Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
08-23-2019, 10:26 AM
|
|
Nothing against the goals of this thread, but I think what you're describing might be more useful. Especially if there's a narrative associated with each of the test cases.
A weakness is going to be the post-processing skills of the user and their chosen software. I've used RawTherapee for about a year now after dumping Lightroom 6, and I'm still figuring out better ways of doing things. Even if you see a program that seems to get quality results easily, a lot of that is going to be familiarity and learned workflows that might takes months or longer to acquire.
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
08-19-2019, 07:15 AM
|
|
While there may be some useful information to be gleaned from this study, no one (or almost no one) uses just the defaults when developing RAW files. If you're going to do that you should skip a step and just use OOC jpegs.
That's the inherent limitation of this thread: it's testing 23 RAW converters in a mode of operation that basically no one will ever use. And as soon as you go beyond the defaults, seconds after importing a RAW file, the conclusions will likely be very different.
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-18-2018, 09:18 AM
|
|
I do appreciate the effort. It's difficult to baseline software like this.
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-18-2018, 07:26 AM
|
|
It's going to be a challenge to tease out the capability of the program from the ability and experience of whomever is using it. You'd almost need 15-20 people who're adept at using each piece of software to eliminate that.
I know that if I was comparing output from LR, Darktable, RawTherapee and Silkypix much of the difference would be my inability to get the most out of the software I'm not as familiar with.
|