Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/20

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Raw "developers"
From: carlmuck at verizon.net (Carl Muckenhirn)
Date: Tue Feb 20 19:47:06 2007
References: <55206F0E-FFD2-4FCC-B23F-5C08D19E41C3@verizon.net> <962DB27B-AF87-42C4-8080-9B99F97F791B@comcast.net>

To my eye, LightRoom did seem most "accurate", along with PhotoShop3/ 
ACR 4 (no surprise there).

In running through playing with these I can  get good images with all  
of them, LR seems best simply rendering what I saw when I tripped the  
shutter. What it doesn't seem to do very well is deal with the noise  
in the high ISO 1250/2500 images. Other's did a lot better (BibblePro  
and SilkyPix seem best).

Playing with these developers is a lot less smelly than trying to  
figure out D76 or Dektol mixes!

c.

On Feb 20, 2007, at 10:26 PM, Leonard Taupier wrote:

> Carl,
>
> Am I right when I say that Lightroom is the most accurate?
>
> Len
>
>
> On Feb 20, 2007, at 10:18 PM, Carl Muckenhirn wrote:
>
>> This new digital camera stuff is getting to be fun.
>>
>> Over the last 2 weeks since I got my M8, I've been (like most  
>> here) trying to figure out how to get the best quality out of it.  
>> I've played with LightRoom, Capture One, SilkyPix, RAW Developer,  
>> Photoshop 3/ACR, BibblePro, just about everything I can get free  
>> or for a demo.
>>
>> Whilst playing with these I noticed that some tools required a  
>> little more "tweaking" than others, what I really found  
>> interesting was how differently these tools rendered the DNG  
>> files. So I selected a picture (nothing exotic about it other than  
>> that I was wearing a magenta shirt!) and "developed" it in each of  
>> the above programs, a little Photoshoping and this is the result:
>>
>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/carlmuck/PlayingwithM8/Developer- 
>> L1000110.jpg.html
>>
>>
>> All I did was open the file, using the defaults and do an "auto  
>> WB." The results were quite interesting. I had expected to have  
>> pretty similar results, you can see that there is quite a bit of  
>> difference.
>>
>> c.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


In reply to: Message from carlmuck at verizon.net (Carl Muckenhirn) ([Leica] Raw "developers")
Message from len-1 at comcast.net (Leonard Taupier) ([Leica] Raw "developers")