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

Started 8 months ago | Discussions
OP stansbca Forum Member • Posts: 63
Re: Current State-of-the-Art in SPP Processing Alternatives?

geni1105 wrote:

Hint: you can execute a second conversion step on the Kalpanika generated DNGs, using Adobe DNG Converter. This seems to give additional DNG compliance, and then also other programs are able to open them.

You should select in the options „4.6 and newer“ compatibility, then DNG Converter directly color corrects the „raw“ data and you are not depending on the correct interpretation of metadata by the raw converter any more.

I found that for example Affinity Photo, but also Capture One and Darktable are able to process those files. AP and CO look fine, DT less so, but I am not familiar with that one.

I was using the second DNG conversion step, but didn't know "4.6 and newer" was the key. I was using a later version. It seems you are correct and that more programs work with that file type. I guess I'll be back to trying a bunch of programs now!

Looking through what I have, it seems that Pixelmator pro works very nicely and also integrates into Apple Photos, adding considerable power to that application. That makes it a rather nice "Lightroom" kind of experience. I am finding Raw Therapee is also quite powerful for single shot editing.

The only bummer is that I won't be able to Photomerge as easily as in Lightroom. Lightroom also had some incredibly impressive warping and auto fill capabilities in panoramas that I was quite impressed by. I suppose I could buy Capture One...but that's fairly pricey for how infrequently I do this.

OP stansbca Forum Member • Posts: 63
Re: Current State-of-the-Art in SPP Processing Alternatives?

I have compared TIFF export on some of my more challenging images. No matter what I do, I don't get the same latitude to correct as I do with DNG using this methodology. Further, now that I finally understand all of the steps (I shall write a step-by-step for idiots like myself), I really don't see any additional pain using DNG vs. TIFF export in SPP.

TN Args
TN Args Forum Pro • Posts: 10,440
Re: Let's cut to the Chase

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.

OK, gotcha.

Kalpanika never really got over occasional green hue issues, by their own admission. So...not using Kalpanika avoids that.

 TN Args's gear list:TN Args's gear list
Sigma dp0 Quattro Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Olympus E-M5 II Sony a7R III Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 +10 more
EEvan
EEvan Regular Member • Posts: 311
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.

geni1105 Regular Member • Posts: 141
Re: Let's cut to the Chase

TN Args wrote:

geni1105 wrote:

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.

OK, gotcha.

Kalpanika never really got over occasional green hue issues, by their own admission. So...not using Kalpanika avoids that.

I am aware of the greenish color casts for Merrills, and those are corrected by the X3F Wrapper. At least I have not seen any other issues, except problems with massively blown highlights (which should be avoided anyhow).

 geni1105's gear list:geni1105's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 III
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads