JPG or RAW? What's up?

Here's my WB correction:



****

Very good, indeed ,****!

Care to share the workflow with the forum? Oh, and one more thing,...how long did it take you to get this result!

Thanks in advance.

--
Cheers, Feri

'I can look at a fine photograph and sometimes I can hear music. Ansel Adams.'

Wow, ****, that's really impressive !!!
I tried myself, but gave up : my results were pathetic !

Like Feri, I would be very interested in the method you followed to get this impressive result.
Regards.
André

I've learned here that sharpness and detail are not always what makes a good picture, and that color is often the most important thing.

I must confess I am a little bit obsessed by details rendering, and don't pay enough attention to color.

So, I did a comparison between the raw converters I have and the jpeg out of cam of the A2.

Nothing scientific : just took a picture in a small garden, processed with default settings, reduced to 55% (to avoid pixel peeping on 100% pictures), and croped, in order to keep a red flower and its stem.
Pictures in next post.

Note that what I call "ACR best" is ACR with Gideon's settings in order to optimize color rendering.

My personal conclusion is that the best color rendering is the jpeg, followed by Dimage viewer (wich, surprisingly, is slightly different), then Silkypix (I only have the free version). ACR is the worst.
But your perception may differ.
Regards
André

Here we go :



What do you think ?
André

Hi André,

An interesting question, indeed.

First I didn't quite understand why the out-of-cam jpg looks better that aal the other RAW converted images, then I came to the conclusion (after reading your post more carefully) that you have applied default settings in all of the RAW converters.

André, default means in case of curves that the RAW converter sets a linear curve for the image. Now if you go back to ACR (for example) and click on the curve tab you will see that you have four option: linear, medium contrast, strong contrast and custom. Don't use linear coz you'll get a dull output. Try medium or strong, and if you still don't like them you can have the chance to do a custom curve to taste.

On the otherhand, the in-camera image processor does apply an s-curve on the image before the jpg compression takes place.

Whaddaya think? ;-)

--
Cheers, Feri

'I can look at a fine photograph and sometimes I can hear music. Ansel Adams.'

I'm very happy that I have not been conned into thinking that ACR is worth anything more than a spit!
--
Cheers! Robert..

Read this thread with great interest but have to admit that the comparision has lost me - don't quite see the significance of "default" settings. Surely the purpose of using ACR or any other RAW convertor is that the image is as "tweakable" as the user chooses ?

Personally I now use CS3/ACR4.0 & find it excellent

simon

--
http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com/

North Wales photographs - Snowdonia & Anglesey

Ferenc MOGOR said:

André, default means in case of curves that the RAW converter sets
a linear curve for the image. Now if you go back to ACR (for
example) and click on the curve tab you will see that you have four
option: linear, medium contrast, strong contrast and custom. Don't
use linear coz you'll get a dull output. Try medium or strong, and
if you still don't like them you can have the chance to do a custom
curve to taste.

On the otherhand, the in-camera image processor does apply an
s-curve on the image before the jpg compression takes place.

Whaddaya think? ;-)

Click to expand...

Feri, ACR's default setting is medium contrast, not linear. It does apply an S-curve.

--
Gideon



PAW - Week 32

Gideon,

I stand corrected, ...yes, it's medium contrast, ...but it seems it's still not enough, ...I do play with curves in ACR a lot and to me the initial settings are far from being satisfactory.

Just do it!

--
Cheers, Feri

'I can look at a fine photograph and sometimes I can hear music. Ansel Adams.'

Interesting experiment, André.

To me the Silkypix image looks the cleanest and most detailed. A little shot of contrast would have fixed the colour, too, IMO.
RSE is not bad, but there's no future to it.

My disenchantment with ACR stays unwavering. BTW, I'd call my calibration settings "ACR Better". "ACR Best" is a little presumptuous.

I'm tempted to do this sort of experiment myself one of these days.

--
Gideon



PAW - Week 32

simonkit said:

Read this thread with great interest but have to admit that the
comparision has lost me - don't quite see the significance of
"default" settings. Surely the purpose of using ACR or any other
RAW convertor is that the image is as "tweakable" as the user
chooses ?

Click to expand...

I agree 100% here. Default settings or auto conversion settings are irrelevant to real world use.

--
Greg

When you've got a moment, have a look at my newly updated site:
http://www.wrightphotos.co.uk
also http://www.wrightphotos.co.uk/FromeInFocus

Winner of the South West Rural section of the BBC's Picture of Britain Competition.

I'm also a little lost myself! Most folks here have voiced their preferences based on how fast and easy the process is! I must be missing something..
--
Cheers! Robert..

Staxis said:

simonkit said:

Read this thread with great interest but have to admit that the
comparision has lost me - don't quite see the significance of
"default" settings. Surely the purpose of using ACR or any other
RAW convertor is that the image is as "tweakable" as the user
chooses ?

Click to expand...

I agree 100% here. Default settings or auto conversion settings
are irrelevant to real world use.

Click to expand...

I agree, though not completely. I resent the idea of having to deal with every individual image, or even groups of images. Too much time consuming for me. In my chosen converter I would like to arrrive at my own custom-default settings, such that I can save and apply to, say, 80% of my conversions with satisfactory results. I'm fine with tweaking about 20% of my pictures.

I WOULD expect those PERSONAL default settings to give me a better result than the camera's JPG.

André's test shows me that Silkypix could well be the converter I'd best expect to afford me my aspirations.

So the comparison I would do would be between these "one size fits most" personal settings, and not the software's default.
"Real world" is a subjective notion.

--
Gideon



PAW - Week 32

Yeah, not alone...with all this comparison of raw converters and methods no one has compared Bibble...any reason for this bearing in mind I'm still at the top of my learning iceberg.
--
Fred, KM A2 and F30
'Your best Photo should be viewed with a biased eye'
http://coolsiggy.smugmug.com/

Hello,
Thank you for your comments.
Just a few precisions :

1/ I performed this "test" for myself, to compare the color rendering of the raw converters I have installed on my computer, specially reds and greens. Having done the job, I thought it could be useful to share the results with you. You can find it useless, and pass on : no problem.

2/ I don't have all converters installed on my computer. So, I didn't try Bibble or other converters.
3/ Yes, I used default settings. For several reasons :

a) I expect a raw converter to be able to process my raw pictures with a decent result, colorwise. I don't expect perfect colors at default settings, but, as I said, "decent". That's the case with some converters, not all.

b) Of course, all the available settings in some converters allow us to get a far more satisfaying picture than the default ones. But, as Gideon said, I expect an acceptable result by default. When, for example, I look at the default reds and greens in ACR, I suppose Adobe did a crappy job when programming the mrw converter. I don't have another camera to compare, but I'm sure the red and green rendering of ACR is excellent with other raw files.

c) I know about the default curve used in ACR : moderate "S" type. I leave it as it is for some pictures, and choose increased contrast for others.

4/ For some of us, color rendering is the most important feature of a converter, for others, it's details and noise. But there are other elements to take into account : ergonomy, speed, price, In that respect, no converter is, for me, entirely satisfying. But that's normal : we have to accept compromises.

5/ We all love "Minolta colors". The A2's jpeg engine has been critisized many times. But the colors are not that bad. I can say they are very accurate (provided WB is not completely off, of course). Now, depending on the style of the pictures we want to achieve, we may prefer appealing colors instead of accurate colors. That's another debate.
Regards.
André

Gideon01 said:

"Real world" is a subjective notion.

Click to expand...

Quite right. There are probably as many real world workflows for RAW converters as there are photographers who use them.

--
Greg

When you've got a moment, have a look at my newly updated site:
http://www.wrightphotos.co.uk
also http://www.wrightphotos.co.uk/FromeInFocus

Winner of the South West Rural section of the BBC's Picture of Britain Competition.

andrbar wrote:
[snip]

André BARELIER said:

When, for example, I look at the default reds and greens in ACR, I
suppose Adobe did a crappy job when programming the mrw converter.
I don't have another camera to compare, but I'm sure the red and
green rendering of ACR is excellent with other raw files.

Click to expand...

It's not. It's the same cr@p with all RAW files. It's all over the DPR forums and the web, if you just care to look. It's been discussed openly even in the Adobe site's users' forums. Google "reds acr" and see what you get. It's the same story again and again - orange poppies in yellow grass. It's a sorry joke.

LightRoom and Photoshop are (potentially) a formidable digital workflow solution. Fast. Powerful. Elegant. The best there is.

But it's like having a chauffeured limousine that will always luxuriously glide you to the vicinity of your destination, but never actually get you there.

--
Gideon



PAW - Week 32

Gideon01 said:

But it's like having a chauffeured limousine that will always
luxuriously glide you to the vicinity of your destination, but
never actually get you there.

Click to expand...

Well, Gideon, you have a great sense of humor ! We're speaking of comparison, aren't we ? Good one !
Regards
André

Hi André,

While I always do respect and appreciate your careful comparision efforts, and I know it helps a lot of us when we want to see the performance of different RAW converters, I think the reasonable approach would be to take out the out-of-cam jpg test sample and compare the RAW converters to each other with each set to default values. Please note: these will still be just intermediate stages and not final results.

Another good approach would be to finish the tweakings in each RAW converter (stretch the histograms) and then compare the outputs with the in-cam jpg image.

Comparing RAW converters' defaults to finished jpgs can be a bit mis-leading, IMHO.

Whaddaya think? ;-)

--
Cheers, Feri

'I can look at a fine photograph and sometimes I can hear music. Ansel Adams.'