squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I was kind of surprised to see in another thread that Colin has already sold his G1, due to his discomfort with Panasonic's behind-the-scenes software correction to RAW files. This has been on my mind, too--I noticed it was happening when I used RawDrop to process LX3 files last year.
In theory, we shouldn't care--it's the end result that matters, right? But somehow, we do care, and maybe (as in Colin's case) the problem's with the end result after all. Maybe this new trend (and I think it is a trend, and will only become more prevalent) will have the unintended effect of sucking the character out of our digital files, and erasing the personality of our lenses.
Anyway, I wrote a longish essay about this here:
http://www.jrobertlennon.com/articles/softwarecorrection/
Thought it might be a good discussion topic.
In theory, we shouldn't care--it's the end result that matters, right? But somehow, we do care, and maybe (as in Colin's case) the problem's with the end result after all. Maybe this new trend (and I think it is a trend, and will only become more prevalent) will have the unintended effect of sucking the character out of our digital files, and erasing the personality of our lenses.
Anyway, I wrote a longish essay about this here:
http://www.jrobertlennon.com/articles/softwarecorrection/
Thought it might be a good discussion topic.
back alley
IMAGES
i rarely use raw.
jpeg works fine for me.
and the software corrections don't seem to impede my 'vision'.
in the 'artist' thread many folks think it's a pretension to call onseself an artist, for me i think it's pretentious to think that a camera or software is going to get in my way.
joe
jpeg works fine for me.
and the software corrections don't seem to impede my 'vision'.
in the 'artist' thread many folks think it's a pretension to call onseself an artist, for me i think it's pretentious to think that a camera or software is going to get in my way.
joe
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Pretentious? That's a little extreme, I think. If I'm using the R-D1 or K20D, I shoot RAW; with the LX3 I shoot JPEG. in each case, I just think the pictures look better.
You make do with what you've got, but you also do the best you can with what you've got.
Personally, I'm an agnostic on this issue...
You make do with what you've got, but you also do the best you can with what you've got.
Personally, I'm an agnostic on this issue...
back alley
IMAGES
i just think that the image is what's key and we all seem to get way too hung up on the process.
one of my ex-wives was a terrifc photographer and editor and she barely knew her way around her camera. she had a great eye.
one of my ex-wives was a terrifc photographer and editor and she barely knew her way around her camera. she had a great eye.
kuzano
Veteran
Is is naive to think....
Is is naive to think....
Is It Naive to Think???
Is there really any such thing as a truly RAW file. I am inclined to think that the proprietary nature of all manufacturer RAW images must mean that some tweaking has been done to image data.
It seems inconceivable that camera makers and software engineers do not imbue their "RAW" images with some signature effect in the files. If there were actually a standard for RAW, based on absolute capture and inclusion of all the data, without modification, and regardless of the camera brand, then would not all files "RAW" taken of an identical image, regardless of the camera, be the same size and render on the screen exactly alike.
So, it doesn't surprise me at all to find people alluding to differences they find in various manufacturers handling of RAW files.
One of the myths of the digital world is the concept of any standards anywhere in the industry. It's a function of manufacturers to maintain propriety of their products over others, and the arrogance of design engineers and programmers to find "new and better" ways to create products.
On the other hand, it is a function of product development. Really true standards would impede the creation of new products, as well as slow down progress in the market.
Consequently, there really is NO TRUE RAW, and we are all probably better off for it.
But, it does make camera selection interesting, if not difficult.
Is is naive to think....
Is It Naive to Think???
Is there really any such thing as a truly RAW file. I am inclined to think that the proprietary nature of all manufacturer RAW images must mean that some tweaking has been done to image data.
It seems inconceivable that camera makers and software engineers do not imbue their "RAW" images with some signature effect in the files. If there were actually a standard for RAW, based on absolute capture and inclusion of all the data, without modification, and regardless of the camera brand, then would not all files "RAW" taken of an identical image, regardless of the camera, be the same size and render on the screen exactly alike.
So, it doesn't surprise me at all to find people alluding to differences they find in various manufacturers handling of RAW files.
One of the myths of the digital world is the concept of any standards anywhere in the industry. It's a function of manufacturers to maintain propriety of their products over others, and the arrogance of design engineers and programmers to find "new and better" ways to create products.
On the other hand, it is a function of product development. Really true standards would impede the creation of new products, as well as slow down progress in the market.
Consequently, there really is NO TRUE RAW, and we are all probably better off for it.
But, it does make camera selection interesting, if not difficult.
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
I think that if bundled raw sw corrects for lens behavior, noise, etc. that it would be nice if the sw let the photographer see what the lens originally saw, rather than non-transparently correcting it. An intersting book on this topic is "After Photography."
photogdave
Shops local
For some, the process is more interesting than the result. I kinda like a mix of both!
As to the original question, I found it interesting to read somewhere that the reason Leica is not participating in the micro four thirds program is because they are uncomfortable with the amount of software correction needed to make the lenses work, yet they market the Panasonic LX3 under their own name!
As to the original question, I found it interesting to read somewhere that the reason Leica is not participating in the micro four thirds program is because they are uncomfortable with the amount of software correction needed to make the lenses work, yet they market the Panasonic LX3 under their own name!
Bruin
Noktonian
I think software correction in RAW is the future, but camera makers should be open about it and give users control over what gets corrected. For example, I want barrel distortion fixed but not noise reduction (remember what happened to Sony's A700?). I don't see RAW as some untouchable holy grail in the camera, only to be manipulated for output by my RAW converter anyways. The RAW by itself is useless. If RAW corrections will make lenses smaller, lighter, and cheaper because the camera can correct for more aberrations, then I'm all for it. Just give me the option to turn on/off what I want.
Last edited:
I'd like to comment but I'm still trying to find out what exactly the issue is. I'm waiting for some specifics, something that I can duplicate.
As for some sort of RAW corrections erasing the personality of the lenses, that's utter nonsense. I've used many legacy lenses on the G1, and all show their inherent characteristics. As I said in a post a few weeks ago, a Summicron looks like a Summicron, a 'lux looks like a 'lux, a Nokton looks like a Nokton, a Nikkor looks like a Nikkor, a Noct looks like a Noct.
As for some sort of RAW corrections erasing the personality of the lenses, that's utter nonsense. I've used many legacy lenses on the G1, and all show their inherent characteristics. As I said in a post a few weeks ago, a Summicron looks like a Summicron, a 'lux looks like a 'lux, a Nokton looks like a Nokton, a Nikkor looks like a Nikkor, a Noct looks like a Noct.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I only cite that as the extreme possible effect of this trend, not something that's actually a problem now.
Avotius
Some guy
You see I am all for the in camera correction of all the bad aberrations that are difficult to get rid of in raw, plus if it is going to take care of lens distortion while its doing it all the better! That is one less thing that I have to do later! But when it is equalizing out all the photos (I always shoot raw btw because that is what we are required to do) in terms of sharpness, color, etc etc etc then forget it. Not my style. One of the big draws of the G1 for me was adapted lenses and whats the point when they all look the same as the kit lens and I know from experience that Zeiss M mount lenses on digital have more to give then that. Also because I wanted a smaller camera, more GRD sized...
Tuolumne
Veteran
I find objections to this hilarious. You might as well complain about using a compound lens to correct abberations, because it just obscures what the original lens "saw". 
/T
/T
emraphoto
Veteran
"i just think that the image is what's key and we all seem to get way too hung up on the process"
joe, could one argue that if indeed the image is what's key then having the un-altered version would be a very valuable starting point?
i as well need to do more research to fully understand the matter but at this point i will not be buying into a camera system that applies corrections to raw files.
joe, could one argue that if indeed the image is what's key then having the un-altered version would be a very valuable starting point?
i as well need to do more research to fully understand the matter but at this point i will not be buying into a camera system that applies corrections to raw files.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I agree.
RAW correction as part of lens design seems a very good thing to me. If you can make a lens better overall by handling some of the design compromises in software, fine.
However, I'd prefer noise issues left to me in post processing.
Alternatively, provide the user the option of in camera correction, RAW conversion based correction, or minimal to no corrections.
That's just it, they don't all look like the kit lens. They can't possibly...just one example, shoot the kit lens at 40mm and compare it to a 40mm Nokton or a 40mm Summicron-C. They clearly have a totally different look...how could software say 'hey, this is a Nokton, we have to tweak this and that to make it look like the kit lens' and then say 'hey, that's a Summicron shot! Now I have to change A, B, and C.'
This is illogical.
This is illogical.
I'd like to know your workflow so I can duplicate this...
ampguy
Veteran
I think you're fine
I think you're fine
by using known good lenses on say the G1, you're probably not invoking the hard software correction in the "sanctioned" raw converters for the G1. There are examples out there of uncorrected raw images from the G1 kit lens, and it's not pretty.
The fixes Panasonic possibly uses might be something like this pseudocode:
if (identified_good_lens)
donothing();
return();
else (kit_lens_1)
fixup (distortion);
fixup (purple_fringe)
fixup (color)
fixup (...)
where the fixup's for raw, are equivalent to what the JPG in-camera processing already does.
...
A vendor known for their superior optical and mechanical qualities, and less for their software tweaking, might see ultimately less value in their primary values if similar images can come from cheap Thailand lenses with some fancy software hacks.
I think you're fine
by using known good lenses on say the G1, you're probably not invoking the hard software correction in the "sanctioned" raw converters for the G1. There are examples out there of uncorrected raw images from the G1 kit lens, and it's not pretty.
The fixes Panasonic possibly uses might be something like this pseudocode:
if (identified_good_lens)
donothing();
return();
else (kit_lens_1)
fixup (distortion);
fixup (purple_fringe)
fixup (color)
fixup (...)
where the fixup's for raw, are equivalent to what the JPG in-camera processing already does.
...
A vendor known for their superior optical and mechanical qualities, and less for their software tweaking, might see ultimately less value in their primary values if similar images can come from cheap Thailand lenses with some fancy software hacks.
Tuolumne
Veteran
I suppose one can pay for superb optics, or can pay a lot less for excellent optics with software corrections. It's clear the G1 is built to a price point (as are all cameras) and I doubt anyone would pay substantially more for a G1 just to get a kit lens that could stand on its own optically in terms of distortion and CA. Frankly, I wish they'd sell the G1 body only.
Anyone that does want to spend money on the best optics possible certainly can do so, that's what is great about having choices in the market place. But even the $6000 M8 requires corrections.
I'd still like to see real repeatable evidence of other RAW corrections besides those being done to improve optical performance of the kit lens.
Anyone that does want to spend money on the best optics possible certainly can do so, that's what is great about having choices in the market place. But even the $6000 M8 requires corrections.
I'd still like to see real repeatable evidence of other RAW corrections besides those being done to improve optical performance of the kit lens.
Tuolumne
Veteran
I suppose one can pay for superb optics, or can pay a lot less for excellent optics with software corrections. It's clear the G1 is built to a price point (as are all cameras) and I doubt anyone would pay substantially more for a G1 just to get a kit lens that could stand on its own optically in terms of distortion and CA. Frankly, I wish they'd sell the G1 body only.
Anyone that does want to spend money on the best optics possible certainly can do so, that's what is great about having choices in the market place. But even the $6000 M8 requires corrections.
I'd still like to see real repeatable evidence of other RAW corrections besides those being done to improve optical performance of the kit lens.
Honestly - who cares? It works. Isn't that all that matters? After all, we are in the business of capturing appearances. This isn't metaphysics.
/T