k-hawinkler Posted March 25, 2013 Share #21 Posted March 25, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) The 1st image = Lightroom 4.3 looks more natural to me. In the second image could you include a little more of the area above the eyes? Thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Hi k-hawinkler, Take a look here In camera jpeg Vs DNG. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
fotografr Posted March 25, 2013 Share #22 Posted March 25, 2013 I'd also agree that the Lightroom image is sharper and has better contrast. Photo Ninja lost this round. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brusby Posted March 25, 2013 Share #23 Posted March 25, 2013 The amount of sharpening wasn't a parameter under test. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brusby Posted March 25, 2013 Share #24 Posted March 25, 2013 I'd also agree that the Lightroom image is sharper and has better contrast. Photo Ninja lost this round. If you'd choose the LR image based solely on that, we have much different sensibilities. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brusby Posted March 25, 2013 Share #25 Posted March 25, 2013 The 1st image = Lightroom 4.3 looks more natural to me.In the second image could you include a little more of the area above the eyes? Thanks. I couldn't disagree more about which is more natural but c'est la vie. Always happy to hear a contrary opinion. I'm sorry but what possible difference could a little more above the eyes make? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted March 25, 2013 Share #26 Posted March 25, 2013 The amount of sharpening wasn't a parameter under test. Huh? You say the lightroom version exhibits "loss of fine detail." Then, when I point out it is much sharper, you say sharpness wasn't a parameter in the test. If you are truly testing RAW conversions, I would say sharpness is definitely a parameter under test. I also have to agree with the LR version looking more natural. The super-contrasty look to the whites in the other photo, which shows a little too much of a bluish tinge in the darker parts, just doesn't look natural. While the LR version may not "pop" as much due to the lower contrast, it looks much more natural. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted March 25, 2013 Share #27 Posted March 25, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) What do the prints look like? Whether you need to export for the screen or for a printer, digital files need to be sharpened. The amout entirely depending upon your screen/printer and taste. It is the last point that makes all the difference. Remember, the jpg out of the camera started life as a RAW and the camera applied the conversions. You can set your import settings to exactly match Leica's default ones and then you also won't have to do any further conversions. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brusby Posted March 25, 2013 Share #28 Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) Huh? You say the lightroom version exhibits "loss of fine detail." Then, when I point out it is much sharper, you say sharpness wasn't a parameter in the test. If you are truly testing RAW conversions, I would say sharpness is definitely a parameter under test. I also have to agree with the LR version looking more natural. The super-contrasty look to the whites in the other photo, which shows a little too much of a bluish tinge in the darker parts, just doesn't look natural. While the LR version may not "pop" as much due to the lower contrast, it looks much more natural. Sharpness not being a parameter under test just means I made no provisions whatsoever for adjusting sharpness from the default values of the 2 programs or even noting what the default values were. Neither did I spend more than just a few seconds adjusting contrast and color balances. It may be that Photo Ninja is ultimately less sharp than Lightroom, but it would be absolutely impossible to draw any valid conclusions regarding sharpness or color balance or contrast of the 2 converters from the photos I posted. A simple move of the sliders would likely reverse the results. My concern in this test was SOLELY the rendering of the highlights, i.e., the ability of the two programs to maintain subtle gradations and a sense of realness in the "large white areas". That's the only thing I spent more than a few seconds on. It's the handling of highlights that has been particularly problematic for me with LR and it's also one of the biggest differences that persist between digital and analog--like a brick wall in the former, and a progressive compressor in the latter. For several years right out of college (quite some time ago) I did almost all the printing for a terrific architectural and commercial photographer. So, I've spent more than a few hours wrestling with trying to get highlights right. But I've been away from photography for many years and I fully admit not being up to speed with digital printing. Hence this test. Regarding my comment about loss of "fine detail" in my initial post I was referring only to loss of highlight detail in he large white areas. My bad for not being more precise. I should have referred to the problem as loss of highlight detail or loss of subtle tonal gradations rather than loss of fine detail. It would have been more descriptive, but if you read my original post I think you'll see I was only talking about loss of detail in the "large white areas", not loss of fine detail on a global level. With LR, if things are exposed well its easy to get decent results. But real problems arise when things are exposed a little hot, like the photos I posted here. Highlight details and/or subtle highlight gradations are lost or compromised. The highlights flatten out and start to look dingy or dirty, and the beautiful sheen in the light areas begins to disappear. You may not like the extra detail or contrast in the PN highlights, but that just sidesteps the real issue, which is that LR in this case was incapable of anything more. Maybe a more experienced digital printer than I could get better results, but these have been typical for me. The point of this is not whether one photo is sharper or contraster or bluer than another (because I spent almost no time on those parameters), but whether better highlight details can be gotten from a different raw converter than LR, in this case PN. I tried to get better highlight detail out of LR, but I couldn't. It was just blocked up. I'd have been fired for turning out prints that looked like that. Yet, in literally seconds I got the much more open, detailed highlights shown in the PN shot. Anyway, I'm a little surprised everyone focuses on sharpness and contrast differences, and no one has seemed to notice the pretty striking differences--like them or not--in the highlight renderings of the two conversions. After all it's the highlights that are probably THE Achilles heel of digital. Edited March 25, 2013 by brusby Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted March 25, 2013 Share #29 Posted March 25, 2013 Dear Brusby, if you just show jpg images with names of the software packages without mentioning the settings, it is hard to see why there is such a large difference between the conversions. Perhaps the best thing to do is to offer the DNG and give the settings in LightRoom, so that we can see why the highlights in the LR version are so compressed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brusby Posted March 25, 2013 Share #30 Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) Sure, happy to. How's the best way to offer the DNG? I'd prefer to give the file without my settings first and let whoever wants to play with it make a match, or hopefully make it better. I'll give my settings a bit later if anyone's still interested. Edited March 25, 2013 by brusby Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted March 25, 2013 Share #31 Posted March 25, 2013 1st image = Lightroom 4.3; 2nd image = Photo Ninja 1.0.4 ... And you really prefer the second!? <shudder/> Anyway, I'm a little surprised everyone focuses on sharpness and contrast differences, and no one has seemed to notice the pretty striking differences—like them or not—in the highlight renderings of the two conversions. After all it's the highlights that are probably THE Achilles heel of digital. Of the two sample pictures shown above, the Lightroom version has better colour, better detail, and better highlight rendition than the Photo Ninja version ... with the most significant difference being the colour (which is waay over the top in the Photo Ninja version). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted March 25, 2013 Share #32 Posted March 25, 2013 Sure, happy to. How's the best way to offer the DNG? If you don't have a server or hosting service, you can use wetransfer.com, upload a file and send it to yourself. You will get a mail with a link to the file. Copy the link and place it on this forum. This way you can share a large file without revealing your email address. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted March 25, 2013 Share #33 Posted March 25, 2013 My concern in this test was SOLELY the rendering of the highlights, i.e., the ability of the two programs to maintain subtle gradations and a sense of realness in the "large white areas". That's the only thing I spent more than a few seconds on. It's the handling of highlights that has been particularly problematic for me with LR and it's also one of the biggest differences that persist between digital and analog--like a brick wall in the former, and a progressive compressor in the latter. Sorry, but I think all this test shows is your lack of proficiency with LR, along with your subjective feeling that a large, relatively flat white area should have the contrast pumped up to look good, rather than it being rendered naturally, as a large flat white area. The gradations in the white area of the second picture are anything but subtle, which is why they don't look natural. I think the only thing that you have proved is that you are more comfortable using photoninja to achieve the highlight rendition you like. That says nothing about the inherent abilities of either program. Except that you have also proved that the default values for color, contrast, and sharpness in LR blow photoninja away. Not sure why you don't see that as a bigger deal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brusby Posted March 25, 2013 Share #34 Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) Well I never expected to be greeted with such overwhelming negativity following a simple post trying to show a new tool I discovered. I'll move on. ps this may explain the increased apparent detail in the LR photo Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited March 25, 2013 by brusby Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/201192-in-camera-jpeg-vs-dng/?do=findComment&comment=2281722'>More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted March 25, 2013 Share #35 Posted March 25, 2013 My apologies, Brusby, just trying to help. Great that you discovered a new tool. What I wondered is why LightRoom would not be able to produce the desired result and if we found out why and how it could be improved, that would be instructive for photographers on this forum, including myself. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brusby Posted March 25, 2013 Share #36 Posted March 25, 2013 Thanks Bert, I appreciate your attitude in all this and I'd be happy to send you the raw file and to work with you offline in any way you'd like. I just don't feel like participating on this forum any more. If you'll pm me your email or other way to get you the file, I'll send it asap. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted March 25, 2013 Share #37 Posted March 25, 2013 Well I never expected to be greeted with such overwhelming negativity following a simple post trying to show a new tool I discovered. Sorry to have offended you, Brusby. Honestly, I would recommend that you develop thicker skin though. You can't expect everyone on a forum to agree with your subjective impressions, and if you post a comparison like this you are going to get a lot of strong opinions and others aren't necessarily going to see it like you do. this may explain the increased apparent detail in the LR photo How did that happen? The default value is usually 25. This value is just for capture sharpening and should be relatively small -- certainly not over 100. Additional sharpening is generally added when you export the file, and will vary depending on your type of output. While there are differences between the renderings of various PP software, I believe they are smaller than you think. The bigger factor is usually someone's knowledge and experience in using the particular tool. Without knowing what you did to process this file in LR, we can't really say why you weren't able to get the result that you wanted. But I do think it could have been achieved fairly easily with either program. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brusby Posted March 25, 2013 Share #38 Posted March 25, 2013 Sorry to have offended you, Brusby. Honestly, I would recommend that you develop thicker skin though. You can't expect everyone on a forum to agree with your subjective impressions, and if you post a comparison like this you are going to get a lot of strong opinions and others aren't necessarily going to see it like you do. It's not a question of having thick skin or not. It's a question of whether I want to spend time in a place where so many voice negative opinions and are so quick to criticize without having a command of the facts. For example, you had no idea what any of the settings were for things like sharpness, contrast, or saturation, in the photos I posted, yet you were fully ready to lay the blame on the program. I'd prefer to be around people with sharper analytical skills. And who in their right mind would want to stay where the prevailing attitude is to concentrate on the negative rather than looking for something positive. I'd have to go back and count but what was it, a half dozen or a dozen negative comments and yet not a single positive remark. Don't like what I have to say? Sorry, maybe you need a thicker skin. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted March 25, 2013 Share #39 Posted March 25, 2013 For example, you had no idea what any of the settings were for things like sharpness, contrast, or saturation, in the photos I posted, yet you were fully ready to lay the blame on the program. Well, it was you who had blamed Lightroom … You had claimed that the output of Photo Ninja was vastly superior to that of Lightroom, but nobody here found that to be the case, at least not based on the examples you provided. And in any case you could have reached a different result with different settings. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 25, 2013 Share #40 Posted March 25, 2013 Does Lightroom create a record of the changes applied to the DNG, or specifics regarding presets? It might be helpful to see just what is being done in processing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.