The Ongoing RAW Processing Question...

J

Joel_Partch

Messages
52
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Every couple of years I push sample RAW files of whatever I'm currently shooting with through a variety of processors to see what gives the best results. Historically, every time, this has resulted in sticking with Capture One. However, somewhat needled by their upgrade pricing, I looked a bit harder than usual in late 2019 . . . getting on for 20 years down the line.
Previously I'd toyed with DXO, and loved the profiling and range of geometry correction, but the basic imaging engine always gave plasticky results. Although Lightroom has become the new norm, I've never found its output to give the best detail extraction. Affinity looks good, but again doesn't give reference-grade results. Etc.
Anyway, long story cut short - I've switched everything over to the relatively unpopular DXO, and just upgraded to V3 with its HSL-based colour correction. It is biasing me toward lens pairing for which it has profiles, rather than weird combinations I rely on - like the Rodenstock APOs in tilt adaptors - but everything about DXO seems to have matured into the best processor available. After a decade of C1 I'm not looking back.
Is Lightroom the #1 choice around these parts? What have your experiences been?
 
What are your criteria for "best results", how do you measure that? Genuinely interested
 
First post and already butting heads with an suspicious forum member . . . interesting barometer reading.
I've no vested interest in DXO. I think it's interesting how it's been sidelined. RAW processors have been something I've periodically scrutinised in depth for the entire timeline of digital photography. I am curious, and a little incredulous, about why Lightroom has become so popular.
 
Apologies if you're genuine but it's happened before.... a lot.

Yes, I use Lightroom.

I guess it's because I know it pretty well by now and have no issues with the output apart from when I had Fuji cameras, then the output was appalling so I sold the Fuji's.
 
sirch said:
What are your criteria for "best results", how do you measure that? Genuinely interested
Click to expand...
Well, yes, it's somewhat subjective. Personally, I'm looking for powerful controls and - at 300% inspection - the most sophisticated balance between detail extraction and noise suppression. Typically I take a problematic high ISO image, and a well lit base ISO image and spend several hours extracting the best result from each app. Then compare.
Recently, my workflow has incorporated a couple of refinements: first, I'm looking to work a file as hard as possible in the RAW processor, where maximum bit depth is available. It seems that (for instance) geometry correction is always lossy in post-production tools, but relatively lossless when manipulated as part of the conversion process. Generally, I'm trying to get my images into PS pre-squared and not mess with geometry subsequently.
Secondly, corollary with that, I've discovered the benefit of heavy oversampling during RAW conversion. Typically I'm taking images into PS at 3x size - applying corrections in LAB - then sharpening and downsampling. It enables me to get ridiculously improved quality from even modest MFT sensors.
 
Choices of and development of the software is always open to personal preferences ;)

Long story short ~ I use DxO now as my main RAW editor..............the main reason for the switch from LR was the Prime NR that handles my Olympus MFT files oh so much better than LR :)

For me it is not about one program doing everything:-
Currently still use LR as my DAM but will try PhotoSupreme soon
DxO as RAW editor (very much on a learning curve here)
Photoshop for some finalising as appropriate
Topaz DeNoise, Sharpen & Gigapixel in the mix as and where required.

As for best ~ I like what I like and will always want to be in a position where any PP'ing will be done to create a file for web but with the intermediate steps kept to ensure the file is there for me to parallel process (as needed) for printing!

IMO there is no such thing as "best", FWIW the only thing we can agree on "is best for us" and whether others may of may not concur :LOL:

PS having said that, I am sure we have all had sows ears and/or seen such posted by others on occasion ;)
 
Joel_Partch said:
Well, yes, it's somewhat subjective. Personally, I'm looking for powerful controls and - at 300% inspection - the most sophisticated balance between detail extraction and noise suppression. Typically I take a problematic high ISO image, and a well lit base ISO image and spend several hours extracting the best result from each app. Then compare.
Recently, my workflow has incorporated a couple of refinements: first, I'm looking to work a file as hard as possible in the RAW processor, where maximum bit depth is available. It seems that (for instance) geometry correction is always lossy in post-production tools, but relatively lossless when manipulated as part of the conversion process. Generally, I'm trying to get my images into PS pre-squared and not mess with geometry subsequently.
Secondly, corollary with that, I've discovered the benefit of heavy oversampling during RAW conversion. Typically I'm taking images into PS at 3x size - applying corrections in LAB - then sharpening and downsampling. It enables me to get ridiculously improved quality from even modest MFT sensors.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, it seems that you want much more from your files than I do. I'm not printing very large so what I get from most raw processors is fine.
 
Box Brownie said:
Choices of and development of the software is always open to personal preferences ;)

Long story short ~ I use DxO now as my main RAW editor..............the main reason for the switch from LR was the Prime NR that handles my Olympus MFT files oh so much better than LR :)

For me it is not about one program doing everything:-
Currently still use LR as my DAM but will try PhotoSupreme soon
DxO as RAW editor (very much on a learning curve here)
Photoshop for some finalising as appropriate
Topaz DeNoise, Sharpen & Gigapixel in the mix as and where required.

As for best ~ I like what I like and will always want to be in a position where any PP'ing will be done to create a file for web but with the intermediate steps kept to ensure the file is there for me to parallel process (as needed) for printing!

IMO there is no such thing as "best", FWIW the only thing we can agree on "is best for us" and whether others may of may not concur :LOL:

PS having said that, I am sure we have all had sows ears and/or seen such posted by others on occasion ;)
Click to expand...

Go Laurence! DXO was always a bit of an also-ran, but whatever under-the-hood tinkering they've done recently has worked - especially for MFT. For architecture and product shots, the G9 in hi-res mode is such a massive improvement over any FF body (apart from hi-res on the S1R), I'm orienting everything around it, and DXO's compatibility and ability to reduce multi-capture haze has become central to my new shooting paradigm.
 
I was a long term Lightroom user, but these days I prefer the results I get from On1,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top