Basic Photoshop settings for RAW JPEG conversion.. EX2F?

Petak wrote:

ttbek wrote:

I personally feel like some of your metrics were subjective rather than objective and that 100% doesn't do anyone favors when they're trying to pick out the very small artifacts/flaws in the renderings. I don't think my posting another image will wind up being constructive but rather degenerate into subjective measures of image quality. I can do it later if you insist though.

Which of my "metrics" are subjective?

Pretty much all of them unless you're also proposing a good way for us to measure cleanness, smoothness, detail, magenta and halo sharpening, and color separation.  As long as we're just eyeballing them it's subjective.

Are you really going to claim that of the two samples I posted the RT one subjectively or objectively better?

I can't even tell you which one is the RT one as you didn't label them.  My best guess is the one without the EXIF data?

Furthermore, I am posting 100% samples because they do not contain additional artefacts from up-sizing - you are the firs person to claim that up-sizing does not introduce such.

It's a pixel level representation, of course there aren't artifacts.  In upscaling things are taken further than this, the pixels are not merely enlarged as they are here, they are subdivided to a higher resolution and interpolation is done to pick the color.  That has not been done here.

Even at 100% the LR processed raw file is clearly and objectively

Again, do you have a yardstick for this?  What qualifies as an artifact and what does not?  How many does each have?  This is not objective.

of higher quality. I would be really interested to see if RT would be able to match this even after spending time adjusting the default rendering. I will be even more intrigued if you are able to post samples which display RT's "absolute quality" (an objective

What I said is not only not objective, it's also not even a metric.  Don't put words in my mouth.

metric used by you BTW).