Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/05/21

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

Subject: [Leica] Photoshop CS 3 to CS 4 Upgrade Worth It?
From: Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:45:26 +0100
References: <30db39f20905191219t20d39644h24a28d08b7137bef@mail.gmail.com> <36172e5a0905191613u14fb312en7d2d775d1c44c3ed@mail.gmail.com> <30db39f20905191629s5c3b290ayf6c28d6db97b48ad@mail.gmail.com> <36172e5a0905191645n7ecb268fg3092929a0129d0d4@mail.gmail.com> <3cad89990905191853s4ff4069fnb33fdc13cbe2ccda@mail.gmail.com> <C2337D82-7F05-4AD4-8711-A5A41C31EC4A@btinternet.com> <36172e5a0905200044t7b902905y4a6e0f9ea640f40@mail.gmail.com> <f091c6f20905201636n583bb9f3l69646ad22b8812d6@mail.gmail.com>

The Epson software for the RD1 was available as a stand alone  
programme and a plugin for Photoshop, which I liked a lot.
I thought this was a good idea.
Frank

On 21 May, 2009, at 00:36, Clive Moss wrote:

> I have run the experiment (with both Nikon lenses and the Canon G9
> using DxO) and the difference is eye-popping.
>
> I use NEFs because I use DxO software for troublesome conversions and
> to correct pincushion and barrel distortion. DxO does not work with
> DNGs - it wants to use the proprietary data in the NEF file.
> In the future I expect that manufacturers will start taking a total
> systems (and therefore proprietary) approach to lens/sensor/raw
> conversion to optimize the final image.
>
> There have been some small steps in this direction:
> Leicasonic with the LX3/D-lux 4 approaches to correcting distortion
> Nikon correcting some color aberrations in Capture NX2, and rectifying
> the 10.5mm fisheye.
> Third parties like DxO and PTlens correcting distortion.
> Even Leica used that approach to solve the IR problem, even if it was
> unintentional!
> Fujitsu is using non-standard sensors to improve dynamic range
>
> In the long run I expect the total systems approach to dominate -- it
> will let smaller lighter lenses (especially zooms) and possibly lower
> cost sensors produce superior images. At the low end, the emphasis
> will be on cheaper components. At the high end, the emphasis will be
> on better images. I expect that as processor power improves even depth
> of field could be enhanced using algorithms that based on the
> properties of specific lenses.
>
> What I am leading up to is that an open standard like DNG used by
> camera manufacturers will inhibit a total systems approach. It is too
> early in the life of digital cameras to freeze and standardize such a
> critical component of the total system.
>
> Adobe's expertise does not lie in lens/sensor design, and even their
> approach to raw conversion led to howls (murmurs?) of protest that the
> camera's output was superior to Adobe's. Adobe (rightly) gave in to
> its users and produced profiles that are closer to the camera's output
> than to Adobe's idea of what the output should look like.
>
> It be better for the industry if Adobe opened up their architecture
> and allowed third parties to plug their raw converters in to Lightroom
> or Adobe Camera Raw, save their parameters in the database. Then Leica
> (or anyone) could use their magic sauce to cook the raw conversion as
> they pleased. Third parties like DxO could provide alternative "looks"
> as they do with DxO Filmpack, so that the user could say "make this a
> Kodachrome" and bingo, it is.
>
> (and no, the CS3 to CS4 upgrade is not worth it - I upgraded out of
> curiosity, but I cannot say that it was worth it to me. YMMV)
> --
> Clive
> Blog:  http://clive.moss.net/blog
> Photographs: http://clive.smugmug.com
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Geoff Hopkinson  
> <hopsternew at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Frank perhaps you could run an experiment there if you wished and  
>> let us
>> know the outcome? You'll need a lens with known significant  
>> correction
>> problems to conduct the experiment.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from rbaron at concentric.net (Robert D. Baron) ([Leica] Photoshop CS 3 to CS 4 Upgrade Worth It?)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] Photoshop CS 3 to CS 4 Upgrade Worth It?)
Message from rbaron at concentric.net (Robert D. Baron) ([Leica] Photoshop CS 3 to CS 4 Upgrade Worth It?)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] Photoshop CS 3 to CS 4 Upgrade Worth It?)
Message from jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] Photoshop CS 3 to CS 4 Upgrade Worth It?)
Message from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] Photoshop CS 3 to CS 4 Upgrade Worth It?)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] Photoshop CS 3 to CS 4 Upgrade Worth It?)
Message from clive.moss at gmail.com (Clive Moss) ([Leica] Photoshop CS 3 to CS 4 Upgrade Worth It?)