Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Raw conversion'.
-
I've owned AP since it was first published. I buy stuff by independent developers these days in the hope that it will become great. But I started using AP only a few days ago when I discovered the direction of the workflow (from 'developer' to 'photo') and watched a few video tutorials (well-made & relatively information-dense, but... video! ugh!). I'm surprised to say that, now I "get it", I'm impressed by AP. This will be a killer suite when it's a bit more mature. As a user of specialist focus-stacking software, I was delighted by the built-in AP routines, for example. I'm curious, however, about the choice between AP raw conversion and Apple raw conversion. Is there a difference? I have a prejudice that raw-conversion is in fact critical although it's one of those things that gets swept under the carpet by most "photo" suites. I use Adobe Camera Raw by default but I can't decide whether its de-mosaicing etc is much different from the de-mosaicing in e.g. Photos. What is different is the non-linear adjustments to exposure and contrast/tone-curves (especially) that ACR applies by default (in Process 2012 and earlier) without telling the user (Adobe is a little more transparent about input-sharpening). I'm sure Photos also applies it's own (hidden) post de-mosaic adjustments. They're not as clever as Adobe's in my view. What does AP do? Does it apply some initial adjustments OTHER than those mentioned in the "Develop Assistant"? Are AP de-mosaicing routines developed in-house? Do they have some advantages we should know about? PS: The only raw converter I own that does NOT make initial adjustments unless you tell it to is Raw Photo Processor (http://www.raw-photo-processor.com); a great program with many clever touches, if a little eccentric.