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!

Sinar back processing

Graham Mitchell

New member
Someone suggested that this problem could be avoided if you format the CF card using Disk Utility instead (which only takes seconds) but I have never seen the problem, never mind being able to repeat it or fix it in predictable way.
 

bdp

Member
Getting back to processing, I really think those of you who use ACR or Lightroom should learn to use eXposure a bit more in order to get the most from your Sinar files. It can be difficult to use without the easy controls that are offered in ACR/LR, but from my tests the eXposure files when carefully processed show far superior detail, more natural colour, smoother gradations from one colour to another, and finer grain compared to the same file treated in ACR/LR. Sinar is well known for being very obsessed with quality, and sometimes will not include features if they degrade the quality of the output.

Below is an example of a 100% crop of an 800ISO shot taken with my eMotion 75LV. The one on the left was processed in ACR, with no sharpening and 25% colour NR. The one on the right is the eXposure version. You can see the hairs are finer, with better edges, the red is better, and the gradations are smoother in colour and tone.

I hope this shows why I believe eXposure to be very underrated software as far as processing goes, but admittedly a little short on features. From all the raw processing software I've seen, eXposure gives the best 100% details, with no 'wobbly' or painterly texture that others give. Whether this matters once an image is printed up for debate I suppose.

Ben
 

carstenw

Active member
Interesting comparison. The noise does look better on the right, but the reds appear to be blown out in both? I am guessing that the tone is more accurate on the right though.
 

bdp

Member
Interesting comparison. The noise does look better on the right, but the reds appear to be blown out in both? I am guessing that the tone is more accurate on the right though.
Yes, the reds are hard. I found the rest of the shot needed more saturation and without the ability to calm down the red in eXposure it looks a bit over saturated. This is a good argument for more controls in eXposure.

Capture One does a good job, especially with the reds. However I find it almost too sharp, and the hairs show jaggies and moire, even with sharpening turned off completely. The moire reduction slider is nice, but reduces the detail too much in the T-shirt before it gets rid of the moire in the hair. It also doesn't do a great job where the shadows blend into the lighter areas.

Interesting how the Capture One version reminds me of Fuji Provia and the eXposure of Kodak Ektachrome! I don't have that much experience with C1 so I'm sure a better result is possible.

Ben

Capture One effort:
 
Last edited:

carstenw

Active member
I agree with you that using eXposure as much as possible is a Good Thing (TM), but I still think that there is value in moving to other programs for their strengths. In this particular shot, you could do the base conversion, including sharpness and noise, but keep the reds under the point of clipping, and then move to CS4 or LR to increase the saturation selectively in other channels.

With some of the shots from the forest I have posted here, I could not have finished them in eXposure. Instead, I converted to DNG, used eXposure to get the detail out them, set the white balance and make minor tweaks, and then brought them into Lightroom as 16-bit TIFFs, where I used the vignetting tools and the brush to selectively edit some areas.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I had some moiree (pinkish and greenish small dots in small detail of trees with snow) from images converted in C1 and Adobe, which did not appear when the same dng was converted in Exposure.
In the end I feel saver and better if I use the original software from Sinar if I convert Sinar files.
I also have to say that 90% of the functions in C1 I personally dont really need. There are maybe 2 or 3 I would like to have in Exposure but besides those I am fine with how it works and what it does.
 

carstenw

Active member
I have been playing with eXposure, and trying out the various options. I tried setting a white shading file, with the Sinar white shading diffusor, and applied it to the following shots (tethered), but when I brought the file into Photoshop and poked around with the pipette, I found that there was still minor casts here and there, a few points more red, or whatever.

I am wondering what exactly I should expect from this procedure. The file looks good, visually, and the corner darkening and obvious casts were cleaned up, but the minor casts can still be detected visually, just.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I have been playing with eXposure, and trying out the various options. I tried setting a white shading file, with the Sinar white shading diffusor, and applied it to the following shots (tethered), but when I brought the file into Photoshop and poked around with the pipette, I found that there was still minor casts here and there, a few points more red, or whatever.

I am wondering what exactly I should expect from this procedure. The file looks good, visually, and the corner darkening and obvious casts were cleaned up, but the minor casts can still be detected visually, just.
Did you try the shading with different degrees? As I understand you can apply it in four different degrees.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
ah, I just read the following:
"Select the shading intensity
The shading intensity is selected by marking the circle graph ("pie chart") in the upper left corner of the thumbnail. The proportions of the circle graph that are visible correspond to the intensity of the shading (0 %, 25 %, 50 %, 75 % and 100 %).

Please note: This selectable intensity applies to the brightness correction. The color correction is always 100 %"

so it seems it wouldnt help for your small still exisiting color casts.
 
Top