Another RAW converter for landscapes question

[X-Sync]

Further to my previous thread, asking about the ability of the Fuji EX converter over Bibble for converting RAW files, with landscapes in mind.
Now that Adobe have released their RAW converter, and before I rush out and spend £130.00 on the Fuji EX software, anyone who has tried the new Adobe converter please could you let me know your opinions of it.
I know its early days, but now Adobe are on the scene I am prepared to wait a few weeks before I buy any additional software.

Happy Shooting

Simon

[jeffinkansas]

there is a user on this forum who just posted a testamonial about the adobe plugin. he loves it

[jknights]

Just purchased the PS7 RAW plugin.

One one word WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW...

Need to test it fully but at first glance it blows them all even my favourite Bibble away.

I'll do a full test over the next couple of weeks and post my results/comments.

[X-Sync]

The new Adobe RAW converter seems to be producing a lot of interest, I hope it proves to be more than first day impressions. I will wait to see how it compares when people have had a chance to fully test it against the current converters.

Happy Shooting

Simon

[rbeckerelite]

I did a side by side comparison and found the Adobe was less harsh on skin tones than Fuji. I will find the images tonight and post them.

There has been some comment here about Fuji not being cooperative with Adobe but so far I haven't had any problems and I like Adobe's converter better than Fuji's.

Randy

[stevebri]

Hi Simon,

I, like you have been researching all the RAW converters and so far, reading other users opinions I have bought one.

Before i say why or which, I must say it is very difficult to judge a person's thoughts because he or she may be a better or worse photographer with better or worse eyses and levels of quality... so it's a bit subjective.

First Adobe:- don't buy it because Adobe do say on their own site that they have not solved moire patterns concerning the S2 chip layout, easy to use in P/shop yes, but the quality DOES suffer.

Bibble, I tried the demo, lots and lots of noise in shadows, this seems to be a general consencus (bad spelling day)

Qimage, tried the demo, on several files using several peoples workflow tips, found colour to be right off and generally dark blotchy horrible conversions...:(

I have bought Fuji EX because it will convert into the ICC colour space I use (Adobe 1998 RGB) whereas LE only converts to sRGB and I'm finding flat colours that take time to tweak.

I shoot fashion indoors and out so I can only go on my own files, for landscapes maybe it's a different thing.

I have decided to start with the Fuji EX and try the RAW converter in Photoshop 8. Adobe will not be updating the RAW plugin before it is released within Photoshop.

Just my 10 bobs worth, hope it helps you with your decision making.

Steve

[steve bingham]

Well, I WAS an Adobe Camera Raw plug in fan. No more. Although it is FAST, it LOSES DETAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In fact, 12 meg jpeg files look better! The off color I can correct with custom settings. The lost detail can never be retreived. When compared to EX, it is a loser. I have them both. Sigh. It is about 11 times faster and easier to use, but . . . .

Adobe admits this and says it is working on a fix. We shall see.
For examples see the dpreview.com Fuji SLR forum or the Adobe Photoshop forum on adobe.com.

EX works great but is SLOW and clumbsy to use (35 seconds verses 3 seconds for ACR on my computer with 12 meg raw files).

[stevebri]

Glad i didn't buy the Adobe (yet)... sorry to hear you had an expensive experiment..

Do you find that the 6.1mp RAW files are just that bit better Steve than the interpolated 12mp ones...?

I'm conducting some tests this week and wondered what your ..or anyone else's thoughts were...

Steve

[steve bingham]

Just the opposite. The 12 meg raw files are wonderful using EX. See dpreview.com for test chart comparisons. The 12 meg goes past the resolution of the chart.

[stevebri]

Steve,

I lifted this quote from the excellent DP Review site:

They seem to be at odds with your last comment.

"After performing my own resolution tests I soon discovered that although the 12 mp resolution delivers a larger image it doesn't deliver any more resolution than the 6.1 mp mode. Add to this the storage penalty you'll pay shooting at 12 mp (4 MB JPEG's) and it's clear to see that the 6.1 mp mode is the way to go. In 6.1 mp mode the S2 Pro is more than a match for the current batch of $2000 six megapixel digital SLR's.

Sharp, clean and detailed at 6.1 mp

As mentioned above the S2 Pro's 6.1 mp mode produces very nice, sharp and low noise images. The S2 Pro produces the 6.1 megapixel image by first 'processing' the SuperCCD RAW data to a 12 megapixel image and then downsampling to the 6.1 megapixel size. Anyone who has downsampled an image in Photoshop will tell you that this process alone improves sharpness and reduces noise, and it seems to work just as well in the S2 Pro."

I going to do some skin tets and then some texture tests both at 6 and 12mp, Steve if you do the same we can chat about it and see what is the best way forward depending on what you shoot.

My EX software arrives Thursday.

Steve

[bjnicholls]

I'm amazed that folks will talk about Adobe Camera Raw without mentioning that the program isn't aware of in-camera white balance and you have to manually set the color temperature for your images. Either that, or you have to use the auto white balance feature and hope the results are reasonable (and they usually aren't).

Skin tones? The Adobe converter presets are way off for daylight, cloudy, flash, etc. - I don't see how anyone can compare EX to ACR and come to the conclusion that Adobe does a better job with skin tones or with any other color handling.

If you're losing detail with ACR, turn off the "smoothness" setting that defaults to a value of 25. Always use a setting of 0 and create your own presets for various color balance conditions. Smoothness is a noise reduction process that invariably kills detail.

I use ACR quite a lot and prefer it to EX even with the bugs (a white row of pixels it leaves on one side of each image file) and the lack of color balance functionality. It's fast and, with manual intervention, it can create great results. I far prefer working with a large image at actual pixel resolution for judging image conversions before making them. But when I want to work with the most accurate color as captured by the camera, I use the EX converter.

[X-Sync]

The Adobe RAW converter seems to require some tweaking, not suprising for software that is designed to work with a variety of RAW formats. I'm going to wait for PS 8 to arrive, apparently it comes with the RAW converter as standard, and hopefully Adobe will have got over any teething problems. This has real potential to be a very credible piece of software over what the camera manufacturers are pushing out.

Happy Shooting

Simon

[steve bingham]

In regards to 6 verses 12 meg. If you read dpreview.com carefully and go to the raw resolution files you can SEE THE DIFFERENCE. Vertical extension is 2,000 (end of chart) and horizontal is 2,000 in 12 meg raw. In 6 raw it is 1,800 and 1,700. If you are refering to absolute resolution the figures are 1,800 and 1,700 in 12 meg verses 1,650 and 1,400 in 6 meg. That is a very distinct and measurable difference. For large prints - and I often make 2' x 3' prints - every bit helps. Why buy a great camera and only use 90% of its potential? (the charts show a 10% difference).

Hope this puts this question to rest and helps those who NEED the extra resolution.

[stevebri]

Steve I see what you are saying, so why did DP review say 6mp is the way to go...?

I think I have the answer and I think we are both agreeing to the same principals but from different ends of the stick.

Firstly I agree with you, even in fine Jpeg mode the 12mp files are interpolated extremely well. So big is indeed beautiful..

I think DP review perhaps considered all the other issues, like storage capacity and write speeds. If 2'x3' prints are your need then I would do what you do and create big files, in fact I did just that with my first client I used the S2 with and they are v happy.

However if people who shoot weddings and portraits and rarely need to print higher that 10x8 or A4, then 6mp is probably enough and they get faster writes and more shots per microdrive.

I will interpolate some files up using GFracturals as well just to see/Prove how good the Fuji interpolation is.

Steve

www.stevebrickles.com

[steve bingham]

Try this. Tweak ADR anyway you wish. Convert as a 4277 x 2851 file. Take smoothness to zero (turn it off), sharpening to zero, etc. Save file. Now open a second file with EX. Again turn off any sharpening, etc. or use the default setting. Convert both files to 8 bit. Drag one file on top of the other in Photoshop. Make sure view, snap is on. Now compare by turning the top layer off and on. Notice how course the the ACR file is at magnification, such as 66%. As you go higher it simply falls apart. Notice also how the color is off and subtle highlights are lost!!!

Adobe Camara Raw also exhibits some of these same problems when put up against the Nikon software and Nikon cameras.

ACR is fast - but ugly. Why take the trouble to shoot in raw when the resolution is no better than fine jpg?

[Tom Nolle]

I tried shooting in JPG and RAW when I first got my S2 in September 2002. I too read the dpreview comments on the 6 MP file size being best and believed it. I don't believe it any more! I took test shots last fall after a trip, and discovered that the 12 MP JPG was far better than the downsampled version; color was better, detail was better, and there was less jaggies on diagonals. I then tried RAW with both Qimage and the EX converter, and I found the latter was much better. I find the control it gives over color and exposure to be far better than Qimage, and the controls are more intuitive. I was particularly happy with the sensitivity control. Using that and Fred Miranda's DRI filter lets you combine a couple of "versions" of the same shot to pull detail out of shadows without blowing the highlights. I did a Yellowstone trip in Jan and the technique saved a couple of shots that would have been hopeless otherwise because of the snow contrast.

Tom

[bjnicholls]

Why bother to shoot raw and use ACR when it has resolution and jaggies issues? Because there are many times I just want a modest resolution image fast. ACR is also valuable to me if only for the full res preview it offers so I can compare raw files critically without going through full conversions to see the details. The EX preview image sux for image evaluation. With adobe raw I can even pre-rotate my vertical shots so I don't have to kink my neck. I can preview my raw files at full res very quickly. Once I know what files are worth the conversion effort and which ones are discards, I can do the best ones with EX more efficiently.

ACR has a lot of issues with raf files, but it does have some real utility even with the warts.

[jknights]

Stevebri,

I would agree with your comments for use of Adobe RAW plugin for S2.
I also have a D1X and it handles the files there OK but I will stick with tmy current workflow which is to use Bibble for batch processing.

Interesting to see that you found Bibble noisy in th eshadows. Were you using high ISO or 200ish.

Jonathan

[stevebri]

I was surprised at the noise shooting at 100 in a studio with one large softbox on a model. You know the type of thing face slowly falling into shadow on one side, just a simple test....
At full resolution (12mp) on a 17" screen at 100% ouch, also I have found that my printer prints MORE shadow and highlight detail than I see on my ICC profiled monitor, probably the true difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB 1998..

But to answer your question yes, it was there and having received EX yesterday, EX is holding up really well.

I batch covert RAW, then burn the RAW's to CD, then create contact sheets for my client from the Tiff's in Photoshop, then choose the final images and adjust/play with P/shop. I like the fact that the RAW conversion is seperate, it makes me think about getting stuff saved safely etc..

Also I have a meaty 'puter with 1.5gb RAM and dual processors so, with a seperate hard drive for images the RAW conversions don't bother me how long they take, I just go and make a cup of tea...:)

Steve

[steve bingham]

At last! Ignoring ALL, I mean ALL, default settings and setting temp at 5500, tint 0, exposure 0, shadows 0, brightness 0, contrast 0, saturation 0, sharpness 0, smoothness 0, 16 bit, 4277 x 2851, the images come out as sharp as EX - and no loss of detail or jaggies. Tested many times including Macbeth Color Checker and finally detailed scenics with grass, cactus, twigs, rocks, etc. Now I wonder why this could not have been set as the default instead of the CRAZY settings we had to start out with. I am sooooo happy but a little miffed at Adobe for starting S2 owners in the wrong direction.

Again, NO loss of detail or highlights, - and no jaggies

[steve bingham]

Oops . . .

Yeah, ACR got better but when I go 200%, 300% I still see better sharpness
with EX. Sigh. All this improved it but . . .

Use layers for instant A/B comparisons. Interesting that EX and ACR produce different amounts of actual image!!! ACR has more of the actual image on the left side and more image on
the right side! And then they add a thin white line on the right side. All
seen easily at 300%. And both files are 4256 pixels wide. How can this be???
Additional image AND a white line all with the same number of pixels.
Obviously ACR must use a different sampling algorithm or perhaps uses some
sort of resampling. Probably has to do with Fuji CCD uniqueness. Adobe has
some work to do.

In any case, my ACR files work great for 8 x 10s. Unfortunately I rarely print that
small.