Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-27-2010, 07:10 AM   #31
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 230
I use Rawtherapee + Gimp. I'd rather spend the $ on gear, if I had any .

Bear in mind it only is practical for moderate processing. I mean paid products would be easier and less time consuming if you are into heavy PP.

07-27-2010, 12:35 PM   #32
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I don't see how anyone would prefer the CS3 image to the richer DCU4 image.
And I don't see how anyone can not like smothered chile rellenos, but go figure. FWIW, I do prefer the CS3 image here, but not by enough to give the matter a second thought - I'd pick the program with the better workflow every time.

QuoteQuote:
I tried sharpening the CS3 image, boosted saturation, cooled the temperature, and could not reproduce the look of the DCU4 image.
FWIW, the CS3 image already looks sharper and more saturated on my calibrated monitor. But if I wanted to make it look more like the DCU4 image, I'd cool it, desaturate it, lower the sharpening amount or increase the threshold, and add some local contrast enhancement.

QuoteQuote:
AFAIC if you aren't shooting in-camera jpegs, or converting raw photos with Pentax software, then you aren't seeing Pentax colours and may as well be using a Sonympus Canikon.
Pentax colors, schmentax colors. I couldn't care less - color is color. I use Pentax for the ergonomics and the lenses.
07-27-2010, 01:15 PM   #33
Veteran Member
deejjjaaaa's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: steel city / rust belt
Posts: 2,046
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
There's no point in uploading a raw photo. My demonstration is intended to show that straight from the camera raw conversion is superior with DCU4 vs Adobe Photoshop CS3. If you were to do the extraction with CS3, it would produce the same jpeg.
well, you probably know (or rather not) that extraction is done not by CS3 but by ACR and there might be several different versions... more over CS3 and all versions of ACR that are being used/can be used by CS3 are hopelessly obsolete - so why CS3 and old ACR and not CS5 and the very last ACR, which has a lot of improvements in terms of NR and sharpening to name a few... otherwise why not let us convert to DNG and try to use even earlier versions of ACR to make DCU look even better ? ... moreover people setup their own default settings for ACR and use their own profiles as default and there are several profiles that you can use w/ ACR for K20D raw files even w/o making your own... so you point about "it would produce the same jpeg." is plain wrong... and it is a plain wrong to use the approach "straight from the camera raw conversion" to any raw converter by assuming that it has to be as the settings are set by default by manufacturer... I have different default settings for ACR and my "straight from the camera raw conversion" is different.

Last edited by deejjjaaaa; 07-27-2010 at 01:27 PM.
07-27-2010, 03:27 PM   #34
Veteran Member
lurchlarson's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oregon, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 683
I use aperture 2 as a mac user. Aperture 3 is much more powerful, but won't run on 10.4

07-27-2010, 03:59 PM   #35
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
QuoteOriginally posted by lurchlarson Quote
I use aperture 2 as a mac user. Aperture 3 is much more powerful, but won't run on 10.4
Well, assuming you don't have a PPC processor in that Mac, just consider a new OS as part of the Aperture 3 upgrade. It's costs around $30 bucks for that operating system. I'd say you got pretty good mileage out of the last one.
07-27-2010, 04:21 PM   #36
Senior Member
wowtip's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West coast
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 254
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
And I don't see how anyone can not like smothered chile rellenos, but go figure. FWIW, I do prefer the CS3 image here, but not by enough to give the matter a second thought - I'd pick the program with the better workflow every time.
Hey Marc, what is the point of bothering with shooting RAW if "better workflow" is the only thing that counts? Then I would recommend shooting straight JPEG, the workflow can't get much easier than that, right?

QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Pentax colors, schmentax colors. I couldn't care less - color is color. I use Pentax for the ergonomics and the lenses.
Well, even if you don't care about colours, others might do, so I am with Audiobomber on this one. I have tried lightroom, C1, silkypix, rawtherapee, and most other packages. All have better workflow than PPL, but none produce more accurate colours straight out of the box.

And with accurate colours I mean "How I recall it looked like when I pressed the shutter button". Pinks and violets and Caucasian skin tones often get messed up when using other software, and is beyond my skill, patience, or capacity of the app to correct.
07-27-2010, 05:36 PM   #37
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by deejjjaaaa Quote
well, you probably know (or rather not) that extraction is done not by CS3 but by ACR and there might be several different versions... more over CS3 and all versions of ACR that are being used/can be used by CS3 are hopelessly obsolete - so why CS3 and old ACR and not CS5 and the very last ACR, which has a lot of improvements in terms of NR and sharpening to name a few... otherwise why not let us convert to DNG and try to use even earlier versions of ACR to make DCU look even better ?
I used CS3 because that's what I have. I did upgrade the ACR.

I don't know how to post a raw file, but you don't need my image to compare with your Adobe defaults. The in-camera jpegs are identical to the DCU4 extracted jpegs.
07-27-2010, 08:31 PM   #38
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,430
QuoteQuote:
straight from the camera raw conversion...
A conversion is not really "straight from the camera". Perhaps what was meant was "using default software settings", though it is just as valueless - there are settings, which you can and should set to suit your eye.

07-27-2010, 09:21 PM   #39
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by wowtip Quote
Hey Marc, what is the point of bothering with shooting RAW if "better workflow" is the only thing that counts?
I said workflow is main differentiator *between* RAW programs. Well, that and actual capabilities in terms of what adjustments can be made. those two are *hugely* important in differentiating between applications. The difference in output quality is *much* smaller and *much* less important (to me) in comparison.

None of this really has any bearing on the reasons for shooting RAW, though. The point of shooting RAW is that if you choose to do much PP, you can get better results than you could if you shot JPEG. Those differences are pretty large, no matter which application you choose.

QuoteQuote:
Then I would recommend shooting straight JPEG, the workflow can't get much easier than that, right?
Not at all - if you want to do any PP at all, the workflow for JPEG is much more difficult than that for RAW - unless you use one of the handful of handful of applications (Aperture, LR, ACDSee Pro, Bibble, Lightzone, Picasa, maybe one or two others) that makes JPEG as easy as RAW.

QuoteQuote:
Well, even if you don't care about colours
For the record, it's not that I don't care at all - it's that I don't consider the extremely subtle and almost completely subjective differences that exist between cameras or between RAW converters to be important.

QuoteQuote:
All have better workflow than PPL, but none produce more accurate colours straight out of the box.

And with accurate colours I mean "How I recall it looked like when I pressed the shutter button".
Of course, that's largely a function of WB.

QuoteQuote:
Pinks and violets and Caucasian skin tones often get messed up when using other software, and is beyond my skill, patience, or capacity of the app to correct.
Perhaps in your subjective opinion, but that's not universal truth. Others find other programs do as well or better. And I'm betting that half the people who claim a strong preference for one over the other wouldn't score better than 55% in a blindfold test.

But I'm not out to convince anyone not to use the program they find produces better results - just to caution people who haven't already decided not to assume that because one person subjectively likes the output from program A better than program B, that they necessarily will also, or even that they'll see a difference worth mentioning at all.

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 07-27-2010 at 09:40 PM.
07-28-2010, 08:16 AM   #40
Veteran Member
lurchlarson's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oregon, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 683
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
Well, assuming you don't have a PPC processor in that Mac, just consider a new OS as part of the Aperture 3 upgrade. It's costs around $30 bucks for that operating system. I'd say you got pretty good mileage out of the last one.
Its a 2.33 ghz intel. I have a thing against buying new operating systems for old systems (I bought this in March 2007). I'm just waiting till we can afford to get a decked-out 27 inch, .

Plus there is no upgrade path directly to 10.6. I need to buy 10.5 AND 10.6 to get there if I'm not mistaken.
07-28-2010, 08:18 AM   #41
Veteran Member
lurchlarson's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oregon, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 683
Tip: Download the 30 day trial of Lightroom and (if you are on a Mac) the 30 day trial of aperture afterwards. See what you like best.
07-30-2010, 09:39 AM   #42
Senior Member
wowtip's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West coast
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 254
Hey Marc, on the big whole I agree with your sentiments about workflow, you just happened to step on one of my sore toes. Colour output when processing Pentax RAW files with other software.

QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Perhaps in your subjective opinion, but that's not universal truth. Others find other programs do as well or better. And I'm betting that half the people who claim a strong preference for one over the other wouldn't score better than 55% in a blindfold test.
I think you misunderstood me. I am not speaking about what colour output I like in my photos, I am referring to colour mismatch in between RAW output on a calibrated monitor from C1, Silkypix etc. compared to what it looks like in real life. With PPL the colors are "correct" straight out of the box, with all of the other packages I have not managed to get some hues right/lifelike/whatever unless messing up other colors, and I put in quite a bit of effort as the workflow is better and I would prefer to use them. But it is certainly more than just a matter of adjusting the WB.

It might be that I am not proficient enough with the other converters, I could give you an example problematic PEF, with description to chew on if you would like?
07-30-2010, 10:11 AM   #43
Veteran Member
vizjerei's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,418
I am using SILKYPIX Developer Studio, It is just great.
07-30-2010, 10:59 PM   #44
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by wowtip Quote
I think you misunderstood me. I am not speaking about what colour output I like in my photos, I am referring to colour mismatch in between RAW output on a calibrated monitor from C1, Silkypix etc. compared to what it looks like in real life.
Our perception of real life is subjective, too - our brain performs its own version of AWB on the image formed by the eye. So matching "real life" really just means the camera's AWB and the interpretation of that by the RAW processing happens to match your subjective impression of the real color. And given the incredibly subtle differences between programs, there's basically nothing to the differences that isn't completely subjective.

QuoteQuote:
It might be that I am not proficient enough with the other converters, I could give you an example problematic PEF, with description to chew on if you would like?
Wouldn't help unless I was there to see the "real life" scene you are comparing to, and we'd also need a brain transplant to make sure I was "seeing" the same subjective colors as you.
07-31-2010, 02:51 AM   #45
Senior Member
wowtip's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West coast
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 254
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Our perception of real life is subjective, too - our brain performs its own version of AWB on the image formed by the eye. So matching "real life" really just means the camera's AWB and the interpretation of that by the RAW processing happens to match your subjective impression of the real color. And given the incredibly subtle differences between programs, there's basically nothing to the differences that isn't completely subjective.



Wouldn't help unless I was there to see the "real life" scene you are comparing to, and we'd also need a brain transplant to make sure I was "seeing" the same subjective colors as you.
Are you going metaphysic on me? I would contrarily argue that colour is defined by wavelength of the light reflected from an object, which is very much measurable. In theory there is no problem with the idea of exactly duplicate real life colours with the right, calibrated tools.

I can appreciate your idea that we might see colour differently, although I haven't seen any science that seem to confirm it. Colour perception also differs according to light as you noted. The thing I don't agree with is that I and other I have asked to look at the difference shouldn't be able to see the difference in colours in between calibrated screen and real life. The hues on some objects are very different, they can sometimes be corrected to the "right" colours in other software apart from PPL / DCU, but to me that processes is often more time consuming than doing the conversion in PPL.

But I think we are getting a bit off topic here. To me this just show how different the priorities in what is needed in a RAW converter can be.
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!
app, camera, files, pentax help, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to save stitched RAW files to a RAW file? HermanLee Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 7 07-09-2010 05:51 PM
Processing RAW files in Linux (Ubuntu) krishna Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 9 04-23-2010 10:58 PM
NEW PRODUCT: Canon, Olympus, and Nikon unveil App-e-ture: the app store for your digi johnmflores Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 3 04-06-2010 10:58 PM
RAW duplicate images - saving as RAW files jpzk Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 17 02-15-2010 07:01 PM
Does the Photoshop RAW converter work with Pentax RAW Files? mconder Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 05-15-2008 12:14 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:54 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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