RAW processor comparisons (inline images!)

[mani]

You have to become very skilled with the sharpening tool on your converter. I have all these converters and many editing programs. And it seems the sharpening tools are slightly different on each one. I even think the unmask sharp tool on LightRoom is a little different than on Photoshop. But that is my opinion. You are right the RAW file is sharp, but converted to visual form in most converters it is soft. The further or completed sharpening is up to you.

All very true. There's definitely a new learning curve in Lightroom that complements any expertise one might've gained over the years in Photoshop, but I'm still convinced by comparing some of the really fine-grained detail still present in the Iridient RAW file against the Lightroom files, that no amount of highlight/lowlight recovery and sharpening would retrieve that granular structure that Lightroom chooses to discard before the user even has the chance to edit the file.

If I go for the new Macbook Pro I'll give the Aperture trial a look - otherwise I guess ease of use and existing investment will win over fine detail, and I'll stick with Lightroom. Maybe Adobe might one day fix their algorithms to allow users to control the finest details themselves.

 

[mani]

Curious indeed as the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in of Photoshop Elements 4.0 is not that soft.
Now i would not say that the camera files are very sharp to be honest.
Here small crops from the Epson (pic 1) and C1 (pic 2) converters after PP.

Hi LCT - the C1 file there is better to my eyes - but that's a purely subjective judgement naturally.

The AA filter on most digital cameras does soften details in a way that's hard to get used to after film - but I guess at print size the difference is pretty academic.
Frustrating though.

 

[LCT]

Hi LCT - the C1 file there is better to my eye...

Better per se yes indeed but i wonder if the film-like rendition of Epson files don't come from the grain/noise we can see here.

 

[mani]

Yep - I think you may be onto something there LCT - I'll try to get some Epson RAW versions of the images printed this week to compare with the LR versions.

One amazing thing unless I'm totally missing something obvious - I messed around with a few test images in Epson Raw yesterday, and when I re-opened them today none of the settings were saved. It seems like the user has to manually save the settings for each and every image s/he processes! Is this right? Am I missing something?

I don't think I've ever used a Raw developer that doesn't automatically add some kind of 'sidecar' file to keep track of processes attached to the original (but unchanged) image file.
I'm hoping I really did miss something - this doesn't make any sense, at all.

 

[LCT]

Both PhotoRaw and RawPlug-in retain automatically the previous settings. Don't hit Command-I in PhotoRaw though as it initializes the settings. The latters can be saved as 'Processing Parameters' as well.

 

[mani]

Both PhotoRaw and RawPlug-in retain automatically the previous settings. Don't hit Command-I in PhotoRaw though as it initializes the settings. The latters can be saved as 'Processing Parameters' as well.

Ok - strange - I'll take a look again later this week when I have some time. I was very surprised that images I'd processed seemed to take on the settings of the last processed image, instead of their own previous settings.

Thanks again for all the help. Even though the Epson processor isn't the most modern or fastest, I do like the idea of using it to somehow give the camera's images an even more unique and characteristic look - somewhat like choosing PortraNC intead of UltraMax.

 

[mani]

Both PhotoRaw and RawPlug-in retain automatically the previous settings. Don't hit Command-I in PhotoRaw though as it initializes the settings. The latters can be saved as 'Processing Parameters' as well.

Ok - I think maybe I misunderstood the answer the first time around.

What I'm used to happening with RAW processors (such as ACR and Lightroom) is that you can open each individual raw file and change individual settings, and automatically alongside the original file, the raw converter creates another (xml) file that keeps track of your changes and applies them automatically to only that one image whenever you open it again.

What is happening with Epson Raw is that I edit one image, get it looking as I want, and then if I decide to edit another image, instead of reloading THAT image's previous settings, the application just arbitrarily carries over the settings I've just been using for a totally different image.

As far as I can see, I have to save and load the settings for EVERY SINGLE IMAGE manually.

Sorry to be dense - but have I got this right? Because it's the most inefficient workflow I've ever seen, and can hardly believe it's so.

Thanks for any help with this, because I'm actually liking the look of the images from the Epson Raw application, and I'd like to give it a chance.

 

[charjohncarter]

Don't be sorry, people have written books on this arcane stuff.

 

[mani]

hehehe - So true!

But now, I'm still confused, and I'd like anyone who has experience with Epson Photo Raw to step forward and confirm or deny this nasty rumor: do I have to manually save the development parameters each time I edit an image, and then manually load those settings again each and every time I want to edit the image file?

I can see that evolving this workflow may not be the hardest ever task - IF I'm simply not missing something obvious in the Preferences or Settings which takes care of this process without my tedious manual intervention.
I just would like to give the Epson processor a chance, because the images really do have an interesting look compared to the smoother, more generic look I get from Lightroom (which I still think has by far the best usability of all the RAW processors I've tried).

 

[LCT]

... do I have to manually save the development parameters each time I edit an image, and then manually load those settings again each and every time I want to edit the image file?...

I guess you do but i'm not sure as i've never done otherwise so far sorry. I don't develop my raws more than once generally.

 

[mani]

OK, thanks LCT.

I must say, the online 'manual' and application support is really awful with the Epson converter - but the results are really nice!
Rather like the camera itself in fact!

I tend to go back and tweak results a little until I'm actually ready to print - and even then I'd see the processed version as the real 'negative' rather than the purely raw version, so this application behavior is actually rather poor.

Thanks again for the help - I'm gonna sit with the app a little and then print some comparison versions the same way I did with Lightroom. I'll see then if it's worth the extra effort.