Make sure you download LZ beta that has amd64 by it, I assume that your machine is 64 bit.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Okay, Ollie 2 and Just a Photographer are correct. Let's talk about this now.
- Thread starter mistermejia
- Start date
John Carson
Veteran Member
Learning and experimenting needn't involve a rush to ill-informed and erroneous judgment, still less the broadcasting of that ill-informed and erroneous judgment over the Internet.You know, that is also called learning and experimenting with new things, and admitting that all things are not the same
nearly-an-old-codger
Veteran Member
Ollie 2
Senior Member
Because the rant is primary. Learning is a dismissed distant cousin.
mistermejia
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 3,340
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 650
Whose fault is it? I don't know. All i know is that i have discovered that this Xtrans **** is VERY CHAOTIC.flbrit said:
LR5 is not that bad, it has definitely one of the fastest and easiest workflow, and it has the best highlight recovery. But now i know there is a differences among several raw converters and LR is not the best for colors and detail. I do agree with that now.
Like some folks have said, i guess you have to find what's best for yourself, but you will have to sacrifice one thing of the other, and it sounds to me like there is no perfect all-in-one raw converter, at least not for a PC
Here are some xtrans files with LR5. For sure, my S5 makes nicer images than this i will say.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
Elyharbour
Veteran Member
Ah, that may be it. I assumed that the amd64 version was for AMD processors only. I'll try it.
Isn't it amazing what people would reveal on DPR. What you did is likely a fraud, and definitely a douchy behavior.This last couple days have been a real eye opening. At least i did returned LR5 to get my $78 refund. But of course i did leave the software in my PC
The less you say about the main subject of the thread the better...
Last edited:
Elyharbour
Veteran Member
This reply from Tex is in my opinion some of the best advice I've seen on the RAW vs. JPEG debate and the use / relative merits of RAW converters. I'd pretty much stopped using RAW on my X20 and XF-1 as I knew what the JPEGs could do, and it was often difficult to better them with LR. But with my X-E1 arriving two weeks ago, I've gone back to RAW + JPEG for the reasons Tex outlines. In fact, I think with the X-E1 I may well go back to a RAW workflow as the norm...but it's still early days.
However, I digress. The most important statement here is:
"Also, remember that LightZone does the absolute minimum to your raw files when converting them, just enough so you can actually see them in the editor window. They should look rather "blah" when you first see them. All the tools that you need to process your file to your liking must be brought into the tool stack by you, and manipulated. Some have no "setting" at all, you must do that. The Relight tool does roll out "hot" however, as do all of the "styles". Other tools have extremely light settings. LightZone is a bit different in this regard---other converters/editors may show your image with non-neutral settings designed to emulate the embedded jpeg's "look". Beware of this with other software"
Many people seem to think that a RAW converter can be evaluated by it's default image (other threads and posts in the last week). Nothing could be further from the truth. And therein lies the problem. Until the user/reviewer has become experienced in the using the software, true comparisons cannot be made, and even then it's not a direct comparison but "the best I know how to do" with each of the converters.
Over the weekend I evaluated LR5, PhotoNinja, Capture One and LZ with a few X20/X-E1 RAWs. The first one (average lighting and lots of green foliage), PN was "WOW" straight off and the best I've ever seen with an X20 file. Based on this I was reaching for my credit card. The next shot with high DR (sunset in a yacht marina) the default output from PN was by far the worst of the bunch. Which is correct? Neither. I was impressed by PN, and also an LZ produced TIFF further processed by LR5. But these were just two files, and limited knowledge on how to use the programs. It'll take me at least the 30-day trial period and lots of work to decide if any of the alternatives to LR, or a hybrid workflow, are worthwhile.
Elyharbour
Veteran Member
Yup, that seems to be it. Can open and edit now. Thanks. I should have tried that earlier.
Fabio Amodeo
Senior Member
We knew they had nothing to do with reality. Kodak research spent huge amounts of money to get what people wanted in their snapshots: redder reds, bluer skies, a decent rendering of skin. Commercial prints were useless if you wanted a realistic palette: you had to have custom prints made, at a relevant cost.
The question with RAW converters is just the same. Do you want photos that pop? Shoot jpegs, choose Velvia style and if that's not enough open the thing in Photoshop e push up vibrance. Do you want more control on your images? Whites and greys without colour contamination? Then shoot RAW, and choose carefully the editor/translator so that it responds to your needs and your subject. In case you are not sure, use the RAW converter just to tune whites and greys and get a low contrast image (with histogram well within the limits) and do the rest of the job in Photoshop.
There are so many parameters involved in the process that it does not make sense to try to compare converters. Sometimes I read “converted with default parameters” which is absolute nonsense. It's like testing a car without turning the engine on. The parameters are there to be used: and the “default” chosen by the software writer could just be the worst possible solution. There is no alternative to testing a converter, spending a few hours getting used to it (that's what winter evenings were made for) and gaining a decent palette of solutions. I would not use the same converter for portraits and for landscape with a lot of different greens. And the reproduction of artwork (including historical architecture) poses completely different problems. X-Trans sensors have in my experience one fundamental advantage: you can open the shadows, and the image will always behave well (that's why Fuji cameras underexpose by default). The second advantage is the palette of greens (if you stay away from Adobe translators) which makes the foliage shot with my Nikon cameras look plasticky. You can work to enhance those advantages, or work to lose them. It's up to the photographer to decide. There is no easy solution, as there has never been in photography.
The question with RAW converters is just the same. Do you want photos that pop? Shoot jpegs, choose Velvia style and if that's not enough open the thing in Photoshop e push up vibrance. Do you want more control on your images? Whites and greys without colour contamination? Then shoot RAW, and choose carefully the editor/translator so that it responds to your needs and your subject. In case you are not sure, use the RAW converter just to tune whites and greys and get a low contrast image (with histogram well within the limits) and do the rest of the job in Photoshop.
There are so many parameters involved in the process that it does not make sense to try to compare converters. Sometimes I read “converted with default parameters” which is absolute nonsense. It's like testing a car without turning the engine on. The parameters are there to be used: and the “default” chosen by the software writer could just be the worst possible solution. There is no alternative to testing a converter, spending a few hours getting used to it (that's what winter evenings were made for) and gaining a decent palette of solutions. I would not use the same converter for portraits and for landscape with a lot of different greens. And the reproduction of artwork (including historical architecture) poses completely different problems. X-Trans sensors have in my experience one fundamental advantage: you can open the shadows, and the image will always behave well (that's why Fuji cameras underexpose by default). The second advantage is the palette of greens (if you stay away from Adobe translators) which makes the foliage shot with my Nikon cameras look plasticky. You can work to enhance those advantages, or work to lose them. It's up to the photographer to decide. There is no easy solution, as there has never been in photography.
Has anybody thought about what it will look like when the 5K super-retina displays are available?
With a full-sized JPG and a RAW displayed on similar displays side by side, will we still see differences in quality then?
I would think that even then the viewing distance wouldn't change and at a two feet distance the difference between JPG or RAW or between different flavours of RAW (whichever software you use to convert) would still be hard to spot.
All my work shooting professionally with Canons have been JPG. Only now in my personal work with the Fuji X cameras have I tried RAW and with the enthusiasm in these forums I too have tried ACR, Iridient, Perfect Effects & Photo Ninja.
Frankly when I use any of these or just JPG my intention and target is the web so it isn't critical for me to achieve absolutely perfect looking pixels. I would choose to convert from RAW as a respect to someone who wants to purchase a 16x24 inch print from me of course. Very rare unfortunately.
Recently I posted two threads of photos from JPG and RAW (ACR, Iridient & Photo Ninja) and I believe the images can be enjoyed without any bias.
Street BW from JPGs as good as RAW: Fujifilm X System / SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Street Colour from JPGs & RAWs: Fujifilm X System / SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
-gerald
500px / Gerald Gay / Thaipusam, Singapore
With a full-sized JPG and a RAW displayed on similar displays side by side, will we still see differences in quality then?
I would think that even then the viewing distance wouldn't change and at a two feet distance the difference between JPG or RAW or between different flavours of RAW (whichever software you use to convert) would still be hard to spot.
All my work shooting professionally with Canons have been JPG. Only now in my personal work with the Fuji X cameras have I tried RAW and with the enthusiasm in these forums I too have tried ACR, Iridient, Perfect Effects & Photo Ninja.
Frankly when I use any of these or just JPG my intention and target is the web so it isn't critical for me to achieve absolutely perfect looking pixels. I would choose to convert from RAW as a respect to someone who wants to purchase a 16x24 inch print from me of course. Very rare unfortunately.
Recently I posted two threads of photos from JPG and RAW (ACR, Iridient & Photo Ninja) and I believe the images can be enjoyed without any bias.
Street BW from JPGs as good as RAW: Fujifilm X System / SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Street Colour from JPGs & RAWs: Fujifilm X System / SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
-gerald
500px / Gerald Gay / Thaipusam, Singapore
Last edited:
jpartlo
Senior Member
Les Lammers
Veteran Member
Sums it up nicely. We have much more image control at our finger tips with digital than we did with film. There are many different image processing programs to choose from that do an excellent job.
G
griddi
Guest
Isn't it amazing what people would reveal on DPR. What you did is likely a fraud, and definitely a douchy behavior.This last couple days have been a real eye opening. At least i did returned LR5 to get my $78 refund. But of course i did leave the software in my PC
The less you say about the main subject of the thread the better...
....and then boosting as well, how clever he was........
Griddi.......
Ollie 2
Senior Member
Bizarre thing to actually brag about.......and then boosting as well, how clever he was........Isn't it amazing what people would reveal on DPR. What you did is likely a fraud, and definitely a douchy behavior.This last couple days have been a real eye opening. At least i did returned LR5 to get my $78 refund. But of course i did leave the software in my PC
The less you say about the main subject of the thread the better...
Griddi.......
Oh, it will look just fine on a 4K screen too.
The root problem is DPR Forums are full of people with too much time and too much disposable income. That's why we see these ad-nauseaum discussions of whether Irident is better than Lightroom or Lightzone, or whatever, and how if you are not adjusting your images in PS, you are not making the best out of your expensive camera. 99.9% of the time its not the post processing that's at fault. If someone wants to spend hours getting the foliage right on a boring shot, be my guest, but please don't sucker other people into thinking that if you use the latest and greatest niche RAW developer their photos would magically appear so much better. No. they won't! If you improve per-pixel sharpness of a cr&ppy photo, its still a cr&ppy photo. Its a peculiar disease of the digital age, people doing professional level treatment on mediocre junk.
Yes, every workflow is a compromise, just pick something that fits your style. But keep in mind that every hour you spend transferring files from Irident to Photoshop and then back to something else is time that you cannot spend shooting, or being with your family. And you don't do your equipment justice by post-processing the images for an hour, you do it justice by getting out and shooting good pictures hat tell a story, and that capture the feeling of the moment. Unfortnately, pixels at 200 percent carry no feelings, otherwise DPR Forums will be full of prize-winners every day.
P.S. BTW, Instagram has democratized image processing to the extent that no one is particularly appreciative of your photoshop skills anyway...
The root problem is DPR Forums are full of people with too much time and too much disposable income. That's why we see these ad-nauseaum discussions of whether Irident is better than Lightroom or Lightzone, or whatever, and how if you are not adjusting your images in PS, you are not making the best out of your expensive camera. 99.9% of the time its not the post processing that's at fault. If someone wants to spend hours getting the foliage right on a boring shot, be my guest, but please don't sucker other people into thinking that if you use the latest and greatest niche RAW developer their photos would magically appear so much better. No. they won't! If you improve per-pixel sharpness of a cr&ppy photo, its still a cr&ppy photo. Its a peculiar disease of the digital age, people doing professional level treatment on mediocre junk.
Yes, every workflow is a compromise, just pick something that fits your style. But keep in mind that every hour you spend transferring files from Irident to Photoshop and then back to something else is time that you cannot spend shooting, or being with your family. And you don't do your equipment justice by post-processing the images for an hour, you do it justice by getting out and shooting good pictures hat tell a story, and that capture the feeling of the moment. Unfortnately, pixels at 200 percent carry no feelings, otherwise DPR Forums will be full of prize-winners every day.
P.S. BTW, Instagram has democratized image processing to the extent that no one is particularly appreciative of your photoshop skills anyway...
mistermejia
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 3,340
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 650
Dude, relax, i was just kidding. For your information i didn't return it because it is very useful for my S5 files.Isn't it amazing what people would reveal on DPR. What you did is likely a fraud, and definitely a douchy behavior.This last couple days have been a real eye opening. At least i did returned LR5 to get my $78 refund. But of course i did leave the software in my PC
The less you say about the main subject of the thread the better...
Last edited:
John Carson
Veteran Member
It is hard to take a cr&ppy photo of beautiful scenery and wanting the detail of that scenery to be accurately reflected in the photograph is an entirely reasonable aspiration.
--
john carson
Oh, believe me, its not that hard and most people manage to do it just fine
And, yes, its a reasonable aspiration to capture fine detail, but sadly it won't make much difference in the perception of the photo. I would be much less worried about the fine details in the foliage (seriously?) than in capturing the light and mood of a scene. Can you show me the photo where fine foliage detail makes the image work? Maybe a shot of amazonian rainforest, but even then, I bet that one bright parrot in the corner of an image would make a much bigger visual impact.... My point was that most of the photos people take do not deserve the state-of-the-art RAW development treatment. Most of photos that I see at 200% are either the endless "comparison tests" or boring "out of the window" shots with the attached comment of "look how bitingly sharp my new lens X is". Who cares...
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum