RAW-Files from R-D1

[Wolfram]

Hello,

two days ago I got my R-D1. As usual (with other digital cameras in the last years) I began to take photos in Raw-Format. And as usual I used Adobes Camera Raw (ACR) for opening and converting them in Photoshop CS on my Mac.

I have to confess, that I was not satisfied with the results. Almost any picture came out too dark, compared to the results from LCD-Display. Ok, I shouldn’t compare something with the display, but even the histogram looked sometimes in a completely other way.

So I tried Epson’s Raw-Plugin. When I began to compare between them (ACR and Epson’s Plugin). I was really surprised. I never had some manufacturers/native software, which differs so much in conversion from ACR!
Even the brightness is really different (up to ½ Aperture), most obviously in black&white…

In the last two years I used Canon’s DPP and Kodaks PhotoDesk beside Photoshop. The results between them and ACR of course have been different, but nevertheless quite comparable. And here…

Or did I just miss something and now I am doing something terrible wrong?
I would be glad about any opinion or help. Thanks,

Wolfram

 

[jlw]

I don't think you missed anything. I believe most of us have concluded that Epson's plug-in does a better job on R-D 1 raw files than Adobe's ACR.

This isn't surprising, since Epson could optimize its plug-in specifically for the characteristics of R-D 1 files, whereas the default settings in ACR have to be "one size fits all."

If you prefer to use ACR, remember that you can experiment until you find settings that give good results with R-D 1 files, then save them for later recall. Also, you may want to check that you have the latest version of ACR; it has been updated a couple of times recently.

 

[Sean Reid]

I do all of my R-D1 RAW conversions in the standalone Epson PhotoRAW. Those conversions pretty much match what I see in the histograms (when I've tested) but the LCD review picture doesn't necessarily reflect the exposure of the actual capture very accurately. It's often a little brighter overall.

PhotoRAW's default edge enhance setting also nails just the right level of capture sharpening that the files need (to my taste).


Cheers,

Sean

 

[Wolfram]

Thanks for your answers. It calms me down a lot ;-)

It's a pity, that there is no standalone version of Epson PhotoRaw for Mac. If I will continue in using Epson's Raw conversion (and after your hints it looks like), it would be a big advantage for workflow and batch processing.
On the other hand, maybe, that people here could share some settings for ACR in the future?

Anyway, thanks again and - Sean - I would take *ANY* way of Raw conversion if the final result looks like the wedding pictures at your website. ;-)

Regards,
Wolfram

 

[jlw]

Wolfram -- We've had a couple of threads here on batch workflows for Mac users (of which I am one.) You might want to search for them and see if you think any of the ideas in them might work well for you.

For example -- the raw workflow on which I've settled involves starting out by a quick batch JPEG conversion using Raw Developer, a $70 Mac OS X application from Iridient Digital which handles large batches of files and offers a lot of controls.

Once the JPEG files are done, I review them quickly in iView MediaPro, cull out the bad ones, then evaluate each good image to see what kind of customized raw conversion would make it look best. Depending on what type of correction each image needs, I might re-convert it using Raw Developer, the Epson plug-in, or ACR.

This may sound like a lot of steps, but it goes fairly quickly, and most of the time-consuming parts can be done automatically by the Mac while I am away doing something else.

 

[Sean Reid]

Thanks for your answers. It calms me down a lot ;-)

It's a pity, that there is no standalone version of Epson PhotoRaw for Mac. If I will continue in using Epson's Raw conversion (and after your hints it looks like), it would be a big advantage for workflow and batch processing.
On the other hand, maybe, that people here could share some settings for ACR in the future?

Anyway, thanks again and - Sean - I would take *ANY* way of Raw conversion if the final result looks like the wedding pictures at your website. ;-)

Regards,
Wolfram

Thanks Wolfram. The first three pictures in the opening slideshow and virtually all of the B&W pictures in the two Lancaster portfolios were made with the R-D1 (RAW to 16-bit monochrome TIFF in PhotoRAW). My sense is that Epson really thought about B&W photography when they were designing both the camera and the software. The combination really excels for B&W work, right up to ISO 1600. It really is too bad that there isn't a MAC version of PhotoRAW. I wish they'd do it.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[SteveRD1]

I wish to! I use MAC and love it. BUT The Epson plug in is great also. BUT I cant compare to PhotoRAW as I have not been able to use ait s I have no PC. BUT I just recieved my NEW Rd1 and am hapy to report the hot pixels are virtually non existent. Even at ISO1600 its minimal.

For anyone interested, I put up an original, out of camera shot taken in a DARK room with only 1 40 watt light. It was taken just minutes ago at 10pm.

http://www.pbase.com/image/45262016

This camera excels at high ISO. Shot in RAW, B&W and used the EPson plug in on my mac.

 

[SteveRD1]

BTW, meant to say this shot was strictly meant to test ISO1600 and hot pixels and is only a test shot. 🙂

 

[krimple]

I agree with everyone else here--Epson does a great job at their RAW conversion--the best quality output comes from the RAW converter. However, I have noticed that in CS-2 Adobe does a bit better of a job, in some cases.

Black and white conversions in the Epson tool are phenominal.

 

[krimple]

BTW--I meant CS-2 was getting a bit better quality than CS, NOT Epson RAW.

 

[ulrik@jones.dk]

Epson Raw Plug-in Mac

Epson Raw Plug-in Mac

why are you all so happy with the quality of the Epson RAW plugin? I get wierd compression artifacts around edges with high contrast, green and magenta pixels. Yes, I like the colors and contrast better than the results from CS2, but the edges ... grrr...

 

[jlw]

why are you all so happy with the quality of the Epson RAW plugin? I get wierd compression artifacts around edges with high contrast, green and magenta pixels. Yes, I like the colors and contrast better than the results from CS2, but the edges ... grrr...

I guess we're all so happy because we don't get results like that. What settings are you using? Can you post some examples? Maybe someone can figure out what's going wrong for you.

 

[ulrik]

Raw examples

Raw examples

Ok, so the 1st image is from the epson raw plug, and the 2nd is ACR 2.4 in CS2. Edges have jpg-looking compression artifacts around the edges. Are there any users who have build ICC profiles for the camera?

Not sure how to attach images ... I clicked upload, hope it works.

Ulrik

 

[jlw]

I see what you mean about the artifacts, but I haven't seen anything like them on my Epson-converted images. Do you see these with the image open in Photoshop, BEFORE you save the file as JPEG? Or do they show up only after you've converted the file and saved it?

Maybe we could identify what's going wrong with your Epson conversions by experimentation. Is there anywhere you could put the original raw file that some of us could download it and try converting it? It will be about 9+ mb, so too big to attach here.

 

[ulrik]

RAW test image

RAW test image

I have uploaded the image HERE

The artifacts are already visible in the Epson converter and in Photoshop before saving the file. I tried different settings in the Epson converter but it's still there. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong?

 

[jlw]

Thank you for posting the sample image. (Aren't iDisks great?) I downloaded it and tried opening it with various raw-conversion options.

I can confirm your observation that the Photoshop CS2 raw converter does a much better job than the Epson plug-in of reducing the types of artifacts shown in the thumbnail images you posted earlier.

Experimenting with the settings in the CS2 converter, I was able to reproduce an effect similar to your Epson artifacts by setting the chromatic aberration correction sliders to fairly drastic negative values. This suggests that the reason for these artifacts may be that CS2 does a better job of suppressing these types of artifacts than the Epson plug-in (which does not have adjustable chromatic-aberration correction.)

Incidentally, I also tried converting your file with Iridient Digital's Raw Developer. As you can see from the attachment, this also produced a very clean result -- comparable (IMO) to the CS2 plug-in, and much more artifact-free than the Epson plug-in. Raw Developer does not have any explicit adjustment for chromatic aberration correction, but apparently its default correction does a better job than Epson's.


So, what you have proved (to me, at least) is that when we all thought that the Epson plug-in was ALWAYS the best way to convert R-D 1 raw images, we were wrong!... at least, now that Adobe has improved its raw converter so much in CS2, and now that other choices such as Raw Developer are available.

I suspect that there still will be some images for which the Epson plug-in produces the best result. But it is nice to know that now we have more tools in our toolbox!

Thank you very much for researching this issue and bringing it to our attention.

 

[ulrik]

Thank's for doing the test and confirming my results. Now I see the problem in almost all the files I have done with Epsons plugin! I made a test shot of a Kodak reference color separation and grayscale chart to see how colors are rendered; I think you will find it interesting. It can be downloaded form my iDisk. (KodakQ13.ERF)
It's shot with the R-D1 and a Leitz Focotar 50mm on the Reprovit IIa.