Which raw processor for M8?

[Doug]

I don't usually change the sharpening and noise settings from the default positions (25, 0, 25) for raw files in LR. I output TIFF files and add a bit of sharpening later in another program while resizing and converting to JPGs. This looks good to me, but I expect there to be more careful work in prep for printing.

FWIW, LR defaults to 0 on all sharpening and noise reduction settings for TIFF or JPG originals. I've noticed that sometimes, especially with medium format lab-scanned images this process results in images that are too sharp, so for those I'll skip that post-resizing sharpening step.

 

[sepiareverb]

This is a dated thread but I'd like to point out for those with expensive Leica M lenses that Adobe Camera RAW and Lightroom (most consumer RAW processors) apply a default sharpening to all RAW images.

This is ok for cameras with kit lenses but if you want to see the true sharpness of your lens, disable sharpening in your RAW processor.

"true sharpness"? I'm most interested in getting a good print, and adjust sharpness as needed to do so. I rarely zero-out the default sharpness setting in ACR, when I have I've not been as satisfied. Yes, I've compared.

 

[Exdsc]

I don't usually change the sharpening and noise settings from the default positions (25, 0, 25) for raw files in LR. I output TIFF files and add a bit of sharpening later in another program while resizing and converting to JPGs. This looks good to me, but I expect there to be more careful work in prep for printing.

FWIW, LR defaults to 0 on all sharpening and noise reduction settings for TIFF or JPG originals. I've noticed that sometimes, especially with medium format lab-scanned images this process results in images that are too sharp, so for those I'll skip that post-resizing sharpening step.

The default sharpening values by ACR and LR seems to be more of a cover up for the very soft RAW conversions of ACR and LT compared to some other RAW converters.

For instance if an image is opened in ACR/LR with all default settings disabled, the image looks really soft. Now the same RAW file if opened in RPP or RAW Therapee will have a lot more detail without the need to apply sharpening. But even if one wants to sharpen during RAW conversion, RAW Therapee has deconvolution sharpening as well as the standard unsharp mask.

Its really worth while to experiment with different RAW software, with digital all the action is in the RAW software

 

[Exdsc]

"true sharpness"? I'm most interested in getting a good print, and adjust sharpness as needed to do so. I rarely zero-out the default sharpness setting in ACR, when I have I've not been as satisfied. Yes, I've compared.

The only way to find out the 'true sharpness' of your lens with digital is to look at the RAW file without any sharpening applied.

I'm sometimes surprised that people take the jpgs as a measure of a lens sharpness straight from the camera i.g. fuji x series, jpgs are processed images, including sharpness applied to them.