Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

raw converter?

Expand Messages
  • rox_ana_mustata
    Hello, Which RAW converter software is better to be use when you have CR2 file (Canon camera)? I ve made a small test and I am not satisfied of the converted
    Message 1 of 17 , Sep 10, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      Which RAW converter software is better to be use when you have CR2 file
      (Canon camera)? I've made a small test and I am not satisfied of the
      converted images when I compare them with the jpg file shoot together
      with the CR2.
    • Richard Smallfield
      ... Bear in mind that the jpeg is pre-processed in the camera so it will look different. But it s impossible to say what s wrong with your CR2 conversions
      Message 2 of 17 , Sep 10, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        At 06:17 AM Tuesday 9/11/2007, you wrote:
        >Which RAW converter software is better to be use when you have CR2 file
        >(Canon camera)? I've made a small test and I am not satisfied of the
        >converted images when I compare them with the jpg file shoot together
        >with the CR2.

        Bear in mind that the jpeg is pre-processed in the camera so it will look different.

        But it's impossible to say what's wrong with your CR2 conversions without seeing them.

        That said, there are loads of 3rd party RAW converters out there with free trials. I suggest downloading some and seeing what works best for you.

        You could try for example, Bibble, DxO and Capture One for starters. Do a Google search and you'll find more.

        I use Bibble and find it very good.

        Good luck,
        Richard

        --
        http://smallfield.vze.com
        http://photos.smallfield.vze.com (Photos web site)
        http://warkworth.vze.com/ (Warkworth photo essay)
        http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work)

        "The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift
        is nothing without work."
        --Emile Zola (1840-1902)
      • Hans Nyberg
        ... I can assure you there is a very big quality difference. I would not dream of using JPG to anything at all. I do not think there are any RAW converters
        Message 3 of 17 , Sep 10, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "rox_ana_mustata" <rox_ana_mustata@...> wrote:

          > Which RAW converter software is better to be use when you have CR2 file
          > (Canon camera)? I've made a small test and I am not satisfied of the
          > converted images when I compare them with the jpg file shoot together
          > with the CR2.
          >
          I can assure you there is a very big quality difference. I would not dream of using JPG to
          anything at all.

          I do not think there are any RAW converters available that produces bad results.
          However the converter is as good as the photographer using it.

          That said it is not an automatic software but you have to know the principles of colors etc. to
          be able to use them correctly.

          Hans
        • Serge Maandag (yahoo)
          ... The onboard jpeg generators on camera s are actually pretty good. They give you a colourful, fresh looking picture. To do that, they bump the contrast,
          Message 4 of 17 , Sep 11, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            > Which RAW converter software is better to be use when you have CR2 file
            > (Canon camera)? I've made a small test and I am not satisfied of the
            > converted images when I compare them with the jpg file shoot together
            > with the CR2.

            The onboard jpeg generators on camera's are actually pretty good.
            They give you a colourful, fresh looking picture.

            To do that, they bump the contrast, saturation and apply quite a lot of sharpening.
            If you do the same, you should come close to that result.

            They may have more tricks up their sleeve than the options the raw converter
            provides you, but you can ofcourse apply your own tricks like local contrast
            enhancement after the raw conversion.

            Because of the heavily processing, the jpegs aren't to good to stitch, though. Full
            360x180 panoramas cover a lot more of the hemisphere and with that, a bigger dynamic
            range. The trick is to keep as much as possible of that dynamic range in the
            panorama. Once stitched you determine what details you are willing to sacrifice to
            get the final result fresh and contrasty.

            That's the hard part. I usually sacrifice too little, leaving me with a bland
            looking image that features both shadow detail and sky detail, but isn't appealing
            in any way :(

            Serge.
          • Flo
            Hi, atually I am converting with lihtroom, which uses the new adobe converter of CS3. Anyway, you have to learn your exposure like you did in the dark roomin
            Message 5 of 17 , Sep 11, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi,

              atually I am converting with lihtroom, which uses the new adobe
              converter of CS3.

              Anyway, you have to learn your exposure like you did in the dark roomin
              earlyer times. There is no automated way.


              Florian



              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "rox_ana_mustata"
              <rox_ana_mustata@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hello,
              >
              > Which RAW converter software is better to be use when you have CR2
              file
              > (Canon camera)? I've made a small test and I am not satisfied of the
              > converted images when I compare them with the jpg file shoot together
              > with the CR2.
              >
            • rox_ana_mustata
              I agree with you regarding the camera jpg generator. I ve done a test using regular photos but my dissatisfactions started from panoramic images. The small
              Message 6 of 17 , Sep 11, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                I agree with you regarding the camera jpg generator. I've done a test
                using regular photos but my dissatisfactions started from panoramic
                images.
                The small test that I've done is here:
                http://www.panoramas.ro/tutorials/compare-raw-converters.html

                I don't know if the raw shooting is helping the quality of the final
                360x180 panoramas unless you are shooting for hdr image… in this case
                is a tricky thing to do when you have people in move.

                Roxana

                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Serge Maandag (yahoo)"
                <yahoo@...> wrote:
                >
                > The onboard jpeg generators on camera's are actually pretty good.
                > They give you a colourful, fresh looking picture.
                >
                > To do that, they bump the contrast, saturation and apply quite a
                lot of sharpening.
                > If you do the same, you should come close to that result.
                >
                > They may have more tricks up their sleeve than the options the raw
                converter
                > provides you, but you can ofcourse apply your own tricks like local
                contrast
                > enhancement after the raw conversion.
                >
                > Because of the heavily processing, the jpegs aren't to good to
                stitch, though. Full
                > 360x180 panoramas cover a lot more of the hemisphere and with that,
                a bigger dynamic
                > range. The trick is to keep as much as possible of that dynamic
                range in the
                > panorama. Once stitched you determine what details you are willing
                to sacrifice to
                > get the final result fresh and contrasty.
                >
                > That's the hard part. I usually sacrifice too little, leaving me
                with a bland
                > looking image that features both shadow detail and sky detail, but
                isn't appealing
                > in any way :(
                >
                > Serge.
                >
              • Serge Maandag (yahoo)
                ... On scenes with big contrasts, raw will already help a lot. In low contrast scenes you may get great results from a jpeg stitch. But given my tone-map
                Message 7 of 17 , Sep 11, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  > The small test that I've done is here:
                  > http://www.panoramas.ro/tutorials/compare-raw-converters.html
                  >
                  > I don't know if the raw shooting is helping the quality of the final
                  > 360x180 panoramas unless you are shooting for hdr image� in this case
                  > is a tricky thing to do when you have people in move.

                  On scenes with big contrasts, raw will already help a lot. In low contrast scenes
                  you may get great results from a jpeg stitch. But given my tone-map qualities, I
                  cannot tell if real good raw conversion settings and solid postediting wouldn't
                  yield significant better results.

                  One added bonus of raw shooting is that chromatic abberation can be removed better.

                  I looked at your samples, copied them to a dark background to get a better look. I
                  do agree to your conclusions, but the raw conversions seem to have had more
                  sharpening applied than the jpegs. Also, the blown out highlights are due to
                  clipping that can most probably be avoided. The raw converters choose to do both
                  shadow and highlight clipping to get more "contrast vividness". That looks better
                  from a distance, but worse at 200%. Watch a plasma t.v. from up close to see what I
                  mean.

                  Your example shows that for this part of the image, the raw converters choose poor
                  default settings. Perhaps though, it's the other way round for a different part of
                  the image?

                  It would be interesting to see how they perform if you tweak the settings to your
                  liking.

                  The purple lines on the mouse isn't chromatic aberation, b.t.w. It only shows up on
                  the bright sides and has no inverse color counterpart, so it's purple fringing..

                  Serge.
                • Roger Howard
                  ... Even if I don t have a huge dynamic range in a scene, I ll always shoot raw as I feel I can always match, and almost always exceed, the results I get in
                  Message 8 of 17 , Sep 11, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Sep 11, 2007, at 11:59 AM, Serge Maandag (yahoo) wrote:

                    > > The small test that I've done is here:
                    > > http://www.panoramas.ro/tutorials/compare-raw-converters.html
                    > >
                    > > I don't know if the raw shooting is helping the quality of the final
                    > > 360x180 panoramas unless you are shooting for hdr image� in this
                    > case
                    > > is a tricky thing to do when you have people in move.
                    >
                    > On scenes with big contrasts, raw will already help a lot. In low
                    > contrast scenes
                    > you may get great results from a jpeg stitch. But given my tone-map
                    > qualities, I
                    > cannot tell if real good raw conversion settings and solid
                    > postediting wouldn't
                    > yield significant better results.
                    >
                    Even if I don't have a huge dynamic range in a scene, I'll always
                    shoot raw as I feel I can always match, and almost always exceed, the
                    results I get in RAW vs JPEG (ignoring the inherent JPEG compression
                    artifacts, I'm just speaking to the look/feel of the rendering and
                    would do the same even if the choice was raw vs tiff).

                    Then again, I'll use JPEG if that's all my camera supports and can
                    still get good results if you know how to control your camera.

                    -Rh
                  • Szymon "Zbooy" Madej
                    ... When shooting RAW you don t have any problems with white balance varying from one picture to another that you get using auto WB. Of course you could set it
                    Message 9 of 17 , Sep 11, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      rox_ana_mustata wrote:
                      >
                      > I don't know if the raw shooting is helping the quality of the final
                      > 360x180 panoramas unless you are shooting for hdr image…
                      >

                      When shooting RAW you don't have any problems with white balance varying
                      from one picture to another that you get using auto WB. Of course you could
                      set it manually for the whole sequence but why bother?

                      zbooy

                      --
                      View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/raw-converter--tf4417262.html#a12625999
                      Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
                    • Keith Martin
                      ... You will potentially get white balance changing from one shot to another if WB is left on auto, but that s easy to pin down later. So the only reason to
                      Message 10 of 17 , Sep 12, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Sometime around 11/9/07 (at 16:28 -0700) Szymon \"Zbooy\" Madej said:

                        >When shooting RAW you don't have any problems with white balance varying
                        >from one picture to another that you get using auto WB. Of course you could
                        >set it manually for the whole sequence but why bother?

                        You will potentially get white balance changing from one shot to
                        another if WB is left on auto, but that's easy to pin down later. So
                        the only reason to bother is in case you don't remember to set that
                        specifically when converting from RAW when processing your images.
                        You're right that this isn't as critical as nailing down the
                        exposure-related settings. But I'm still going to keep WB on manual
                        just in case I do slip up afterwards! ;-)

                        k
                      • rox_ana_mustata
                        I took the DPP software and tuned the settings a little. I have reduced the sharpness and, in one case, the brightness and still not have (200% magnification)
                        Message 11 of 17 , Sep 14, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I took the DPP software and tuned the settings a little. I have
                          reduced the sharpness and, in one case, the brightness and still not
                          have (200% magnification) an image as good as the original jpg.
                          I have updated www.panoramas.ro/tutorials/compare-raw-converters.html
                          with the new images.
                          Also, I have made a ZIP archive with the CR2 and JPG images with the
                          Logitech mouse. Maybe someone else is able to transform the raw file
                          into a better jpg (or 16 bits tiff...) and share the settings and the
                          resulted file.

                          Does anyone have an example of a converted RAW image (from a Canon
                          camera) that looks better than the jpg file?

                          Roxana

                          > I looked at your samples, copied them to a dark background to get a
                          better look. I
                          > do agree to your conclusions, but the raw conversions seem to have
                          had more
                          > sharpening applied than the jpegs. Also, the blown out highlights
                          are due to
                          > clipping that can most probably be avoided. The raw converters
                          choose to do both
                          > shadow and highlight clipping to get more "contrast vividness".
                          That looks better
                          > from a distance, but worse at 200%. Watch a plasma t.v. from up
                          close to see what I
                          > mean.
                          >
                          > Your example shows that for this part of the image, the raw
                          converters choose poor
                          > default settings. Perhaps though, it's the other way round for a
                          different part of
                          > the image?
                          >
                          > It would be interesting to see how they perform if you tweak the
                          settings to your
                          > liking.
                          >
                          > The purple lines on the mouse isn't chromatic aberation, b.t.w. It
                          only shows up on
                          > the bright sides and has no inverse color counterpart, so it's
                          purple fringing..
                          >
                          > Serge.
                          >
                        • Serge Maandag (yahoo)
                          ... Gave it a try with ACR, but I got the same results as you did. Too much contrast in the shadows, too little sharpness in the light sections and exaggerated
                          Message 12 of 17 , Sep 15, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > Also, I have made a ZIP archive with the CR2 and JPG images with the
                            > Logitech mouse. (http://www.panoramas.ro/tutorials/IMG_4662.zip)
                            > Maybe someone else is able to transform the raw file
                            > into a better jpg (or 16 bits tiff...) and share the settings and the
                            > resulted file.

                            Gave it a try with ACR, but I got the same results as you did. Too much contrast in
                            the shadows, too little sharpness in the light sections and exaggerated purple
                            fringing.

                            Hope there's a real raw conversion specialist out here that can show us how to do it
                            right..

                            Serge.
                          • jeff_starley
                            Hi all, I am no Raw converter specialist, just a photographer. Having viewed the images from the zip file I thought I would have a look at converting them.
                            Message 13 of 17 , Sep 16, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi all, I am no Raw converter specialist, just a photographer.
                              Having viewed the images from the zip file I thought I would have a
                              look at converting them.
                              Firstly let me say that opinions / critiscm about any image that any
                              photographer produces is purely personal and subjective (ie what is
                              right, or wrong, is dependent solely upon personal preferences and
                              taste).
                              Also IMHO viewing any image at 200% is totally misleading and a
                              waste of time, even at 100% the image is far larger than its real
                              reproduction size.
                              That off my chest, here is a link to the conversion I have made
                              using ACR 3.7, I have sharpening set to 0 and then adjusted the
                              curve visually to produce an image showing which I consider to be
                              better than the jpeg in the zip file, but that is my opinion only.
                              the original jpeg does (IMHO)look far to contrasty, I think the
                              purple fringing is probably inherent in the camera lens combination,
                              there is also some green appearing in the shadow fringes to the left
                              of the image (possibly CA, but would not like to swear to it.
                              The image I have produced from the CR2 file (no further enhancements
                              were made after the conversion - saved as jpeg quality 10 in PS)can
                              be viewed/downloaded here

                              http://tinyurl.com/28a6lf

                              I do not claim that this is the best that can be produced from this
                              file but it is (again IMHO) far better than the original jpeg.
                              There is no magic formula for conversion, just look at the image and
                              adjust to taste.
                              Jeff


                              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Serge Maandag (yahoo)"
                              <yahoo@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > > Also, I have made a ZIP archive with the CR2 and JPG images with
                              the
                              > > Logitech mouse. (http://www.panoramas.ro/tutorials/IMG_4662.zip)
                              > > Maybe someone else is able to transform the raw file
                              > > into a better jpg (or 16 bits tiff...) and share the settings
                              and the
                              > > resulted file.
                              >
                              > Gave it a try with ACR, but I got the same results as you did. Too
                              much contrast in
                              > the shadows, too little sharpness in the light sections and
                              exaggerated purple
                              > fringing.
                              >
                              > Hope there's a real raw conversion specialist out here that can
                              show us how to do it
                              > right..
                              >
                              > Serge.
                              >
                            • Erik Krause
                              ... Define better . There are very different approaches to image quality. The common one has something to do with brilliance , which is something very
                              Message 14 of 17 , Sep 16, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Friday, September 14, 2007 at 10:42, rox_ana_mustata wrote:

                                > Does anyone have an example of a converted RAW image (from a Canon
                                > camera) that looks better than the jpg file?

                                Define "better".

                                There are very different approaches to image quality. The common one
                                has something to do with "brilliance", which is something very
                                subjective and lacks any clear definition. Out of camera jpegs
                                usually are balanced this way: contrasty and a bit more saturated.
                                This gives a sharper, crisper look but blows out the highlights and
                                blackens the shadows as visible in the jpeg you provided for
                                download.

                                For a professional photographer quality is something entirely
                                different: A wide tonal and dynamic range, highlights and shadows
                                with enough details and well balanced, a good source for further
                                edits, which requires non-saturated colors. The result of a raw
                                conversion done with these principles in mind might look what you
                                describe as "faint and loose clarity", even as dull. In this cases
                                you are supposed to do further image editing work.

                                A raw converter test and comparison is a very difficult thing. As
                                long as you didn't test all possible combinations of different
                                options you can't make a statement. F.e. what you describe as "black
                                dots" and "uneven textured aspect" simply is not removed noise. I
                                assume you have in-camera noise reduction turned on.

                                Raw converters easily can be tested on how good their highlight
                                restoration is, how good they handle shadow noise, how they deal with
                                special sensor types (like Foveon or Fuji S), how good color fidelity
                                is (measured f.e. with an IT8 target and apropriate software), but in
                                my opinion "overall image quality" n not be tested.

                                Raw conversion is an art and a science, just like darkroom work was
                                in the chemical days. Ansel Adams wrote thick books about that.

                                However, my favourite approach is: extract largest possible dynamic
                                range. I've done a test with these technique described on
                                http://wiki.panotools.org/RAW_dynamic_range_extraction and the result
                                using ACR - with boosted local contrast (USM 30% with radius 70) -
                                can be found on http://www.erik-krause.de/IMG_4662.jpg
                                the 200% crop on
                                http://www.erik-krause.de/IMG_4662_crop.jpg

                                The values: exposure -1.95, shadows 0, brightness 63, contrast 0,
                                saturation 0, sharpness 25, luminance smoothing 0, color noise
                                reduction 100 and a linear tone curve.

                                best regards
                                --
                                http://www.erik-krause.de
                              • rox_ana_mustata
                                I think that small defects seen on image magnification contribute to the general feeling about that picture, even if you will not look at it closely. ... In
                                Message 15 of 17 , Sep 16, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I think that small defects seen on image magnification contribute to
                                  the general "feeling" about that picture, even if you will not look
                                  at it closely.

                                  --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Erik Krause" <erik.krause@...>
                                  wrote:
                                  > Define "better".

                                  In this case, for me "better" is closer to the image seen with the
                                  naked eye. The .jpg image is close to reality. Was a shiny day, the
                                  sun was reflecting in the dark grey mouse.

                                  I don't know if your setting could be applied to a portrait.

                                  > I assume you have in-camera noise reduction turned on.

                                  Long exposure noise reduction was turned off in the camera.

                                  > Raw converters easily can be tested on how good their highlight
                                  > restoration is, how good they handle shadow noise, how they deal
                                  with special sensor types (like Foveon or Fuji S)

                                  I am interested only in the best raw converter for DSRL Canon
                                  cameras.

                                  Roxana
                                • Serge Maandag (yahoo)
                                  ... I like the looks, but it is still softer than the jpeg. And the sharpening part is the part where the proof of the method is, because in that stage
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Sep 16, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > http://tinyurl.com/28a6lf
                                    >
                                    > I do not claim that this is the best that can be produced from this
                                    > file but it is (again IMHO) far better than the original jpeg.
                                    > There is no magic formula for conversion, just look at the image and
                                    > adjust to taste.
                                    > Jeff

                                    I like the looks, but it is still softer than the jpeg. And the sharpening part is
                                    the part where the proof of the method is, because in that stage aliasing artefacts
                                    pop up and detail gets lost.

                                    Eriks conversion is not bad at all in that respect. I even like it better than the
                                    jpeg (for the part that it shows..).

                                    serge.
                                  • Sacha Griffin
                                    Raw converting takes a lot of experience and understanding about the photographic process. If you are new to developing photos, as most are when exposed to
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Sep 16, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Raw converting takes a lot of experience and understanding about the
                                      photographic process.



                                      If you are new to developing photos, as most are when exposed to photography
                                      - digital is their first time,

                                      the camera will most assuredly make better "guesses" at what you want, than
                                      when presented to a dialog box that goes on

                                      for miles in the raw convertor of your choice.



                                      For those with the time investment under their belt.. Shooting JPG is an
                                      "Oops, Oh my god I can't believe I screwed this shoot up moment"



                                      Just keep at it and I'm sure your opinion will surely change bit by bit.



                                      Good luck!



                                      Sacha Griffin
                                      Southern Digital Solutions LLC - Atlanta, Georgia
                                      www.southern-digital.com
                                      www.seeit360.net
                                      www.ezphotosafe.com
                                      404-551-4275
                                      404-731-7798

                                      _____

                                      From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
                                      Behalf Of rox_ana_mustata
                                      Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 5:58 PM
                                      To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: raw converter?



                                      I think that small defects seen on image magnification contribute to
                                      the general "feeling" about that picture, even if you will not look
                                      at it closely.

                                      --- In PanoToolsNG@ <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
                                      "Erik Krause" <erik.krause@...>
                                      wrote:
                                      > Define "better".

                                      In this case, for me "better" is closer to the image seen with the
                                      naked eye. The .jpg image is close to reality. Was a shiny day, the
                                      sun was reflecting in the dark grey mouse.

                                      I don't know if your setting could be applied to a portrait.

                                      > I assume you have in-camera noise reduction turned on.

                                      Long exposure noise reduction was turned off in the camera.

                                      > Raw converters easily can be tested on how good their highlight
                                      > restoration is, how good they handle shadow noise, how they deal
                                      with special sensor types (like Foveon or Fuji S)

                                      I am interested only in the best raw converter for DSRL Canon
                                      cameras.

                                      Roxana





                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.