Raw Image Processing

[photoken]

That's the reason why I do not use PL for RAW converting. It's too much effort for a simple converting job.

Of course that's your choice about what to do with your time. I found it very easy to start making adjustments -- I know what Curves, Histograms, Sharpening, etc., are supposed to do so I just took it from there. I saved my adjustments as a preset and kept coming back to it every so often with a fresh eye and made further tweaks, saving the preset again. Now I've got a very good preset that I can instantly apply to any image from my LF1.

Raw Therapy starts with good defaults as well, but I stopped to use it some years ago because of the very frequent crashes and as the denoise was much too slow for me.

You ought to at least check out the latest version. As I understand it, there have been very major changes over the years....

[greenmorpher]

That's the first RAW file I have produced with this camera.

Looks like the colour interpretation is totally off – are you using a camera profile (under Preferences -> Colour Management -> Devices)? Normally, you shouldn't use such a profile and make sure that you checked "Use Camera White Point" under Preferences -> Files -> Raw. (Unfortunately, this doesn't help in all cases – my old Nikon DSLR produced awful colours when set up that way but worked well with a camera specific ICC profile.)

Hiya Burkhard

I am not using a camera profile because there is no provision showing for a camera profile in my PL prefs -- only scanner or printer.

Yes, Use Camera White Point is checked in Prefs>Fkles>Raw. Also set there are VNG Interpolaton Cubic and Profile: sRGB.

Cheers, geoff

[OldRadioGuy]

In any case, my colours are much better than what you show. I'd suggest looking at the Curves and Histogram Correction settings to fix that.

Ken, I did quick-and-dirty screen captures saved as jpgs to show the relative differences between the two examples, not intending to make it a scientific comparison.

Thank you for showing your setup used for raw conversion in PL. That's exactly the reason I turn to a product designed specifically for raw conversion.

I don't want to spend a lot of time tweaking settings to develop a preset that will work with my cameras when there are products that have been tested with my camera brands and (often) lenses. They tend to be faster and more user friendly in image rendering and lens correction. Capture One Pro and Photo Ninja -- for example. Less tweaking required.

Since using PL, I have played with it from time to time for raw conversion. I always find it inferior to one of the products above for my purposes. I suspect most enthusiast photographers would agree with me.

I have tried Raw Therapee, and you're right, it is very good.

Bob

[photoken]

I don't want to spend a lot of time tweaking settings to develop a preset that will work with my cameras when there are products that have been tested with my camera brands and (often) lenses.

No problem -- that's your choice about how engaged you want to be with getting good results. But if you're unwilling to use the application's tools, you have no business criticizing it as being "inferior".

[bkh]

I am not using a camera profile because there is no provision showing for a camera profile in my PL prefs -- only scanner or printer.

Strange. On OS X, I have "Digital Camera" directly below "Scanner". If you don't have this entry, you can just double check that the imported raw layer has a child adjustment layer (with Highlight Correction and Channel Mixer adjustments). If that's the case, PL uses the dcraw colour conversion (which may or may not give you reasonable results, depending on the camera model, unfortunately).

Cheers

Burkhard.

[greenmorpher]

I am not using a camera profile because there is no provision showing for a camera profile in my PL prefs -- only scanner or printer.

Strange. On OS X, I have "Digital Camera" directly below "Scanner". If you don't have this entry, you can just double check that the imported raw layer has a child adjustment layer (with Highlight Correction and Channel Mixer adjustments). If that's the case, PL uses the dcraw colour conversion (which may or may not give you reasonable results, depending on the camera model, unfortunately).

Cheers

Burkhard.

Maybe that's a beta feature!

Cheers, geoff

[mwenz]

@Geoff,
In Windows using version 18.52, the current release, I too have the digital camera setting.

@Ken,

No problem -- that's your choice about how engaged you want to be with getting good results. But if you're unwilling to use the application's tools, you have no business criticizing it as being "inferior".

This is an absolutely incorrect viewpoint. There are many applications I choose to use, one over the other of the same type, because one is inferior in something than another one. I use 4 different vector applications for various tasks because of this very issue.

It is the same with PhotoLine. I use another application for RAW processing because the results are more assured in less time. It has nothing to do with "how engaged I want to be" nor does making that choice invalidate my choice to criticize any application. I believe the exact same thing about PhotoLines vector capabilities. I get faster results using something else. That in no way prevents me from being critical of how PL handles vector drawing nor makes my criticism any less valid than someone who chooses to tough it out using PL's vector tools.

Criticism is communicated critical thinking.

[photoken]

It is the same with PhotoLine. I use another application for RAW processing because the results are more assured in less time.

It's reasonable to prefer another application because it's easier to use or gives better results. I prefer RawTherapee for RAW image processing for those two reasons. It's quite another thing to simply brand an application as "inferior" and claim it can't give a certain result while refusing to use its available tools.

[greenmorpher]

@Geoff,
In Windows using version 18.52, the current release, I too have the digital camera setting.

Thanks, mwenz -- 18.52 (not .51) is the answer on the Mac too.

Cheers, geoff

[Alan9940]

This certainly is an interesting thread...

In my testing of opening RAW files in PL, I have found it's behavior to be somewhat erratic. What I mean by that is, for example, my Sony NEX-6 files look excellent "right out of the box" using the default adjustment layers applied. A couple of my other cameras require tweaking of the default layers and/or additional adjustment layers to produce an acceptable (to my eye) baseline image; works, but it certainly is more effort. In general, I don't plan to use PL to process RAW files, but it's nice to know I can if I need something out quick.

Best regards,
AlanH

[photoken]

A couple of my other cameras require tweaking of the default layers and/or additional adjustment layers to produce an acceptable (to my eye) baseline image; works, but it certainly is more effort.

Yep, it does require some effort. Just out of curiosity (because I don't have multiple cameras), once you've saved the presets, are they OK as starting-point images for the cameras?

In general, I don't plan to use PL to process RAW files, but it's nice to know I can if I need something out quick.

Agreed. There's also the case where I know beforehand that I'll need to do some masking (such as for darkening the blue of the sky and enhancing the contrast between the sky and clouds) where I'm likely to simply start with PL in the first place....

P.S., Sorry for sort of highjacking your discussion for the off-topic arguments.

[Alan9940]

Yep, it does require some effort. Just out of curiosity (because I don't have multiple cameras), once you've saved the presets, are they OK as starting-point images for the cameras?

Yes indeed! As a matter of fact, for one of my most used "other cameras" I had the image up in my most used raw converter, and then played around with the default adjustment layers (I think I may have added one or two more) until I had something in PL that was very close to the other rendering. Save this as a preset and I'm good to go! Btw, I will say that even going with the default rendering in PL for all my cameras I didn't see the wide quality differences as shown in other posts in this thread. With minor tweaks to the default rendering I was able to get a very good starting point for further editing.

Agreed. There's also the case where I know beforehand that I'll need to do some masking (such as for darkening the blue of the sky and enhancing the contrast between the sky and clouds) where I'm likely to simply start with PL in the first place....

Exactly! It's nice to know I can start with a good base image in PL, if that is what's needed.

P.S., Sorry for sort of highjacking your discussion for the off-topic arguments.

No problem! I really enjoy reading the views and working methods of other photographers. Most times I learn something that I can put to good use in my own image processing. It's all good!

Best regards,
AlanH