Are raw files better handled by proprietary software?

"Ken Palmateer" wrote in message

Folks:
After processing a photo using both Photoshop (elements 3) and a trail version of Nikon Capture (from my D70), I have noticed that in the shadow areas, in particular a tall clump of grass, the definition is noticeably better in the printed copy done with Nikon Capture. It doesn’t matter how much I sharpen in Photoshop, the shadow areas with viewable detail are clumpier and less defined than the same shadow areas done with Nikon Capture.
Even working in full 16 bit (as far as can be done in
Elements) does not make a difference (even though I am aware the printer only handles 8 bit). I’ve used up a lot of ink and paper, and in every case, Nikon Capture just seems to handle those shadows better.
Is this typical? Ken

It’s not typical. Saturated colors in shadows are difficult to evaluate on screen because printers are better at representing shadow detail. It’s hard to make an accurate suggestion without seeing the image.

From your description my best guess is that this could be a difference in color spaces. Depending on your configuration, Photoshop Elements may be converting your images to the Adobe RGB color space. This results in a loss of saturation, and shadow detail, when viewed externally. Try configuring Elements for web use, and see if the image improves.

This is all a guess. It would help if you posted the two images on a web page. If you don’t have a web page, use something like www.pbase.com .

—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Ken wrote:

<snip>

Even working in full 16 bit (as far as can
be done in Elements) does not make a
difference (even though I am aware the
printer only handles 8 bit).

<snip>

Ken, I think Mike answered your question quite well, I have 1 or 2 for you.

I am working with Elements 2 (E-2) and a Fuji S5000 camera. I shoot in Raw but must convert to tiff before I can use E-2. Question, does Elements 3 work directly with your Raw files or is some conversion needed?

Also, it is my understanding (correct me if necessary) that the interface for E-3 was "dumbed down" somewhat from E-2, making it easier for some folks. I am quite comfortable with E-2 and have plug-ins that will not work with E-3, so I would prefer to stay where I’m at.

However, I also want to go for the best quality I can get, will going to E-3 give me the ability to work directly with Raw files and is E-3 compartmentalized as is E-4?

I am 66 years old, retired and only do this as a hobby. Staying with E-2 is okay, but if the quality is markedly improved by gong to E-3, I’ll have to bite that bullet.

Sorry this so long, I wanted you to be able to better evaluate my situation. Thanks for any help.

Cheers Lee O.

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 13:05:06 -0800, (Lee O.)
wrote:

I am working with Elements 2 (E-2) and a Fuji S5000 camera. I shoot in Raw but must convert to tiff before I can use E-2. Question, does Elements 3 work directly with your Raw files or is some conversion needed

Elements 3 uses it’s own plug-in to convert the raw file. The latest version came out not that long ago (3.2) and covers quite a few camera brands. But you do need Elements 3 or above.

Also, it is my understanding (correct me if necessary) that the interface for E-3 was "dumbed down" somewhat from E-2, making it easier for some folks. I am quite comfortable with E-2 and have plug-ins that will not work with E-3, so I would prefer to stay where I’m at.

I’ve been through version’s 1, 2, and 3 and there is no dumbing down at all. I think you’d be gaining a lot by moving up to 3 or 4 and having that ability to work directly with your raw files (keeping in mind that many of the editing functions of Elements will not work in 16 bit mode…also if you decided to switch, go on the Adobe site and make sure your camera is listed as supported). I’m curious what plug-ins work with 2 but not 3.

However, I also want to go for the best quality I can get, will going to E-3 give me the ability to work directly with Raw files and is E-3 compartmentalized as is E-4?

Not at all familiar with 4, but with 3 you get the core adjustments (minus a tone curve, ability to use color spaces, or batch processing).

I am 66 years old, retired and only do this as a hobby. Staying with E-2 is okay, but if the quality is markedly improved by gong to E-3, I’ll have to bite that bullet.

You can download a demo trail Elements 3 (or 4, probably) and see how it is, if you’ve got the space on your hard drive. That might be the way to go. For myself, the jump from 2 to 3 was definitely worth it.

Hope this gives you something to think about Lee. Ken

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:56:48 GMT, "Mike Russell" wrote:

From your description my best guess is that this could be a difference in color spaces. Depending on your configuration, Photoshop Elements may be converting your images to the Adobe RGB color space. This results in a loss of saturation, and shadow detail, when viewed externally. Try configuring Elements for web use, and see if the image improves.

Yes, it seems you may be right, Mike. The default color space working in Nikon Capture is NKAdobe.icm I have my screen and Elements set to Adobe RGB. So I guess (my ignorance is showing here) when I printed the image using the Nikon Capture software I was sending that profile to the printer???. If that is the case, then can’t I manipulate the photograph using Photoshop to get the same exact image printed, using Adobe RGB? Is a color space profile an ultimate dictator of the end product in print? Ken

"Ken Palmateer" wrote in message

Re printing from within Elements versis Nikon Capture.

The default color space working
in Nikon Capture is NKAdobe.icm I have my screen and Elements set to Adobe RGB. So I guess (my ignorance is showing here) when I printed the image using the Nikon Capture software I was sending that profile to the printer???. If that is the case, then can’t I manipulate the photograph using Photoshop to get the same exact image printed, using Adobe RGB? Is a color space profile an ultimate dictator of the end product in print? Ken

The color space profile does not control the end product, provided you are configured correctly. If everything is Adobe RGB throughout, then that’s not the problem.

With the caveat that I haven’t seen the images or the printout, it’s possible that you need to change your printer setup in Elements.

This is accessed in Elements via the print preview screen. Make sure that Elements is configured to use the printer’s color management. You may need to select "More Options" to see this.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Ken wrote:

<snip>

I’ve been through version’s 1, 2, and 3
and there is no dumbing down at all. I
think you’d be gaining a lot by moving
up to 3 or 4 and having that ability to
work directly with your raw files
(keeping in mind that many of the
editing functions of Elements will not
work in 16 bit mode…also if you decided
to switch, go on the Adobe site and
make sure your camera is listed as
supported). I’m curious what plug-ins
work with 2 but not 3.

<snip>

Ken,

Thanks for the response. I read somewhere that with E-4 (and to a lesser degree E-3) Adobe was gearing Elements more for the soccer-mom than for the hobbyist or small business. Kind of an Elements ‘lite’ if you will. That is what I meant by ‘dumbing down’.

The plug-in that I have that I know will not work with E-3 is "Hidden Power Tools". It gives me curves, channels, clipping paths, color balance, color separations (RGB, CMYK and Lab) masking and snapshots that are not available on off the shelf E-2.

In his newsletter, the author, Richard Lynch, goes into why it will not work and would require the purchase of his E-3 (or E-4) version of the plug-in. Adobe changed the way E-3 accessed certain areas and Lynch’s earlier tools (E-1 & 2) don’t work with it. Oh well, it’s called progress.

I love the Power Tools because it gives me most of full Photoshop without the full Photoshop price tag.

Hey, thanks again for your response, I did not intend to hijack your thread. :-))

Cheers Lee O.

Ken Palmateer wrote:

Folks:
After processing a photo using both Photoshop (elements 3) and a trail version of Nikon Capture (from my D70), I have noticed that in the shadow areas, in particular a tall clump of grass, the definition is noticeably better in the printed copy done with Nikon Capture. It doesn’t matter how much I sharpen in Photoshop, the shadow areas with viewable detail are clumpier and less defined than the same shadow areas done with Nikon Capture.
Even working in full 16 bit (as far as can be done in
Elements) does not make a difference (even though I am aware the printer only handles 8 bit). I’ve used up a lot of ink and paper, and in every case, Nikon Capture just seems to handle those shadows better.
Is this typical? Ken

There is a trade off in this situation which is not immediately noticeable to most (even Professional) users.

You can (for example) use a program like RawShooter (free too!) to develop your images and obtain seemingly "better" tonal range than you get with ACR. You also get the opportunity to tweak up a number of areas which you can later modify further with Photoshop, thereby correcting some pretty bad images.

The trade off is in the way it develops RAW images. ACR has an absolutely brilliant de-moziac routine which also does some strange pixel smoothing and removes hot pixels (white spot noise) in deep, deep shadows. None of the other programs I have used (almost all of them) can actually produce as noise free, hot spot free and white pixel free images as ACR does. Why this is so, is beyond me. I’d have thought the camera makers would have the better product, but they don’t.

The real test of all of the RAW developer’s around is in how they handle images on the threshold of discarding due to poor exposure or other significant image faults.

Sometimes, more often than it should, your speedlight will show it’s ready light and you take that once in a lifetime shot only to discover the flash was not ready at all and the image you shot is badly underexposed. This is when you need a RAW developer that has enough forethought in it’s design and implementation to be able to process the image and get a usable file which you can then work on with Photoshop.

If you never take such pictures then you will probably never need the extra edge ACR can give you. You can incidently, use the "fill flash" function of Elements to achieve the same highlight detail as you feel Nikon’s developer does.

Alienjones himself wrote:

There is a trade off in this situation which is not immediately noticeable to most (even Professional) users.

You can (for example) use a program like RawShooter (free too!) to develop your images and obtain seemingly "better" tonal range than you get with ACR. You also get the opportunity to tweak up a number of areas which you can later modify further with Photoshop, thereby correcting some pretty bad images.

The trade off is in the way it develops RAW images. ACR has an absolutely brilliant de-moziac routine which also does some strange pixel smoothing and removes hot pixels (white spot noise) in deep, deep shadows. None of the other programs I have used (almost all of them) can actually produce as noise free, hot spot free and white pixel free images as ACR does. Why this is so, is beyond me. I’d have thought the camera makers would have the better product, but they don’t.

Interesting observation. One of the reasons why I do *not* use ACR much, is because I think that ACR does not handle the deep shadows very well at all. I see more noise than with CaptureOne and I see less detail. Go figure! Maybe it also depends on the RAW file. Independent developers need to reverse engineer the RAW fils, so perhaps Adobe did a better job on one type than it did on another. I mainly use a Canon EOS 1Ds MkII.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Alienjones himself wrote:
[snip]

The trade off is in the way it develops RAW images. ACR has an absolutely brilliant de-moziac routine which also does some strange pixel smoothing and removes hot pixels (white spot noise) in deep, deep shadows. None of the other programs I have used (almost all of them) can actually produce as noise free, hot spot free and white pixel free images as ACR does. Why this is so, is beyond me. I’d have thought the camera makers would have the better product, but they don’t.

[snip]

Have you tried 3.3 beta yet? It has "tuned bayer demosaicing", and I wonder whether it changes what you just wrote.

(I use it, but don’t have your experience of how ACR compares with others. Neither have I checked those particular effects in comparison with 3.2, although I now will).

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

Barry Pearson wrote:

Alienjones himself wrote:
[snip]

The trade off is in the way it develops RAW images. ACR has an absolutely brilliant de-moziac routine which also does some strange pixel smoothing and removes hot pixels (white spot noise) in deep, deep shadows. None of the other programs I have used (almost all of them) can actually produce as noise free, hot spot free and white pixel free images as ACR does. Why this is so, is beyond me. I’d have thought the camera makers would have the better product, but they don’t.

[snip]

Have you tried 3.3 beta yet? It has "tuned bayer demosaicing", and I wonder whether it changes what you just wrote.

(I use it, but don’t have your experience of how ACR compares with others. Neither have I checked those particular effects in comparison with 3.2, although I now will).

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

The latest version of Canon’s "Digital Photo Professional" is (in my opinion) beyond reproach. I can’t develop Camera RAW files from my 5D with version CS I have and don’t intend to upgrade.

It does process files from my other cameras and I can convert the 5D files to digital negatives which CS is able to read however, I really don’t believe this is doing justice to the 5D files. The Canon software does a much nicer job with 5D files than the DNG-ACR approach. It will then open the file as a 16 bit TIFF in Photoshop so for me, this is my preferred approach – today! 🙂

Alienjones himself wrote:
[snip]

The latest version of Canon’s "Digital Photo Professional" is (in my opinion) beyond reproach. I can’t develop Camera RAW files from my 5D with version CS I have and don’t intend to upgrade.

It does process files from my other cameras and I can convert the 5D files to digital negatives which CS is able to read however, I really don’t believe this is doing justice to the 5D files. The Canon software does a much nicer job with 5D files than the DNG-ACR approach. It will then open the file as a 16 bit TIFF in Photoshop so for me, this is my preferred approach – today! 🙂

I assume you accept that DNG itself isn’t changing anything? That what you are doing is comparing ACR (pre 3.3 beta) with DPP?

(When a version of ACR supports a camera, in my experience putting DNG into the route doesn’t change even a single pixel).

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

Barry Pearson wrote:

Alienjones himself wrote:
[snip]

The latest version of Canon’s "Digital Photo Professional" is (in my opinion) beyond reproach. I can’t develop Camera RAW files from my 5D with version CS I have and don’t intend to upgrade.

It does process files from my other cameras and I can convert the 5D files to digital negatives which CS is able to read however, I really don’t believe this is doing justice to the 5D files. The Canon software does a much nicer job with 5D files than the DNG-ACR approach. It will then open the file as a 16 bit TIFF in Photoshop so for me, this is my preferred approach – today! 🙂

I assume you accept that DNG itself isn’t changing anything? That what you are doing is comparing ACR (pre 3.3 beta) with DPP?

(When a version of ACR supports a camera, in my experience putting DNG into the route doesn’t change even a single pixel).

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

Yes, I do accept that DNG doesn’t change anything. It’s the ACR implementation in CS I was reffering to as not doing justice to the files. Take out the 5D and I have not a single complaint about Photoshop CS or ACR and my Nikon and Olympus files. For some reason only Adobe know, they have chosen not to update CS to handle the 5D files.

My personal belief is that replacing my software, updating all my plugins and the associated problems I discovered when I used the Trial of CS2 …is going to be far too expensive and time consuming for me than simply using Canon’s developer.

I have enough trouble amortising the replacement of cameras ever year for the last three, just to reach where we are now with Full Frame sensors, that replacing software too, is out of the question if I wish to stay in business.