Todd Klassy wrote: gdanmitchell wrote:
In general, and apart from issues with integration with the rest of one\'s workflow, you can largely get to the same results with a range of raw conversion software. In some cases, the very same NR engine is used, as in LR and ACR.
I don\'t know if that\'s a guess on your part or a fact, but even if it were the same NR \"engine,\" each software\'s interpretation of Raw image code varies. Canon\'s Raw code is proprietary, and their algorithms and understanding of their products largely is too. Adobe, et. al. have to backwards engineer every camera manufacturer\'s Raw code, so even if the engine is the same, its effect on an image obviously are not.
It isn\'t a guess. Adobe has said so. I\'ve been at Adobe and heard the Adobe LR and PS engineers say so.
Raw data are basically just the \"raw\" sensor data - luminosity values of different photo sites. It starts out the same no matter what conversion software you use.
There are differences in how the various programs process the data, and there are differences in the user interfaces among the programs - what things are called, what settings are editable, what \"smart\" adjustments the application designers have provided, how the files interact among programs.
My point was that in the end, you can get great converted files from a whole range of programs, and many of the purported differences I\'ve seen have been more about the way the programs were used than about their intrinsic abilities of process file data. A skilled operator who understands the variables provided by the software and who understands the photographic effects of applying them can get great conversion results with a range of programs.
I\'m still partial to ACR, though I can understand why quite a few folks have come to prefer LR. (Here, the raw conversion abilities are very comparable, as the two programs share code from what I have been told.) My reasons for using ACR include: it does a very fine job (equivalent to LR though interface isn\'t the same), I\'m deeply familiar with it from long use and can quickly and effectively get the file to the point I want, and it integrates very tightly with Photoshop, which is my preferred post-processing tool. (I especially like the smart layers feature that allows me to easily and non-destructively return to the raw convertor even after working in PS.)
Todd Klassy wrote: gdanmitchell wrote:
In general, and apart from issues with integration with the rest of one\'s workflow, you can largely get to the same results with a range of raw conversion software. In some cases, the very same NR engine is used, as in LR and ACR.
I don\'t know if that\'s a guess on your part or a fact, but even if it were the same NR \"engine,\" each software\'s interpretation of Raw image code varies. Canon\'s Raw code is proprietary, and their algorithms and understanding of their products largely is too. Adobe, et. al. have to backwards engineer every camera manufacturer\'s Raw code, so even if the engine is the same, its effect on an image obviously are not.
It isn\'t a guess. Adobe has said so. I\'ve been at Adobe and heard the Adobe LR and PS engineers say so.
Raw data are basically just the \"raw\" sensor data - luminosity values of different photo sites. It starts out the same no matter what conversion software you use.
There are differences in how the various programs process{/i] the data, and there are differences in the user interfaces among the programs - what things are called, what settings are editable, what \"smart\" adjustments the application designers have provided, how the files interact among programs.
My point was that in the end, you can get great converted files from a whole range of programs, and many of the purported differences I\'ve seen have been more about the way the programs were used than about their intrinsic abilities of process file data.
Dan
May 02, 2012 at 06:18 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #10599979 « 5d3 shadows much better than thought? »
