On 12/10/2013 12:25 PM, bob benson wrote:
> Let's ignore work-flow and library/directory/storage considerations for the
> moment: I am very interested in list-member experience and opinion on the
> qualitative effect various software has on final images. (Most reviews
> comparing software like elements and lightroom emphasize workflow and
> library and image management comparisons, not whether, for example, the
> sharpening or contrast/color tools are "better" from an output
> perspective.)
>
> Context: I do larger gallery-style prints, abstracts and landscapes
> primarily. I realize the notion of "quality" or "better" is something of
> a personal matter, though sharpness, contrast, color rendition, etc. are
> examples of factors I would like to take into account.
>
> Question: let's consider the "quality" effect software has on a specific
> image. Assume I begin with a single (OK) RAW and an (OK) JPEG image from,
> say, an EM1. By OK I mean the exercise is not primarily to rescue a not-OK
> image. If I took the same image through alternative software (per below),
> what would your experience and opinions suggest would produce the "better"
> result? Assume the outcome is to be a 16x20 or 20x24 or even a 24x36
> print. Again, let's ignore workflow issues.
>
> You'll note I'm not discussing PS. Also I'm not really concerned about the
> availability layer-based tools, which I think of as process not engine
> related.
You have misidentified differences. PSE now has layers. (As I don't use smart
layers and you probably don't know what
they are, we'll leave those differences aside.)
> I'm interested in differences in the basic engines. Or are the
> engines the same, only the (workflow) packaging and layering is different?
PS and LR 16 bit apps; PSE has very limited 16 bit support.I believe Viewer is
fully 16 bit.
> Some possibilities. The "using" would be sharpening, color rendition,
> contrast, B/W conversion, and so forth.
>
> 1. Starting with RAW, using either elements or lightroom ... would the
> image result be discernibly different? In what area?
Both use the same Raw conversion engine underneath. PSE only allows access to a
subset of it's capabilities, while the
LR Develop function has full ACR. PSE includes the most used/important, but
excludes other functions that are important
to many.
> 2. Starting with JPEG, using either elements or lightroom ... would the
> image result be discernibly different? In what area?
JPEGs have already been processed and converted to 8 bit. In that process,
certain information from the 12-14 bit Raw
file has been modified and a great deal of tonal information has been lost.
With most images, modest editing of curves,
brightness, contrast, color, etc. will work. But, and it's a bit one to me, at
some point with larger or more changes,
the image will start to look 'funny', often, at least at first in ways that
aren't easy to pin down. Once you look at
the histogram and see how squishing and stretching the tone curves has left
gaps and spikes, it's easier to see how
things have gone wrong.
Once in a long while, I forget, and get in this bind. Then the only solution is
to convert the original JPEG to 16 bit,
and start over from scratch. PSE doesn't allow 8 to 16 bit conversion. I
imagine LR should, but don't know for sure.
> 3. Considering the elements or lightroom choices, would starting with a
> RAW vs. JPEG image result be discernibly different?
Already answered. The simple answer is that you should always work in 16 bit
until you must go to 8 bit for display or
printing. LR does that, PSE doesn't.
> 4. Would using Viewer 3 for RAW, then either elements or lightroom, make a
> discernible difference?
Yes, whether better or worse ... All the Adobe products strive for similar,
consistent and reasonably color accurate Raw
conversions. Adobe takes shots of color standards with each camera and build in
a profile that makes the colors that
come out of ACR as close as they can to the standard and very similar to all
other cameras. That's what the top of the
first ACR tab is about.
If you like Oly's JPEG color rendering, you may or may not like ACR defaults.
It seems that Oly has exactly duplicated
the algorithms from their in-camera JPEG engine in Viewer, so one may get the
same look, but in 16 bit. I haven't tried
it, but others have reported frustration trying to get something like Oly
colors with other Raw converters. As it
happens, I prefer the ACR output.
The big problem with Viewer 3 is that it has no ability to recover highlights.
This is a huge problem for me. Other Raw
converters can pull down the top of the histogram to recover visible detail in
the highest tones. ACR is probably, at
least used to be so, the best at this.
Just a small mistake in exposure, and highlights are compromised in V3, where
they would be just fine in Adobe
conversions. V3 has sliders much like those in PSE, LR and many other
converter/editors. My bet would be that they
aren't as good as those in the Adobe products. But I don't really know, because
it is hopelessly compromised before I
get there.
> 5. Would you add another software choice that would in fact be discernibly
> different? (Not PS though.)
I think you may be selling yourself short by eliminating PS. It's not all about
layers. It's about 16 and 32 bit
processing and more subtle and or capable tools. PS does stuff PE and LR can't
touch.
For example, the Highlight, Whites, Blacks and Shadow sliders in ACR work one
way, while the Highlight/Shadow tool in PS
works another. Both aim at similar corrections, but are quite different
'engines', with different approaches to their
controls, and may give significantly different results. One will be better for
one thing, the other for another. With
the addition of ACR as a filter within PS in PSCC, it will be even better, with
both available at the same point in
processing.
> For example, would you use a separate sharpening tool, or a separate
> perspective tool, and expect discernibly different results?
Yes. I use separate NR and 'sharpening' tools because they give me better
results, to my eye. I also use a different
downsizing tool. I use USM for LCE, but deconvolution for detail recovery
("sharpening"). As plug-ins, they simply seem
like part of PS. That may be true of PSE and/or LR.
I find the perspective correction in the Lens Correction Tools in ACR (thus LR)
& PS, which are very similar mostly
frustrating and inadequate. The Edit=>Transform tools in PS are very powerful
and useful for this. I think PSE has all
of these but Warp.
> 6. Would you expect either choice to be discernibly different from using
> basic tools like Picasa?
Yes. Picasa, FastStone (which is my browser of choice), Irfanview and others
are 8 bit editors with limited and
unsophisticated capabilities. FastStone does have a good downsizing function.
I've used it for batch re-sizings with
slight sharpening for my books with good results. Anyone spending the money to
make such large prints and, presumably,
display them should spend the relatively little to use a good converter and
editor.
Among the choices you are considering, LR is almost certainly the best. If PSE
had, or develops, greater 16 bit support,
it wouldn't be bad. But small posterization of tones that might not be
noticeable at a small display size could be bad
at 20x24.
I think you may be selling PS short. Yes, it's about layers for many of us, but
it's also about more, and more capable,
tools for adjusting the things you say you are concerned about.
Then again, Bob uses mostly LR for his even larger, and absolutely beautiful
prints. He says LR has the best proofing
and printing capability he's seen. He may weigh in here?
There are way too many factors to be complete, and few folks who will know all
the details thoroughly, but this is what
I know and surmise.
My opinion? You shoulda jumped at the Photographer's CC offer of $120/yr for
both LR and PS. There will probably be
another one.
Otherwise, given your prejudices, it's LR.
P. S. Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|