Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: RAW Developer  (Read 16363 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6928


WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 22, 2008, 07:14:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
........................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.

...................Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216604\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting Brian - I made a suggestion just above.

Cheers,

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
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 22, 2008, 08:14:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What would be REALLY interesting... is to see an eyeball to eyeball comparison of the same raw image acquired and processed in RD versus LR2 or ACR 4.x.
Although it's Capture One compared to Raw Developer, perhaps this article will answer any questions you may have. If not, download the program (the demo is free and fully functional) and test for yourself.
Logged

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

Posts: 6928


WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2008, 08:52:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Although it's Capture One compared to Raw Developer, perhaps this article will answer any questions you may have. If not, download the program (the demo is free and fully functional) and test for yourself.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216643\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Chris, if you are going to issue instructions about what other people should do, perhaps you should digest the previous material first so your comments will be in context. RD is a Mac only program. I use a PC. I thought that was clear from the foregoing. But I am checking with a colleague to see whether we could use his Mac, an option I mentioned above. Thanks for the link to the outbackphoto article - I'll have a look, though Capture One is not a relevant comparator for me, it could be of general interest.

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: 6928


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 22, 2008, 09:00:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Chris, I just looked at that article and I find it an interesting read, but somewhat inconclusive. The variables could be better controlled for more conclusive testing. But what did impress me is the superior image definition from both raw converters versus 4*5 film. That seems significant, of course not knowing for sure whether the film image was optimized for that medium - perhaps one can surmise it was.
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
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 22, 2008, 10:11:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...if you are going to issue instructions about what other people should do...
Merely suggestions. No offense intended.
Logged

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

Posts: 6928


WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 22, 2008, 02:07:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Merely suggestions. No offense intended.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216665\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Chris - I wasn't offended - thanks for the consideration - I was just a bit surprised being advised to do something I mentioned I myself couldn't do because I don't have a copestic OS for that application, but I am in touch with a colleague who may be able to assist. Anyhow, others who can should do this comparison too. It's good to have an issue examined with a number of images and pairs of eyes.

Best,

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
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 22, 2008, 04:52:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...others who can should do this comparison too. It's good to have an issue examined with a number of images and pairs of eyes.
Not even an iMac, eh? FUI: the 24" is very nice for a studio tethering box.

I have used Capture One extensively, then when I began using the Canon 1Ds3 it didn't return results as expected (soft with poor color). I turned to Digital Photo Pro and found the results outstanding but the program exhibited occasional "saw-tooth" edges along subjects such as plants (which I photograph by the truck load). Since that wasn't acceptable I tried Raw Developer and have been very pleased with the results.

As I use Raw Developer more & more, I discover shortcomings. Mostly in file management and EXIF labeling, but I gotta say that the customer support at Iridient is great. Brian, the programmer/owner/codemaster gets back to me within 12 hours with answers that are astoundingly thorough & complete.

I don't have the latest version of Photoshop and I'm not interested in Lightroom so ACR is not happening here. Maybe with my studio's next purchase of hardware/software it'll happen.
Logged

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

Posts: 6928


WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 22, 2008, 06:25:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't have the latest version of Photoshop and I'm not interested in Lightroom so ACR is not happening here. Maybe with my studio's next purchase of hardware/software it'll happen.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lightroom 2 is something to be interested in. The latest version of ACR is also something to be interested in, but you do need CS3 to use it. If your studio isn't regularly up-grading their image processing infrastructure that is a constraint you obviously face, but of course not a general argument validating one piece of software relative to another.
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
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2008, 06:55:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lightroom 2 is something to be interested in. The latest version of ACR is also something to be interested in...
Note that the latest version of Raw Developer can utilize the ACR/DNG (dual matrix) method of color processing as one method of raw processing in addition to using ICC camera profiles and custom camera profiles built with/by the program (max geekdom).
Logged

~ CB
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7958



WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 23, 2008, 01:00:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Although it's Capture One compared to Raw Developer, perhaps this article will answer any questions you may have. If not, download the program (the demo is free and fully functional) and test for yourself.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216643\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am a big RD fan myself, but I guess that C1 4.1 would do a much better job at demoisaicing than 3.7.

On my ZD/D3 files, it is very close now with still a light edge for RD in terms of detail, but I prefer the default color rendition of C1.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 142


WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2008, 05:39:12 AM »
ReplyReply

bernard,  I just tried the trialversion of C1 (the second time) and  - while I like the color rendition very much - I find that C1 cant handle the noise of the ZD at exposures over 1 or 2 seconds at all. looks like salt grain sprinkled all over.
or have I overlooked a noise reduction setting?
both RD and LR are doing a much better job with the ZDīs noise.
for longer exposures, do you use RD? or simply your D3?


stefan



Quote
On my ZD/D3 files, it is very close now with still a light edge for RD in terms of detail, but I prefer the default color rendition of C1.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

stefan marquardt
stefanmarquardt.de
architecture & interior photography
www.stefanmarquardt-architekturbild.de
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6928


WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 23, 2008, 07:43:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure that "colour rendition" per se is an issue with any of these raw converters, because we can pretty well dial-in our own recipes and get what we want. I'd score them more on the basis of how much of the processing pipeline they can handle WELL up-front of conversion, the photographic quality of the files they output to one's selected media (e.g. paper or web) and the seamlessness of their integration with Photoshop. In respect of the latter, it's a real bonus to be able to import a raw file as a Smart Object in Photoshop for all those images which need more tweaking than today's raw converters provide, as this allows one to work iteratively between raw and rendered processing without redoing work other than the specific target of the adjustments.

Last year, on Andrew Rodney's "Iron Chef" panel in which I participated at Photo Expo Plus the topic of which was a comparative exercise in raw file prep using four different converters handed by some of the top pros in the industry, I was impressed with how each photographer could use the application they were assigned to create their vision of the scene. The creativity factor kind of overwhelmed anything else. Also obvious - the different applications do have some differing features and functionality, whence it becomes a matter of one's requirements and workflow expectations which to prefer.
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: 999


« Reply #32 on: August 23, 2008, 07:58:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am a big RD fan myself, but I guess that C1 4.1 would do a much better job at demoisaicing than 3.7.

On my ZD/D3 files, it is very close now with still a light edge for RD in terms of detail, but I prefer the default color rendition of C1.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


All the way on the bottom of that review is actually an image processed with C1 that has the bug removed.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2008, 07:59:45 PM by The View » Logged

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

Posts: 1112


« Reply #33 on: August 29, 2008, 11:06:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Brian's RAW Developer v1.8 just released:

http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/ra...r_download.html
Logged

Guillermo
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



WWW
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2008, 12:53:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Brian's RAW Developer v1.8 just released.
Sweet!  
Logged

~ CB
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 30, 2008, 07:37:45 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).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'm loving the controls here, and I applaud the guys working so hard on this package... but I have the same issue with this, as with any other processor outside of Camera RAW.  No Smart Object workflow.  

Here's a taste of what I'm talking about...  [a href=\"http://www.teddillard.com/2008/08/smart-objects-gone-wild.html]http://www.teddillard.com/2008/08/smart-ob...-gone-wild.html[/url]

The Smart Objects give you an astoundingly powerful process, and totally "non-destructive" (Can't Adobe just say, "Constructive"?  SO much more positive...) since you're building the file easily through simple, fast access to the RAW file.  

This, to my way of thinking anyway, completely overwhelms any other processor, and I have run and tested them all, just for the record...  
Logged

Ted Dillard
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6928


WWW
« Reply #36 on: August 30, 2008, 08:00:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The Smart Objects give you an astoundingly powerful process, and totally "non-destructive" (Can't Adobe just say, "Constructive"?  SO much more positive...) since you're building the file easily through simple, fast access to the RAW file. 

This, to my way of thinking anyway, completely overwhelms any other processor, and I have run and tested them all, just for the record... 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ted, very interesting - just a little quibble on the terminology. I think what Adobe means by "non-destructive" is that the image processing methodology does not embed changes to the original file data and destroy information through mathematical rounding errors, etc. It is not "constructive" because it doesn't add anything to the file (only creates a set of meta-data instructions applied on the fly to render the image). It is in essence defensive and therefore "non-destructive".

More important, turning to the substance of your observation, I am now using Lightroom 2, and while I haven't tried every raw converter out there (only a few and seen a few others at work), I am very impressed with the scope and depth of control this program offers for a very high percentage of what I need to do with an image. It produces very faithful scene renditions from what I can observe, and the convenience of the layout is great for iterating between organizing, ranking, developing and printing images. The main enhancement it really needs is a softproofing capability, so that once image adjustments are made under soft-proof they can go to print without the need to tweak anything more in Photoshop. Adobe is well aware of the strong client support for this capability and while I have no inside information,  I have a sense that within the next year or so we will see that too in both ACR and Lightroom.

I agree with you completely about the advantage of being able to embed a seamless access to the raw file whilst in Photoshop. Saves re-doing a whole lot of work if you realise half way through a bunch of Photoshop-specific moves that you should have done something different at the raw processing stage.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 08:02:01 AM by MarkDS » 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
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #37 on: August 30, 2008, 08:09:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ted, very interesting - just a little quibble on the terminology. I think what Adobe means by "non-destructive" is that the image processing methodology does not embed changes to the original file data and destroy information through mathematical rounding errors, etc. It is not "constructive" because it doesn't add anything to the file (only creates a set of meta-data instructions applied on the fly to render the image). It is in essence defensive and therefore "non-destructive".

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


weeeelll...  If you take a look at my link, it is actually quite "constructive".  300MB worth, in that case.  Every new RAW Smart Object  is new data, rendered from that raw sensor file.  As Andrew Rodney once commented, "if you can stand the overhead..."  because every one you add also adds the total size of a new RAW file.  

Adobe and Apple, for that matter, do talk about the source file not being touched, etc as you say, but the layered RAW Smart Object workflow is also included in what they (Adobe only, in this case...) call non-destructive, along with the XMP stuff and even the DNG language.  

I know it's quibbling...  we need the judicious application of alcoholic berverages to continue this properly...  ha!
« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 08:10:11 AM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 30, 2008, 08:26:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The main enhancement it really needs is a softproofing capability, so that once image adjustments are made under soft-proof they can go to print without the need to tweak anything more in Photoshop. Adobe is well aware of the strong client support for this capability and while I have no inside information,  I have a sense that within the next year or so we will see that too in both ACR and Lightroom.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I totally agree on this...  especially if you mean, by soft-proofing, including a gamut warning, too.

Since Lightroom and ACR are using the same "engine" (essentially ACR itself), I can't imagine too much longer before LR gives us the Smart Object option, too...  something I can't really see any other processors, including Aperture, doing.  If we get the workflow, and especially the "Smart Collections" of Lightroom with Smart Objects, I can't really see any other package able to give a solution as powerful, (to try to bring this back to the thread...)
Logged

Ted Dillard
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6928


WWW
« Reply #39 on: August 30, 2008, 08:56:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I totally agree on this...  especially if you mean, by soft-proofing, including a gamut warning, too.

Since Lightroom and ACR are using the same "engine" (essentially ACR itself), I can't imagine too much longer before LR gives us the Smart Object option, too...  something I can't really see any other processors, including Aperture, doing.  If we get the workflow, and especially the "Smart Collections" of Lightroom with Smart Objects, I can't really see any other package able to give a solution as powerful, (to try to bring this back to the thread...)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lightroom 2 DOES already have the Smart Object option. You go to Photo>Edit In>Open As Smart Object In Photoshop>. Voila! Done. Thence in Photoshop, when you double-click the S.O., it opens the image in ACR, which has the same processing engine as LR. The only issue with this procedure is that changes you make to the S.O. in ACR do not get conveyed to the XMP (they remain with the S.O. in Photoshop), hence the file is not automatically up-dated with your latest changes to the S.O. if re-opened subsequently in LR. The reason for this is that you can have more than one S.O. of the same image each with different settings in the same Photoshop file, so the program wouldn't know which instructions to write to the XMP which informs image appearance in LR. Maybe addressing this could be somewhere down-the-road in the on-going evolution of these applications.
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