Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: RAW Developer  (Read 17007 times)
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1009


« on: August 18, 2008, 07:25:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Chris' following post made me curious about RAW developer, and I wonder what your experiences with this RAW editor are (let's call it that way, as "RAW converters" just don't do only conversions any more).

Quote
The "neutral" style still transforms pixel values through an input curve. However, there is no color enhancement as far as I can tell. The huge downside to Canon's software is we can't see or edit that curve to our liking. The Neutral style has been saved and "locked" so none of its parameters can be seen or changed in Picture Style Editor.

Raw Developer, on the other hand, does have editable input curve parameters (along with many other input parameters) that allows for incredible control of the image data before the application of RGB curves, chroma curves, sharpening, etc.

Even Capture One uses input curves but they only offer three curves, none of which are viewable or editable ("film standard", "film extra shadow" and "film high contrast").

The input control of Raw Developer makes the program worth testing. My only wish is for an overlay feature like that of Capture One. When working with client approved layouts it is a very powerful feature.

I don't know of anyone who uses advanced Picture Styles, but a complete explanation of Picture Style Editor, along with more additional downloadable Picture Styles, can be found here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215479\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
stefan marquardt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2008, 01:25:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I use lightroom for my commercial work but the RAW developer nearly exclusively for my own work (low volume fine art...).
Lightroom lets your work quickly and get you ok results in a little time (which is what i want if I have to deal with lots of photos). Raw developer on the other hand gives you very sharp and detailed files but it lacks a good highlight recovery and fill light function and CA control (all 3 important to me when working on architectural and interior images, that usualy challenge the recordable dynamic range). To get the most dynamic range out of my mamiya zd files I nearly always have to make 2 conversions (light/dark) and blend them. something that takes to long if you have to deal with lots of pics.

apart from that RD is very very good and fast. even on realy big prints the detail looks very natural and filmlike. I always set the sharpening to quite high (I know one shouldn´t do that) because it gives the file a lovely fine stucture almost like filmgrain. I think the extra detail you get with RD comes from the fact, that you can switch of noise reduction completely (with LR I dont seem to be able to do this. it always  smears fine detail a little).

stefan
Logged

stefan marquardt
stefanmarquardt.de
architecture & interior photography
www.stefanmarquardt-architekturbild.de
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8383



WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2008, 02:27:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Chris' following post made me curious about RAW developer, and I wonder what your experiences with this RAW editor are (let's call it that way, as "RAW converters" just don't do only conversions any more).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215902\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Great raw converter. The best detail and speed on the market, and the current version is almost one year old... these guys are just in a class of their own as far as demoisacing is concerned. Adobe should have purchased them and not RSP...

The ability to work in Lab space right inside the raw converter is great for these images that lend themselves well to lab space corrections.

For ZD files, it is also the best option to remove hot pixels from long exposures.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
stefan marquardt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2008, 02:36:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For ZD files, it is also the best option to remove hot pixels from long exposures.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


 true. the noise removal (as well as the sharpening) menu gives you heaps of fine control.
strangely, the new c1 4.1 cant handle the ZDs long exposure hot pixel at all.

also the option to use contrast curves in RGB and Lightness at the same time (!) makes RD very powerfull.
Logged

stefan marquardt
stefanmarquardt.de
architecture & interior photography
www.stefanmarquardt-architekturbild.de
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9294



WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2008, 08:02:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I wish Adobe would give a huge pile of money to this one man band and implement some of the fine processing he's providing in Adobe Raw products. I still use Lightroom for its functionality and its Raw processing is pretty good, but Raw Developer is still my gold standard in terms of rendering quality I judge others on.

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200607_rodneycm.pdf
« Last Edit: August 19, 2008, 08:04:17 AM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 818



WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2008, 09:08:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...Raw developer on the other hand gives you very sharp and detailed files but it lacks a good highlight recovery and fill light function and CA control...
The judicious use of curves in the "In" tab, and again in the "Curves" tab (using Luminosity) do a much better job, providing far more control than a slider.

The default curve of the "In" tab is too strong and blows out highlights way too easily. It's better to make your own curve and set it as the default for your camera. I've photographed a Kodak step scale and a new Color Checker chart to help make a better input curve.

As for chromatic aberrations, my hope is that a future release of RD will provide that function.
Logged

~ CB
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7117


WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2008, 11:58:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I wish Adobe would give a huge pile of money to this one man band and implement some of the fine processing he's providing in Adobe Raw products. I still use Lightroom for its functionality and its Raw processing is pretty good, but Raw Developer is still my gold standard in terms of rendering quality I judge others on.

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200607_rodneycm.pdf
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Andrew,

This is interesting - I'm using LR2 now and finding it both satisfactory and  convenient. I would very much miss the highlight recovery and fill features if I were to use another raw converter which does not have them, or something similar. I'm interested in your evaluation of what specific aspects of Raw Developer you find perform better than LR2 or ACR 4.x, and whether these differences would be noticeable in a print, say from an Epson 3800.

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9294



WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2008, 12:00:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is interesting - I'm using LR2 now and finding it both satisfactory and  convenient. I would very much miss the highlight recovery and fill features if I were to use another raw converter which does not have them, or something similar. I'm interested in your evaluation of what specific aspects of Raw Developer you find perform better than LR2 or ACR 4.x, and whether these differences would be noticeable in a print, say from an Epson 3800.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216049\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Highlight recovery, Vibrance, all useful and must have rendering features. But download a demo of RD and run the same Raw though it, zoom way in, look at how clean the demosicating is. Its more than just color appearance. The quality of the rendering is "film like" as many have described it. Its clean!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7117


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2008, 12:09:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Highlight recovery, Vibrance, all useful and must have rendering features. But download a demo of RD and run the same Raw though it, zoom way in, look at how clean the demosicating is. Its more than just color appearance. The quality of the rendering is "film like" as many have described it. Its clean!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Andrew - good advice - the ultimate answer is testing it for oneself. I must say I don't find most film all that clean, but I think I know what you mean  

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7117


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2008, 12:12:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Oops - just went there and discovered it's Mac only. I knew there must have been a reason why I didn't explore this one before!

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9294



WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2008, 12:26:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Oops - just went there and discovered it's Mac only. I knew there must have been a reason why I didn't explore this one before!

Yet ANOTHER reason you need a bloody Mac. You can still run all those ugly Windows products on it too <g>.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7117


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2008, 03:17:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Gosh, could I have PREDICTED you were going to say that?    

Cheers,

Mark

PS. Not to start that issue again, but roughly 50% of the graphic arts market is on PC - it grew a lot as Windoze improved - but with the Intel Mac I think the pure-PC share is starting to recede. Nonetheless big enough that you'd think RawDeveloper would have also been configured for it - quite a large market potential. No?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5541


WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2008, 06:50:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
PS. Not to start that issue again, but roughly 50% of the graphic arts market is on PC - it grew a lot as Windoze improved - but with the Intel Mac I think the pure-PC share is starting to recede. Nonetheless big enough that you'd think RawDeveloper would have also been configured for it - quite a large market potential. No?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216094\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Actually by MSFT's numbers, Mac in pro graphics has more like 60% of the market (and growing) but the thing I was going to point out is there's a real good reason why a developer may only support a single OS...developing for cross-platform is a royal pain. It's far more than just 2x the effort because of system dependancies, stuff must often get re-written from scratch to move to the other platform.

Adobe is VERY unusual in that they will engineer around platform specific issues–which is why apps like Photoshop and Lightroom seem so seamlessly cross=platform. It ain't easy, it ain't fun and one must have a real good reason to do so. Since RD only has a tiny fraction of the Mac markets, until such time as it grows, it may not make sense (economically–something you should know something about) to try to fight those cross-platform battles. Besides, there's a lot of stuff on Windows that we don't get on the Mac (you know, like viruses and malware and computer bots & zombies).

:~)
« Last Edit: August 19, 2008, 06:50:57 PM by Schewe » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7117


WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2008, 07:06:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Good thoughts Jeff - yes, clearly, below a certain prospective market size the additional revenue wouldn't justify the additional cost - especially with extensive re-design issues. Of course designing for Windows would capture additional sales, but maybe on balance he decided it just isn't worthwhile. Oh well. I'll have to be content with my viruses and malware - but you should see what they do for image quality!  
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1009


« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2008, 08:24:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Great raw converter. The best detail and speed on the market, and the current version is almost one year old... these guys are just in a class of their own as far as demoisacing is concerned. Adobe should have purchased them and not RSP...

The ability to work in Lab space right inside the raw converter is great for these images that lend themselves well to lab space corrections.


Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for adding these details. I'm craving for some extra time to test RAWdeveloper.

It's so easy to overlook, because it has such a modest web page.


Quote
The judicious use of curves in the "In" tab, and again in the "Curves" tab (using Luminosity) do a much better job, providing far more control than a slider.

The default curve of the "In" tab is too strong and blows out highlights way too easily. It's better to make your own curve and set it as the default for your camera. I've photographed a Kodak step scale and a new Color Checker chart to help make a better input curve.

As for chromatic aberrations, my hope is that a future release of RD will provide that function.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216005\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for giving more detail to the input curve adjustment. Looks like this RAW editor is a must-have.

Also, regarding the highlight recovery slider (I'm generally not a big slider fan. Often had the impression, that slider actually not only did highlight recovery, but also blunted highlights in general), I was never a fan of that and look forward to the more advanced control in RAWdeveloper.

Quote
Highlight recovery, Vibrance, all useful and must have rendering features. But download a demo of RD and run the same Raw though it, zoom way in, look at how clean the demosicating is. Its more than just color appearance. The quality of the rendering is "film like" as many have described it. Its clean!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

"Film like"... sounds interesting. I really like DPP for its airy cleanness and fine nuances, so this is very promising.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Doyle Yoder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2008, 08:27:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Raw developer on the other hand gives you very sharp and detailed files but it lacks a good highlight recovery and fill light function and CA control (all 3 important to me when working on architectural and interior images, that usualy challenge the recordable dynamic range).

stefan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You be glad to hear this as this is a reply I received from Brian today.

"Hi Doyle,

A highlight recovery slider will be featured in the next RAW Developer 1.8 update. Various lens corrections, including chromatic aberration, are in the plans for future releases.

Brian Griffith
Iridient Digital"

Doyle
« Last Edit: August 19, 2008, 08:27:21 PM by DYP » Logged
stefan marquardt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144


WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2008, 01:19:27 AM »
ReplyReply

great news!
 RD was the main reason I switched from PC to mac - and I am so glad I did!

one only realizes to witch extend other converters (mamiyas, DPP, LR) are applying noise reduction when you compare with a RD file with all noise reduction switched of.

stefan


Quote
You be glad to hear this as this is a reply I received from Brian today.

"Hi Doyle,

A highlight recovery slider will be featured in the next RAW Developer 1.8 update. Various lens corrections, including chromatic aberration, are in the plans for future releases.

Brian Griffith
Iridient Digital"

Doyle
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216145\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

stefan marquardt
stefanmarquardt.de
architecture & interior photography
www.stefanmarquardt-architekturbild.de
Brian Gilkes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2008, 11:49:22 PM »
ReplyReply

From time to time I have extolled the virtues of RawDeveloper.
I remember Mark commenting on the  Win/Mac problem before (Hi Mark!).
I use PS or LR when there is a heap of images to process at once, and the results are for mags etc or for domestic use.
For fine art though, it'd RD most of the time.
Th images are sharper and cleaner. The deconvolution sharpening to correct antialiasing as part 1 of 3 pass sharpening , works much better for me than the options in PS/LR.
If I want further sharpening options I use Astra Image, but alas to use that  I must swap to Win via Parallels. Mark would find it much easier. Astra Image has it's own problems, being so algorithm intensive that you are limited to relatively small image sizes.
No program does it all, so it's compromise or devising the best strategy for individual situations.
Fun and games as usual
Cheers,
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8008


WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 22, 2008, 01:48:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree with the Digital Dog on this one!

Erik


Quote
Yet ANOTHER reason you need a bloody Mac. You can still run all those ugly Windows products on it too <g>.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7117


WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2008, 07:12:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree with the Digital Dog on this one!

Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216613\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I know for fact that the Epson professional printers I use or have used print much more seamlessly on WINXP versus Mac OSX; the instability of settings on the latter would drive me nuts, and that hasn't been fixed to this day. For me, this is rather critical functionality and is a key factor causing me to hesitate converting to Mac. In any case, there is VERY little you can do on a Mac that you can't do on a PC, and both are amenable to very satisfactory colour management. Various IT people who work both systems in the graphic arts have confirmed this to me several times over. Yes, there are applications and functionality which work or work better on the one platform but not the other - it goes both ways. As in everything there are compromises. If I seriously believed my image quality was beng compromised by my O/S I'd swallow the printing issues and convert.

But let's move on....not the thread for yet another dreary Mac versus PC thingie with my friends on this site  

What would be REALLY interesting - and I'd do it if I could (maybe I can - I have friends here in Toronto with Macs) - is to see an eyeball to eyeball comparison of the same raw image acquired and processed in RD versus LR2 or ACR 4.x. This would need to be done a bit carefully in respect of sharpening to make sure one isn't inadvertantly biasing the results in favour of the one or the other. Perhaps the best approach would be two passes - one with, one without sharpening. One would select several images with rich detail and tonality to bring out the respective qualities of these applications optimally. Any takers?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad