usayit
Well-known
I'm doing my own comparison. Both Lightroom and Epson are making adjustments automatically in different ways. Just different behavior based on different design decisions. With a little work, I can produce output from each one that look pretty similar.
In terms of detail, I am not seeing a drastic difference between the two. The one thing I did notice was that Epson RAW is still applying a bit of sharpening even with "EdgeEnhance" set to 0. So my initial comparison of output with Epson RAW's EdgeEnhance setting set to 0 and Lightroom's Shapening set to 0 made it "seem" that details were lost in Lightroom. If Epson Raw's Edge ENhance setting was set to -5, I noticed the image was very similar to lightroom's sharpening set to 0. My confusion was that 0 EdgeEnhance setting is more like a default amount of sharpening rather than ~no~ sharpening as assumed.
If produce images with PhotoRaw EdgeEnhance set to -5 and Lightroom Sharpening set to 0, output to TIFF, and applied the same amount of sharpening in Photoshop, I get similar output.
In terms of detail, I am not seeing a drastic difference between the two. The one thing I did notice was that Epson RAW is still applying a bit of sharpening even with "EdgeEnhance" set to 0. So my initial comparison of output with Epson RAW's EdgeEnhance setting set to 0 and Lightroom's Shapening set to 0 made it "seem" that details were lost in Lightroom. If Epson Raw's Edge ENhance setting was set to -5, I noticed the image was very similar to lightroom's sharpening set to 0. My confusion was that 0 EdgeEnhance setting is more like a default amount of sharpening rather than ~no~ sharpening as assumed.
If produce images with PhotoRaw EdgeEnhance set to -5 and Lightroom Sharpening set to 0, output to TIFF, and applied the same amount of sharpening in Photoshop, I get similar output.
Last edited:
mani
Well-known
Incidentally it wasn't my intention to imply that one interpretation of a raw file was better than another - only that for my purposes and in my opinion the Epson Raw converter produces results that I prefer.
As for 'filmlike' - well the Epson converter definitely produces a grainier and slightly vibrantly colored file - and because these qualities remind me of Portra (my favorite color film) even when printed, I'd say the results from the Epson converter are more 'film-like'.
But that debate is a whole other thread...
As for 'filmlike' - well the Epson converter definitely produces a grainier and slightly vibrantly colored file - and because these qualities remind me of Portra (my favorite color film) even when printed, I'd say the results from the Epson converter are more 'film-like'.
But that debate is a whole other thread...