But, big but, there is always the case where there's some difficulty with the image, usually dynamic range, so then the raw file and a good raw converter comes to the rescue. If not doing severe pixel peeping the OV3 is fine - but again, is basically only doing what the camera itself can do with more ease of use.Ī good out of camera jpeg will withstand a small amount of further edit twiddling in any available editor and totally avoid the need to play with raw files. That of course is more an issue for a pixel peeper. I prefer to apply my own sharpening to what degree I need for the end result. The reputation seems to be that Capture One and DxO are the two best converters out there, DxO for techie detail say in landscapes, Capture One for accurate colours and suits studio and pro work better.įor me OV3 disappoints because of the way it always does some noise reduction and always does some sharpening even when told not to, the camera does the same with jpegs. In my case I use DxO and that applies their own lab created profiles to any body+lens combinations found and that for me does show better detail edge to edge if the image is really critical or will be printed very large or cropped very severely. So, in the main OV3 cannot make your images better than the camera can do anyway, if you set up the camera for jpegs correctly. If happy to use OV3 then definitely follow Robin Wong and see how he uses it. Usually the idea of buying other raw converters is to attempt to do better than OV3 can do and I find that with DxO. It just provides more options to try in post processing as opposed to wasting time fiddling (and maybe guessing) with camera settings while shooting. So it can't make the images "better" than what any of the in-camera settings can do anyway. Also acts as a comparison tool to compare to other raw converters. So for me it is a tool to explore a raw file to see what would be the best jpeg settings for the camera. I have plenty of time if it helps make my pictures better!īasically OV3 is duplicating what the camera does. I already know it is "slow and clunky" and don't care about that. More advice needed from those who use it. Some converters like OV3 obey the directions exactly, other converters ignore that contained exif information and do their own thing. Raw files contain the raw sensor data with all the camera settings within the exif data. If all this is true, are the files really raw? So if there is sharpening applied too, you'd have to be careful not to add too much sharpening as to cause edge halos etc. as the jpegs and then you can work from there. The raw files opened in OV3 have the same colors etc. I’d switch to Rawtherapee, but it’s handling of keyword metadata is pretty weak for my needs.Let me see if I understand this right from advice I have acquired here. I honestly can’t figure out how to make any progress on this. ![]() For this, I’ve enabled the camera basecurve presets, and set the pixel workflow defaults to display-referred, but that really has little effect on the result. The camera JPEG is maybe a bit too saturated, and the RT version is a little undersaturated but close enough. Lightroom does about the same as Rawtherapee. The screenshot shows a photo in Rawtherapee on the left, and then the camera JPEG and raw ORF in darktable on the right. Since I can take literally hundreds of shots on any day, maybe half or more of which I’d like to keep, it’s painful to work so hard to get what I need. I can often get close to what I need, but it takes a time and the adjustments don’t carry over well from photo to photo. I’ve been trying to switch from Lightroom 6.14 to darktable for about a year and keep stumbling over the default treatment of raw files that look nothing like the OOC JPEGs and nothing like what I see.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |