tom in mpls
Active member
Uwe, I seem to have a challenge seeing what other see, but I'll try again. Looking at the full-rez images, the LR version beats the jpg for clarity and detail by a smidge.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Lightroom Support now available!
- Thread starter Sapphie
- Start date
I'm one of possibly many out there, waiting/hanging out for this new RAW ability in LR. I have LR3.6, and wasn't looking forward to being railroaded into an upgrade. Still aren't.
With Uwe's examples, they look similar to me, and this is fine, except, the RAW will be a significantly bigger file surely, where the jpeg will be about 5mb. Is this correct?
And to be honest, for "average" sized prints, does it really matter? I'm asking as I genuinely don't know, I'm not looking to start a war, so please let me know what the main advantages are.
Gary
With Uwe's examples, they look similar to me, and this is fine, except, the RAW will be a significantly bigger file surely, where the jpeg will be about 5mb. Is this correct?
And to be honest, for "average" sized prints, does it really matter? I'm asking as I genuinely don't know, I'm not looking to start a war, so please let me know what the main advantages are.
Gary
ustein
Contributing Editor
>the RAW will be a significantly bigger file surely, where the jpeg will be about 5mb
I think comparing to JPEG does not really make sense because JPEG is a lossy format.
Fuji RAF: 26MB (because Fuji insists for years not to use any good lossless compression).
Converted to DNG: 15.8 (using lossless compression)
I think comparing to JPEG does not really make sense because JPEG is a lossy format.
Fuji RAF: 26MB (because Fuji insists for years not to use any good lossless compression).
Converted to DNG: 15.8 (using lossless compression)
RPP has been a favorite of mine...but I am not into HDR nor do I prefer greatly manipulated files....although I love LR4.1 for most conversions...export to PS CS6 to edit and print.
Bob
What gets me is that there is no mention of what settings have been used. Are we to assume that they are both the 'best' that could be done and we don't need to know if any attempt was made? There is a clear tonality difference for a start and that will have an impact too.
On the other hand, those that are saying that LR is OK aren't exactly jumping up and down with excitement!
With the X100, use of RAW for me was a no-go in LR because it didn't handle the auto-dr and it was easier with JPEGs. Aperture did handle the auto-dr but I found that in most cases the JPEGs were as good or usually better. So for the first time ever, I defaulted to JPEG. I expected to do the same with the X-Pro 1. The JPEGs are very good. My only issue has been noticing this very 'smearing' effect in the JPEGs people are seeing in LR! Mostly distant shrubbery and brickwork lacking detail.
More comparisons to do but it may just be that for most cases the JPEGs will be well good enough.
Still it's great that we can at last now view and catalog the RAWs in LR.
Lee
ustein
Contributing Editor
>On the other hand, those that are saying that LR is OK aren't exactly jumping up and down with excitement!
You nailed it. The XP1 JPEGs can be very nice if everything is ok. But the raws give you more latitude.
>What gets me is that there is no mention of what settings have been used.
Right. We have to explore LR for best settings first to know the answer.
You nailed it. The XP1 JPEGs can be very nice if everything is ok. But the raws give you more latitude.
>What gets me is that there is no mention of what settings have been used.
Right. We have to explore LR for best settings first to know the answer.
Braeside
New member
Hi Uwe, it may be coincidence, but all the mushiness I see in my raw files is in the green areas, this could be because that it where most of the fine detail is anyway, in bushes, trees etc, but perhaps not. Close up shots don't have the same amount of detail at every scale as distant landscapes do. Sorry I am repeating myself. Never thought I would turn into a pixel peeper! Regarding settings for LR4, I am a novice as I normally use Aperture, so am willing to learn.
David
Try the following and see how you get on. All changes in the Develop module:
Increase Clarity to 5-10.
In the Tone Curve panel, change the Point Curve to Medium Contrast.
In the Detail panel increase sharpening to about 40. Increase detail to about 45-50.
Possible reduce exposure a little too.
Comparing my pics with OOC JPEG in Provia mode I can easily better it. I have not yet systematically compared with RPP or Silkypix.
Lee
Now here's a weird one that I have spotted but only in severe pixel peep mode. I have a shot of a stone and brick barn with 3 sliding doors. The doors have that sort of frosted glass that you get in bathroom windows.
Both LR and Silkypix fail to render this properly - the circles in the pattern of the glass aren't really circles! Doesn't look right at all.
JPEG is the best. RPP renders the pattern similar to the JPEG but suffers from colour artifacts.
Weird. I could try to post some crops but you'd only really know zooming in 2:1 or more.
How do I go about sending a sample file to Adobe?
Lee
Both LR and Silkypix fail to render this properly - the circles in the pattern of the glass aren't really circles! Doesn't look right at all.
JPEG is the best. RPP renders the pattern similar to the JPEG but suffers from colour artifacts.
Weird. I could try to post some crops but you'd only really know zooming in 2:1 or more.
How do I go about sending a sample file to Adobe?
Lee
Braeside
New member
Thanks Lee,
Tried that, LR left, OOC JPG right:
I still consider there is more detail in the JPG. Sharpening can't recover from the smearing done by the LR raw development.
Incidentally I played with PhotoRaw on the iPad today with a .raf file today and it does pretty well, certainly better than LR4.1
Braeside
New member
This was at 100% Lee. Yes too much sharpening in LR, I was just showing what I got with your suggestions. Well to me details are how small an item I can see. Look at the smallest leaves in the JPG, they are showing, but not in the LR4.1 raw version. Incidentally those trees are in the background and may not be in sharp focus, as I was shooting something in the foreground of the photo.
I have tried comparing skin texture in portraits.
SilkyPix renders it very naturally
LR4.1 has much less detail and smoothes it just a tad, but enough to remove the natural texture.
Sharpening increase and/or clarity increases in LR won't help, something I really didn't expect - the results become unnatural even when applied very carefully.
I wonder if the in-camera noise reduction to RAF files which Sean Reid mentions in his latest review is somehow ignored by silkypix if that is possible or whether it is applied by LR4.1/ACR.
My hope is now for a better solution from Phase One.
SilkyPix renders it very naturally
LR4.1 has much less detail and smoothes it just a tad, but enough to remove the natural texture.
Sharpening increase and/or clarity increases in LR won't help, something I really didn't expect - the results become unnatural even when applied very carefully.
I wonder if the in-camera noise reduction to RAF files which Sean Reid mentions in his latest review is somehow ignored by silkypix if that is possible or whether it is applied by LR4.1/ACR.
My hope is now for a better solution from Phase One.
ustein
Contributing Editor
Best you provide a raw/JPEG pair of images. I have only few samples.
scho
Well-known member
Another example of the rendering from LR4.1 compared to RPP. The LR4.1 image reminds me of the cartoonish appearance of up-sampled images from the old genuine fractals. Lots of artifacts from RPP. Open images in new window for full size detail.
LR4.1 on the left and RPP on the right. Screen grab from LR at 100%.
Full size original LR4.1
LR4.1 on the left and RPP on the right. Screen grab from LR at 100%.
Full size original LR4.1
scho
Well-known member
Uwe,
Highlights were at zero. Here is a 100% crop with highlights at -100. No effect at all adjusting highlights. I don't think that you can make any corrections for this issue in LR4.1. Adobe needs to fix the problem with the chroma smearing, if they can.
