Viable alternatives to Photoshop.

[Colin Southern]

I've toyed with going that route, currently just use the LR/PS CC...what parts of the total package do you use in your work and for what? In spite of always buying the full suite in times past, I never used anything besides PS. What may I have been missing out on?

To be honest, I only have PS and Bridge installed on my home PC, and additionally, Premiere on my work PC (these two alone would cost around $3600 to buy in their extended versions). Here's a list of all they have available -- if you look through I'm sure you'll recognise many absolute power-house packages in there.

[jcuknz]

Another thought...

A combination of Lightroom (about $150 U.S. Price) and OnOne Perfect Photo (about $130 for Lightroom version)...


That would give you Mask and Layer capabilities (as well as a lot of other capabilities) in your Lightroom setup...

Now that I have PSPx6 I wonder if its new tool ' Smart Selection Brush' does away with much of the need for masks after using it a couple of times. Masks being something I know I should have mastered long ago but didn't [ it always seemed a strange and mysterious activity ] and with SSB perhaps I do not need to. Enthusiasm with the new toy is dangerous

[Richard Lundberg]

As I have said before, I have around 75 imaging apps. Only six of them will open my camera's raw files properly, and those six do not include any of the major apps. I suspect that PSP X6 will, but I don't often run XP on Fusion, so I haven't tried it yet. I have two, more or less full featured, apps, Silky Pix and ACDSee Pro 3 that will open them correctly.
Many of the major apps use the same two raw processors, OSX and draw.
What bothers me is this: DNG is supposed to be an archival standard for raw, so that you can convert to it and any decent app will open it now and far into the future. However, I converted raw to dng and guess what happened in both Photoshop and PhotoLine? Either the conversion to raw by Adobe DNG, or the opening of the dng by the app resulted in an interpretation of the camera's image in terms of contrast, saturation, and color temperature.
I have been unable to find anything on line that explains tis and no one in any forum I visit knows why either. So you can't trust DNG or any app that won't open your raw properly( meaning that it removes lens distortion because it knows your camera). Perhaps the situation is different for high end cameras and expensive apps like DxO, Capture One, Perfect Photo, and others, but I think it means you don't really know what they're doing.
I certainly would like to know if anyone else has found this problem with DNG. To me it's useless. The fact that DxO won't process DNG is telling. They're high end, and apparently they don't trust it either.
I paid very little for all these apps, they were on sale or very cheap, all legit. I think app companies could give them away and still make money like Kodak in its early years. Once hooked they could charge for updates. Adobe is essentially doing this now. If they would let you keep the version you have after eighteen months or so, it would be attractive.

[chauncey]

if you look through I'm sure you'll recognise many absolute power-house packages in there

What I'm seeing is that the vast majority of your workflow takes place in PS/Bridge...?

[Colin Southern]

There's a few invalid assumptions creeping in here ...

What bothers me is this: DNG is supposed to be an archival standard for raw, so that you can convert to it and any decent app will open it now and far into the future.

It's an OPEN standard. Being open, even if Adobe goes under, somebody else can still access the public specification and write a program to access the data. The same can't be said for formats used by the likes of Canon and Nikon, who include encrypted information ("secret sauce") in some fields. From that perspective it probably has a better chance of surviving in the long term, but whether or not anyone wants to use it for archival purposes is up to them. Whether "any descent app" can open it is up to the app - nothing to do with the format nor Adobe.

However, I converted raw to dng and guess what happened in both Photoshop and PhotoLine? Either the conversion to raw by Adobe DNG, or the opening of the dng by the app resulted in an interpretation of the camera's image in terms of contrast, saturation, and color temperature.
I have been unable to find anything on line that explains tis and no one in any forum I visit knows why either.

Any RAW file contains image channel data and metadata (such things as shutterspeed, selected white balance, copyright information, original file name, picture style info etc). Some packages (typically manufacturers supplied packages) will use all the information (eg if you select a monochrome picture style on the camera then the raw conversion - even though it contains full colour information - will be converted to monochrome). In the case of ACR (Adobe Camera RAW - the RAW conversion engine Adobe uses in Photoshop and Lightroom), it only acts on White Balance, and even then, only uses that as a suggested starting point. Additional metadata like picture style (and thus contrast, saturation etc) is ignored. Having said that, the software still has to produce an image as a starting point, and to do that, it'll adjust the parameters (such as contrast, saturation etc) according to the program defaults that have been saved. It'll also use whatever profile it's told to under the camera tab. If either the defaults are set incorrectly or an inappropriate profile is selected, then there will most definitely be a shift in the image you're expecting to see.

You also need to be careful that you're not putting the cart before the horse; if you have certain picture style parameters selected on your camera then these will be applied to the JPEG image that the camera shows you on the review screen -- but they are NEVER applied to the RAW data (only passed on in the metadata). So if you're seeing a difference between a default conversion in Photoshop -v- what you're seeing on the camera review screen, it may not be the default conversion that's wrong -- it could well be that the image on the review screen is simply showing the application of camera selected enhancements that have not also yet been applied to the converted RAW file.

So you can't trust DNG or any app that won't open your raw properly( meaning that it removes lens distortion because it knows your camera). Perhaps the situation is different for high end cameras and expensive apps like DxO, Capture One, Perfect Photo, and others, but I think it means you don't really know what they're doing.

Not really sure how you suddenly jumped to that conclusion, but ACR certainly does contain a database of all supported cameras and associated lenses, and provides automatic correction of things like lens geometries for both native and DNG file formats.

I certainly would like to know if anyone else has found this problem with DNG. To me it's useless.

I use it 100% of the time - and for me it's been flawless.

The fact that DxO won't process DNG is telling. They're high end, and apparently they don't trust it either.

Why do you equate them not using it with them not trusting it?

You need to keep in mind that DNG is still a RAW format -- it's just a standardised RAW format. It still contains ALL the information contained in the original file, including encrypted fields. A VERY old specification 1.1.0.0 did drop black masked pixels (which were of minor importance in noise calculations), but from version 1.1.1.0 they've contained all info (unless you opted for lossy compression in the latest versions). You'll more than likely find that the reason DxO don't support it is more of a political one, not a technical one. Just like Apple won't support flash (created by Adobe), preferring HTML 5.

I paid very little for all these apps, they were on sale or very cheap, all legit. I think app companies could give them away and still make money like Kodak in its early years.

And look what happened to Kodak ...

Once hooked they could charge for updates. Adobe is essentially doing this now. If they would let you keep the version you have after eighteen months or so, it would be attractive.

They don't need to "hook" people with freebies - they already have many products that are the industry gold standards - and many customers in their target market. If they started letting people keep a version after 18 months then it would in essence mean that people got a NZD$1200 / $1800 product for about 1/4 of it's former cost, and at which point people would simply cancel their subscription. It would be no different to an 18 month hire-purchase except that they'd only get about a 1/4 the price of the item.

[Colin Southern]

What I'm seeing is that the vast majority of your workflow takes place in PS/Bridge...?

No - not at all.

Bridge, ACR, and PS

The beauty of the subscription is though that I can try other packages too (eg I have Premiere on my work PC) (and just the other day used it to edit a video). Just buying those two packages would have cost the equivalent of around 7 years subscription - and by then I'd need to have bought about 4 or 5 upgrades that would probably more than doubled the cost.

This way is a win/win - Adobe get money that they wouldn't have got otherwise (and it doesn't cost them anything for me to have the software), and I get to use any and all of their software as often as I like - and always latest version too. I think it's incredible value for money.

As far as I'm concerned, the vocal minority who were doing the complaining (I use the past tense because they're already falling behind whilst Adobe is surging ahead) (look at what the share price has done over the past 6 months in these tough economic times) are probably the same ones who would complain that the water was cold if we used the garden hose to put out a fire on the seat of their trousers.

[Richard Lundberg]

What I am saying is that converting to DNG caused an interpretation of the raw file that is similar but probably not identical to the jpeg interpretation in camera. Converting to DNG should not do that, period. Unless the two apps, Photoshop and Photoline did the interpretation on the DNG that they DID NOT do on the raw itself . In both cases you don't know what is going on, only that it has been interpreted. I still think this is why DxO won't touch it.
Adobe is overpriced. Their CC is probably priced right for the whole suite of Adobe stuff, and i concede that for the entire suite it would need to be say three years before you would own the current version. But I think they'll have to do it eventually.

[Colin Southern]

What I am saying is that converting to DNG caused an interpretation of the raw file that is similar but probably not identical to the jpeg interpretation in camera. Converting to DNG should not do that, period. Unless the two apps, Photoshop and Photoline did the interpretation on the DNG that they DID NOT do on the raw itself . In both cases you don't know what is going on, only that it has been interpreted.

A DNG conversion doesn't interpret anything. Send me a native RAW and a DNG conversion of the same file if you don't mind - I'd like to have a look at them.

I still think this is why DxO won't touch it.

Well you can think what you like, but it still doesn't make it the truth. If conversion to DNG was changing files then people would be up in arms about it all over the world, which isn't the case.

Adobe is overpriced.

Like any business, Adobe price their product to give their shareholders the maximum return on their investment, and judging by what their share price has done following their change in business model, I'd say they've priced it spot on (literally MILLIONS have gone for it).

Their CC is probably priced right for the whole suite of Adobe stuff, and i concede that for the entire suite it would need to be say three years before you would own the current version. But I think they'll have to do it eventually.

They won't do it - not in a million years.

[ajohnw]

What I am saying is that converting to DNG caused an interpretation of the raw file that is similar but probably not identical to the jpeg interpretation in camera. Converting to DNG should not do that, period. Unless the two apps, Photoshop and Photoline did the interpretation on the DNG that they DID NOT do on the raw itself . In both cases you don't know what is going on, only that it has been interpreted. I still think this is why DxO won't touch it.
Adobe is overpriced. Their CC is probably priced right for the whole suite of Adobe stuff, and i concede that for the entire suite it would need to be say three years before you would own the current version. But I think they'll have to do it eventually.

Most cameras come with their own raw conversion software and if you want jpg look a likes that will be the best option to use. Quoting one of Olympus's FAQ's though - why doesn't the software produce the same results as the camera they state that the software may be more up to date / advanced than the firmware in the camera. The answer to your problem may be to use that and export as 16bit TIFF or PNG however there still remains the question of if your camera is capable of yielding images with a usable colour depth that exceeds 8bits. Many compacts for instance use 10bit internal processing. Some of the extra over 8 wont be usable. Bridge cameras may be the same. If you are using this sort of camera it may be best to play with camera settings and then PP jpg's. You don't mention which camera you are using.

DNG in real terms is just a raw format. An attempt to obtain a standard one. They just consist of camera information and colour and pixel information. Some I understand have been encrypted. Converting from one to another wont make any difference to the numbers that the files contain only the layout which is the aspect that varies. One of it's aims is to get all camera manufacturers to comply with it actually in the camera. It's likely to become an ISO standard at some point, an extension of one of the TIFF standards. One aim is to avoid having to reverse engineer what the camera manufacturers put out in their cameras. There seems to be some resistance at the camera end but as it will be reverse engineered resistance is futile. Few people use camera manufacturers software anyway other than initially. Reverse engineering raw formats is so easy that last time I looked the person who maintains DCraw said if it isn't currently supported just send me a raw file.

DX0, if I understand you correctly wont accept dng files - bit silly of them but they are probably prepared to let DCraw do the work for them but I suspect that they will have to include it at some point.

RAW files from some packages never look like the camera jpg when they 1st come up in them. Auto Exposure usually mostly corrects that. If they are rather dark it's like that to allow plenty of room for adjustments. The other adjustments that are likely to be needed are mostly contrast and possibly saturation.

Pricing - bound to go up. Way over a $1 a day I suspect. The cloud - well Adobe are well known for strange updates and sending info back to base. I suspect it will be a bit like cookies - ok after a fashion until recently. Companies have now really learned to exploit them to what I find is an irritating level. Millions of people see the results and only a tiny fraction need to respond in the way they want to make it worth while.

John
-

[John Morton]

Pricing - bound to go up. Way over a $1 a day I suspect. The cloud - well Adobe are well known for strange updates and sending info back to base. I suspect it will be a bit like cookies - ok after a fashion until recently. Companies have now really learned to exploit them to what I find is an irritating level. Millions of people see the results and only a tiny fraction need to respond in the way they want to make it worth while.

John
-

Noam Chomsky, in "Manufacturing Consent," said one of the consistent features of propaganda is that it is always presented in a way that conveys the sentiment: "Who could possibly be against that?"

Definitely a dominant part of the Adobe CC subscription plan marketing.

[Richard Lundberg]

I don't believe anyone but me actually uses dng, frankly. I only did it because PhotoLine doesn't support my camera RAF files. That's why millions aren't objecting to the conversion.
I would gladly send you the two files , but I have no idea how to do it. Your email isn't available here, is it?
I doubt that I will ever need to go beyond CSPS 5.1, and if I did some cheap app would probably do just as well. With Focus Magic and DxO Perspective, I'm golden.
Adobe shot themselves in the groin for non pros as far as I'm concerned. I wish them well, but I am not going to rent their software. I bought PS 3, upgraded to 4, got 6 free from my employer, got CS 2 academic, and then upgraded to 5 for about a hundred bucks, so I don't have that much invested in them. I think I've spent more with Corel than Adobe.

[Colin Southern]

I don't believe anyone but me actually uses dng, frankly.

Well I use it 100% of the time, believe it or not.

I only did it because PhotoLine doesn't support my camera RAF files. That's why millions aren't objecting to the conversion.

You seem very quick to jump to invalid conclusions! It don't really "convert" anything as such -- it simply puts the existing raw data and metadata into a standard and publicly documented format. That's why when you say things like "the conversion is changing things like contrast" that it doesn't make any sense because you can't change tone curves until the image is demosaiced - and the DNG converter doesn't demosaic the image by default.

I would gladly send you the two files , but I have no idea how to do it. Your email isn't available here, is it?

Many ways. If you have a Google Mail account you can do it vie Google Drive - or via www.sendthisfile.com - or www.mediafire.com - or www.dropbox.com. When you have a download link just send it to me in a private message.

Adobe shot themselves in the groin for non pros as far as I'm concerned. I wish them well, but I am not going to rent their software. I bought PS 3, upgraded to 4, got 6 free from my employer, got CS 2 academic, and then upgraded to 5 for about a hundred bucks, so I don't have that much invested in them. I think I've spent more with Corel than Adobe.

What intrigues me is why there's almost an implication that Adobe are the ones on the back foot with this change in business model. By and large - bold move as it was - it's showing every indication of being phenomenally successful for them, and I for one, can see why. For sure, not everyone is happy about the change, but that's life -- and I doubt Adobe will be losing any sleep (or $$$) over it; you can't please all of the people all of the time, and it's commercial suicide to even try.

[Richard Lundberg]

OK, if dng doesn't do anything to the data, then it's Photoshop and PhotoLine that are doing the interpreting, and I don't want their interpretation. It took me three weeks to sort thru all this and find two apps that will open the raw with lens correction and not guess at the contrast, saturation, and color temperature. The Silky Pix that Fuji provides free will never be updated because the camera is out of production. ACDSee Pro 3 will most likely be supported. I can live with either one. The actual color temp is around 7000 but PS and PL are guessing 4300 during the opening of the dng.. Unacceptable. Both of them seem to be using some jpeg-like average estimate of these things, similar to but not the same as the in-camera. I will do my own developing, thank you Adobe. PhotoLine's estimate is slightly different from Photoshop's also. PhotoLine uses draw to open raw, and I suppose that dcraw opens dngs as well although I could never get the dcraw I downloaded to open.
I appreciate your offer, but I don't know what any of this is and have no other use for it: "Many ways. If you have a Google Mail account you can do it vie Google Drive - or via www.sendthisfile.com - or www.mediafire.com - or www.dropbox.com. When you have a download link just send it to me in a private message." I guess you mean a private message in this forum somehow.
I have a workflow that will open my raw, take out lens error, adjust the developing, correct perspective and give me a tiff for another editor. That's what I need. End of story.
I am not sure that DNG doesn't touch the data. I have read that it does and that is the reason you can include the untouched raw in the conversion. Also, this quote from a link posted in another thread in this forum:
HOME / POST PROCESSING / HOW TO GET ACCURATE NIKON COLORS IN LIGHTROOM

How to Get Accurate Nikon Colors in Lightroom
oct
4
2013
BY NASIM MANSUROV 50 COMMENTS
Our readers often ask us if it is possible to get Lightroom to provide the same colors as one would see from the back of the LCD on Nikon, Canon and other DSLRs when shooting in RAW format. Unfortunately, as you might have noticed when importing files, Lightroom changes the colors immediately after import, when the embedded JPEG files are re-rendered using Adobe’s standard color profiles. As a result, images might appear dull, lack contrast and have completely different colors. I have heard plenty of complaints on this issue for a while now, so I decided to post series of articles for each major manufacturer on how to obtain more accurate colors in Lightroom that resemble the image preview seen on the camera LCD when an image is captured. In this article, I will talk about getting accurate colors from a Nikon DSLR in Lightroom.
Camera JPEG vs Adobe RAW
Due to the fact that Adobe’s RAW converter is unable to read proprietary RAW header data, which often contains chosen camera profiles, some settings have to be either applied manually or applied upon import. My personal preference is to apply a preset while importing images, which saves me time later. Before we get into Lightroom, let me first go over camera settings and explain a few important things.
1) RAW File Nuances and Metadata
When shooting in RAW format, most camera settings like White Balance, Sharpness, Saturation, Lens Corrections and Color Profiles do not matter. Unless you use Nikon-provided software like Capture NX or View NX, all of those custom settings are mostly discarded by third party applications, including Lightroom and Photoshop. That’s because it is hard to process each piece of proprietary data, which is subject to change from one camera model to another. Now imagine trying to do this for a number of different camera manufacturers!
Let’s go over data that is actually read by Lightroom / Photoshop Camera RAW:
White Balance, as set by the camera. Instead of your chosen value such as Auto, Incandescent, Fluorescent, etc, only the actual color temperature and tint are read from the RAW file.
Common image metadata such as Capture Date/Time, Exposure, Focal Length, Flash, Camera Make and Model, Lens information and GPS coordinates.
Copyright information (“Artist” in Setup Menu)
That’s basically it. Now here is the information that is completely discarded:
Picture Controls
Color Space (only relevant for JPEG images and JPEG images embedded into RAW files)
Active D-Lighting
Vignette Control
Auto Distortion Control
High ISO NR
All Settings from “Custom Setting Menu”
Focus Point Location in the frame
All other settings in Setup and other menus


Read more: http://photographylife.com/how-to-ge...#ixzz2mZds15h4

This does not lead to any confidence in the whole process of raw to dng.

[xpatUSA]

. . . I will do my own developing, thank you Adobe. PhotoLine's estimate is slightly different from Photoshop's also. PhotoLine uses DCraw to open raw, and I suppose that DCraw opens dngs as well although I could never get the DCraw I downloaded to open.

Just opened a DNG using DCraw for you as a test and it worked (PC, Windows XP Pro).

If you really prefer to do your own developing, as opposed to what Adobe thinks is good for you, maybe RawDigger would suit you - here's a raw composite for what it's worth, bereft of automatic lens and camera correction, though



Cheers,

[Richard Lundberg]

I nelieve I already have RawDigger, but I downloaded the Mac version anyway. Thanks for doing that.

[Colin Southern]

OK, if dng doesn't do anything to the data, then it's Photoshop and PhotoLine that are doing the interpreting, and I don't want their interpretation.

EVERY RAW converter interprets the data, and ACR is no different. Because of the way a RAW capture represents colour information as 3 gray-scale images, it's impossible to produce a full resolution composite without interpreting the data. The algorithm for doing that varies from engine to engine, but for the most part, the "interpretation" phase tends to produce pretty similar results.

It took me three weeks to sort thru all this and find two apps that will open the raw with lens correction and not guess at the contrast, saturation, and color temperature.

ACR will apply lens corrections - and will apply the contrast / saturation / colour temp that it's told to; initially according to the standard defaults, and after that, to whatever defaults the user saves. It also only has access to a limited number of profiles for each camera model -- for more accurate colour it's desireable to use custom colour profiles for individual camera / lens / lighting combinations (which benefits any converter, if they support them). ACR actually goes a step further than most by including 2 profiles -- one shot under D50 lighting, and the other under Illuminent B - it then interpolates and extrapolates between and beyond those two colour temps to produce accurate colour responses over a wide variety of colour temperatures.

The Silky Pix that Fuji provides free will never be updated because the camera is out of production. ACDSee Pro 3 will most likely be supported. I can live with either one. The actual color temp is around 7000 but PS and PL are guessing 4300 during the opening of the dng.. Unacceptable. Both of them seem to be using some jpeg-like average estimate of these things, similar to but not the same as the in-camera. I will do my own developing, thank you Adobe. PhotoLine's estimate is slightly different from Photoshop's also. PhotoLine uses draw to open raw, and I suppose that dcraw opens dngs as well although I could never get the dcraw I downloaded to open.

ACR will simply use the colour temperature that it's told to - it's one of the few metadata tags that it honours. Pretty much a moot point though because no photographer worth their salt would ever rely on an in-camera white balance (with the exception of a custom-set white balance of course).

I appreciate your offer, but I don't know what any of this is and have no other use for it: "Many ways. If you have a Google Mail account you can do it vie Google Drive - or via www.sendthisfile.com - or www.mediafire.com - or www.dropbox.com. When you have a download link just send it to me in a private message." I guess you mean a private message in this forum somehow.[/quote]

Most eMail systems won't handle attachments over around 10MB (although Google will do 25). The sites I listed offer services where you can upload large files - the recipient is eMailed a link - then the recipient clicks on the link to download the file.

I am not sure that DNG doesn't touch the data. I have read that it does and that is the reason you can include the untouched raw in the conversion.

Well I am sure (excluding later revisions that allow for user-selected down-sampling and lossy compression). You can read anything on the internet - unfortunately, that doesn't mean that it's true. The main use for the ability to embed original RAW files into the DNG is to allow for them to be subsequently processed through software that doesn't support DNG (eg DxO). Some photographers feel more comfortable using that option as well. Personally, my RAW files never even make it off the CF cards; the converter grabs them - converts them - renames them - and drops them into the target directory. After that the original RAWs are destroyed when the card is re-initialised.

Also, this quote from a link posted in another thread in this forum:
HOME / POST PROCESSING / HOW TO GET ACCURATE NIKON COLORS IN LIGHTROOM

How to Get Accurate Nikon Colors in Lightroom
oct
4
2013
BY NASIM MANSUROV 50 COMMENTS
Our readers often ask us if it is possible to get Lightroom to provide the same colors as one would see from the back of the LCD on Nikon, Canon and other DSLRs when shooting in RAW format. Unfortunately, as you might have noticed when importing files, Lightroom changes the colors immediately after import, when the embedded JPEG files are re-rendered using Adobe’s standard color profiles. As a result, images might appear dull, lack contrast and have completely different colors. I have heard plenty of complaints on this issue for a while now, so I decided to post series of articles for each major manufacturer on how to obtain more accurate colors in Lightroom that resemble the image preview seen on the camera LCD when an image is captured. In this article, I will talk about getting accurate colors from a Nikon DSLR in Lightroom.
Camera JPEG vs Adobe RAW
Due to the fact that Adobe’s RAW converter is unable to read proprietary RAW header data, which often contains chosen camera profiles, some settings have to be either applied manually or applied upon import. My personal preference is to apply a preset while importing images, which saves me time later. Before we get into Lightroom, let me first go over camera settings and explain a few important things.
1) RAW File Nuances and Metadata
When shooting in RAW format, most camera settings like White Balance, Sharpness, Saturation, Lens Corrections and Color Profiles do not matter. Unless you use Nikon-provided software like Capture NX or View NX, all of those custom settings are mostly discarded by third party applications, including Lightroom and Photoshop. That’s because it is hard to process each piece of proprietary data, which is subject to change from one camera model to another. Now imagine trying to do this for a number of different camera manufacturers!
Let’s go over data that is actually read by Lightroom / Photoshop Camera RAW:
White Balance, as set by the camera. Instead of your chosen value such as Auto, Incandescent, Fluorescent, etc, only the actual color temperature and tint are read from the RAW file.
Common image metadata such as Capture Date/Time, Exposure, Focal Length, Flash, Camera Make and Model, Lens information and GPS coordinates.
Copyright information (“Artist” in Setup Menu)
That’s basically it. Now here is the information that is completely discarded:
Picture Controls
Color Space (only relevant for JPEG images and JPEG images embedded into RAW files)
Active D-Lighting
Vignette Control
Auto Distortion Control
High ISO NR
All Settings from “Custom Setting Menu”
Focus Point Location in the frame
All other settings in Setup and other menus

There's a couple of things going on here -- I've mentioned them before, but I don't think you've related them to the article you quoted.

Basically, a RAW file is nothing more than a sensor dump + associated metadata. In contrast, the image you see on the back of the camera - even when shooting RAW - is ALWAYS an in-camera JPEG conversion. As such it's been processed by the in-camera RAW -> JPEG converter and will additionally have settings for saturation, contrast, sharpness, etc applied. The settings that resulted in those values for saturation etc are passed along in the metadata, but most converters will ignore them -- generally, only the manufacturers own packages will have access to that info (because manufacturers encrypt it, god bless them). So if you take a raw photo with a Canon camera set to mono - and open it in DPP then it'll still be monochrome, but if you open it in ACR, it'll be in colour. If you shoot with a Nikon then you'd need to open in in NX2 for it to show as monochrome.

So fundamentally, folks need to get away from the mistaken thought that a RAW image opened in a RAW converter is "wrong" because it "doesn't look the same as the image on the back of the camera". It's not supposed to look the same - in fact I'd be very worried if it did look the same. RAW capture and photographer processing is a bit like buying the ingredients and then baking a cake. If the initial RAW data presentation was already influenced by camera picture style choices then it would be like buying cake ingredients pre-mixed. And I would never want that. I was to see the data un-altered so I can see what it's strengths and weakness are and can plan it's processing from there.

Having said all that - if some photographer DOES want to have corrections pre-applied to the data so that it does match what they saw on the back of the camera, then that can be approximated with presets and profiles. In summary it has ZERO to so with any "weaknesses" in the RAW to DNG conversion process.

If you've ever watched the British version of Top Gear, you'll know who Richard Hammond is. He's a nice guy who - by virtue of his job - get to drive a LOT of high-performance cars. And I think it's probably fair to say that if we had a competition between him, you, and me, to drive a Formula 1 car, he'd probably do a damn sight better job than we would. So how did he do when given the chance - he made a real mess of it. On the face of it it would be really easy for him to say that the cars are just a load of rubbish; the brakes don't work very well, and they can slide off corners at only medium speeds -- but of course, that wouldn't be entirely accurate; yes, the brakes don't work well when they're cold - and yes, the cars may not be able to take a corner unless it's going fast enough to generate enough downforce. So in reality, it's not the car - it's the ability of the driver to know how to drive it correctly. ACR is no different. It's a professional-grade high-end package that's capable of incredible performance -- IF ONE KNOWS HOW TO DRIVE IT. I consider myself to be a power-user and even I only use a small fraction of it's capability. Generally speaking, if it doesn't give the results folks are after then it generally due to them not understanding what it is that they're asking it to do. Many in essence tell it to "take a long walk on a short plank" and then wonder why they're hearing a big splash a moment later. Many are quick to blame it, but usually it comes down to the photographer not understanding things like colourspaces, rendering intents, profiles, process versions etc.

If you'd like to see how Richard Hammond did, here's a link to his efforts in every mans dream car:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGUZJVY-sHo

[Colin Southern]

OK, if dng doesn't do anything to the data, then it's Photoshop and PhotoLine that are doing the interpreting, and I don't want their interpretation.

EVERY RAW converter interprets the data, and ACR is no different. Because of the way a RAW capture represents colour information as 3 gray-scale images, it's impossible to produce a full resolution composite without interpreting the data. The algorithm for doing that varies from engine to engine, but for the most part, the "interpretation" phase tends to produce pretty similar results.

It took me three weeks to sort thru all this and find two apps that will open the raw with lens correction and not guess at the contrast, saturation, and color temperature.

ACR will apply lens corrections - and will apply the contrast / saturation / colour temp that it's told to; initially according to the standard defaults, and after that, to whatever defaults the user saves. It also only has access to a limited number of profiles for each camera model -- for more accurate colour it's desireable to use custom colour profiles for individual camera / lens / lighting combinations (which benefits any converter, if they support them). ACR actually goes a step further than most by including 2 profiles -- one shot under D50 lighting, and the other under Illuminent B - it then interpolates and extrapolates between and beyond those two colour temps to produce accurate colour responses over a wide variety of colour temperatures.

The Silky Pix that Fuji provides free will never be updated because the camera is out of production. ACDSee Pro 3 will most likely be supported. I can live with either one. The actual color temp is around 7000 but PS and PL are guessing 4300 during the opening of the dng.. Unacceptable. Both of them seem to be using some jpeg-like average estimate of these things, similar to but not the same as the in-camera. I will do my own developing, thank you Adobe. PhotoLine's estimate is slightly different from Photoshop's also. PhotoLine uses draw to open raw, and I suppose that dcraw opens dngs as well although I could never get the dcraw I downloaded to open.

ACR will simply use the colour temperature that it's told to - it's one of the few metadata tags that it honours. Pretty much a moot point though because no photographer worth their salt would ever rely on an in-camera white balance (with the exception of a custom-set white balance of course).

I appreciate your offer, but I don't know what any of this is and have no other use for it: "Many ways. If you have a Google Mail account you can do it vie Google Drive - or via www.sendthisfile.com - or www.mediafire.com - or www.dropbox.com. When you have a download link just send it to me in a private message." I guess you mean a private message in this forum somehow.

Most eMail systems won't handle attachments over around 10MB (although Google will do 25). The sites I listed offer services where you can upload large files - the recipient is eMailed a link - then the recipient clicks on the link to download the file.

I am not sure that DNG doesn't touch the data. I have read that it does and that is the reason you can include the untouched raw in the conversion.

Well I am sure (excluding later revisions that allow for user-selected down-sampling and lossy compression). You can read anything on the internet - unfortunately, that doesn't mean that it's true. The main use for the ability to embed original RAW files into the DNG is to allow for them to be subsequently processed through software that doesn't support DNG (eg DxO). Some photographers feel more comfortable using that option as well. Personally, my RAW files never even make it off the CF cards; the converter grabs them - converts them - renames them - and drops them into the target directory. After that the original RAWs are destroyed when the card is re-initialised.

Also, this quote from a link posted in another thread in this forum:
HOME / POST PROCESSING / HOW TO GET ACCURATE NIKON COLORS IN LIGHTROOM

How to Get Accurate Nikon Colors in Lightroom
oct
4
2013
BY NASIM MANSUROV 50 COMMENTS
Our readers often ask us if it is possible to get Lightroom to provide the same colors as one would see from the back of the LCD on Nikon, Canon and other DSLRs when shooting in RAW format. Unfortunately, as you might have noticed when importing files, Lightroom changes the colors immediately after import, when the embedded JPEG files are re-rendered using Adobe’s standard color profiles. As a result, images might appear dull, lack contrast and have completely different colors. I have heard plenty of complaints on this issue for a while now, so I decided to post series of articles for each major manufacturer on how to obtain more accurate colors in Lightroom that resemble the image preview seen on the camera LCD when an image is captured. In this article, I will talk about getting accurate colors from a Nikon DSLR in Lightroom.
Camera JPEG vs Adobe RAW
Due to the fact that Adobe’s RAW converter is unable to read proprietary RAW header data, which often contains chosen camera profiles, some settings have to be either applied manually or applied upon import. My personal preference is to apply a preset while importing images, which saves me time later. Before we get into Lightroom, let me first go over camera settings and explain a few important things.
1) RAW File Nuances and Metadata
When shooting in RAW format, most camera settings like White Balance, Sharpness, Saturation, Lens Corrections and Color Profiles do not matter. Unless you use Nikon-provided software like Capture NX or View NX, all of those custom settings are mostly discarded by third party applications, including Lightroom and Photoshop. That’s because it is hard to process each piece of proprietary data, which is subject to change from one camera model to another. Now imagine trying to do this for a number of different camera manufacturers!
Let’s go over data that is actually read by Lightroom / Photoshop Camera RAW:
White Balance, as set by the camera. Instead of your chosen value such as Auto, Incandescent, Fluorescent, etc, only the actual color temperature and tint are read from the RAW file.
Common image metadata such as Capture Date/Time, Exposure, Focal Length, Flash, Camera Make and Model, Lens information and GPS coordinates.
Copyright information (“Artist” in Setup Menu)
That’s basically it. Now here is the information that is completely discarded:
Picture Controls
Color Space (only relevant for JPEG images and JPEG images embedded into RAW files)
Active D-Lighting
Vignette Control
Auto Distortion Control
High ISO NR
All Settings from “Custom Setting Menu”
Focus Point Location in the frame
All other settings in Setup and other menus

There's a couple of things going on here -- I've mentioned them before, but I don't think you've related them to the article you quoted.

Basically, a RAW file is nothing more than a sensor dump + associated metadata. In contrast, the image you see on the back of the camera - even when shooting RAW - is ALWAYS an in-camera JPEG conversion. As such it's been processed by the in-camera RAW -> JPEG converter and will additionally have settings for saturation, contrast, sharpness, etc applied. The settings that resulted in those values for saturation etc are passed along in the metadata, but most converters will ignore them -- generally, only the manufacturers own packages will have access to that info (because manufacturers encrypt it, god bless them). So if you take a raw photo with a Canon camera set to mono - and open it in DPP then it'll still be monochrome, but if you open it in ACR, it'll be in colour. If you shoot with a Nikon then you'd need to open in in NX2 for it to show as monochrome.

So fundamentally, folks need to get away from the mistaken thought that a RAW image opened in a RAW converter is "wrong" because it "doesn't look the same as the image on the back of the camera". It's not supposed to look the same - in fact I'd be very worried if it did look the same. RAW capture and photographer processing is a bit like buying the ingredients and then baking a cake. If the initial RAW data presentation was already influenced by camera picture style choices then it would be like buying cake ingredients pre-mixed. And I would never want that. I was to see the data un-altered so I can see what it's strengths and weakness are and can plan it's processing from there.

Having said all that - if some photographer DOES want to have corrections pre-applied to the data so that it does match what they saw on the back of the camera, then that can be approximated with presets and profiles. In summary it has ZERO to so with any "weaknesses" in the RAW to DNG conversion process.

If you've ever watched the British version of Top Gear, you'll know who Richard Hammond is. He's a nice guy who - by virtue of his job - get to drive a LOT of high-performance cars. And I think it's probably fair to say that if we had a competition between him, you, and me, to drive a Formula 1 car, he'd probably do a damn sight better job than we would. So how did he do when given the chance - he made a real mess of it. On the face of it it would be really easy for him to say that the cars are just a load of rubbish; the brakes don't work very well, and they can slide off corners at only medium speeds -- but of course, that wouldn't be entirely accurate; yes, the brakes don't work well when they're cold - and yes, the cars may not be able to take a corner unless it's going fast enough to generate enough downforce. So in reality, it's not the car - it's the ability of the driver to know how to drive it correctly. ACR is no different. It's a professional-grade high-end package that's capable of incredible performance -- IF ONE KNOWS HOW TO DRIVE IT. I consider myself to be a power-user and even I only use a small fraction of it's capability. Generally speaking, if it doesn't give the results folks are after then it generally due to them not understanding what it is that they're asking it to do. Many in essence tell it to "take a long walk on a short plank" and then wonder why they're hearing a big splash a moment later. Many are quick to blame it, but usually it comes down to the photographer not understanding things like colourspaces, rendering intents, profiles, process versions etc.

If you'd like to see how Richard Hammond did, here's a link to his efforts in every mans dream car:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGUZJVY-sHo

[ajohnw]

Odd Adbobe not opening RAF files because one application I use from time to time uses Adobe profiles and it does open them without any problems. Your problem might be down to not installing Adobe's camera updates. On the other hand about 18 months ago I thought about buying a Fuji bridge camera and went to a site where I could download full sized jpg's and raw versions and had an awful job trying to get the raw file to match the jpg the camera produced. I downloaded the same files yesterday and tried again. Easy other than a dark image and a bit of a lack of contrast. Auto exposure took care of the darkness - for an easy route it usually does. It also offered automatic CA correction this time as well. Can't remember if auto lens correction was also available. Might have been.

I then tried Ufraw and it failed with an error - that uses DCraw as used by many applications. The problem could be down to either of them. Ufraw I suspect as several other applications had no problems with it.

The reason for these problems is basically down to the fact that all raw files change when a new camera comes out hence dng - if everbody used it there wouldn't be any problems but camera manufacturers carry on doing what they do. That is a bit stupid. Why don't they produce there own jpg equivalents etc as well.

Raw output is different? Raw is used to allow people to adjust images as much as and in the way they want too. Some thought in that area is why they look like they do. It's aimed at maximising the available possible levels of adjustment.

The main control in how they look initially taken from raw is the tone curve that is used. These can even be downloaded of this site

http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/downloads.html

This is where the famous wedding dress tone curve comes from. it's used as a base curve. Packages often have 2 curves One is applied before anything else is done to the image other than exposure setting and colour balancing. Nikon have base curves built into the raw file. The other one is basically a brightness that should retain colours as is responding as the human eye does to changes. It can be used to set black clipping levels too but adjustment is usually a bit touchy - a tiny bit does a lot..

The curve shown 1st on the page linked too is typical. The line at 45 degrees can be regarded as neutral contrast/brightness due to it's slope. The curve shown increases the contrast up 127 out , 172 in and then as the slope decreases after that slowly lessens the contrast after that point. It also maps 255 in to 228 out so that there is some room left for adjustment without clipping. Tone levels below that can always be be brightened. but at some point they can't be darkened without clipping. Points set above the 45 degree line brighten that tone level and points below it darken it. Slope adjusting contrast is my way of putting it.

What isn't clear to me is how the typical 12bit colour information from a typical DSLR is converted in a manner where it can be show like this. 12 bit has 4095 steps, 8bit 255. The tone range covered by those 12bits varies according to the camera. The actual stop ranges covered can be obtained from dpreview camera reviews. They show jpg coverage as that's how cameras are rated. They get the stops into jpg's by using tone curves. If some one looks at them it's pretty clear why very dark areas can easily be brightened up on shots taken with modern cameras. They also show that the coverage is another numbers game. If some one tries to use all of the extra stops with low slope at the dark end they will find it's too noisy / insufficient difference to show much in the line of contrast. Where these jpg curves run at a sensible slope the output corresponds to what we actually see. These curves may interest 14bit owners too - 2 stops extra, 4 times as many steps. I have always found the Nikon curves fascinating but all are slowly joining in.

Any one know for sure how raw converters get 12 into 8 or 10 if working in Adobe RGB - which is pretty useless for most people at the moment? I suspect they just scale 12 to 8 and the curves set how they will look in the final image.

John
-

[Richard Lundberg]

ajohnw: I didn't say that ACR wouldn't open my RAF files, I said that it opened them without the proprietary lens correction. I also said that ACR opened the same RAF converted to dng with the wrong color temperature and increased contrast and saturation. This is my whole point in this thread, I don't know what either one of them are actually doing, Colin's explanations not withstanding. I take his point that there may be some preset I have not looked for in ACR or DNG Converter and I will investigate this.
However, in the interest of sincerity and integrity ( once you learn to fake those, you've got it made--Charlton Heston), I opened the two apps that will open my RAF with lens correction and not interpret contrast, saturation, and color temperature. Silky Pix will not open dng. ACDSee Pro 3 will open the dng but without the lens correction. I think I'm down to one app now, since the Silky Pix UI is nearly unreadable. ACDSee is also user unfriendly but a bit easier to navigate. My camera is the Fujifilm Finepix F600EXR. It has the 45 deg angle sensor that is the predecessor of the X-Trans. It has many many options for shooting, but I used the EXR Auto mode which under natural light from an east window in the afternoon gave me f/3.5 , ISO 800, 1/55, 4.4 mm. The interpretation that dng conversion opened in both Photoshop CS 5 and PhotoLine 18 gave was much warmer than the natural light, although Photoshop was warmer than PhotoLine. The Silky Pix app has been modified by Fuji to do the necessary proprietary things and his downloadable from their website. The downloaded version is called RAW File Converter by Silky Pix.
Ignoring the possible complexities of ACR and DNG Converter, I will just open my RAFs in one of the two apps, make some adjustments to the development, correct perspective in DxO Perspective, and use an appropriate editor for any other tweaks. I just upgraded Intensify to Pro for 12.49 USD and I think I'll play with it a bit. The original opens RAW but without lens correction, so I'll have to see if Pro does the same.

[Colin Southern]

ajohnw: I didn't say that ACR wouldn't open my RAF files, I said that it opened them without the proprietary lens correction. I also said that ACR opened the same RAF converted to dng with the wrong color temperature and increased contrast and saturation. This is my whole point in this thread, I don't know what either one of them are actually doing, Colin's explanations not withstanding. I take his point that there may be some preset I have not looked for in ACR or DNG Converter and I will investigate this.
However, in the interest of sincerity and integrity ( once you learn to fake those, you've got it made--Charlton Heston), I opened the two apps that will open my RAF with lens correction and not interpret contrast, saturation, and color temperature. Silky Pix will not open dng. ACDSee Pro 3 will open the dng but without the lens correction. I think I'm down to one app now, since the Silky Pix UI is nearly unreadable. ACDSee is also user unfriendly but a bit easier to navigate. My camera is the Fujifilm Finepix F600EXR. It has the 45 deg angle sensor that is the predecessor of the X-Trans. It has many many options for shooting, but I used the EXR Auto mode which under natural light from an east window in the afternoon gave me f/3.5 , ISO 800, 1/55, 44 mm. The interpretation that dng conversion opened in both Photoshop CS 5 and PhotoLine 18 gave was much warmer than the natural light, although Photoshop was warmer than PhotoLine. The Silky Pix app has been modified by Fuji to do the necessary proprietary things and his downloadable from their website. The downloaded version is called RAW File Converter by Silky Pix.
Ignoring the possible complexities of ACR and DNG Converter, I will just open my RAFs in one of the two apps, make some adjustments to the development, correct perspective in DxO Perspective, and use an appropriate editor for any other tweaks. I just upgraded Intensify to Pro for 12.49 USD and I think I'll play with it a bit. The original opens RAW but without lens correction, so I'll have to see if Pro does the same.

Again, more than happy to look at at these issues for you if you'll get a pair of files to me (it's not hard - could have let you know the results by now! )

Also, keep in mind that Adobe changed the process version last year; the 2012 process version lightens up the midtones considerably as a starting point -- the older 2010 version (which I personally prefer) had a far more "expected" default appearance.