PDA

View Full Version : RAW Conversion ... you be the judge



Bluedog
05-11-2005, 07:32 PM
The original image shot in RAW @ ISO 100|TV 1000 f/4 (camera was set to aperture priority, forgot to step it down. :o ) |28mm and metered on the Sky.

This image converted using the Canon DPP software. Never could really get the exposure correct without blowing out one or the other areas:

http://upload.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/43264866.jpg

This image converted using RawShooter essentials set for Auto Exposure and nothing else:

http://upload.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/43264808.jpg

DiJ
05-11-2005, 09:05 PM
I cant believe you use fire365's statement as your signature! Too funny. :)
Non serious amateurs huh. So be it. Life is never meant to be taken serious.

fire365
05-11-2005, 09:22 PM
Dude I will give you that’s pretty funny using that quote on your account. I never new a little bit of harmless opinions could insight so much it was my first post here geesh people. Ahh whatever its all good life is short you shouldn’t waste it worrying.

D70FAN
05-11-2005, 09:27 PM
I cant believe you use fire365's statement as your signature! Too funny. :)
Non serious amateurs huh. So be it. Life is never meant to be taken serious.

While fire365's original statement may be a bit sophomoric, throwing it back in his/her face with every post seems equally so.

Why not simply state that you think the statement is incorrect, and why, and let it go with that?

Since you are both "senior members" here it may be time to start acting like senior members. The idea is to help. Not to make fun of new members. So how about it?

Bluedog
05-11-2005, 09:47 PM
OK there it's removed but if I continue to see silly hapless jabs at the XT It might go back. Not once have I made a wise crack about the D70 but seems to me the D70 owners can help but to poke their opinions on the XT ... go figure that.

Now thats out of the way whats this got to do with the original post? Was I being ignored cause I use the XT?

DiJ
05-11-2005, 09:58 PM
OK I think RSE version retain more of the dynamic range. Better highlight and shadow detail. But your pictures is a bit underexposed.

Just for a bit of fun heres the DPP version after some PS work:

D70FAN
05-11-2005, 10:04 PM
OK there it's removed but if I continue to see silly hapless jabs at the XT It might go back. Not once have I made a wise crack about the D70 but seems to me the D70 owners can help but to poke their opinions on the XT ... go figure that.

Now thats out of the way whats this got to do with the original post? Was I being ignored cause I use the XT?

Thanks Bluedog. We all have opinions, and XT owners should be pretty confident that they currently hold the technical high ground from a certain point of view. fire365 was simply stating an opinion, as most of us do.

This is no different than the silly hapless jabs that Nikon and Pentax owners face here every day.

Additionally, this is a new member, so a little leaway might be appropriate.

Anyway, thanks for taking down the banner, and for posting the comparison using Canon DPP software and RSE.

The Canon DPP processor seems to have trouble with exposure and detail, but seems to keep the depth and color, while the RSE shot seems better detailed but flat. Overlay the two and you have a winner.

Whadya think?

Bluedog
05-11-2005, 10:06 PM
Yea that looks pretty good except the siding on the house looks a bit overexposed. Kinda what I was more or less getting at is RSE in some situations does a better job converting than the Canon program, not applying any PS editing. Theres just something about RSE converting Sunlight images that I can't quite seem to figure out. They just don't look natural I guess is it ... :confused:

jeisner
05-11-2005, 10:11 PM
I like the RSE version better as a starting point, but it needs a little PP work in photodshop, or some tweaking of RSEs settings as it is a little flat...

Have you tried the C1 or Bibble demos... I like Bibble, and will try the new C1 tonight as they finally added DS support...

Norm in Fujino
05-11-2005, 10:12 PM
Now thats out of the way whats this got to do with the original post? Was I being ignored cause I use the XT?

Thanks for getting us back on track. Well, gee, obviously the RSE image here is duller than the Canon-produced result, but what does that indicate? For me, it's hardly to be unexpected, given the generic settings you used and the general assumption that Canon tweaks their program for their cameras.
So far as I've been able to judge thusfar, the major point of using different conversion programs--once you get past basic issues like speed and workflow--is finding out what settings work best. Which I guess is to say, I would never use RSE on the basic settings, since it does things (and doesn't do things) by default that I want to have done.

For example, depending on your camera's raw format (and your own preferences), you can change all the major defaults (see the processing parameters menu) so that you start out with results closer to what you want, even before adjusting the "correct" menu items. I'm not saying that any given person will be satisfied even then, and RSE still has issues with color, not to mention individual cameras and computer setups, but I think those have to be taken into account at a minimum before attempting a test like yours. I wish there were a way to make a genuinely objective test of the abilities of different converters, but simply running an image through at default settings isn't the way, IMHO.
What did you think about the general usability (user friendliness) of the two programs? Response speed, etc.?

As you can gather from my comments, I have great hopes that RSE will turn out in its eventual professional incarnation to be the best of the pack. And to that end, I should note FWIW, that Michael Tapes, one of the original developers of the Camera One <oops! make that Capture One> converter and author of the RawWorkflow.com site, is now (as of yesterday) onboard Pixmantec as a dedicated RSE advisor. Hopefully this will provide an even greater stimulus to the process of development there.

D70FAN
05-11-2005, 10:14 PM
Yea that looks pretty good except the siding on the house looks a bit overexposed. Kinda what I was more or less getting at is RSE in some situations does a better job converting than the Canon program, not applying any PS editing. Theres just something about RSE converting Sunlight images that I can't quite seem to figure out. They just don't look natural I guess is it ... :confused:

Just for the heck of it how about downloading the trial version of Phase One Capture One LE (or Pro). And see how that does. They just released V3.7 which includes the XT.

http://www.phaseone.com/Content/Software/Hotnews/CO%203,-d-,7.aspx

I'm still learning Nikon Capture which seems to work pretty well. But if I'm going to spend $100 maybe Capture One is better.

jeisner
05-11-2005, 10:22 PM
Well George, I am currently using ACR 3.1 (Photoshop CS2) and I also have tried Bibble and RSE... So far I actually like Bibble the best, but before I pay for it I think I will also try C1 tonight as they support the DS with version 3.7

Will report here my thoughts once I get a chance... :cool:

Bluedog
05-11-2005, 10:24 PM
As you can gather from my comments, I have great hopes that RSE will turn out in its eventual professional incarnation to be the best of the pack. And to that end, I should note FWIW, that Michael Tapes, one of the original developers of the Camera One converter and author of the RawWorkflow.com site, is now (as of yesterday) onboard Pixmantec as a dedicated RSE advisor. Hopefully this will provide an even greater stimulus to the process of development there.

Interesting indeed and thanks for sharing.

Usually I never use the Auto Exposure option in RSE but gave it a shot in this picture to see the results. I like the fact that RSE has more options than the limited Canon app.

I'll check out Phase One Capture too ... thx

Bluedog
05-11-2005, 10:57 PM
OK heres a quick Phase One LE result:

http://upload.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/43270704.jpg

I kinda like this result better without having to use any PS editing.

DiJ
05-11-2005, 11:12 PM
Same here. Looks much better than the others. Nice dynamic range without being flat. I like the colors too.

jeisner
05-11-2005, 11:13 PM
OK heres a quick Phase One LE result:

I kinda like this result better without having to use any PS editing.

Agreed you are making me rather eager to get home and try it out for myself ;)

TheObiJuan
05-12-2005, 03:08 AM
How much is C1 LE to buy? I had the full version, but I got tired of using it weeks ago. It was "borrowed" from a friend...
If Bluedog likes it, then I should give it a shot.

Your assesment Blue?
I would say that your C1 image looks great. Why don't you set the raw image "As shot" in RSE?

Bluedog
05-12-2005, 04:58 AM
I believe its $59.00. Is it worth the price? Decisions:

The original untouched converted Canon DPP image:

http://upload.pbase.com/image/43276948.jpg

Image as RSE converted from camera untouched:

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/43276949.jpg

Image adjusted in RSE (not using Auto Exp.) this to me looks much better even rivals the Phase One LE above. Better shadow detail?:

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/43276950.jpg

The Canon DPP program is very limited as to what it can adjust to.

Bluedog
05-12-2005, 07:12 PM
Dang guys come on ... feed me some mo' input. :D ... I kinda like the very last one above using RSE.

DiJ
05-12-2005, 07:28 PM
I like the last one too. Looks like the best so far. But how about an adjusted C1 version just to be fair.