Almost ready to take the plunge..

[glenerrolrd]

I would be interested in hearing from someone that really knows the various software products. From my perspective ...which could be entirely off ....there are five elements to the proprietary that provide points of differentiation:

1. The initial raw conversion from the raw file as presented by the camera.

2. The profile that maps the colors and their densities into the converted file.
3. The lens corrections another form of profiling?
4. The presets that are or are not built into the conversion...curves,sharpening,noise etc.

5. the workflow elements that assist in capture through output.

First discard the workflow considerations as these are productivity not IQ aspects . They are very important but assume that MF is about superior IQ.

It has always been my assumption that the initial raw conversion is the part that can t easily be duplicated. The profiles ,lens corrections and presets all contribute to that perfect ..right out the camera look but can lead you to incorrect conclusions regarding the raw conversion or ultimate IQ of a system.

I am sure the devil is in the details ...and I don t have a clue how adobe is improving the raw conversion portion of their software. This really gets to the heart of the issue and that is will adobe really tune the raw conversion for a S2 file or are we talking about profiles,presets etc and if not can an S2 file ever be optimized without a proprietary solution.

Guy has stated many times that Leica needs a proprietary solution but the ensuing discussion seems to encompass profiles,presets etc . and the "raw conversion" gets lost.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

We all look forward to try and answer them for you.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I would be interested in hearing from someone that really knows the various software products. From my perspective ...which could be entirely off ....there are five elements to the proprietary that provide points of differentiation:

1. The initial raw conversion from the raw file as presented by the camera.

2. The profile that maps the colors and their densities into the converted file.
3. The lens corrections another form of profiling?
4. The presets that are or are not built into the conversion...curves,sharpening,noise etc.

5. the workflow elements that assist in capture through output.

First discard the workflow considerations as these are productivity not IQ aspects . They are very important but assume that MF is about superior IQ.

It has always been my assumption that the initial raw conversion is the part that can t easily be duplicated. The profiles ,lens corrections and presets all contribute to that perfect ..right out the camera look but can lead you to incorrect conclusions regarding the raw conversion or ultimate IQ of a system.

I am sure the devil is in the details ...and I don t have a clue how adobe is improving the raw conversion portion of their software. This really gets to the heart of the issue and that is will adobe really tune the raw conversion for a S2 file or are we talking about profiles,presets etc and if not can an S2 file ever be optimized without a proprietary solution.

Guy has stated many times that Leica needs a proprietary solution but the ensuing discussion seems to encompass profiles,presets etc . and the "raw conversion" gets lost.

Well said Roger . I think folks like David Grover from Hassy and Doug or a Phase software engineer would be a invaluable resource right now as you are asking for the heart of the matter. Lets' see if we can get them to offer there expertise.

 

[KurtKamka]

I made my comments based on my experience as a C1 user. It's been my go-to choice as a raw converter for the last 4-5 years.

That said, I'm fascinated by Leica's choice not to use them for the S2. I don't know what went on behind the scenes, but I'm certain there is a story there. It appears that they took on some of the raw conversion development internally and conferred with Adobe to finalize integration. In the end, it'll be interesting to see how it'll continue to shake out as I have an appreciation for how they view ultimate image quality no matter the vendor they've chosen.

Kurt

 

[dougpeterson]

I would be interested in hearing from someone that really knows the various software products. From my perspective ...which could be entirely off ....there are five elements to the proprietary that provide points of differentiation:

1. The initial raw conversion from the raw file as presented by the camera.

2. The profile that maps the colors and their densities into the converted file.
3. The lens corrections another form of profiling?
4. The presets that are or are not built into the conversion...curves,sharpening,noise etc.
5. the workflow elements that assist in capture through output.

First discard the workflow considerations as these are productivity not IQ aspects . They are very important but assume that MF is about superior IQ.

I should make it clear up front that I am not an imaging-science PHD. I know quite a bit and I'm lucky to speak with some of the insanely smart people who not only understand, but actually invent/improve the math behind the below theory.

I would argue that any given raw processing software has three legs of quality:
1) the quality of the generic math
2) the extent to which the processing is catered to a given camera
3) how well the tools/workflow allow the user to access the theoretically available quality

1) Some program's fundamental math is simply better and all programs that I have tracked have improved their math over time/versions.

2) Allowing the conversion of a particular raw format can be as basic as adding 'support'. However, much much more can be done.
- lens profiles: mapping of distortion, chromatic aberration characteristics, purple fringing, vignette, color cast
- noise profiles noise reduction algorithms benefit enormously from knowing the KIND of noise that a camera generates in which situations
- proprietary data: such as the dark frame readout, sensor-temperature readings, etc
- color profiles: accurate ICC profiles for a variety of illumination sources (daylight, flash, tungsten etc); for anyone shooting in non-daylight sources this is the hugely important. Really accurate tungsten profiles are VERY hard to create correctly as a consumer compared to the manufacturer with industrial quality profiling equipment
- sensor particulars: each sensor has it's own particular quirks. I don't pretend to fully understand this one and I have a feeling only the imaging-science PHDs really do, but I'm told that this has especially large impact on shadow color accuracy and highlight/shadow detail recovery

3) I would also say that even if you're only concerned with image quality that workflow still matters. The easier it is to use the program to edit and adjust your image the more likely you will select the best image, and will find that special way of adjusting it that really brings out the most

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

 

[glenerrolrd]

The quality of the generic math is one of the characteristics that separates various raw developers. But its generic and there would appear to be a benefit to any of the software providers to supply a good solution. I think Adobe has been at a real disadvantage for a while simply because they have been focused on either competitive capabilities. The new camera raw and LR3 conversions are better ..I think at the base level conversion.

Its much harder to evaluate the impact of profiles for color,aberrations ,noise etc. And presets for curves,sharpening ,noise etc.

This is were any evaluation tends to break down because I can t tell if its the software or the fact that the user just hasn t tuned their process. . Maybe an example will help. If I compare a C1 processed M9 file with a LR3 M9 file with no adjustments and using the software supplied profiles ....the C1 rendering is better . But If I work the LR3 conversion and the C1 conversion they look pretty close. I am sure I am the weak link at this point.

Leica should have fixed these differences by now ..if Adobe is the new standard. They need their version of AMG that tunes Mercedes .

 

[dougpeterson]

This is were any evaluation tends to break down because I can t tell if its the software or the fact that the user just hasn t tuned their process. . Maybe an example will help. If I compare a C1 processed M9 file with a LR3 M9 file with no adjustments and using the software supplied profiles ....the C1 rendering is better . But If I work the LR3 conversion and the C1 conversion they look pretty close. I am sure I am the weak link at this point.

Have you done any side by side comparisons of the following:
- quantity and aesthetics of noise in high ISO M9 files
- color accuracy in shadows as you push the file or recover shadows
- the ability to remove purple fringing in the corner of wide angle shots*
- transitions from deep shadow into quartertones

*It's definitely possible to do this in Photoshop by hand, but there is a pretty big advantage to being able to remove it at the raw stage on one or a thousand files in seconds.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

 

[fotografz]

I should make it clear up front that I am not an imaging-science PHD. I know quite a bit and I'm lucky to speak with some of the insanely smart people who not only understand, but actually invent/improve the math behind the below theory.

I would argue that any given raw processing software has three legs of quality:
1) the quality of the generic math
2) the extent to which the processing is catered to a given camera
3) how well the tools/workflow allow the user to access the theoretically available quality

1) Some program's fundamental math is simply better and all programs that I have tracked have improved their math over time/versions.

2) Allowing the conversion of a particular raw format can be as basic as adding 'support'. However, much much more can be done.
- lens profiles: mapping of distortion, chromatic aberration characteristics, purple fringing, vignette, color cast
- noise profiles noise reduction algorithms benefit enormously from knowing the KIND of noise that a camera generates in which situations
- proprietary data: such as the dark frame readout, sensor-temperature readings, etc
- color profiles: accurate ICC profiles for a variety of illumination sources (daylight, flash, tungsten etc); for anyone shooting in non-daylight sources this is the hugely important. Really accurate tungsten profiles are VERY hard to create correctly as a consumer compared to the manufacturer with industrial quality profiling equipment
- sensor particulars: each sensor has it's own particular quirks. I don't pretend to fully understand this one and I have a feeling only the imaging-science PHDs really do, but I'm told that this has especially large impact on shadow color accuracy and highlight/shadow detail recovery

3) I would also say that even if you're only concerned with image quality that workflow still matters. The easier it is to use the program to edit and adjust your image the more likely you will select the best image, and will find that special way of adjusting it that really brings out the most

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

Kudos for such a clear and pointed explanation of a complex set of interactive factors Doug. Glad you addressed the workflow issue also. :thumbs:

-Marc

 

[glenerrolrd]

Doug

I understand your points but am unable to reach a conclusion regarding the Leica S2. Several of the members that tried the S2 and converted in LR mentioned that they didn t feel they were getting the best out of the files. Since you sell the S2 as well as the Phase One products ..what is the your preferred conversion of the S2 files?

Guy has indicated that the S2 conversions need the refinement of better profiles,presets etc.
But I wonder if its more than that and without a proprietary raw conversion will they be able to achieve competitive results. I am not sure I see a way to get a competitive solution with LR but then I am asking a question.

Roger

 

[dfarkas]

Doug

I understand your points but am unable to reach a conclusion regarding the Leica S2. Several of the members that tried the S2 and converted in LR mentioned that they didn t feel they were getting the best out of the files. Since you sell the S2 as well as the Phase One products ..what is the your preferred conversion of the S2 files?

Guy has indicated that the S2 conversions need the refinement of better profiles,presets etc.
But I wonder if its more than that and without a proprietary raw conversion will they be able to achieve competitive results. I am not sure I see a way to get a competitive solution with LR but then I am asking a question.

Roger

Roger,

I know others here have expressed otherwise, but I've found Lightroom conversions from S2 files to be excellent..... And even better once one knows the best settings (subject to personal taste, of course). I've been working with S2 raw files for the better part of nine months now and have developed my own presets and best practices for LR. I freely share these with my S2 customers or anyone for that matter. Nothing secret, just the results of my own process.

After creating my own ICC profile for C1, I did find the color in C1 to be much better (no purple skies, etc.), but the overall image rendering is still better in LR. Again, I've posted ts profile for anyone to use.

Adobe and Leica have actually entered into a pretty extensive relationship, beyond mere "support for...". Consider that all new Leica digital products ship with bundled Adobe software. S2, M9 and X1 all come with Lightroom. The new V-lux 20 comes with Photoshop Elements 8. We are talking about over 100,000 licenses. This is not insignificant. Leica chose to walk away from a similar relationship with Phase One (and one we could surmise was a profitable one for Phase). Many could speculate on the reasons, but the bottom line is that Phase is a hardware competitor and Adobe is a software company who happens to make industry standard software.

I'd be happy to work with you one-on-one to show you what can be done with the S2 and LR. We have a few demo S2 systems so you could try one for yourself in the field rather than just in a store and we can work together to process the files.

David

 

[glenerrolrd]

Roger,

I know others here have expressed otherwise, but I've found Lightroom conversions from S2 files to be excellent..... And even better once one knows the best settings (subject to personal taste, of course). I've been working with S2 raw files for the better part of nine months now and have developed my own presets and best practices for LR. I freely share these with my S2 customers or anyone for that matter. Nothing secret, just the results of my own process.

After creating my own ICC profile for C1, I did find the color in C1 to be much better (no purple skies, etc.), but the overall image rendering is still better in LR. Again, I've posted ts profile for anyone to use.

Adobe and Leica have actually entered into a pretty extensive relationship, beyond mere "support for...". Consider that all new Leica digital products ship with bundled Adobe software. S2, M9 and X1 all come with Lightroom. The new V-lux 20 comes with Photoshop Elements 8. We are talking about over 100,000 licenses. This is not insignificant. Leica chose to walk away from a similar relationship with Phase One (and one we could surmise was a profitable one for Phase). Many could speculate on the reasons, but the bottom line is that Phase is a hardware competitor and Adobe is a software company who happens to make industry standard software.

I'd be happy to work with you one-on-one to show you what can be done with the S2 and LR. We have a few demo S2 systems so you could try one for yourself in the field rather than just in a store and we can work together to process the files.

David

Thanks David for the kind offer. At this point I am over my head and will leave the debate to the better qualified MF experts.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Roger,

I know others here have expressed otherwise, but I've found Lightroom conversions from S2 files to be excellent..... And even better once one knows the best settings (subject to personal taste, of course). I've been working with S2 raw files for the better part of nine months now and have developed my own presets and best practices for LR. I freely share these with my S2 customers or anyone for that matter. Nothing secret, just the results of my own process.

After creating my own ICC profile for C1, I did find the color in C1 to be much better (no purple skies, etc.), but the overall image rendering is still better in LR. Again, I've posted ts profile for anyone to use.

Adobe and Leica have actually entered into a pretty extensive relationship, beyond mere "support for...". Consider that all new Leica digital products ship with bundled Adobe software. S2, M9 and X1 all come with Lightroom. The new V-lux 20 comes with Photoshop Elements 8. We are talking about over 100,000 licenses. This is not insignificant. Leica chose to walk away from a similar relationship with Phase One (and one we could surmise was a profitable one for Phase). Many could speculate on the reasons, but the bottom line is that Phase is a hardware competitor and Adobe is a software company who happens to make industry standard software.

I'd be happy to work with you one-on-one to show you what can be done with the S2 and LR. We have a few demo S2 systems so you could try one for yourself in the field rather than just in a store and we can work together to process the files.

David

I will never be convinced that any color profile made is the end all. There is so much more that you can't do to the profile except color only. None of this address corrections, noise, moire, DR, tonality, artifacts of the sensor and a slew of other things. None of that can be done with a color profile alone . You are not working at the sensor level but a simple bandaid for color. Hassy and Phase everything in there software is designed from the ground up specifically for there sensors. This has been spelled out several times in this thread.

 

[dfarkas]

I will never be convinced that any color profile made is the end all. There is so much more that you can't do to the profile except color only. None of this address corrections, noise, moire, DR, tonality, artifacts of the sensor and a slew of other things. None of that can be done with a color profile alone . You are not working at the sensor level but a simple bandaid for color. Hassy and Phase everything in there software is designed from the ground up specifically for there sensors. This has been spelled out several times in this thread.

I completely agree, which is why I said I prefer the conversions from LR over C1. I've also stated before that there are strange artifacts with S2 files in C1, such as maze patterning and highlight crystallization. The profile only fixes color, which is all an ICC camera profile is designed to do.

I should have mentioned in my previous post that I was exclusively a C1 user for 4-5 years before making the switch to LR (I even recall using C1 while you were using LR on our trip to Germany ). Initially, it was disappointing to me that C1 didn't offer true support for S2 raw files, but after using LR I can't ever imagine going back. Of course, for a Phase One user C1 is the best option. Some, like Michael Reichmann use both - C1 for initial conversion and LR for everything else.

I encourage everyone to try for themselves and use what they like.

David

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Sure I used LR in the past but it was at a time when C1 hit a low on functionality and was not a big 3.7 fan but the newer versions are rock solid as it is today. End of the day I will always use a raw processor dedicated to the camera than a raw processor that is generic. You have no idea what you are leaving on the editing floor as they say.

I still contend that Leica needs there own package from the ground up and at the cost of this system it should not be placed in the hands of a 3rd party vendor. Also if you read our review we said LR is better on the S2 files and this just goes to show the differences between the two raw processors and if they had there own it may just blow LR out of the water building from the ground up. At this level generic does not cut it.

Now most folks may not care either way but I do and that has been my point all along. No one will care more about the raw processing than the OEM's that make there own for there systems.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Guy

I agree that a proprietary solution( incorporating as much of the conversion as possible) provides the best technical architecture ...it is not the only path to superior IQ. Look at C1 clearly not a proprietary solution for the M9 but still pretty darn good by most standards.

MR had some terminology for this in his "best of breed" C1/LR workflow....but he found little difference in using C1 for a pretty basic raw conversion ...outputing a TIFF and then using LR for the rest. Plenty of examples of plugins or individual sharpening,noise reduction products that have strong followings.

Leica had got excellent results with the DMR and M8/M9 working with smaller software firms that stayed focused on the Leica products. Those were not proprietary products in the same sense that you have with Phase backs and C1.

Both Hasselblad and Phase are putting more and more into their raw conversion engine and the results are getting better. But...If you told me C1 was being tuned for the S2....I would be happy. Its hard to see Adobe doing the same unless a 3rd party "tuner" was involved . Time will tell.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes and MR is using the most important part of C1 with his P65+ the dedication to that back. Than from there obviously you can tweak the Tif or whatever you need. But he is sucking all that dedication to raw process right off the bat.

Yes time will tell.

 

[David K]

Leica should have fixed these differences by now ..if Adobe is the new standard. They need their version of AMG that tunes Mercedes .

Hard to tell what Leica is thinking but perhaps they feel that what can be achieved through LR is good enough... especially for what they perceive as their target market. I've seen some of David F's recent S2 images (high production value magazine type stuff) processed with LR and they were pretty impressive. To some extent I think the relevance of the software is related to what you're shooting. Lately I do mostly people shooting and if I can get good skin tones from the software I've got most of what I'm looking for. If I were shooting architectural with wide angle lenses or using a tech camera I might feel otherwise... but that's not likely to be what the S2 buyer is going to shoot.

 

[Mark Gowin]

Thanks David for the kind offer. At this point I am over my head and will leave the debate to the better qualified MF experts.

Roger, I beg to differ with you on this one. You are just as much an expert as anyone in judging what "you" like in an image. You are fully qualified to judge similar images taken with different cameras and processed in different raw converters and decide which "you" prefer. Of course, you already know that and exercise that expertise on a regular basis.

I agree with your approach to seek expert opinions and always try to learn and improve. I also know you are savvy enough to sort through the expert opinions, filter out their biases, motives, etc. and determine the merit of their opinion. Then, use all of this information as input to forming your personal opinion.

In the end, the only opinion that matters is your own. That is true for amateur and professional alike. There is no single right opinion. Let's face it, there is so little difference in the printed image between the Leica, Phase One and Hasselblad that it boils down to personal preference for the tools and workflow used in making the image.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Hard to tell what Leica is thinking but perhaps they feel that what can be achieved through LR is good enough... especially for what they perceive as their target market. I've seen some of David F's recent S2 images (high production value magazine type stuff) processed with LR and they were pretty impressive. To some extent I think the relevance of the software is related to what you're shooting. Lately I do mostly people shooting and if I can get good skin tones from the software I've got most of what I'm looking for. If I were shooting architectural with wide angle lenses or using a tech camera I might feel otherwise... but that's not likely to be what the S2 buyer is going to shoot.

David

You are of course correct. Start with what your needs are . :deadhorse:

Roger

 

[fotografz]

Guy

I agree that a proprietary solution( incorporating as much of the conversion as possible) provides the best technical architecture ...it is not the only path to superior IQ. Look at C1 clearly not a proprietary solution for the M9 but still pretty darn good by most standards.

MR had some terminology for this in his "best of breed" C1/LR workflow....but he found little difference in using C1 for a pretty basic raw conversion ...outputing a TIFF and then using LR for the rest. Plenty of examples of plugins or individual sharpening,noise reduction products that have strong followings.

Leica had got excellent results with the DMR and M8/M9 working with smaller software firms that stayed focused on the Leica products. Those were not proprietary products in the same sense that you have with Phase backs and C1.

Both Hasselblad and Phase are putting more and more into their raw conversion engine and the results are getting better. But...If you told me C1 was being tuned for the S2....I would be happy. Its hard to see Adobe doing the same unless a 3rd party "tuner" was involved . Time will tell.

Good example of making Guy's point ... without a doubt in my mind what-so-ever, the DMR produced the best results with Imacon's Flexcolor software (as clunky as the workflow was) ... which was no surprise as Imacon was a proprietary player in the DMR hardware.

Personally, I think you can do a decent S2 job with LR3 beta ... yet, for that kind of money and IQ potential one would expect very tuned software to extract all your money's worth NOW, not in the hazy distant future.

-Marc