Slightly OT raw converter discussion

This is not a Pentax-specific topic, but I thought I should post here as this is the forum I frequent, although I do not often post these days.

I read with interest the "Raw showdown" here on DPReview comparing Capture 1 Pro 7, DXO Optics Pro 8 and Lightroom 4. Here is the conclusion on "image quality" which is one of the "traits" discussed:

"... the differences among Capture One Pro 7, DxO Optics Pro 8 and Lightroom 4 are relatively small. And those that do exist, revolve around default image rendering. Where global color, contrast and saturation are involved, it's rare that you achieve a result in one converter that cannot be reasonably matched in the others."

I shoot raw (DNG) and use Lightroom (still at ver. 3.6). To be honest, I could quite well shoot jpeg and that would work 90% of the time. But for those 10% that I want to work with it is comforting to know that I have all the information that I recorded on my SD card. There are also things that simply cannot be achieved using a jpeg.

So here beginneth my story and the ensuing questions:

Sometimes when I want to upload an image quickly in an Internet discussion somewhere, I will do a quick and dirty as follows: 1. Crop/straighten if necessary in LR, 2. Export full-size jpeg from LR, 3. Open in Irfanview and hit "auto adjust colours," 4. resize, and 5. Post. This takes about 2 minutes and I find that the result is (a) better than what I could do in LR in a much longer time - even using my presets or LR's presets - and (b) better than my out-of-camera jpegs at default (bright).

Here is an example of a shot I uploaded quickly the other day in the course of a conversation on Flickr. The image is nothing special (dull, grey skies etc.) and its quality as an image has nothing to do with anything. Just a tourist shot from Brazil.

Here is the LR version:



Lightroom

Here is the Irfanview version:



Irfanview

I don't know about you, but I much prefer the Irfanview version, so just for fun, I went back to LR and tried to replicate the Irfanview version there, but with no success. I really would like to be able to upload "quick and dirties" straight from LR.

So here is my question: Are those of you who use any of these three raw converters discussed in the "showdown" (or any other converter) happy with the default results, or the results using your import defaults, if you use any?

Is there anyone who could replicate the Irfanview version using LR - I can send the raw if you want to try. Can you put your finger on the principal difference? (contrast appears to be one obvious difference, but bumping contrast in LR does not appear to do the trick. Saturation another? Clarity?).

Just to be fair, sometimes Irfanview cocks up the auto colour adjust so spectacularly that the ensuing image is useless, but that is besides the point - most of the time there is an improvement. Remember also that it is free software.

As an aside, DPreview appears to do something to both photgraphs with the result that the difference is not quite as marked as in the full-screen images on my computer, so this comparison is not as useful as I had hoped, but still ... the difference between the images is obvious.

Sorry that the post is so long.

Any thoughts?

--
Shooting since '59 and still waiting for a keeper

You sure know how to get attention.  

I'd suggest you either learn to use Lightroom (lots of instructional material available free) or content yourself with in-camera conversions.

Fire it through I'll have a crack with ACR6.x and see what I can do, not as powerful as 7 or Lightroom 4, but will be easy enough to achieve, might even be able to do it better.

--
Chris.
A weather sealed ultra wide, is that too much to ask?
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/chriside
GMT +9.5
Pentax SLR talk FAQ
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23161072

About 10 secs to alter the WB, contrast, plus another second to hit the Export button...

--

Mike
http://flickr.com/rc-soar

Not quite sure what you mean but I'll take that as some sort of compliment

--
Shooting since '59 and still waiting for a keeper

I'm actually quite adept at Lightroom, having used it since version 1 and read most of the material available on the Internet and being in possession of several extensively read books on the subject, but thanks anyway.

Just curious: why is the choice only between Lighroom and in-camera conversions?

--
Shooting since '59 and still waiting for a keeper

Thank you very much! I will send the raw as soon as I get home (I assume you mean by e-mail as posted in your profile).

I am sure you will do better - I have seen your work. The real question is can you do it faster (than Irfanview, which I mentioned in the OP)?

But I'm still interested in seeing the result and hearing how you achieved it, as I often find myself in trouble processing "grey sky" shots without overcooking or being overcautious and coming up short.

--
Shooting since '59 and still waiting for a keeper

IrfanView is a nifty little program, and I use it as my main "double click" viewer in Windows.  However, it is my understanding that when you open a RAW image with IrfanView, all it is really doing is opening the embedded JPG image included in the RAW file, and that IrfanView does not do an actual RAW conversion.

I'm not familiar with Pentax RAW files.  I shoot Fuji and Nikon.  Nikon is a little unique in that their proprietary RAW editing software (Capture and View) actually modifies the RAW (NEF) file, and does not store the edit data in a sidecar file like most RAW converters.  However, if you open an NEF file in Lightroom or some other third party RAW converter that has been edited with View or Capture, it will not show the edits.  When you edit a NEF file with View/Capture, the embedded JPG file *is* updated based on the adjustments.

It's easy to verify that IrfanView is only opening the embedded JPG image with a Nikon NEF file by shooting RAW only.  When you select this option with a Nikon camera, the embedded JPG is rather low quality, and it's easy to see the JPG artifacts in IrfanView (especially if you over-sharpen the image).  When an NEF file is edited with View/Capture, the updated JPG is actually saved in a much higher quality in the NEF file (and the size of the edited NEF file increases significantly as well).  When you open one of these files in IrfanView, the JPG artifacts are not noticeable.

Kurt

Good, snappy answer, but no prize.

The WB from the K-5 is usually spot on in this kind of shot (grey skies), so no adjustment needed. Also, if you look at the two images I posted (and what I wrote), you will see that Irfanview has done more than up the contrast. There is also an obvious increase in saturation, an apparent increase in clarity, some sharpening, and then there is something else that I can't put my finger on and can't replicate in Lightroom, and which is therefore what I am really asking about.

But thanks anyway.

--
Shooting since '59 and still waiting for a keeper

This sounds a lot like how Picasa works, it's not a true raw convertor. The "I'm Feeling Lucky" button in Picasa does exactly what the OP describes; it usually improves an image, but sometimes ruins it. As far as I can tell, I'm Feeling Lucky adjusts WB, contrast, saturation and sharpening, with one touch, but will sometimes blow highlights, cause sharpening artifacts and distorted colours.

--
Dan

I really think that when the OP is opening the RAW file with IrfanView, he's just seeing the embedded JPG with his camera settings reflected.  Picassa on the other hand does actually open the RAW image.  Again, this is easy to verify.  I have a Fuji X-Pro1, and there are currently very view RAW converters that can handle the RAW files from this camera.  Picassa is not one of them, and when I attempt to open a RAW image from this camera with Picassa, I get an ugly looking purple mess.  IrfanView seems to open the X-Pro1 RAW files just fine; however, all it's doing is opening the embedded JPG file.

To test this, just set your camera to save RAW and JPG.  Open both files with IrfanView, and I'll bet you they are identical.  Now open both files with Picassa.  They won't look the same because Picassa is opening the RAW file and unable to apply the camera settings.

Kurt

I agree heartily that Irfanview is a nifty little program and I also use it as my main double click viewer for jpgs. I also use it as my editing software for "fun shots", i.e. jpgs taken with my P&S camera(s) or my phone, party shots taken only for posting on the Internet, etc. There are some good plugins available too, like AltaLux, which I downloaded the other day at the recommendation of a friend (also free - give it a shot if you haven't tried it)

I have never actually used Irfanview as a raw converter (I use Lightroom or CS5 for that), but I think you may be right about Irfanview just opening the embedded jpg.

Strangely, however, if you look at the Irfanview list of supported formats (help menu), it says that it supports "Digital camera RAW formats (Adobe, Epson, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, Fuji, Kodak, Sony, Pentax, Sigma)" but also says in a footnote that "PlugIn is required for these formats, see above for download". This is actually a bit misleading if it is only opening the embedded jpgs. Hmmmm....

Thanks for the input.

--
Shooting since '59 and still waiting for a keeper

I don't think this is off topic at all. Software defaults are camera dependent. What works with minimal effort for Pentax is not necessarily what works for Canon or Nikon.

I was disappointed that Silkypix wasnt included in DPR's test; it meets their criteria, and from anything I've seen is the best at translating Pentax IQ. Have you tried Pentax DCU4 conversion on your raw file? I expect that Reversal Film image tone would be a good match for this photo. Landscape would be good too, but more subtle.

I'm quietly furious that Pentax has dropped DCU4 in favour of Silkypix Developer Studio 3.0 for the Q, K-30 and K-01. I expect the next bodies will follow suite. I bought Lightroom 4 shortly after my K-01 arrived, because the supplied Silkypix Developer interface is absurd. I was comfortable with DCU4 because it mimicked the controls on the camera, with which I am very familiar, and it translates Pentax IQ better than Adobe. However, I am not prepared to learn new software with any future cameras. I will make do with Lightroom because the price was right and it's the market leader, with tons of tutorials and support readily available.

--
Dan

Pentax Forums might be interviewing Pentax execs in near future and are taking questions from Pentax shooters to ask the execs. Perhaps a few good questions about DCU4 and Silkypix would be well timed about now?

--
History would be something extraordinary, if only it were true. Leo Tolstoy
Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media.
Noam Chomsky
Science... became scientism, which means it didn't just pursue its own truths, it aggressively denied that there were any other truths at all... Ken Wilbur
At any given moment, there is a sort of all pervading orthodoxy, a general tacit
agreement not to discuss large and uncomfortable facts… Anyone who
challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising
effectiveness. - George Orwell
“It's not a matter of whether the war is not real, or if it is, Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. … The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over [the purported enemy], but to keep the very structure of society intact.” George Orwell, 1984

See my response to your earlier post. I don't open the Raw file with Irfanview. I import all shots into Lightroom and make the basic adjustments on import (WB where needed, straightening, minor cropping of intrusive stuff, and applying a simple preset (of my own) to for slight sharpening and contrast so that I can see a "ballpark" version of what the image may look like when I eventually get around to processing. This is also the stage where the "delete" button gets most of its use.

I don't want to make this basic preset I mentioned too complicated because I want it to apply to ALL the shots (or virtually all of them).

Sometimes weeks will then pass before I find the time to do any "real" processing (winter work).

Which brings me to the problem I so clumsily tried to explain in my OP:

Suppose someone now asks me on a thread like this to post one of these shots (that I haven't got round to processing fully) and I don't have the time to spend 15-20 minutes processing a single shot before posting. Then I just export to jpg in full size (with my basic adjustments), open the jpg  in Irfanview, hit "auto adjust colors", resize and post. Takes 2 minutes max (assuming auto adjust does not cock things up royally).

So to my original question then: Have any of you found any way to do this in Lightroom, either by using a universal preset (probably impossible) or some plug-in that I have not found (yet)?

I should mention that I have hundreds of presets posted by professional Lightroom users on lightroompresets.com, onone software etc. etc. I have not tried ALL of them, but they are mostly intended for specific uses (B&W, etc. etc.)

--
Shooting since '59 and still waiting for a keeper

No one had replied in 6 hours, and well, it was a snarky way of saying hi, good to see you, and bumping you back to the top.

The quote below sums up what I've heard about Picasa "conversion". Picasa is not a raw convertor. You are not working on the 12-bit raw file, you are working on an 8-bit default jpeg conversion:

"Picasa supports raw data by immediately doing a fully automatic conversion to 8 bit data from the raw data with no input from you. You have no way to influence the raw conversion to JPEG. This pretty much eliminates the main reason you would shoot raw. A “real” raw processor requires that you get involved with the conversion process, helping to decide how to map those 12/14-bit color raw data into 8-bit color JPEG. What color balance should be used, etc. etc."

http://sergiy.kyrylkov.name/2012/07/14/picasa-for-raw-images-why-lightroom-is-better-for-raw/

--
Dan

Insofar as the Irfanview version is punchier it's a bit better, but for me it's too punchy; and it's lost colour from the sky.

If, as tr4driver says, Irfanview just uses the in-camera JPG thumbnail you can skip LR and shoot RAW+ and upload the JPGs.

You can see if this is true - put the camera on a tripod pointing at pretty well anything.  Take a shot in DNG.  Then change JPG settings - anything will do but make it obvious - and shoot again.  If you open in LR both shots should be the same.  If the Irfanview versions are different they must be using JPGs and you haven't saved a JPG so it must be the embedded versios.

I set my defaults so I can use them as a basis for PP, so it would be surprising if they give perfect results.  However, as long as the scene has no extemes of contrast and I got the exposure right I don't usually take more than a minute or two in post.

My defaults are to use the Embedded (Pentax) colour profile and lens profiles, with WB set to "As Shot" and all other settings at zero except contrast (+10) and clarity (+15).

I can get close but not exact from these tiny versions.  Send me the raw file if you can - my ISP has a fairly small gateway so I don't think I can get a full DNG but in ACR I think you can save it at lower resolution so it might get through.  Or use DropBox https://www.dropbox.com/install

I use ACR7 so my settings aren't the same as you'd use bu ttwhat I did was boost exposure by 1/2 stop, contrast +40%, +saturation 30%.  Then I reduced shadows -40%, which your version can't do; you might reduce brightness by about 40%.  Finally, I did a WB on the sky, which altered the foliage colours to nearer the Irfanview version.

--
---
Gerry
_______________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne

Precisely!

I find that Irfanview often does a better job than Picasa, but not always.

I am not entirely sure "I'm feeling lucky" changes WB, but you are right about the other three. Irfanview/Picasa will also lighten very dark images and darken very light ones - which is not always what we want. In addition, both programs seem to have some sort of "recognition" algorithm (I'm out of my depth using words like "algorithm") so that different changes are made to different images (portraits, landscapes, seascapes, lots of sky, lots of ocean etc. etc. - hence the "I'm feeling lucky" name).

find that Irfanview does the job 90% of the time for casual Internet posting (Facebook etc.), even though I would never use it as my primary processing software for what I will pompously call my "keepers" (see my line below).

Back to my question: Is there a way to avoid this Irfanview/Picasa step in order to enable casual posting directly from Lightroom?

--
Shooting since '59 and still waiting for a keeper