![]() ![]() Exposure and Darktable look less realistic, but acceptable in a pinch. The other developers use various methods of inpainting, which look particularly convincing in Capture One, Lightroom, Silkypix, Luminar, DxO, and Zoner. I raise Exposure by 1 EV, then push shadows until the clouds become faintly visible.ĪCDSee, ON1, Photo Ninja, and RawTherapee fail this task, with obvious magenta or blue artifacts on the illuminated water jet. I want to see how the RAW developers deal with out-of-gamut colors. Exposure, Luminar, and Capture One seemingly applied some kind of local contrast compression that destroys the balance between highlights and shadows and flattens the image.Ī shot of the Congress building in Leipzig, with a bright purple light that blows out the red color channel, which is wildly out of gamut of any reasonable color space. ACDSee, Darktable, ON1, Photo Ninja, and RawTherapee come second, with a believable progression. To my eyes, Lightroom really stands out here, with a three-dimensional look that no other developer can match. The most important thing in this picture is to maintain a realistic progression of tones, even though the dynamic range is crushed beyond reason. Surprisingly, the camera's own JPEG is amongst the best renditions as well. Really, only Darktable, DxO and Lightroom produce a truly pleasing image for me, with second place to Capture One, ON1, and Silkypix. While a bit of a pathological image, there are clear differences in how these RAW developers handle it. In terms of detail, Capture One, Lightroom, DxO, and Exposure recover a bit more wave details in the blown-out reflections. The other developers show magenta artifacts to varying degrees, and DxO has some false-color pixels (their X-Trans support is still in beta). The reflections in the water are artifact-free in Darktable, Lightroom, Exposure, RawTherapee, and Zoner. I have yet to see a photograph that was ruined by them, and most RAW developers seem to do a sufficient job at them. ![]() In contrast to most other comparisons on the 'net1, I won't concern myself too much with sharpness and noise reduction and demosaicing. What if I could develop my pictures faster with a different RAW developer? What if they looked better than they do now? Questions like these keep me up at night. It is hard not to want to support getting this onto windows when it is only 30 bucks though. It would just be so much easier with some sort of preview window to see what is happening rather than drag down box settings.not a big fan of that since there are so many variables between different isos, exposures and all that combined with all of the different sharpening, noise reduction drag down boxes that it would take forever to properly test how each setting in Iridient affects different photos. For now I will have to see how much I use this converter.probably selectively for a while and not for work but I hope that I can get to a point where I can use it regularly because when it works it WORKS and is noticeably better than Lightroom's conversion. I hope that some day the full version of Iridient developer comes through - I would be all over that. I ended up buying it because I want to support the developer and because after testing it some more on more reasonable iso photos that don't need extreme shadow recovery, it is really good. Thanks for the input - I probably will end up doing something like that if I do use it for high volume processing. ![]() There ARE people here who use ID as their primary raw developer, but since SPP is free, why not have a copy of that too? You never know, right? It's doubtful that you'd use it much, if you have ID though. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |