oliwetti Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Hi again, sorry to bring this up again, but the quality of my raw files is still much inferior to the corresponding jpegs, there is much more noise (both color and luminance) and due to that much less detail. My camera is a Canon 450D, the difference becomes extremely visible when shooting slightly underexposed. All the best, Oliver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeFromMesa Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Is this true after adjustment? How about with other editors like LR, OP or C1? Do you want to post some samples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliwetti Posted June 30, 2015 Author Share Posted June 30, 2015 Hi, this is true after adjustment. And it happens In none of my other raw editing programs, ie camera raw, capture one. I'll prepare some examples and post them in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeFromMesa Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Hi, this is true after adjustment. And it happens In none of my other raw editing programs, ie camera raw, capture one. I'll prepare some examples and post them in this thread. Are you using a supported camera? Is the Develop Assistant enabled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliwetti Posted June 30, 2015 Author Share Posted June 30, 2015 I'm using a Canon 450D, don't know if it is supported or not, but it doesn't strike me as being that exotic. Develop assistant is disabled. If it is enabled the image turn out much more overexposed than intended and really noisy. I add examples tomorrow, hope that they show what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeFromMesa Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 I'm using a Canon 450D, don't know if it is supported or not, but it doesn't strike me as being that exotic. Develop assistant is disabled. If it is enabled the image turn out much more overexposed than intended and really noisy. I add examples tomorrow, hope that they show what I mean. Post some links to raw & jpg images we can download. Otherwise we will not be able to really understand exactly what is happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliwetti Posted July 1, 2015 Author Share Posted July 1, 2015 sure, here are two examples. Hope this helps to see what I mean. It's the same image (taken in raw and jpeg) and adjusted similarly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staff TonyB Posted July 1, 2015 Staff Share Posted July 1, 2015 The RAW version looks like you haven't applied any noise reduction. The JPEG version will have noise reduction applied by the camera. The idea of RAW is that you choose the adjustments and noise reduction instead of the camera making all the decisions for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliwetti Posted July 1, 2015 Author Share Posted July 1, 2015 Hi, thanks for the feedback. It's true that there was no noise reduction in the example since this really makes the image worse as far as the details are concerned. I attach two examples with noise reduction applied. Also as an addition the same raw file from capture one, none of the images has any adjustments done regarding detail. For me, the Affinity Photo jpeg is much closer to the capture one raw edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeFromMesa Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 sure, here are two examples. Hope this helps to see what I mean. It's the same image (taken in raw and jpeg) and adjusted similarly. Sorry for the delay, but I just returned home from a camping trip. When I suggested posting the images I meant both complete images, raw and jpg, so we could edit them ourselves to see if we can find the problem. I meant putting them in something like dropbox so we could then download them onto our computers rather than just posting screen shots. Can you do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeFromMesa Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Hi, thanks for the feedback. It's true that there was no noise reduction in the example since this really makes the image worse as far as the details are concerned. I attach two examples with noise reduction applied. Also as an addition the same raw file from capture one, none of the images has any adjustments done regarding detail. For me, the Affinity Photo jpeg is much closer to the capture one raw edit. The CaptureOne raw edit is an image that C1 loaded and adjusted. It has applied whatever adjustments were contained in the preset that was used by C1 for that image and that probably means that it has adjusted for noise, exposure, brightness, white and black points, sharpening and several other kinds of adjustments. In C1 you do not have to do that yourself as the preset takes care of it for you. With APB there are only basic adjustments applied to a raw image on purpose so you can adjust it as you wish. If you will post the actual raw and jpg images for us to download and adjust in APB many of us can see how our adjusted images compare to both the jpg (which your camera adjusted) and the C1 image (which C1 adjusted). Bear in mind that both your camera and C1 have applied commonly used adjustments know to mimic the kinds of things viewers like to see. APB makes minimal adjustments so you can adjust it as you wish. Remember also that you don't have to do your basic adjusting in APB. For example I almost always do my basic raw adjustments in either C1 or Optics Pro and use APB as an external editor to do specialized types of adjustments like layers, plugin usage, perspective and the like. billtils 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliwetti Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 Thanks for the reply! I can absolutely relate to the fact that there is minimal initial adjustment in affinity photos raw development, what made me start this topic in the first place though is the fact (like shown in the example images) that I'm simply not able to get any good results from adjusting my raw images (again compared to the already cameraadjusted jpegs or whatever preset c1 might use) - the noise is just much more visible there and the noise reduction (what I tried to show in the second set of example images) destroys much of the image details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billtils Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 @oliwetti There have been many posts over the various releases about the RAW engine, and what Mike says here captures it well. Different programs produce different results, mostly using some preset tweaks. AP differs in that the Develop persona gives you the ability to tweak at the develop stage to create the optimal image (i.e. the one that suits your taste) and that you then move to the Photo persona to edit. How much you do, if anything, in Develop is up to you. I have varied between lots and nothing depending on the release and what was in the original image; currently it's mostly "nothing". If you have a program that gives you what you prefer to see in your downloaded images straight from the camera, then you should bypass the Develop persona and call up Photo from your program's external editor facility. However, if you prefer to work with your Canon CR files, then that won't do it if the external call sends a TIFF to AP. There may be a solution in a later release of AP, when the Macro persona is up and running. Retina iMac (4K display, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM) OS X 10.11.6 Capture One 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliwetti Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 Hi everyone, I really don't want to argue against the creative freedom of adjustments Affinity photo gives you and in theory this freedom is definitely a huge advantage over preset ways to develop raw images, it's just that in my case of my camera the raw files start off really noisy and there is no way to correct that later on, you'll always loose detail in the process. Sure I could use other programs for this process but that's not the point when collecting feedback to make a really good program better, right? I try another camera this afternoon to see if that is just a Canon raw specific or not. All the best for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csp Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 @ oliwetti what you also see is that AP does render noise/detail different, it looks more digital (maze like ) compared to C1 which resamples more the look of film grain. but it took phase one 7 versions to get there :D. oliwetti 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeFromMesa Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Hi everyone, I really don't want to argue against the creative freedom of adjustments Affinity photo gives you and in theory this freedom is definitely a huge advantage over preset ways to develop raw images, it's just that in my case of my camera the raw files start off really noisy and there is no way to correct that later on, you'll always loose detail in the process. Sure I could use other programs for this process but that's not the point when collecting feedback to make a really good program better, right? I try another camera this afternoon to see if that is just a Canon raw specific or not. All the best for now I will ask again if you would upload some actual raw and jpg images to a service like dropbox so people can download them and see what they can do. If you will do that people will make the adjustments and tell you what they did so you can get some other people's experiences and, perhaps, find out something about using APB in different ways than what you are now doing. Without actual images to work on there is no way for people to see exactly what can or can not be done with your images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliwetti Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 @csp: that's exactly what I mean. Here's another example to show the unadjusted raw (this time from a fuji x20) in comparison to camera raw. What I notice are the much larger structures in the image that cause the adjustments to be inferior compared to other options. @Mike: I attach the raw file in a second, should work without dropbox:) turns out I can't upload nef files:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeFromMesa Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 turns out I can't upload nef files:( I would think that the NEF files were too big to directly upload and that dropbox, or something similar, would be the only way to handle something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csp Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 fuji x trans files seem to be a challenge for a lot of raw-converter.... from my experience with canon high iso files i would say AP does a decent job other raw converter have a slight advantage nothing more. if you rise the color noise reduction i doubt that you would see a lot of difference in print with your sample anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliwetti Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 Hi, that's true, although the lengthy vertical and horizontal structures that you can see in the raw interpretation of Affinity Photo create that computer- or maze-like look that becomes visible when working with details from your photo (even more so with my old non-high-iso Canon 450D), on the computer screen at least... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csp Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 ....this is not a solution but gives perceptual better results: use a little more luminance NR as necessary and ad some noise to break up the digital artefacts. oliwetti 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliwetti Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 nice workaround, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts