Reading mode: Light Dark

Linear Workflow and Challenge! (lg imgs)

Go to last post
pbleic said:
"I don't think dcraw was even meant as a complete conversion
engine, it is primarily about decompiling the RAW format. It's
built-in debayering methods are included more as an example than
anything that has ANY commercial or real life merit. Feed it a
black and white resolution chart, and watch the rainbow-like colors
and show me one customer willing to pay for that kind of quality.
Or look at the horrible edges you get - with zipper effects and
false colors all over. Debayering in the year 2004 has come a
looong way after that, but the few good ones are either completely
unknown to the public, or totally proprietary.
Click to expand...
Hi Paul,

While I appreciate your curiousity, hard work and dedication to sharing your findings with this forum, there is one aspect of your postings that I'd like to suggest that you tone down. Since folks here recognize that you have much good advice to give, it's especially important not to make definitive statements that seem like absolute fact but are actually just opinion.

This latest exchange is a perfect example. Not two weeks ago, you were stating definitively that dcraw provided the best image quality. Period. One poster wrote "dcraw is not the best converter out there. impossible." to which you replied "in terms of image quality it is." Now, all of a sudden, you realize that dcraw is simplistic and flawed and not up to snuff with modern methods. I had mentioned the age of dcraw's algorithms in a post of my own, in fact.

Just reading about something and getting excited about it doesn't make that thing the greatest discovery ever, or at least try not to claim so until after your investigation concludes, not at the onset.

I mention this in the spirit of setting a trustworthy educational tone in the forum, not to badmouth all of the good (and fun) work you've done.

David
 
Paul's enthusiasm about dcraw was one thing that made me not give up on it.. and now i see that he's just taken a U turn over all he wrote and sees artifacts in the same images he thought excelled in quality.. confused

paul i'd only suggest see with your eyes, not ears.. to my ears.. dcraw gives the sharpest possible results without the annoying Canon softness/blur in some areas.. i think i've made an amazing discovery here with this converter as i always thought some detail was lost by the overaggressive Canon FVU/EVU softening.

I have yet to see the downside in the few images i've tried.. not saying u are wrong.. but that it ain't THAT bad.. plus it guarantees sharper images.
DRG said:
pbleic said:
"I don't think dcraw was even meant as a complete conversion
engine, it is primarily about decompiling the RAW format. It's
built-in debayering methods are included more as an example than
anything that has ANY commercial or real life merit. Feed it a
black and white resolution chart, and watch the rainbow-like colors
and show me one customer willing to pay for that kind of quality.
Or look at the horrible edges you get - with zipper effects and
false colors all over. Debayering in the year 2004 has come a
looong way after that, but the few good ones are either completely
unknown to the public, or totally proprietary.
Click to expand...
Hi Paul,

While I appreciate your curiousity, hard work and dedication to
sharing your findings with this forum, there is one aspect of your
postings that I'd like to suggest that you tone down. Since folks
here recognize that you have much good advice to give, it's
especially important not to make definitive statements that seem
like absolute fact but are actually just opinion.

This latest exchange is a perfect example. Not two weeks ago, you
were stating definitively that dcraw provided the best image
quality. Period. One poster wrote "dcraw is not the best converter
out there. impossible." to which you replied "in terms of image
quality it is." Now, all of a sudden, you realize that dcraw is
simplistic and flawed and not up to snuff with modern methods. I
had mentioned the age of dcraw's algorithms in a post of my own, in
fact.

Just reading about something and getting excited about it doesn't
make that thing the greatest discovery ever, or at least try not to
claim so until after your investigation concludes, not at the
onset.

I mention this in the spirit of setting a trustworthy educational
tone in the forum, not to badmouth all of the good (and fun) work
you've done.

David
Click to expand...
 
First of all, these aren't my words, they are Magne Nilsen's. Second, I still say that the Overall image quality and sharpness is best with dcraw. However, the moire and zipper effect is what is limiting.

While I admit to some overenthusiasm about dcraw, it is that very enthusiasm that gets people ACTIVE in these threads, learning together. If I explored on my own and posted a single post on my final conclusions there would be far less learning for everyone.

--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------

Unless specified otherwise, all images are Copyright 2003, 2004 All rights reserved.
 
David is saying just the opposite. In fact, you are a prime example of why I should get people interested in things. David is saying that I should have explored dcraw, realized that it was not what I wanted, and never even mention it in the forum. You would never have found out about it or continued exploring it without my thread.

By the way - it was YOUR post http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=8983869

that said "Dcraw - what is it good for - absolutely nothing" and "who in their right mind would waste so much time with DCRAW to get no real advantage over EVU??"

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, as they say. Talk about changing your mind. LOL.

--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------

Unless specified otherwise, all images are Copyright 2003, 2004 All rights reserved.
 
I would never have even begun to look at linear until your 'over-enthusiasm' about dcraw. I am now more discerning about my approach to post processing and will try different methods now whilst looking for that killer 'solution'.

Compared to all the "hacking", "should I or shouldn't I", "legal this and illegal that" threads, yours has been the most stimulating as it pertains to finding a way of achieving a better final image....something that we all strive for.

By the way, for the short term I have moved to EVU and then CS - I was doing everything in Adobe before.

Many thanks and keep it up!

Mark.
pbleic said:
First of all, these aren't my words, they are Magne Nilsen's.
Second, I still say that the Overall image quality and sharpness is
best with dcraw. However, the moire and zipper effect is what is
limiting.

While I admit to some overenthusiasm about dcraw, it is that very
enthusiasm that gets people ACTIVE in these threads, learning
together. If I explored on my own and posted a single post on my
final conclusions there would be far less learning for everyone.

--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------
Unless specified otherwise, all images are Copyright 2003, 2004
All rights reserved.
Click to expand...
 
pbleic said:
Control-T will do it. I don't remember the menu item, but it is
there.
Click to expand...
Hmm, my copy must be broken then :( CTRL-T doesn't do it either. I have the EOS Viewer Utility version 1,0,0,30 according to Help -> About. And selecting a .crw file and hiting CTRL-T a bunch of times only gives me a sore finger, nothing more :(

Don
 
Others reported this when it first came out; I forget what the issue was. It won't work with the menu then either. Did you try looking behind the window?
DMahoney said:
pbleic said:
Control-T will do it. I don't remember the menu item, but it is
there.
Click to expand...
Hmm, my copy must be broken then :( CTRL-T doesn't do it either. I
have the EOS Viewer Utility version 1,0,0,30 according to Help ->
About. And selecting a .crw file and hiting CTRL-T a bunch of times
only gives me a sore finger, nothing more :(

Don
Click to expand...
--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------

Unless specified otherwise, all images are Copyright 2003, 2004 All rights reserved.
 
When you do 'extreme' gamma correction (in my case 1.0 to 2.2) using an adjustment layer, Photoshop displays the resulting picture with bad posterizing effect. In actual fact, the data is converted correctly internally, but the display somehow shows up badly. Merging the layer merely makes the display looks like what it internally converts. It's probably a Photoshop 'bug' or feature. Don't take my word for it, try it yourself. :)

FYI, if you worry about this, get Imagemagick, and instead of of steps 3 and 4, do the following command: mogrify -level 0,2.2,15616 filename.psd

Then bring it to Photoshop. That often brings you even better results.

Francis
Victor Engel said:
FYap said:
4. Optional, but recommended, merge all layers. The reason being
that a lot of people mention about posterization, and its due to
the way Photoshop display high gamma adjusted photo.
Click to expand...
Can you please elaborate? What is it that Photoshop is doing, and
how does merging fix it?
Click to expand...
 
DRG said:
pbleic said:
"I don't think dcraw was even meant as a complete conversion
engine, it is primarily about decompiling the RAW format. It's
built-in debayering methods are included more as an example than
anything that has ANY commercial or real life merit. Feed it a
black and white resolution chart, and watch the rainbow-like colors
and show me one customer willing to pay for that kind of quality.
Or look at the horrible edges you get - with zipper effects and
false colors all over. Debayering in the year 2004 has come a
looong way after that, but the few good ones are either completely
unknown to the public, or totally proprietary.
Click to expand...
Hi Paul,

While I appreciate your curiousity, hard work and dedication to
sharing your findings with this forum, there is one aspect of your
postings that I'd like to suggest that you tone down. Since folks
here recognize that you have much good advice to give, it's
especially important not to make definitive statements that seem
like absolute fact but are actually just opinion.

This latest exchange is a perfect example. Not two weeks ago, you
were stating definitively that dcraw provided the best image
quality. Period. One poster wrote "dcraw is not the best converter
out there. impossible." to which you replied "in terms of image
quality it is." Now, all of a sudden, you realize that dcraw is
simplistic and flawed and not up to snuff with modern methods. I
had mentioned the age of dcraw's algorithms in a post of my own, in
fact.

Just reading about something and getting excited about it doesn't
make that thing the greatest discovery ever, or at least try not to
claim so until after your investigation concludes, not at the
onset.

I mention this in the spirit of setting a trustworthy educational
tone in the forum, not to badmouth all of the good (and fun) work
you've done.

David
Click to expand...
--
http://www.jayfleck.com
 
bjs1,

Your C1 workflow offers an interesting observation that I had some time ago, that is C1 recovers more highlight details than EVU/FVU and about the same level as dcraw. Here is my thread comparing dcraw with EVU:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=8949927

As to why the complicated workflow when a simple one will do? Well, speaking only for myself, I use EVU/FVU 99% of the time. And I'm sure if I use C1, it will serve my needs for 99% of the time.

But, EVU conversion (linear/non linear) cannot save a few precious photos where the highlights are slightly blown.

And while C1 can do the same, the colors are sometimes just dead wrong using the standard profile and has been admitted as much by them. See the sunset yellow problem that others have discussed. Plus, C1 does sharpening even if I specify that it shouldn't. No statement of facts here, just an opinion of mine backed by my own experience so far.

dcraw on the other hand, really have some bad moire and zipper artifacts which is pretty evident even in this particular picture if you look hard enough. Its output is pretty sharp though and there are times, I prefer that.

At this moment, I doubt the perfect RAW conversion is available. Instead of waiting for that perfect tool, some of use use a variety of tools to get by. And that includes convulated workflow such as mine.

Plus, it's fun to tinker. Sometimes, innate curiosity brings you unexpected and pleasant discoveries ;)

Francis
bjs1 said:
While I'm still not sure what we're proving, the different
approaches are certainly interesting.

In a side by side comparison of FYap (dcraw variant), bjs1 (C1
Rebel variant), pbleic (EVU/FVU linear) and Boardhead (FVU) it
seems to me that pbleic's method performs the worst in terms of
highlights/dynamic range. Compare the last tree image of pbelics
versus FYap or bjs1. Pbleic's version has blown out most of the
small branches, there is a dramatic difference in highlight detail.

Pbleics colors are also somewhat unique. For example, the red
tassle tends toward pink and the jacket is more green compared to
the others.

Boardhead and bjs1 use a dead simple approach compared to Fyap and
pbleic. I'm not seeing the return on the extra effort but maybe I
don't know what to look for.
Click to expand...
 
ptj said:
Here is my take on this chellenge.
Click to expand...
ptj said:
The choice is yours! :)
Click to expand...
I think I would have to take Pauls version. His is sharper, as is shown on the glove (you DID mention that you didn't do any sharpening though. Then again, that was part of the point with this challenge). I also prefer Pauls white balance. Yours looks kind of... almost muddy. Maybe it's too warm a white balance, maybe it's influenced by the fact that Paul already said it was a cold day. Either way, my vote goes with Pauls. Not that yours is bad, but if I were hanging it on my wall it would have Pauls name under it!

Don
 
FYap said:
At this moment, I doubt the perfect RAW conversion is available.
Instead of waiting for that perfect tool, some of use use a variety
of tools to get by. And that includes convulated workflow such as
mine.
Click to expand...
And that's why I spent time looking into dcraw! Even though it's not a workflow I will use regularily, you never know when I might get that one photo that could benefit from it. The more tricks and tools you have under your belt, the more prepared you are to deal with finicky photos. Because we ALL know there is a limitless number of things that can go wrong with our photos!

Don
I think I've found MOST of them...
 
We all seem to be struggling with colors and every converter/color profile does the colors differently. Paul suggested that we get a IT8 card, get a picture and match it and get a color profile. I'm not too hot on that idea, as others have done so before and their resulting color profiles still leaves much to be desired, and of course the card is expensive.

Here's something easier, more real world and perhaps more fun. Buy crayons or colored pencils sets from Crayola. (No, I don't work for them). They are cheaper, easily accessible (for those in the US anyway) and the lot variability shouldn't be much. Someone post a photo in a controlled lighting environment, and we can all try to convert it and color correct using our bought standard Crayola set to eyeball.

Francis
 
pbleic said:
David is saying just the opposite. In fact, you are a prime example
of why I should get people interested in things. David is saying
that I should have explored dcraw, realized that it was not what I
wanted, and never even mention it in the forum.
Click to expand...
You got me wrong, Paul. I am not advocating staying silent until you have an answer. That would indeed be boring. However, if you look back at your threads, each new thing you discuss is presented as definitively the best. The Expodisc is the best way to white balance. DCRAW is the best converter. When challenged, you through out some links or get insulted or threaten to withdraw from posting again. All I'm saying is not to be definitive and mislead people into thinking you have an authoritative final answer when, in fact, you are exploring and learning, too.

David
 
Al Pacheco gave us another gift: A hue/saturation adjustment and curve to apply to a linear file converted with his profile - big improvement on colors. I applied both to the LINEAR file, even though he suggests applying the curve to the converted file. For those of you using his profile on EVU/FVU - give it a try:
http://home.comcast.net/~ajpacheco/CurveHueSat.zip
--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------

Unless specified otherwise, all images are Copyright 2003, 2004 All rights reserved.
 
pbleic said:
First of all, these aren't my words, they are Magne Nilsen's.
Click to expand...
Paul,

They're essentially your words, in that you presented them as motivation for exploring the res charts on your own and then agreeing:

"PS - I had the opportunity to see a BW resolution chart that dcraw debayered - it was ugly - moire, red, blue, etc.

This is why I switched back to FVU/EVU for the linear data."

I'm not being critical of this. Hands-on learning is fantastic. I was commenting on how this latest turn of events is a follow-on to such definitive opening words and such defense of dcraw in the beginning. If you didn't know for sure that dcraw was the best, you should have stated that it was. This isn't the same as saying you find it to be the best or that you've read it was the best. You stated that is was the best and such a statement was unfounded.

David
 
I will try to be less expressive in my initial opinion. However, I am just that kind of guy. Not everyone is perfect.

I have gotten insulted only when people are rude and outrageously obnoxious which happens from time to time. I have never gotten insulted simply because someone disagrees with me, no matter how clearly.

On the expodisc - I still have no question that this is the best WB you can get. As for dcraw, as I said, it is better than any other raw converter in sharpness. However, that sharpness leads to moire - similar to the D70 issue. It is for this that I have changed my mind - which I promise I will continue to do.--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------

Unless specified otherwise, all images are Copyright 2003, 2004 All rights reserved.
 
“When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?" - John Maynard Keynes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top