|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
12-28-2018, 04:19 PM
|
| |
I largely agree with this whatever processing software is used. I'm just not a fan of applying someone else's styles. Often, I think they're used by folks who haven't got to grips fully with the software, and feel they can get a decent enough result with presets... and that's fine, but I've yet to come across a preset or style in any software that beats what can be achieved by having a vision in your mind and knowing the software well enough to achieve it. It takes some learning and experience, but the results are well worth the effort.
The only exception for me is with film emulation. A lot of very good work has been done both commercially and in open source software development to provide film emulation profiles that - whilst no substitute for the real thing - can take an already well processed image and make it look something like it might have appeared when using a specific brand and speed of film. For those occasions where I want quite a specific film look, I'm not ashamed to use film emulation presets :)
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-20-2018, 03:23 PM
|
| |
Absolutely. I have a few styles that I commonly apply to images, each derived from a series of basic adjustments. I also have a number of presets I've created in certain tools for differing levels of tone curves, local contrast, stuck pixel removal, denoising, sharpening etc. that I can apply on an ad-hoc basis rather than having to adjust sliders each time. Plus, I've created lens profiles for some of my lenses (especially zooms, but a few primes also).
Since I'm using a lot of different cameras, I tend to approach photos from each one slightly differently - both for default processing and more detailed work.
It's worth bearing in mind that all of my presets and styles took some time and experience to create based on my own tastes and preferences. Lightroom does a great job on much of this straight out of the box without any user involvement, and it beats Darktable in this respect. But if you have the time and inclination to put in a little work with Darktable, it's a fine replacement IMHO...
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-18-2018, 03:00 PM
|
| |
I also appreciate the effort that has gone into the article... I applaud you for it; and I don't believe @jpinpg was being critical of you. What I think he was alluding to, and what I also believe, is this:
The starting point for files loaded into these different raw developers doesn't represent the possible end point when each piece of software is used by someone with good post-processing skills, specific to the software in use.
I used Lightroom 6 for some time before I realised that it carries out a certain amount of processing by default, over and above application of colour profiles and tone curve, and even if you set all the sliders to have zero effect. When I first trialled Darktable as a possible replacement, I was horrified by how noisy my photos looked by comparison. But that was just the starting point. After a year of using Darktable, I can automatically apply adjustments that give me a very similar result to Lightroom's starting point. Not only that, but I personally prefer the tools on offer and believe I can now get better final results from Darktable in many (but not all) respects than I could from Lightroom. Yet there's more work required to get those results. So, in the end, which is better? Well, it's subjective. It's based on the types of shots I process, how much I want done for me automatically, how much effort I'm prepared to put into processing each photo individually, and a whole bunch of other factors.
To realistically compare each raw developer, you'd need to have equivalent, comprehensive skills in each one in order to show the end point possibilities rather than how things look with default processing (or given merely basic knowledge of a few tools and sliders) :o Arguably, you'd also need to understand the priorities of a wide range of users. That's some undertaking. Even so, the comparison you've done is still interesting and definitely has some value :)
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-18-2018, 05:37 AM
|
| |
I suspect a lot of the apparent difference in detail is due to a combination of the colour profile and base tone curve employed by each programme, and the default level (if any) of local contrast...
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-17-2018, 05:28 PM
|
| |
@Breakfastographer - further to my original comments re noise reduction for higher ISO files, this might be something you want to consider too. There's considerable difference between the various software's capabilities in this area, especially where colour noise reduction is concerned. Any of the vendors might offer good-to-excellent processing of an ISO 100 - 400 file, but throw an ISO 6400 image from a K-3 at them, and you'll get wildly varying results :o
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-16-2018, 03:46 PM
|
| |
CaptureOne and DxO were fussy about supported cameras, as with AfterShot. That ruled them out for me.
I tried Phocus, which - believe it or not - wouldn't open the raw files from my Hasselblad HV :p
I tried ON1, but back when I tried it there was no option for removing impulse noise, which made it of limited use for cameras that don't include their own pixel mapping functionality - which includes some popular older Pentax models. Plus, the version I tried was slow. I'm sure it's improved by now.
RawTherapee is great - I like it a lot - but I'm happy with Darktable. I don't think either is better than the other... just different.
I will say, Darktable is missing one key capability that I really miss from Lightroom, and that is the ability to carry out simple barrel / pin-cushion distortion corrections without applying a lens profile. Lens support is still rather limited in Darktable, so for many of my lenses I have to create profiles using Hugin Calibrate Lens, or do the distortion correction further down the workflow in GIMP, and the UI for that function is basic in the extreme, and way too small.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-16-2018, 12:56 PM
|
| |
Welcome to the forums, and thanks for the article :)
My own experience with Aftershot Pro wasn't so positive, for two reasons - firstly, it is fussy about importing raw files that aren't on the supported camera list, which makes it a "no go" for a couple of my cameras. Secondly, I found the colour noise reduction capabilities on high ISO files to be inferior to some of the competing products. But for those who shoot any of the supported cameras at reasonable ISO settings, it's a decent bit of software for the price.
Having been a dedicated Lightroom 6 user for some time, I settled on Darktable as a replacement, and I'm extremely happy with it. For raw development, it's just as capable as Lightroom - although there are a few areas where each is slightly better than the other.
For anyone considering Darktable, note that it's not just for Linux users. It's available for Windows too :)
|
