They have got this sensor wrong from the beginning and I often ask myself if it's Adobe's or Fuji's fault. I agree on the single SW preference, but it's good to know we can solve particular problems just by feeding the raw to a different engine I don't think Adobe will invest in putting an alternative one inside ACR/LR. That's indeed the case for using an external developer as Iridient. What happens is that certain kinds of subjects bring to light some low level processing hiccups that are impossible to solve inside LR, because you can't control them. No doubt with an accurate use of denoising/sharpening you are going to get very good results from LR. But Adobe will fix the profile for sure, and you can find personalized ones around (or make them with a gretag card). LR 5.3RC has got some profiling problems with the X-E2, you'll find them mainly under mixed lighting on skin. There's an article here about Iridient/LR:, I think you may have seen it. The competition in RAW converters is good for all of us.Ĭlick to expand.Yep. That said, I will keep on playing around as much of the results are subjective to the viewer and subject matter in the image. I would much prefer to use only one program (Lightroom) for my serious photography, so I am hopeful that Adobe is getting really close to getting X-trans file conversion down pat. LR 5.3RC has the latest Camera RAW algorithm that was updated to include X-E2 files support. However, if I add some sharpness, increase the radius from the default of 1 to about 1.8 and increase the detail to about 50, the result is a image that is as good as the Iridient result. In limited testing with a number of images, I have determined that Iridient does do a nice job with X-E2 files. The resulting new file is saved in the same directory as the original image. Using a LR plug-in, OpenDirect, I have the ability to call up Iridient to process the RAW file from within LR. I also own and use Aperture 3.5.1 for an iPhoto replacement for our family photos, books and Photostream capabilities.Īperture cannot read X-E2 RAW files yet. LR 5.3rc is my main image management and processing tool. I purchased Iridient for my X-E2 RAW files. Any high contrasty color border is softened/mixed by acr. Now that I recall: there has been a thread about BW conversion showing light borders on the buildings: here you can clearly see why. The resulting images are all usable (printable, after some PP and sharpening) but for an high quality print in that case, the only really unusable one is coming from adobe (apparently out of focus crane, light borders between the roof and the sky and all the problems many have already pointed out). Exposure differences because I had DR on, and some free developers don't automatically relight. To sum up: default values except for sharpening and noise reduction, that are set at NONE. Best way to compare: LR or putting the jpegs on PS levels, they are already aligned (but for the developers without lens correction facility). I may upload the raw if asked, no problem. Then I opened the RAW with iridient, and later I decided to develop it with any demo or free developer I have on my mac. I took this shot for an editorial work, it's a mediocre one, but when I saw the resulting image in PS (which I use for work), I thought it was blurred cause of shake, malfunctioning ois, operator error or whatever. I don't comment colors, pleasantness, photographic quality etc. Please, avoid the dpr's attitude: I am not making up anything. Luckily, Iridient offers a very effective noise reduction that can cope with that, giving a similarly clean image as adobe but much more detailed. The drawback of the DCRAW engine is that it extracts a lot of noise together with the detail. The main difference between LR/PS and Iridient is indeed the detail, because Adobe smears everything (I think it blurs the red and blue channels at first). I've used default values, but zeroed any noise reduction and sharpening, to see what the engine is natively extracting and perhaps pre-processing. There are significant differences, with the worst case being ACR (same for PS and LR) and best result being shared among the DCRAW derived developers (DCRAW itself, command line Iridient RPP) and Photoninja (I don't know what it's engine is, perhaps DCRAW but it applies some sort of pre-cleaning too because it shows less noise).Ĭapture1, Aperture and RFC sit in the middle, each one with its own idiosincracies. Yellow crane and tree branches against a blue sky. I have made a test with 8 developers on a critical image taken with an X-E1.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |