The K3 III in the comparison tool

flektogon wrote:

Hello MPM2,

I know that somehow this entire raw processing "business" has to be resolved.

Peter,

Not really.  Some prefer shooting JPEG OOC others prefer RAW processing.  Both are fine and neither result in an "absolute" result.

But image the following scenario:

Which I find does not match my experience...

- You have two (different) photo editors, and you will start with the first one

- You open the raw file in the photo editor. At first, for a fraction of second you will see the bitmap image generated from the jpeg file, which your camera created (based on the jpeg settings in your camera). Such jpeg file with a limited size always accompanies the raw data.

Not for me.  LR pre-generate the preview image and does not use the embedded JPEG.

Note that I do not care about the camera's JPEG processing.  I tried shooting RAW+JPEG for a while with the idea that 90% of the JPEGs would be acceptable to me and I would only need to process the other 10%.  In the end I was processing over 50%, so I don't use the camera's JPEG as a reference.

- Then the bitmap image (derived from the jpeg file created by your camera) is replaced with a "dull" looking bitmap image, which is the "personal" interpretation of the raw data. It is personal to the used photo editor.

I know what you are trying to say but I would say the JPEG is the personal interpretation based on the many settings that you tweaked in the camera.

Since LR ignores most if not all camera process settings, what you initially see is what the camera actually captured.  With DCU, for example, which applies processing parameters by default, you can turn this off.

But yes, different softwares have different processing engines.

- Based on what you see on the monitor you make adjustments of all needed image parameters and you will save the post-process file. I usually create a new jpeg file, as I want to preserve the original raw image.

Well you would always created a new (JPEG TIFF, ...) image.  Over-writing the original RAW file is against the whole point (or original JPEG for that matter if that is what I was shooting).  In LR to overwrite the original would take very deliberate effort.

This jpeg file is result of my "endeavour" and this file I will be using for viewing/printing, etc.

"Endeavour" based on incredible skill and experience

- Now you open the raw file be the second editor. You will be tweaking another "dull" image (and this one is a differently dull image, as the second photo editor used different parameters to show you bitmap image) to your liking. I assume you would want to end up with the same results. So you will end up with another, final jpeg file.

- However, those two jpeg files will have to be different, as you started your post processing from two, differently looking images .

The only time that I would process a RAW file in a second processing engine (which I might do once every few years) is if I don't think the first piece of software can do what I want.  In which case I am *looking* for a different result.

The last time I did a direct comparison of LR vs DCU was many years, and many software versions, ago.  My general conclusion at that time was the I preferred the colour output from DCU but the LR results had more detail and less noise.  In the end it is a case of "choose your weapons"... LR vs DCU vs OOC JPEG vs ...

Cheers,

Doug