Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

RAW Processing with Manufacturer Software
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Darkroom
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:36 am    Post subject: RAW Processing with Manufacturer Software Reply with quote
Filing through the many topics in this forum, I get the impression that those cost-free PP software provided by camera manufacturers is considered mediocre in comparison to the actual stars in post processing, like Lightroom or Photoshop. I have used neither of them so far, since I´m naturally greedy and thus stick with Gimp and Raw Therapee, but my results with these programs are usually less good than raws developed with cost-free camera manufacturer software. But this might be related to my needs, which are mainly EV adjustment, white balance, contrast, saturation, dynamic range, noise reduction and sharpness. In other words - make a natural looking image into a slightly better natural looking image, just the few adjustments that the camera didn´t get right in the moment the image was taken. So, having never used PS or LR in the first place, but feeling happy with the PP tools provided by camera manufacturers, I keep wondering if the top-of-the line subsription $$ PP software is the way to the holy grail.

...I ask that since I´m simply too lazy to give it ago with free trial versions, having read here many times that first steps can be quite frustrating. Still want to know if I´m missing something by ignoring them. Many thanks in advance for your advice on this topic.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2023 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FastStone is a good, free, simple and very useful program. It does RAW Conversion, quick and simple editing and is my go to file / picture viewer.

If I need to really work a picture I use Photoshop, but for a quick adjustment FastStone is excellent.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2023 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gimp & Raw Therapy should both equal or surpass results with manufacturer software provided raw conversion settings are similarly set.

Photoshop for example has way more features than I'll ever need, however the adjustment routines are really, really excellent. Adobe software licensing has always been pita , but their method allows for the kind of user data gathering they've used for decades to constantly improve their products.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
FastStone is a good, free, simple and very useful program. It does RAW Conversion, quick and simple editing and is my go to file / picture viewer.

If I need to really work a picture I use Photoshop, but for a quick adjustment FastStone is excellent.


I´ll have a look at FastStone for sure, thanks Lloydy.

visualopsins wrote:
Gimp & Raw Therapy should both equal or surpass results with manufacturer software provided raw conversion settings are similarly set.


I made that conclusion some time ago, it just seems I´m lacking a certain level of understanding to use them in the right way. Probably not entirely - Gimp is mainly annoying me since I cannot get used to the UI. RawTherapee is better in this regard, but has so many functions that would require far more knowledge than I have, despite quite some hours experimenting with it. Especially the wavelet transition functions for sharpening with 2 sliders on 5 different layers left me confused. Too many options to begin with. So if PS and LR are that level of complexity, I rather leave that alone.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm using Photoshop Elements 10 on Windows XP sometimes, for the same auto-adjustment routines as full Photoshop, obtained on ebay for $10, much easier to use than GIMP or full Photoshop. Elements has batch processing which is somewhat difficult with GIMP.

The latest version is $99 from Adobe, runs on later versions of Windows.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2023 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
FastStone is a good, free, simple and very useful program. It does RAW Conversion, quick and simple editing and is my go to file / picture viewer.

If I need to really work a picture I use Photoshop, but for a quick adjustment FastStone is excellent.


Tried that out yesterday. Like 1 small

It seems to be a lot like XNViewMP, which I use for similar purposes. I think I´ll keep it a bit longer and compare.

visualopsins wrote:
I'm using Photoshop Elements 10 on Windows XP sometimes, for the same auto-adjustment routines as full Photoshop, obtained on ebay for $10, much easier to use than GIMP or full Photoshop. Elements has batch processing which is somewhat difficult with GIMP.

The latest version is $99 from Adobe, runs on later versions of Windows.


Haha, that´s what I usually always get in this forum when I start a post without having researched the subject matter beforehand in the most scrupulous way Laugh 1

Until now, Photoshop was just that - I didn´t realize there´s a "light" version called Elements with perpetual licence instead of subscription model. I´ll have a go at the 30 days trial version. Thanks Vis.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 8:47 am    Post subject: Re: RAW Processing with Manufacturer Software Reply with quote
ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars wrote:
Filing through the many topics in this forum, I get the impression that those cost-free PP software provided by camera manufacturers is considered mediocre in comparison to the actual stars in post processing, like Lightroom or Photoshop.


Haha … bit of a cynic here … I sometimes get the impression that those who denigrate the OEM-supplied software are simply trying to justify their "investment", both in money and time spent, in one of the third-party applications.
Doubtless Photoshop, Lightroom etc. etc. are very good at what they do, but for my purposes, having made a little bit of effort to "get it right" in camera, I find the SilkyPix-based Digital Camera Utility from Pentax to be perfectly adequate.
Coincidently, the software supplied with my Samsung NX11 is also based on SilkyPix and guess what … that works as well!
It occurs to me that it's unlikely any camera manufacturer would supply software that wouldn't allow the best results to be achieved from their cameras.
Of course, if editing and distortion is your thing, the aftermarket applications really come into their own in this respect, but for straightforward out-of-the-camera development, the OEM-supplied software can be remarkably good, if you're prepared to spend the time getting to know it Wink


PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2023 9:25 am    Post subject: Re: RAW Processing with Manufacturer Software Reply with quote
kypfer wrote:
ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars wrote:
Filing through the many topics in this forum, I get the impression that those cost-free PP software provided by camera manufacturers is considered mediocre in comparison to the actual stars in post processing, like Lightroom or Photoshop.


Haha … bit of a cynic here … I sometimes get the impression that those who denigrate the OEM-supplied software are simply trying to justify their "investment", both in money and time spent, in one of the third-party applications.
Doubtless Photoshop, Lightroom etc. etc. are very good at what they do, but for my purposes, having made a little bit of effort to "get it right" in camera, I find the SilkyPix-based Digital Camera Utility from Pentax to be perfectly adequate.
Coincidently, the software supplied with my Samsung NX11 is also based on SilkyPix and guess what … that works as well!
It occurs to me that it's unlikely any camera manufacturer would supply software that wouldn't allow the best results to be achieved from their cameras.
Of course, if editing and distortion is your thing, the aftermarket applications really come into their own in this respect, but for straightforward out-of-the-camera development, the OEM-supplied software can be remarkably good, if you're prepared to spend the time getting to know it Wink


Likewise, I sometimes wonder if in-camera processing is looked down upon too much. Sure, I know that one can do more in RAW processing as more of the original sensor info and dynamic range is retained, that is undisputed, but with some experimentation the in-camera processing (to e.g. JPEG, DR settings etc.) can be adjusted quite a bit to give excellent results for the majority of images. I know that e.g. the DR optimization settings in my SONY A7s generally give a more natural looking image than I can easily achieve myself in PP. Only in the more extreme scenarios do I need to do it myself to do a better job. I'm not saying that in-camera processing is better than RAW + PP, but I think it isn't quite as poor a cousin as some make it out to be.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2023 1:02 pm    Post subject: Re: RAW Processing with Manufacturer Software Reply with quote
kypfer wrote:
ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars wrote:
Filing through the many topics in this forum, I get the impression that those cost-free PP software provided by camera manufacturers is considered mediocre in comparison to the actual stars in post processing, like Lightroom or Photoshop.


Haha … bit of a cynic here … I sometimes get the impression that those who denigrate the OEM-supplied software are simply trying to justify their "investment", both in money and time spent, in one of the third-party applications.
Doubtless Photoshop, Lightroom etc. etc. are very good at what they do, but for my purposes, having made a little bit of effort to "get it right" in camera, I find the SilkyPix-based Digital Camera Utility from Pentax to be perfectly adequate.
Coincidently, the software supplied with my Samsung NX11 is also based on SilkyPix and guess what … that works as well!
It occurs to me that it's unlikely any camera manufacturer would supply software that wouldn't allow the best results to be achieved from their cameras.
Of course, if editing and distortion is your thing, the aftermarket applications really come into their own in this respect, but for straightforward out-of-the-camera development, the OEM-supplied software can be remarkably good, if you're prepared to spend the time getting to know it Wink


It really depends on how much time and effort (and money for commercial options) you are willing to invest, and what you want to get out of it.

For a full workflow from development to advanced editing, nothing comes close to the LR+Photoshop combo in terms of power and options, including all kinds of stuff on the publishing/printing side that most users either don't know exist or don't understand. But the fact is, estimating conservatively, 90% of it is never going to be used by 90% of the users.

I used Pentax SLRs for a decade and a half. I'm familiar with their SilkyPix-based DCU. As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY advantage it has over LR is that it has the in-camera presets available as a development option. In every other respect , it is inferior to Lightroom, both as a RAW developer, and as a photo organizer.

But you know what? If you are a casual user dabbling in RAW development, it's probably perfectly adequate. You probably don't need to invest in the Adobe ecosystem. I've got a quarter million RAW files on my computer, and DCU not the right tool for the job for me, so the investment is worth it.

The same goes for the editing side - Elements will meet the needs of the vast majority of users, but my own needs go beyond it, and I've been using PS for 2+ decades, both for work and pleasure, so I don't consider it an extravagance.

The OSS stuff, IMO is a bit of a mixed bag. DarkTable and RAWTherapee are both competitive to Lightroom in terms of features even surpassing LR in some respects, but like a lot of OSS, their user interfaces leave a lot to be desired.
On the editing side of things, GIMP's interface remains utterly abysmal, despite decades of development, AND it is not even close to feature-competitive with PS. Yes, one can, with enough effort, wring out some fairly impressive results from it, but the learning curve is substantially higher than for PS, for a lower return. I've wanted to like GIMP for many years, but every few years when I get around to trying it, the same problems that have always been there remain unfixed. For casual editing something like Krita is probably a much better option.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2023 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is an awkward topic to comment upon but I can give my opinion for what it is worth. I stopped using RAW files many years ago in favour of TIFF PNG and JPEG for complex reasons.

There is not a shadow of a doubt that independent software manufacturers products such as Photoshop Lightroom et al are fabulous products with the best in class raw conversion utilities.

However

Photoshop is generic to all raw files it can handle canon Nikon Pentax etc RAW files. That does not mean it is the best at everything.

Canon understands Canon cameras sensors and its own in camera rendering engines. Nikon understands Nikon cameras sensors and its own in camera rendering engines.

The camera manufacturers products, however clunky they are, are accepted in some quarters as offering more accurate conversion of their own RAW files.

This makes sense, manufacturers usually try to hide their technology to get a lead on competitors and there are so many slight differences between cameras that manufacturers of generic RAW converters must accommodate literally thousands of different ways of doing things. Things that are subtle easily get lost in the wash.

Here is an opinion from the internet regarding this
"Canon DPP is free, sort of "clunky" to use and not as user friendly as LrC or PS from an interface standpoint. But, DPP is, by definition, the most accurate converter of Canon RAW files. However, some folks prefer Adobe's conversion, others Capture 1, etc. DPP also has a very good lens correction module."

The difference may not be noticeable even to the discerning photographer. I have no axe to grind here.

It is a decision each of us must make but I urge you not to throw the camera manufacturers native RAW converters away simply because Photoshop or Lightroom appears to be slicker or better handling without full and complete testing.

My view is whatever gets the job done is the right tool for the job.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2023 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Darktable or Rawtherapee/ART are very good
I prefer Darktable/negadoctor since I have the workflow pinned down for negative "scanning"
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Darkroom
Page 1 of 1