| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/05/2011 09:58:05 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Arguably, and cynically, the reason Adobe doesn't backwards-engineer their stuff the way we'd like them to is because they are trying to push the world into DNG as the single, standard format. Certainly, their lives, and the lives of all software manufacturers, would be a heck of a lot simpler if the camera companies would standardize on DNG as the go-to RAW formula.
|
I am not sure that this is the main reason. For Adobe and others, having no backward compatibility is one more (and a big one) selling point for upgrades. Making RAW converter understand newer formats is a small cost compared with additional sales they are getting. If every camera manufacturer adopts DNG format, they will lose this selling point completely.
Having said that, I am resisting to upgrade to CS5, even though my PS CS4 does not understand Lumix LX5 files. Using Lightroom-2 for basic adjustments and exporting DNG files if I need to go to Photoshop works fine for me. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 10:24:52 PM · #27 |
Have you looked at Capture One? Capture One Express is $129, which is less than the upgrade and it does a fantastic job with RAW conversion. There is a 30 day free trial, so you could give it a try with no risk.
Message edited by author 2011-05-05 22:25:44. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 11:03:26 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It certainly doesn't double the file size, no: but you still have the original RAW (which you need for DPC validation, if for no other reason) so you're using twice the space, yeah... I haven't seen any loss of functionality in the RAW conversion, as far as I've gone with it, which admittedly isn't that far since I don't use the Lumix that often and I have CS5 now anyway.
But the whole POINT of DNG, in theory, is to create a single standard that everything can convert to specifically so that issues like this will not happen. So I'd be stunned if they had created a format that involved any loss of any quality or functionality.
Arguably, and cynically, the reason Adobe doesn't backwards-engineer their stuff the way we'd like them to is because they are trying to push the world into DNG as the single, standard format. Certainly, their lives, and the lives of all software manufacturers, would be a heck of a lot simpler if the camera companies would standardize on DNG as the go-to RAW formula.
It's interesting: on the one hand it's hard for me to get worked up over the fact that Adobe won't go and reverse-engineer all old levels of RAW converters every time a manufacturer comes out with a newer! better! improved! RAW format. I mean, that's EXPENSIVE. But then, when I see that in the case of your PEN files ALL that's required is a name coding, then I shake my head a little on the penny-wise and pound-foolish aspect of the thing, but...
Anyway give DNG a try, I liked it fine.
R. |
Good suggestion, I'll give it a shot. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 11:10:43 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Good suggestion, I'll give it a shot. |
It's a good solution. FWIW, the comments about "doubling file size" can be accurate, if you choose the option to embed the RAW file, which essentially duplicates all the data.
You should also be aware that a RAW file converted to DNG is *not* a valid original for DPC purposes.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2011 11:37:27 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Good suggestion, I'll give it a shot. |
It's a good solution. FWIW, the comments about "doubling file size" can be accurate, if you choose the option to embed the RAW file, which essentially duplicates all the data.
You should also be aware that a RAW file converted to DNG is *not* a valid original for DPC purposes. |
I guess that's what they meant about doubling the file size. I just tried it out and it looks pretty good. Just another step in the workflow for now.
Adobe is still on my "list" though. ;-)
In my OP, I said I am interested in an alternative to Photoshop. I've been using PS since version 2 when it was a Mac only program. So, I'm pretty much tuned into the tools, palettes, sliders, etc of Photoshop. Anytime I took a look at something else, it was like trying to learn to write with my left hand (i'm right handed). I just couldn't get the hang of the tools or screens.
I know some people use GIMP. Is PS still the only/best game in town for high end photo editing? |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 11:38:48 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Have you looked at Capture One? Capture One Express is $129, which is less than the upgrade and it does a fantastic job with RAW conversion. There is a 30 day free trial, so you could give it a try with no risk. |
I've heard great things about Phase One and it RAW conversion.
I looked at the site, but I can't tell what the difference is in the RAW converter between Express and Pro. Are they the same?
ETA - I found a comparison chart.
Message edited by author 2011-05-06 11:41:53. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 11:41:02 AM · #32 |
| I did that for a very short while when I had CS2 with the 5D2, but it very quickly got tedious... |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 11:42:57 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I did that for a very short while when I had CS2 with the 5D2, but it very quickly got tedious... |
I'll bet. I'm not crazy about the idea, but hacking the EXIF data is just as tedious and makes you feel all hacky. ;-) |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 12:03:12 PM · #34 |
I had no idea this was a problem even 1 version back. When I had CS2 I figured it was probably time to upgrade.
One other possibility is to look into Lightroom. That's another workaround and somewhat cheaper option. Still doesn't get past the principle of it all... |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 12:09:16 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I had no idea this was a problem even 1 version back. When I had CS2 I figured it was probably time to upgrade.
One other possibility is to look into Lightroom. That's another workaround and somewhat cheaper option. Still doesn't get past the principle of it all... |
Plus, I have a TB of images already in Aperture (a Lightroom competitor). Once Apple comes out with the RAW update, it'll be fine except for when I want to use PS stand alone on my PC work laptop.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2011 12:09:41 PM · #36 |
A few years back I tried Capture One, and I was not all that impressed. I felt that Adobe's converter did every bit as well (and that's before many of the recent improvements) and the C1 interface was clunky. Although Lr at the time was a relatively slow, piggish application, I stuck with it and I'm very glad I have done so. there are some very real advantages to Adobe's RAW converter, including the ability to correct automatically for some lens aberrations, and great manual control when you can't do it automatically. I also find the organization and workflow advantages of Lr to be tremendous.
BTW, I use Lr almost daily @ work, where I use it to gather RAW images from Canon 5D cameras mounted to industrial microscopes. I'm able to rapidly acquire images, applying my selected keywords and storing in my selected structure (date-based folders). I can easily apply settings to multiple images, manage the image library, and export JPEGs while continuing to work on other tasks. I also use Lr at home as a library management tool and for RAW conversion and initial edits.
On the topic of Ps vs other editing apps, I cannot imagine trying to make that transition. I used GIMP for about a year on a work laptop at a previous job, and it was so clunky and limited that I ditched it.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2011 12:18:09 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
A few years back I tried Capture One, and I was not all that impressed. I felt that Adobe's converter did every bit as well (and that's before many of the recent improvements) and the C1 interface was clunky. Although Lr at the time was a relatively slow, piggish application, I stuck with it and I'm very glad I have done so. there are some very real advantages to Adobe's RAW converter, including the ability to correct automatically for some lens aberrations, and great manual control when you can't do it automatically. I also find the organization and workflow advantages of Lr to be tremendous.
BTW, I use Lr almost daily @ work, where I use it to gather RAW images from Canon 5D cameras mounted to industrial microscopes. I'm able to rapidly acquire images, applying my selected keywords and storing in my selected structure (date-based folders). I can easily apply settings to multiple images, manage the image library, and export JPEGs while continuing to work on other tasks. I also use Lr at home as a library management tool and for RAW conversion and initial edits.
On the topic of Ps vs other editing apps, I cannot imagine trying to make that transition. I used GIMP for about a year on a work laptop at a previous job, and it was so clunky and limited that I ditched it. |
I use Aperture from the same reasons, organization, workflow, RAW conversion. I really can't say which RAW converter I like best, Adobe's or Apples. Both are very good.
I just wish Adobe had some real competition in the Photoshop space. I think it would keep them honest.
I keep thinking Apple will come out with a top of the line photo editing package, like they did with movie editing. That would give Adobe a run for their money, at least in the Mac world.
Actually, it would make the Flash brouhaha look like kid's stuff.
If that ever happens I'll bet we'll see the end of these draconian upgrade practices from Adobe and more support for 1 version back. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 01:39:21 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Have you looked at Capture One? Capture One Express is $129, which is less than the upgrade and it does a fantastic job with RAW conversion. There is a 30 day free trial, so you could give it a try with no risk. |
I've heard great things about Phase One and it RAW conversion.
I looked at the site, but I can't tell what the difference is in the RAW converter between Express and Pro. Are they the same?
ETA - I found a comparison chart. |
My brother and I have made detailed and thorough side to side comparisons between Adobe Camera Raw and Capture One (Not to be confused with Nikon's Capture NX). There is really no comparison. Capture One is so far ahead in color rendition, detail preservation, quality of shadow and highlight recovery, noise reduction, quality of sharpening, skin tone and color management, etc. It is true that the interface is unfamiliar but that is not an issue once you get used to it, which happens quickly. The ability to create variants non-destructively and see them side by side; apply patterns automatically to a series of shots taken under the same parameters, etc will make you not want to use anything else for raw conversion. They claim the software supports just about every dslr in the market but that I haven't confirmed. I don't think you would ever regret investing your money in Capture One. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 01:54:24 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
...The ability to create variants non-destructively and see them side by side; apply patterns automatically to a series of shots taken under the same parameters, etc will make you not want to use anything else for raw conversion. They claim the software supports just about every dslr in the market but that I haven't confirmed. I don't think you would ever regret investing your money in Capture One. |
Lr can do all this and much more... I grant that I have not used C1 in at least two years, but it's (very) hard to believe that it can do measurably better than the latest versions of ACR/Lr on the same files.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2011 02:34:34 PM · #40 |
| I find C1's color space and color temperature tools much more subtle and well designed than LR, but that going from C1 to PS is not as smooth as LR. Too many times the move over to PS from C1 resulted in over hot yellows and oranges. A fairly common complaint from Canon users over at the C1 boards. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 04:12:01 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I looked at the site, but I can't tell what the difference is in the RAW converter between Express and Pro. Are they the same? |
The RAW conversion is the same between express and pro. Express doesn't keep each session in a separate folder and I don't think some of the new ipad capabilities enabled.
Removed my opinion about the conversion programs and the default-to-default comparison. I wanted to quickly show an example of what I find to be a uniquely film like conversion, but showing it as a comparison opens up a can of worms.
Message edited by author 2011-05-07 00:48:08. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 04:46:18 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
...The ability to create variants non-destructively and see them side by side; apply patterns automatically to a series of shots taken under the same parameters, etc will make you not want to use anything else for raw conversion. They claim the software supports just about every dslr in the market but that I haven't confirmed. I don't think you would ever regret investing your money in Capture One. |
Lr can do all this and much more... I grant that I have not used C1 in at least two years, but it's (very) hard to believe that it can do measurably better than the latest versions of ACR/Lr on the same files. |
It is not what it does but how well it does it. The quality of the resulting image is clearly superior. Don't take my word for it, give it a shot, compare the results side to side, you'll see for yourself.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2011 05:00:58 PM · #43 |
| My brother has a new (sealed) copy of PS CS 5 Extended along with Acrobat 9 Pro. He wants to sell the bundle for $700 -- about half retail. PM me if you're interested and I'll give you the contact details. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 06:01:04 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
...The ability to create variants non-destructively and see them side by side; apply patterns automatically to a series of shots taken under the same parameters, etc will make you not want to use anything else for raw conversion. They claim the software supports just about every dslr in the market but that I haven't confirmed. I don't think you would ever regret investing your money in Capture One. |
Lr can do all this and much more... I grant that I have not used C1 in at least two years, but it's (very) hard to believe that it can do measurably better than the latest versions of ACR/Lr on the same files. |
It is not what it does but how well it does it. The quality of the resulting image is clearly superior. Don't take my word for it, give it a shot, compare the results side to side, you'll see for yourself. |
I will take your advice and do it. I am "between computers" for editing, since I lost my editing machine to a mobo failure. It's been some time since I looked at C1.
FWIW, I *do* believe that some of the perceived differences are due to the admittedly non-optimal defaults of some of the Adobe settings. Some of them can give downright ugly results if abused.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2011 06:21:25 PM · #45 |
This is great stuff people, I really appreciate it and hope others are benefiting from the knowledgeable people posting here.
I am going to get the 30 trail of C1 Express and try it out.
I did dl the DNG converter and at least I can use CS4 on the road.
I sure hope Adobe steps up their game soon. I love the product, but the business model has evolved into something I don't like very much. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 06:40:08 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
FWIW, I *do* believe that some of the perceived differences are due to the admittedly non-optimal defaults of some of the Adobe settings. Some of them can give downright ugly results if abused. |
We never compared default vs default, it would serve no purpose. The way we compare performance is by picking challenging pictures and trying to resolve the same issue as best as we can using both tools. Some examples: white balance issues where skin tone is crucial, loss of detail in obscure or bright areas, noise in dark areas, sharpening, etc. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 07:46:40 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I had no idea this was a problem even 1 version back. When I had CS2 I figured it was probably time to upgrade.
One other possibility is to look into Lightroom. That's another workaround and somewhat cheaper option. Still doesn't get past the principle of it all... |
Well, Lightroom WILL at least open a photo in Photoshop after conversion. So it ends up working more like a much more sophisticated version of Bridge.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2011 12:30:10 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by kirbic:
FWIW, I *do* believe that some of the perceived differences are due to the admittedly non-optimal defaults of some of the Adobe settings. Some of them can give downright ugly results if abused. |
We never compared default vs default, it would serve no purpose. The way we compare performance is by picking challenging pictures and trying to resolve the same issue as best as we can using both tools. Some examples: white balance issues where skin tone is crucial, loss of detail in obscure or bright areas, noise in dark areas, sharpening, etc. |
Ugh.... I did post up a comparison of default vs default earlier in the thread. It gone now and I'll let you guys do a more critical analysis.
Message edited by author 2011-05-07 00:52:09. |
|
|
|
05/10/2011 11:36:08 AM · #49 |
I'm curious if you made any progress with Adobe alternatives for your RAW conversion?
I did some more comparisons this morning with an image shot in less than ideal conditions. The one I am missing is an Adobe conversion because I am still using CS3.
  
Message edited by author 2011-05-10 11:46:46. |
|
|
|
05/18/2011 12:16:48 PM · #50 |
Mac OS X v10.6: Supported digital camera RAW formats
Supported by Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 3.7
...
Olympus E-PL2
...
Now you will have compatibility with Apple's Aperture. |
|
