Editing a RAW image

Started Aug 22, 2022 | Discussions thread
AlwynS Veteran Member • Posts: 4,555
Re: Editing a RAW image

Digital Nigel wrote:

AlwynS wrote:

cheddarman wrote:

Hey guts, some AMAZING results there, many thanks for taking the time.

I was shooting RAW + JPEG on my RX10M4. When I went to post the image to DropBox it ws in my Photos (MBP computer). I said to export original image to my desktop (without any of the processing I had done) but on my Desktop there were two images, a RAW and a JPEG. I thought I'd only loaded the RAW up to DropBox but seems they were locked together.

The only half decent software I have is the free Capture One 22 for Sony which someone on here suggested I got, but I'm still a complete novice using it.

That someone was likely me!

I did a quick C1 Express edit with the original RAW. Recognising that this type of image is pretty much a "worst case" for C1. The result is certainly not great but, in this instance, I must say I was surprised to see that the results were not dramatically worse than PL5 + DeepPrime:

The clear winner (no pun intended... yeah, right! ) is obviously PL5 + Topaz. But recognise that now you are talking about over $400 worth of software (at regular pricing) compared to free software. Given the very marked improvement that Topaz rendered to the PL5 only image, I suspect that the C1 image could likewise have been further enhanced using Topaz.

FWIW. IN THIS INSTANCE, I actually think the free C1 stood up rather well. As mentioned: I think this image is very difficult for C1. In 99.6% ( ) of my 100,000+ more "normal" photographs I have put through C1, the results have been way, way better.

I compared that C1 version with PL5:

C1 Express vs PL5. What's gone wrong with the C1 edges?

I'm not so sure that the C1 version has stood up at all well. What's gone wrong with the wings? The brown colour has leaked into the background. And look at the loss of detail in the feet. And, as Tom pointed out, there are unpleasant sharpening artefacts all round the bird in the C1 version (and no artefacts at all in the PL rendering). Are these problems inherent in all C1 renderings, or just because of the use of heavy NR in this image?

Sorry, posted the wrong one of two images. And yes, NR was way overdone. This is the bit more representative image combined with the PL only image:

In any case:  I have previously stated in the other thread where we discussed the two that I consider PL5 superior in terms of noise reduction and "edge of frame recovery". And in this case I am not disputing that there was never any doubt that the PL5 image is superior. In this case, the advantage is curiously particularly noticeable in sharpening/recovering detail. However: if you view at 100% (not 200%), the C1 image is "less bad" in terms of noise than PL5 than I anticipated with this image. That was what I meant by standing up well.

But for sure: when you look at 200% you clearly see artifacts in the C1 image. But I typically do not even do that with my images taken under good conditions, never mind ones that start off needing remedial work due to the circumstances.

-- hide signature --


 AlwynS's gear list:AlwynS's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P610 Sony RX10 IV
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow