Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: RAW - ACR vs. Studio 2

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    23
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: RAW - ACR vs. Studio 2

    Ian,

    I am not offended at all and willing to learn always.

    I NEVER take ACR - Lightroom - Studio - Capture - or any of the other RAW programs as is without any further adjustments - I ALWAYS make my adjustments AFTER opening the RAW image in any of the programs.

    But, I NEVER before saw such phenomena in ACR as I see with the Olympus E-PL1! I do not have this phenomena with Olympus E-1, Sony DSC R1, Pentax K-10 or Canon G-10
    The starting point with the E-PL1 is bad and you have to work a LOT to get the right color.

    I have to mention that most of my RAW images are well made and also sell well in various Microstock web sites.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hemel Hempstead UK
    Posts
    7,779
    Blog Entries
    13
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    163
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    796
    Thanked in
    495 Posts
    Likes: 98
    Liked 123 Times in 61 Posts

    Re: RAW - ACR vs. Studio 2

    OK, thanks for being patient with me

    The only explanation I can give is that the formulation of the base starting point in ACR for the E-PL1 is not very good - which would mean pointing the finger at Adobe. It's an interesting observation.

    But I also should mention that I have produced very acceptable results in ACR from E-PL1 RAW files. In fact there are some here on FTU who think the E-PL1 is rathe special in terms of Pen image quality

    Ian
    Founder/editor
    Four Thirds User (http://fourthirds-user.com)
    Digital Photography Now (http://dpnow.com)
    Olympus UK E-System User Group (http://e-group.uk.net)
    Olympus camera, lens, and accessory hire (http://e-group.uk.net/hire)
    Twitter: www.twitter.com/ian_burley
    Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/dpnow/
    Pinterest: www.pinterest.com/ianburley/

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    23
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: RAW - ACR vs. Studio 2

    Agree Ian, the E-PL1 produces great images - but to get it in ACR from RAW - one has to work hard!

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hemel Hempstead UK
    Posts
    7,779
    Blog Entries
    13
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    163
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    796
    Thanked in
    495 Posts
    Likes: 98
    Liked 123 Times in 61 Posts

    Re: RAW - ACR vs. Studio 2

    Quote Originally Posted by ronyzmbow View Post
    Agree Ian, the E-PL1 produces great images - but to get it in ACR from RAW - one has to work hard!
    Maybe a little harder!

    Ian
    Founder/editor
    Four Thirds User (http://fourthirds-user.com)
    Digital Photography Now (http://dpnow.com)
    Olympus UK E-System User Group (http://e-group.uk.net)
    Olympus camera, lens, and accessory hire (http://e-group.uk.net/hire)
    Twitter: www.twitter.com/ian_burley
    Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/dpnow/
    Pinterest: www.pinterest.com/ianburley/

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    23
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: RAW - ACR vs. Studio 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    Maybe a little harder!

    Ian

    I have followed this thread to Tal Ninio of PSKiss

    http://pskiss.com/

    It is interesting to see his reply -


    The answer is very simple - in-camera definitions. Olympus's native app, reads them. ACR and LR, don't.
    It is the most discussed issue in digital photography - to use or to ignore in-camera definitions...
    Since many people prefer the flexibility of ACR/LR over camera colors, we sell more profile packages

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    23
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: RAW - ACR vs. Studio 2

    As I said before - still learning my new E-PL1 with RAW files.
    I have Capture One Express which was for short time available as free download - never really used it seriously because I did not like the interface. Well, I have decided to give it a chance and discovered 2 very interesting facts about RAW developed images. I used the same RAW file and developed it both in PS ACR and Capture One (CO)
    1.Images from CO are sharper with more clear small details.
    2.The area covered with CO is larger than ACR - to my astonishment it is like having a wider lens - in all four corners of the image there more details and objects that cannot be seen in ACR! - notice a red car on the right side and a blue boat on the left side - it looks like either from a wider lens or like another file!
    See samples.
    Any idea why?
    Who else is using CO and what is the experience with it?
    Attached Images Attached Images

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    23
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: RAW - ACR vs. Studio 2

    I have started to use my new Olympus E-PL1 camera with RAW files.

    I was not so pleased with the results in PSE ACR and Lightroom so I have decided to try THE SAME RAW file in Capture One Express and Raw Therapy.
    I was shocked to discover that the area covered with Capture One Express and Raw Therapy is larger than ACR and Lightroom - to my astonishment it is like having a wider lens - in all four corners of the image there more details and objects that cannot be seen in ACR! - notice a red car on the right side and a blue boat on the left side - it looks like either from a wider lens or like another file!
    I have checked both in Photoshop ACR and Lightroom and the Lens Correction option is turned OFF.
    Still kind of a small mystery to me...

    I do not see this phenomena with images from Sony DSC R1 and Pentax K-10.

    See the attached images and also the link for full size images -

    https://plus.google.com/photos/11401...393?banner=pwa

    In between tried with old ORF files from my E-1 - and the same repeats.

    See also the thread in DPreview

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=41185976
    Attached Images Attached Images

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    277
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    97
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    19
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: RAW - ACR vs. Studio 2

    Quote Originally Posted by ronyzmbow View Post
    I was shocked to discover that the area covered with Capture One Express and Raw Therapy is larger than ACR and Lightroom - to my astonishment it is like having a wider lens - in all four corners of the image there more details and objects that cannot be seen in ACR! - notice a red car on the right side and a blue boat on the left side - it looks like either from a wider lens or like another file!
    I have checked both in Photoshop ACR and Lightroom and the Lens Correction option is turned OFF.
    Still kind of a small mystery to me...

    I do not see this phenomena with images from Sony DSC R1 and Pentax K-10.
    This made me very curious to see what would happen to GH2 raw files. I've compared a 3:2 raw file and found that the RawTherapee output had 8 pixels more on each side: 4760x3176 vs. 4752x3168 in Lightroom 4. Not something I will lose sleep over or even consider using RawTherapee instead of LR4.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    23
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: RAW - ACR vs. Studio 2

    In order to elaborate on the issue following some information I have collected from Luminous Landsacpe web site and Thomas Knoll, who is one of the original authors of Photoshop and the creator of Adobe Camera Raw.
    " You may not realize it, but your digital camera does not give you every pixel that it records.
    In most cases this is because the manufacturer masks off pixels at the very edges of the frame. This is done for a couple of technical reasons.
    1. Many of the image processing algorithms (de-mosaicing, noise reduction, sharpening) that camera firmware (or raw conversion software) apply to raw sensor data are not "point operations", but instead "neighborhood operations". When computing the output value of that pixel, the algorithm needs to know not only the input value of that pixel, but also the input values of the pixels in the local neighborhood. The pixels at the very edge of the recorded image do not have a complete local neighborhood, so the algorithms need make some guess as to their value, which means that output results for these edge pixels will be not quite as accurate as the pixels a few pixels away from the edges. By trimming away these pixels, the camera manufacturers guarantee that all the output pixels are of maximum quality.
    2. Sometimes image sensors do not have aspect ratios that exactly match the standard aspect ratios (3:2, 4:3, 16:9, etc.). In these cases, there are often different numbers of horizontal and vertical pixels hidden, to cause the final output image to have an exact ratio, When some users print digital camera images, they often do not bother to crop them, so having the camera output images with standard aspect ratios that exactly match standard paper dimensions is an advantage.
    Solving this problem that few people knew even existed, Thomas Knoll, who is one of the original authors of Photoshop and the creator of Adobe Camera Raw, has written a free utility program which recovers all the pixels that any supported digital camera records, whether it's hidden edges or intentionally cropped formats. Called DNG Recover Edges, the utility application is unsupported, and it is not an Adobe product."
    Another interesting comment came from a reader of my thread in DP Review web site forum:
    " RAW images usually contain capture area of the entire sensor, while the intended viewing area is smaller. While capturing the image, both sets of dimensions are recorded with it. From what I have seen so far it is just a few pixels on each side, but your examples show quite substantial difference. The purpose of that is to simplify the conversion from RAW to Jpeg as the edges require different algorithms, as well as to discard the areas with the most quality issues (i.e. vignetting, CA, poor sharpness).
    I've seen an utility that was making the full captured image available - simply by copying the tag describing the physical sensor dimensions into the image dimensions field, but I'm not sure if it would cover your camera's format. If I remember correctly it was working with .dng files only."

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •