Software - I am really puzzled

[Jose Luis Trebolle]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am trying to decide which software fits my needs better for my M8 pictures. So far I have been using C1 for basic RAW processing, Aperture for classifying and printing, and Photoshop Elements for additional adjustments. I only use Aperture for adjustments when I want something quick. Since Photoshop Elements does not cover some of my needs (Hey, it means I am improving!), I downloaded PS CS3 for a trial. I also downloaded Lightroom for trial.

 

I have opened the same RAW picture from my M8 in C1, PS CS3, Lightroom and Aperture, for comparison. I found that C1 has more faithful colors, while the others are very similar. Then I thought that it could be a WB problem... and I was surprised to read the color temperature in each program before any processing:

 

C1: 5600 K

Lightroom / Camera Raw 4.2: 5800 K

Aperture: 5077 K

 

Then I set to auto the WB, and the results were these:

 

C1: 4850 K

Lightroom / Camera Raw 4.2: 5900 K

Aperture: No auto WB

 

So I decided to check the results using 5300 K, and I got different looks of the picture in each program, being Aperture the most different one.

 

I am quite confused. I do not even know if this is the right place to ask, but I am trying to understand the differences and I would really appreciate any help.

 

Thanks. I do enjoy reading this forum.

 

Jose Luis

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Paul_S]

Jose Luis,

 

Welcome to the forum, you've come to the right place!

Working as a IT consultant myself, I admit: software is confusing (and annoying and amusing). To get to the topic, I regard the WB value as presented in software as a relative value. I have done such comparisons more often and believe me, no lack of surprises here. New camera firmware or a new software release: different values every day. If you include the Tint slider (cyan-magenta balance): more surprises. On the other hand, it does not matter once you get used to it.

 

Comparing raw software and discussing the outcome with peers... It is great if you have some time to spent. We have some C1 lovers here (including myself) as well for Lightroom, Aperture, ACR and others. For me, I like C1 for quality of output but understand other peoples affection for toys ahh tools like Lightroom and Aperture.

 

This does not help you much, so I hope others will.

[Jamie Roberts]

Jose--

 

I'm not sure what you're asking. White balance is not just a temperature but a usually a color bias as well.

 

So all RAW programs will deal with (and represent) WB slightly differently. Then there's "technically accurate white balance" and "pleasing colour" and the two aren't always the same.

 

LOL!! I don't think is very helpful either. One thing though--steer clear of "auto white balance" by any post production software. It's usually wrong.

[Jose Luis Trebolle]

Thanks to both. I do not use to set the WB as auto, but rather choose it myself. I guess what I expected is that the value of light was read the same, regardless the program used. I mean, I am not referring so much to the look of the picture - which I expected to be different -, than to the value in Kelvin degrees itself.

 

Anyway, thanks for your comments. I do appreciate them.

 

Jose Luis

[eronald]

AFAIK Photoshop K settings will not match a meter or other software.

 

Edmund

[sandymc]

Jose,

 

I too am not quite sure what you're asking. For what it's worth however, "color temperature" is one of those terms that's thrown around quite casually, but is in practical imaging terms quite meaningless. In theory, and simplifying vastly, it's the temperature of a incandescent radiation source that would give the same color light as in the image. For practical imaging, that's pretty much useless - (a) when last did you use an incandescent radiation source? - not even sunlight is actually incandescent and ( unless you're photographing a gray card, you can't actually measure the color temperature anyway.

 

So the upshot is that, as you have found, pretty much any measure of the color temperature of any given image taken outside of totally artificial laboratory conditions will be different - pretty much, everybody just picks their own definition of what the measurement is.

 

Sandy

[archi4]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jose Luis,

The Kelvin numbers of all programs I have don't match nor do they make much sense.

A photograph which includes a neutral gray card and adjusting on this with each program will at least show you the differences between the programs. Auto white balance in programs can sometimes be excellent, but are hit and miss. By the way there was a pretty good article on white balance in a recent issue of Leica magazine LFI.

 

regards

Maurice

[teehas53]

Jose -

 

This may be slightly off-topic, but since we're talking about software options, here goes.

 

Another important factor that needs to be considered is workflow. While we have many C1 fans on the forum, and it can produce beautiful files, the interface is dreadful by current standards. If one has plenty of time for tweaking and doesn't mind using several programs to do raw conversions and manage the archive, then this may be a non-issue. I personally don't see the output as better, just different.

 

Adobe has really thrown down the gauntlet with Lightroom and CS3. The results are superb, and the ability to manipulate in very fine increments is outstanding. Add to that the organizational characteristics of LR, and it's finally no longer a chore managing a large image archive.

 

I have used both C1 and LR/CS3 and don't find the rare and very slight "improvements" in IQ from C1 to be anywhere near worth the pain of working in what feels like the software of ten years ago.

 

These are my opinions of course, but I don't work for Adobe, and have to purchase my tools just like the next guy. Right now, the overwhelming majority of professional photographers are using the Adobe workflow.

 

Aperture is in third place, but it too has its fans.

 

OK, time to run for cover from the inevitable flak from the C1 crowd...

 

T

[gmaurizio]

José Luis, que coñazo hombre!

What you are telling reveals the different approach to 'camera calibration' from each SW vendor. C1 works with profiles that you can select, and according to those profiles, the equivalent temperature of white light is XXXX K.

Lightroom and camera raw both do an interpolation between measured targets at 6500 and incandescent light and then derive this YYYY K from there. Aperture, the weakest in my opinion, relies on MAC OS X to provide raw services and has a different algorithm.

Of course, rendition of hues and saturations are different. You must pick the program carefully that suites your workflow, learn how to manipulate the settings and presto!

All 3 programs have their strengths and weaknesses. I use photoshop a lot, and since most of our output finally goes to CMYK, Lightroom + Photoshop is the way to go for us (although we have all 3 and some more, like LightZone, Babble, DXO...)

The software has become an essential part of the digital imaging workflow, and can not be underestimated, since the lenses and sharpness must take the 'new developers' into consideration.

Remember too that cameras can not be profiles, albeit you work under extremely controlled lighting conditions. A little change in the light spectrum generates huge differences in the recorded values of the raw file. Add to this the demosaic-ing algorithm, and you can begin to understand the complexity. Also the gamut of the camera is way wider than any of the displays or monitors you might have, so you might have color contrast and detail that your monitor and sw will not show, but is there.

It is a fascinating and complex subject, so pick the one that seems more familiar to your preferences, print like crazy, and be happy.

Joder!

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}Another important factor that needs to be considered is workflow. While we have many C1 fans on the forum, and it can produce beautiful files, the interface is dreadful by current standards. If one has plenty of time for tweaking and doesn't mind using several programs to do raw conversions and manage the archive, then this may be a non-issue. I personally don't see the output as better, just different.{snipped}

 

Well, I hope this doesn't constiture flak, per se, but I respectfully disagree with you.

 

We can get into details, but it boils down to opinion--what you see as a dreadful interface I see as optimised for speed not beauty. Processing thousands of files at a time, I'm much faster with C1 than Lightroom. There is also no doubt that the quality of input and output can be more finely controlled with C1 than Lightroom, as they both stand right now.