OP's method and having a good product on open/import of a file, the profile will make all the difference.

This is subjective, but I assume that the more generic (or lower quality) a profile is, the more effort and processing needs to be done to get to an end point. I could see that proving some value to the method used by the OP in judging software assuming your vision is to get some perfect reality of what your image is. Artistic vision and creative license, however, does still place an importance on a software's capability and feature-set in terms of adjustments and editing. For what it's worth, that concept makes it difficult to pull these types of comparisons off, especially when dealing with 30+ programs.

01-04-2019, 01:31 AM   #77
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 114
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
My finding, in general, has been that most of the software is not very good at keeping up to date on Pentax cameras (and lenses). I'm saying this as a generalization and recognize there are obvious going to be exceptions, but I think the big problem is the fact we are using Pentax cameras. It doesn't mean its right, but we are in a minority out there, and if you are making software to process RAW files, your efforts will be on the few companies that make up the largest part of the camera market first. [...]
Everybody complains about software not being up to date, not only Pentax users. Look at it this way, though: with 5-10% market share, Pentax also releases fewer models, and sometimes the colour profiles can be shared. For instance, images from the K-30, K-50 and K-500 can, I believe, be treated the same. Images from the K-S2 and K-S1, ditto. K-3 and K-3 II, probably. There are other manufacturers where every model is different, and they might be releasing as many as 3 APS-C and two full-frame in a year.
01-04-2019, 06:03 AM   #78
Pentaxian
fs999's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Luxembourg
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,935
Where is DCU and PaintShop Pro 2019 in your compare ?
01-04-2019, 09:34 AM   #79
Pentaxian
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,615
QuoteOriginally posted by Breakfastographer Quote
Everybody complains about software not being up to date, not only Pentax users. Look at it this way, though: with 5-10% market share, Pentax also releases fewer models, and sometimes the colour profiles can be shared. For instance, images from the K-30, K-50 and K-500 can, I believe, be treated the same. Images from the K-S2 and K-S1, ditto. K-3 and K-3 II, probably. There are other manufacturers where every model is different, and they might be releasing as many as 3 APS-C and two full-frame in a year.
True, but if you are a software developer trying to cater to 100's of models of cameras, you probably look at market share among other things. When Pentax has 1+ cameras per year vs. Canon or Nikon with 3+, it probably seems more efficient and profitable to invest in the big brands. Afterall, there is probably enough similarity within a brand that the development of one profile (within one release year) can be modified to fit other bodies (e.g. 3 bodies for 1 mfg vs. 3 bodies for 3 different mfgs).

So, even if the developers struggle to keep up (delays for all cameras), they are still going to prioritize the larger market share and seemingly easier path to development. They wouldn't necessarily know if our camera bodies are similar any more than they might assume the same for Canon, Nikon, Fuji, etc. I would assume like you that many of our cameras are similar, but I would also assume to some extent (in groupings) that the same might occur in the other brands too. For instance, if Nikon or Canon come out with 3 varying grades of a FF camera in one year, then it would be probably a reasonable assumption that they would have similar profiles. I don't know that they do anymore than I would know that Pentax does the same. I'm just an end user with enough awareness to know that no camera has the same profile.

All I can say is that ideally, the developers would allow us to make some of those assumptions ourselves... i.e. if I have a Pentax K1-ii that isn't supported, at least give me the option to select a different profile (or look for one embedded in the file). I'm sure that is what you are getting at, but I think there are enough people who know very little or wouldn't understand what is happening, so there may not be any benefit on their end. It may actually be better for them to not make a sale at all and keep the users who do buy happy then to sell a lot more but have more negative reviews from the wider user base. I'm not a businessman nor can I fully appreciate the complexities of running a software business in a fully connected world.

01-04-2019, 01:00 PM - 1 Like   #80
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 114
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
True, but if you are a software developer trying to cater to 100's of models of cameras, you probably look at market share among other things. When Pentax has 1+ cameras per year vs. Canon or Nikon with 3+, it probably seems more efficient and profitable to invest in the big brands. Afterall, there is probably enough similarity within a brand that the development of one profile (within one release year) can be modified to fit other bodies (e.g. 3 bodies for 1 mfg vs. 3 bodies for 3 different mfgs).
I don't know if that speculation is going in the right direction. I once read that most proprietary RAW formats such as PEF and NEF are variants of TIFF, so there's not need to reinvent the wheel every time. And DNG is standardised anyway and super easy to deal with from a developer's perspective, to the point that you can mostly be brand agnostic when dealing with DNG. DNG comes with its own embedded colour profile, it should be plug and play. (I still don't know what to think of Lightroom 4 dealing so poorly with the K-S2 DNG.)

QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
So, even if the developers struggle to keep up (delays for all cameras), they are still going to prioritize the larger market share and seemingly easier path to development. They wouldn't necessarily know if our camera bodies are similar any more than they might assume the same for Canon, Nikon, Fuji, etc.
The first thing you do when a new camera comes out is see if an older profile will work. That's just basic common sense. Beyond that, while the sensor may not be exactly known at release time, camera manufacturers do publish what imaging engine is used. If that hasn't been upgraded, suspicion is gonna be that the sensor hasn't changed much, either. This is not necessarily true from the technology standpoint, but is often how it's done in practice.

You and I are not the only smart and lazy people out there.

QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
I would assume like you that many of our cameras are similar, but I would also assume to some extent (in groupings) that the same might occur in the other brands too. For instance, if Nikon or Canon come out with 3 varying grades of a FF camera in one year, then it would be probably a reasonable assumption that they would have similar profiles. I don't know that they do anymore than I would know that Pentax does the same. I'm just an end user with enough awareness to know that no camera has the same profile.
As an example, I considered the Canon APS-C range, looking for cameras with matching resolution and the same image engine. I found two mid-range examples (by Canon's lower standards), the 550D and 600D, and the 650D and 700D and the DxOMark scores match within each pairing, but not between (earlier cameras getting the higher score, *cough*). At the bottom end, the 1200D and 4000D also match. Whether a difference in imaging engine necessarily rules out using the same profile is a question I shan't attempt to investigate here.

QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
All I can say is that ideally, the developers would allow us to make some of those assumptions ourselves... i.e. if I have a Pentax K1-ii that isn't supported, at least give me the option to select a different profile (or look for one embedded in the file).
As a piece of practical advice - it's usually possible to write scripts that manipulate the metadata so as to fool the software. It does mean an extra step, and it may increase storage space - I personally would always want to keep the unmodified originals as a back-up.

QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
I'm sure that is what you are getting at, but I think there are enough people who know very little or wouldn't understand what is happening, so there may not be any benefit on their end. It may actually be better for them to not make a sale at all and keep the users who do buy happy then to sell a lot more but have more negative reviews from the wider user base. I'm not a businessman nor can I fully appreciate the complexities of running a software business in a fully connected world.
I think it's as often a case of poorly run software businesses as it is of shrewd assignment of priorities. In my survey of these RAW converters, I've come across a few poorly run businesses (won't point fingers), but I also have an idea of how much money some of the others make, so there's clearly room for bigger and smaller players.

---------- Post added 01-04-19 at 01:01 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by fs999 Quote
Where is DCU and PaintShop Pro 2019 in your compare ?
DCU is only for Pentax files, and iirc, PSP 2019 needs 64-bit Windows 10. So they're both quite restrictive. I'll think about it.
01-04-2019, 03:01 PM   #81
Pentaxian
fs999's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Luxembourg
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,935
QuoteOriginally posted by Breakfastographer Quote
DCU is only for Pentax files, and iirc
That's the title of your thread : 23 RAW converters for Pentax compared...

QuoteOriginally posted by Breakfastographer Quote
PSP 2019 needs 64-bit Windows 10. So they're both quite restrictive. I'll think about it.
No. PSP has a 32 bit and a 64 bit version for external modules compatibility, among others...
06-16-2019, 01:27 AM - 2 Likes   #82
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 114
Original Poster
Update

Quick update: I've added further processed sample images so 32 RAW converters are now covered, some with version updates (e.g. Affinity Photo 1.7). That's all I have time for right now, I'm afraid.
06-17-2019, 01:12 PM   #83
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 564
QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
My finding, in general, has been that most of the software is not very good at keeping up to date on Pentax cameras (and lenses). I'm saying this as a generalization and recognize there are obvious going to be exceptions, but I think the big problem is the fact we are using Pentax cameras. It doesn't mean its right, but we are in a minority out there, and if you are making software to process RAW files, your efforts will be on the few companies that make up the largest part of the camera market first.

What I would like is for the software companies to at least use embedded profiles up front because that could at least get a user started with a software. I am a bit of a novice when it comes to profiles although I know I see the benefits of the quality of default profiles (i.e. my choice of using DxO seems to be a result of a great profiling by the company for my cameras [and lenses]). But, I recognize that when it comes to the OP's method and having a good product on open/import of a file, the profile will make all the difference.

This is subjective, but I assume that the more generic (or lower quality) a profile is, the more effort and processing needs to be done to get to an end point. I could see that proving some value to the method used by the OP in judging software assuming your vision is to get some perfect reality of what your image is. Artistic vision and creative license, however, does still place an importance on a software's capability and feature-set in terms of adjustments and editing. For what it's worth, that concept makes it difficult to pull these types of comparisons off, especially when dealing with 30+ programs.
Silkypix keeps up pretty well, I find. But then they do the coding for DCU as well.

06-27-2019, 11:57 PM   #84
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 114
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jgnfld Quote
Silkypix keeps up pretty well, I find. But then they do the coding for DCU as well.
Silkypix is a truly great option except for their sharpening which can make artefacts appear in the bokeh and is applied by default. They claimed they'd fixed this in DSP 9 so that background blurred areas would not get any sharpening applied, but when I developed my sample image, the rendering was identical to DSP 7, which was definitely an affected version. I in fact diffed them against each other in GIMP to make sure. No difference in rendering. So it works well when it does, but it cannot take on all images. Background blur that isn't entirely diffuse can make edges appear.
08-09-2019, 07:28 PM - 1 Like   #85
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 114
Original Poster
Updated

Updated to now include 35 RAW converters, including DCU 5.

Last edited by Breakfastographer; 08-09-2019 at 07:55 PM.
3 Days Ago   #86
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 114
Original Poster
And now I've also finally brought the second part of the review back up to date, including ACDSee, Aurora, Pixelmator, PhotoLine, DCU, digiKam, Ashampoo and others:

35 RAW converters reviewed, part 2: fine detail breakfastographer

I was surprised at some of the software that ended up at the bottom of the rankings for fine detail.

Last edited by Breakfastographer; 3 Days Ago at 07:51 AM. Reason: added the direct link
2 Days Ago   #87
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 67
QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
All I can say is that ideally, the developers would allow us to make some of those assumptions ourselves... i.e. if I have a Pentax K1-ii that isn't supported, at least give me the option to select a different profile (or look for one embedded in the file). I'm sure that is what you are getting at, but I think there are enough people who know very little or wouldn't understand what is happening, so there may not be any benefit on their end. It may actually be better for them to not make a sale at all and keep the users who do buy happy then to sell a lot more but have more negative reviews from the wider user base. I'm not a businessman nor can I fully appreciate the complexities of running a software business in a fully connected world.

In Capture One, you can apply any profile to any camera. If they don't show up in the list of cameras, click the show all at the bottom of the list then select from any manufacture. Actually, you can just hover over the profiles and it will apply to your picture. find one you like better, modify it if you like, then save it as an ICC profile. I do this from the color editor tab, Create Iccprofile from drop down menu there. To get your profile to show up in the list for your camera, you have to save it with your brand and model like this PentaxK3 - your profile name here. Note no spaces between Pentax and K3. This allows your newly created profile to show up in the list of profiles for your camera. you can also set this as the default so every time you import a file it's applied on import. this is a pretty nice feature of Capture One as is any adjustment you want to make to the color. If I made a mistake in this let me know, I forget more than I remember sometimes.

You find the list of profiles under the Base characteristics tab.

Last edited by fuzzyphotos; 2 Days Ago at 07:48 PM. Reason: Added where to find the list of profiles
2 Days Ago   #88
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Prince George, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,831
I am curious how you arrive at your findings. Do you use the same settings in every program? Or do you simply rely on default settings to make your judgements? I am quite sure that similar results can be derived in all your listed programs if the user is able to take some time to learn its tools.
2 Days Ago   #89
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 114
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jbinpg Quote
I am curious how you arrive at your findings. Do you use the same settings in every program? Or do you simply rely on default settings to make your judgements? I am quite sure that similar results can be derived in all your listed programs if the user is able to take some time to learn its tools.
Yes, default settings, otherwise it becomes difficult to compare. You'd need a naive user and compel them to spend the same amount of time in each program. I'm not a naive user, and I can't conjure one, so default settings is what it is.

I think the argument, "oh, but if I spend ten minutes in this program [presumably separately for each image], I can make something terrible look good" is not realistic in a world where time is a finite resource.

But I recognise that it's one of those things that whatever you do, you're never going to please everybody. If I actually spent some time with each program, people would ask, "how much time did you spend with program X", "did you have prior experience of program X" etc. It's the internet, no amount of forethought or good intentions will stop the outrage in anything that any minority of people consider to be a holy war.
2 Days Ago   #90
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
iheiramo's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Espoo
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,043
QuoteOriginally posted by jbinpg Quote
I am quite sure that similar results can be derived in all your listed programs if the user is able to take some time to learn its tools.
That's just not true. I switched to Capture 1 when it became obvious that my old program just can't produce results it does. At that time C1 was the program I was trying to learn, so the old one had the advantage.
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!
blog, camera, converters, converters for pentax, darktable, dng, download, dxo, images, internet, laptop, link, nikon, optics, page, pentax, photography, photoshop, profile, raw converter, raw development, raw editing, results, road, software, support, test
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does the switchable AA filter pose difficult problems for RAW converters? Paul the Sunman Pentax K-3 12 01-20-2014 02:10 PM
K30 and Raw Converters KMMD Pentax K-30 & K-50 2 04-01-2013 07:43 PM
SMC Pentax-DA 18-270mm not recorded in EXIF (latest Firmware 1.13.23.23) Alfie Pentax K-5 9 12-31-2012 09:36 AM
Comparison of almost all raw converters fotoreporter1975 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 4 12-12-2012 05:17 PM
high end raw converters Gooshin Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 5 03-01-2008 08:59 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:32 AM. | 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