Current State-of-the-Art in SPP Processing Alternatives?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
EEvan
EEvan Regular Member • Posts: 298
Re: Let's cut to the Chase
1

geni1105 wrote:

TN Args wrote:

geni1105 wrote:

TN Args wrote:

geni1105 wrote:

brendanpaxton wrote:

I agree with you on the SPP comments. The amount of work just reading through the insane chaos of this thread of alternatives when you could literally just batch convert to TIFF in SPP with zero issues is absolutely mind-boggling.

People will seriously kill themselves reinventing the wheel. "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

Of course you can batch convert to TIFF, but then you are stuck with the same settings for all files. Using Kalpanika avoids that and gives an easy way to use at least Lightroom / ACR instead of SPP.

And yes, the wheel is broken at least for some of us. YMMV.

So you reckon a 16 bit TIFF file can’t be edited? Interesting.

Even for WB, I expect a batch edit on Auto WB will be close enough that it can be edited with comfort.

That’s not what I say, obviously.

But when batch converting to TIFF, SPP applies changes that some might like to avoid - sharpening, fill light, … - and again, identical processing is applied to all files.

I set sharpening to -2.0 (the lowest, and effectively off), NRL to 0.0 (the lowest, ditto) and NRC to default (0.5), and the biggest colour space. Everything else is on default (effectively off).

I prefer to work with the (nearly) raw pixels of the DNGs.

I reckon you are trading an idealistic notion of 'rawness' for an actually lesser quality image file.

12 bit DNG vs 14 bit X3F

Note the colour noise coming out of the DNG files https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59030911

And wherever one chooses to significantly underexpose their images then try to recover the brightness in PP, the risk is there of more shadow noise in DNG compared to X3F.

Finally, note that Sigma themselves have stated that the DNG is the lower quality image file, because it *is* processed, despite your claim of rawness, and its processing is done with the more limited camera processor and with a strict time limit (for camera functionality), compared with the extra desktop power that is available when you put an X3F through SPP.

cheers

I am not talking about Sigma DNGs. I am talking about Kalpanika, an entirely different thing and not affected by „limited camera processor“.

Also how do you know that those SPP settings are „essentially off“?

Anyway, everyone to his/her liking. If your workflow works for you - fine. I chose a different one.

Also to defend Kalpanika, you can look at the code, and if you turn off noise reduction (Which you shouldn't) it basically stores the RAW values directly. So there really isn't any meaningful loss. And I didn't find any dramatic differences when I was trying to convince myself it was worthwhile:

Where I compared pushing the images across the range to see how much shadow or highlight penalty there was.

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