Jump to content

A conversation (and question) about the raw processing...

Recommended Posts

when a raw file is well exposed AP does a decent job,  sharp maybe with a little more digital artifacts than others but nothing to worry about except for pixel peepers.  very high iso and heavy underexposed files do better in other converter and fuji x trans is not only a challenge for AP but other raw converter too. 



@ r10k  is it possible to render a printable file from your extreme underexposed fuji raw with AP ?  well see for yourself......


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I don't think the X100 uses an X-trans matrix.  The X100S does but not the X100.


I agree that when we are dealing with a file as seriously underexposed as the example r10k has produced there are bound to be limits and, ideally, you wouldn't produce that sort of exposure. On the other hand, it's not unreasonable to compare AP's performance against other convertors on such a file.  I too am, at times, critical of pixel peepers but when you want to print A3-A2 at 360 dpi pixel peeping can sometimes be important.  In that case you'd rather have a smoothed image than that maze pattern.


But, to cut to the chase, I'd like to know why AP produces that maze pattern when I could not reproduce it with any of these eight demosaicing algorithms: amaze, igv, lmmse, eahd, hphd, vng4, dcb and ahd.  I'd just like to know what it's doing and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I still don't agree with you. And, this thread is about the quality of AP's RAW conversion. Not about that blog post, specifically. I posted that because it showed clearly the results I was getting. (meaning it wasn't limited to my exact setup) I didn't post any images because it's annoying to do that in a forum. That's why I submitted an original photo so you could see the results for yourself. Or more importantly, so the developers could see them.


I don't think this whole thing has much to do with noise reduction at all. And your statement that if I opened my RAF file in Photos and boosted some stuff it would look like a mess that no noise reduction would fix, is 100% false. The photo I adjusted in Photos (and ACR) looked remarkably good, after boosting things. (mostly though, for best results I adjusted the black point) Have a look for yourself. But let's keep this on topic to what is happening in AP- what's coming from the Develop RAW conversion process is producing remarkably different (and I would say undesired) results compared to the majority of popular RAW processors out there.


Of course you had to change the black point in Photos - that was my point.  Each raw converter requires its own individual adjustments to achieve an acceptable image.  I do not disagree with your assessment that there is room for improvement with the AP conversion.  There are much better raw converters for the Mac than the Develop persona in AP - Raw Photo Processor and Iridient Developer to name two of them.  Raw Therapee permits experimentation with a variety of demosaicing algorithms and a very detailed noise reduction control that gives the user plenty of control over how and where NR is applied.    Fortunately for Mac users, we have plenty of viable raw converter alternatives, especially if one plans to incorporate AP into their image processing workflow to completely eschew Adobe products from their suite of tools.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the X100 isn't X-trans.


csp, I'm not sure what you're asking for.


Coranda, I'd like to know too. I hardly print images, but there are times I need to crop or push colours a bit and I'd prefer not to have the results AP produces.


Kirk, I may not be a RAW processing algorithm expert, but I do realise different settings need tweaking in different apps to produce a similar result. But aside from that, at least we're in agreement about AP. Now we just await Serif to possibly comment on things...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@r10k this was a rhetorical question.  i too would appreciate that the demosaicing algorithm used by ap renders a more grain like structure  i ´m sure we will see improvments here but i don't think it is inferior to photo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's down to personal opinion, but I do. When you have red dots on your image that you have to remove with extreme levels of noise reduction (AP's definition of extreme) that don't present in a more natural representation of the original scene via other RAW processors, I call it inferior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.