Why bother changing base ISO?

Started Jul 18, 2007 | Discussions thread
Tom Christiansen Senior Member • Posts: 2,239
Succinct poster case for ACR inferiority

cycle61 wrote:

Looks like a good raw converter has a lot to do with final image
quality. Here's the underexposed ISO 100 shot pushed three stops,
courtesy of RAWMagick vs ACR

The RAWMagick version has less noise in the sky, better detail in the
shadows, a little less contrasty and maybe more chroma noise (look
at the wall) but far more accurate and pleasing overall.

Wow. That's extremely revealing; convincing, even.

ACR is doing a poor job here with respect to what RML is doing.
I imagine the RML image was generated using the slowest,
highest-quality rendering. But that's ok, because it gives you
chance to let your processor put in more time working on it so
you can get out a superior result. There's something satisfying
about the equation "more work equals better output"; that's how
it should be, of course, but as it so often doesn't make a difference,
it's refreshing to encounter a case where it does. Shows that
the coder(s) knew what they were doing, and cared enough to
put in the work up front to write strong code.

This is a good demo page for the next time someone advocates
ACR as a fine raw processor, eschewing NC, NX, or anthing else.
It's a pretty solid and stark comparison, albeit with RML not N[CX].

Thanks for posting these.

-- hide signature --


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow