Re: RPP raw photo processor 64
Re: RPP raw photo processor 64
- Subject: Re: RPP raw photo processor 64
- From: MARK SEGAL <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 10:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Any raw converter I've used or seen used allows the user substantial control over the look of the image. Parametric editing followed by rendering in high-bit depth gives us tremendous flexibility to implement *hardly destructive* and reversible edits to change the appearance of the photo at will. Whatever the starting point of a raw conversion process on a raw file, these propositions turn out to be largely valid. Different converters offer users different starting points; this is where "developer judgment" enters, but is clearly not determinative or conclusive. Hence I find a lot of the discussion about colorimetric accuracy rather arcane. Yes I agree it matters to people who need it for specific reasons I mentioned yesterday. Otherwise it is kind of moot. Speaking of starting points, one of the more interesting changes that occured in LR/ACR was that introduced in PV2012, whereby the "zero" preset produces a more contrasted appearance than it did in
previous process versions, where "zero" I believe meant linear or just about. The new "base case" presentation of the demosaiced image is arguably closer to where most photographers would end-up had they started from zero settings in PV2010 or earlier. The fact that PV2012 has for the most part been so well-received I think underscores the point Andrew is making about where the majority of photographers want to see their editing in a raw converter taking them.
Mark
________________________________
From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
To: "email@hidden List" <email@hidden>
Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2013 1:31:40 PM
Subject: Re: RPP raw photo processor 64
> I hope I haven't suggested otherwise, and I don't recall anybody else who has.
There's this:
Ben Goren <email@hidden> wrote:
> I haven't found the same to be true of Adobe's products. That's not surprising, though, since their whole development workflow is designed around "pleasing" (presumably, pleasing to Thomas Knoll and those who share his tastes) images in a wide variety of conditions.
The idea that ACR engine is based solely or even partially on Thomas's tastes doesn't wash. He could do that by locking down all the sliders which would be ridiculous.
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that considering the ACR engine is within Lightroom, Photoshop (since version 7), and Elements, there are probably more photographers using that product to render raw than probably any other converter. But that's a guess. I've yet to hear the masses complain that it forces them to use Thomas pleasing aesthetics nor do I read from but a tiny group a desires let alone understating of colorimetric accuracy.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden