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!

Reprocessing images

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Like many of you, I've been going back into my archives and reprocessing some of my historical images. My main point to this thread is two-fold. First that *I perceive* raw processors --in my case C1-- have improved enough to warrant redos -- some of my best legacy images were processed with 5 or 6 revisions back. Second is I make that statement mainly because I feel I'm able to extract just enough more compared to what I gleaned from the original file. So while it could be that I'm more facile, I think the real reason is the software got just enough better to make a noticeable difference. Thoughts?
 

archiM44

Member
Jack, I agree completely. C1 has always been my app of choice ever since it came out, but I just tried Lightroom and the latest photoshop and that has really been improved.
I still use LR because I have always found the C1 catalog slow and unreliable, especially keeping it up to date. I just export from LR to the capture folder of the session and go from there.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Fully agree, I'm mainly a LR user and both handling, extended highlight recovery (better colour "guessing" from blown channels) and selective adjustment tools have improved so much that it's really worthwhile to go back, and COVID restrictions also give you time to do so.

The other thing that has improved over the years is my skills of PP and that certainly also helps, sometimes I look back at some older images and really wonder what I had in mind when I processed them for the first time.
 

Darin Marcus

Well-known member
RAW processors have certainly improved over time, some more than others. You can now extract more details, get more accurate colors, better reduce noise and different types of aberrations, and so on. Some older cameras are no longer supported...

Lenses have also certainly improved over time, some more than others. You can now get more acutance, more natural colors, reduced aberrations, more ”transparent” images, and so on. Some older cameras/mounts are no longer supported ;)
 

JoelM

Active member
Different raw processors uses very different algorithms. That's why I will try my favorite raws with 3 or 4 different processors. I find that I can get a really good look with one and can't replicate it with the others so there are definite differences.
Joel
 

Darin Marcus

Well-known member
My post may look a bit too metaphorical, so this is the point I was actually trying to make: yes, RAW processors have definitely made some significant advances in the past 10 years or so.

If your photo was taken more than 10 years ago, reprocessing it might bring some visible improvements to it.

But just like in the age of likewise improved lens designs some people are looking for older lenses/optical designs in search of special character/rendering, reprocessing older photos with new RAW processors might, in some cases, take away something that made them special at the time (be it a color profile that is no longer like the original, or some other "imperfection").

I often use the camera compatible profile in Capture NX-D when reprocessing D40 photos, because using the latest picture controls leads to a less pleasant starting point.
YMMV.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
A couple of things I've found to be superior in more recent releases are the manufacturer lens correction profiles, and then the on-board perspective correction tools. Combined, they can pretty significantly improve the final; a lot of the things I used to port over to PS or PS plugin software to handle, I can now perform on the raw before initial output which in turn gives me a superior final result. Another is base raw sharpening. I wrote a special action several years back for PS that I ran on every converted raw to tweak both high and low frequency sharpening, and over time I've had to dial back the amounts for each. They're dialed back now to the point it's almost not worth bothering. Noise too, way better now than even just a few years ago...
 
Last edited:

bab

Member
Noise with larger pixel in older sensors was much cleaner, highlight recovery with raw process now much better in most raw converters. Some camera sensors can actually get better results by under exposing, if that’s the look you want, some camera sensors can combine one shot.
You learned with years of experience a capture to print workflow especially with live view, tethering and the latest rear screens. This has helped realizing what was mostly hidden in the past. Then having to use channels to make luminosity masks being a physic major with PS that took hours. Working on any one particular image with old solutions was a big negative especially staring at the same file for hours on end and getting frustrated to the point your over processing ended with starting over many times...this doesn’t happen much today.

yes going over old files is fun going back to reshoot them might be more rewarding.

The strangest thing is cameras since 2005 haven’t progressed as much as PP programs storage cards, computers and the glass.
 

neilvan

Well-known member
I think my taste in post-processing (tone, contrast, saturation etc) changes more than the software does...
 

SrMphoto

Active member
I am reprocessing my images as well because:
- I have learned new techniques, still so much to learn, especially with PS.
- The tools have improved. LrC, PS, and DxO Photo Lab 4. DxO has now excellent noise reduction, making my older m43 images technically better.
- I like to interpret my images in new ways.
 
Top