Aftershot Pro Compared to Lightroom 3.6

[Steb]

As for the other differences here, it's demosaicing.

I initially thought the same, but after afx talked about broken ASP sharpening I played around with that and he might be correct. Switching off sharpening and using the Wavelet Sharpen plugin instead gave me a great improvement for the color noise effects.

Now that the highlight recovery is doing a really good job with the latest update, sharpening might be the next worthwhile area for improvement...

[df]

where is the added value in comparing the default settings of two applications? shouldn't you better compare what each application is able to get out of your image under consideration of all tools (maybe plus plugins) that the applications provide?

br,
tintin

+1
Actually displaying both is probably good as well.

[pefunk]

where is the added value in comparing the default settings of two applications? shouldn't you better compare what each application is able to get out of your image under consideration of all tools (maybe plus plugins) that the applications provide?

I agree - in principle. The trick is that I don't know if I master each of the two programmes equally well to be able to do a fair comaparison.

(1) In my photography (outdoor and nature) a majority of pics show extreme dynamic range, far beyond anything a monitor let alone paper can cope with. I usually adjust exposure to preserve the highlights and need lots of adjustment in the shadows.

(2) I own Bibble and ASP since B4 and Lightroom from the beginning. I always prefered Bibble over Lightroom until LR3 came around. Since then I have more practice with Lightroom than with Bibble/ASP but I try every new version on my proven difficult test pics. So if my results with LR are superior to ASP it might be because I have more experience with LR.

(3) I will give you a comarison between what I can do with Lightroom 4.1rc and the latest ASP (both with my best efforts and using plug-ins for ASP: Bez and USM-plugin)

default setting:
sorry, I don't seem to be sucessful with the attachments, so I give you the links:

http://www.funken.biz/Bilder/LR4-Tenrif ... 110839.jpg

my best try in Lightroom 4.1rc (100% full size JPG, 11.2 MB!)

http://www.funken.biz/Bilder/LR4_Tenrif ... 110839.jpg

my best try with ASP (100% full size JPG, 22.9 MB!)and the xmp file:

http://funken.biz/Bilder/ASP-Tenriffa_2 ... 110839.jpg
http://funken.biz/Bilder/Tenriffa_2011- ... 39.ARW.xmp

I have no idea why 100% jpg takes 11.2 MB in Lightroom and 22.9 MB in ASP. Since I doubt that I am a true master of ASP I also make the raw-file available for the real masters:

http://www.funken.biz/Bilder/Tenriffa_2 ... 110839.ARW

I will leave the files on my server until the weekend, so feel free to play with them.
Peter

[cch44]

my best try in Lightroom 4.1rc (100% full size JPG, 11.2 MB!)

http://www.funken.biz/Bilder/LR4_Tenrif ... 110839.jpg

On my screen, i prefer this one. More details.

[lathspell]

http://www.funken.biz/Bilder/LR4_Tenrif ... 110839.jpg

my best try with ASP (100% full size JPG, 22.9 MB!)

... should be http://www.funken.biz/Bilder/ASP-Tenrif ... 110839.jpg ...

[grubernd]

okay.. my first comment was on the sarcastic side. sorry for that. sometimes i cant help it.

now for the constructive part or better the "why".

i have worked, tried and tested roughly every raw-converter i could ever find. some more, some less, some most. i have even setup workflows for other photographers in raw-converters i looked at for a few hours. some of those are still standing strong. but the problem with most comparisons, not confined to raw-converters or software, rather on a larger scale is this: unless someone really explains the WHY the WHAT is going to be more or less futile. especially in photography there are so many ideas, workflows, artistic and personal opinions it is practically impossible to say "this is right".

one might say that purely technical comparisons - for example the dreaded and totally overrated, really, it is, sharpness - are excempt. i say, not so. who cares about micro-jaggies in a 24mp file if he never prints larger than 13x18cm? what about CA correction in Black&White prints? what does the full frontal flash party photographer care about high-iso noise reduction and shadow-detail? and the long-time exposure specialist, does he care about high-iso noise? etc etc.

so unless one clearly explains what his aim is, why he does what he does, all comparisons are just a nice technical exercise (been there, gonna go there again), but should never be considered "the thing".

[grubernd]

about pefunk's image.. you like to take images in harsh light and then push them towards the flat HDR look.
with that prerequisite i can tell you from my experience: ASP wont be your favourite raw-converter for that kinda work.
i have to say that the transitions that LR creates between shadows and middles are pretty impressive. nice and smooth.

and here we are again: what is essential to you, causes a respectful nod from me, but other than that it is not going to get me to even download a current trial of LR. why? i dont need that feature. either i control the light .. or i live with it and i take a different photograph that doesnt rely on heavy shadow-detail. if you take a look at my webarchive you will see i really like dark, fat shadows.

[I3ilbo]

i think in pefunk example the lightroom image is much better (the tree looks awful with ASP).
But i don't know if that is the best one can achieve with ASP.

The biggest advantage of ASP is the support for Linux OSs!

[eyedear]

after reading all the comments. i think we are getting a little bit carried away with our ego. i showed the example with the hope that ASP developers would look at it and see its own weaknesses and also see the weakness of the competitor and come out with a solution that best its own and competitor.

why am i nit picking about jaggies at 100% thats because i do print my prints to 40 inches or more and some of them are being view at 2 feet or less.

so lets hope the ASP developers will be able to make the jaggies dissapear soon

[grubernd]

why am i nit picking about jaggies at 100% thats because i do print my prints to 40 inches or more and some of them are being view at 2 feet or less.

now that's what i am talkin' about.

so, if you want to stick with ASP for some of your work, my suggestions would be:
- switch off default sharpening completely. never worked for large scale printing, imho.
- use Wavelet Sharpen. the tweakers paradise for sharpening.
- use wavelet Denoise instead of Noise Ninja, try to stick to the color-denoise only.
- and maybe, add a tiny bit of Grain (also a plugin)

these together create a much more pleasing printable (!!) image. an image where the digital, pixical characteristic is transformed into a more analog one. since prints are analog entities in a real world the image should reflect that somehow - at least that is my approach to large print image preperations, and yes, i have done a lot of them and really big ones, too. oversharpening is your enemy and jaggies are way too sharp.

so lets hope the ASP developers will be able to make the jaggies dissapear soon

/signed.

[kaymann]

why am i nit picking about jaggies at 100% thats because i do print my prints to 40 inches or more and some of them are being view at 2 feet or less.

so, if you want to stick with ASP for some of your work, my suggestions would be:
- switch off default sharpening completely. never worked for large scale printing, imho.
- use Wavelet Sharpen. the tweakers paradise for sharpening.
- use wavelet Denoise instead of Noise Ninja, try to stick to the color-denoise only.
- and maybe, add a tiny bit of Grain (also a plugin)

these together create a much more pleasing printable (!!) image. an image where the digital, pixical characteristic is transformed into a more analog one. since prints are analog entities in a real world the image should reflect that somehow - at least that is my approach to large print image preperations, and yes, i have done a lot of them and really big ones, too. oversharpening is your enemy and jaggies are way too sharp.

Grubernd - Best advice yet...

[Fraenzken]

why am i nit picking about jaggies at 100% thats because i do print my prints to 40 inches or more and some of them are being view at 2 feet or less.

now that's what i am talkin' about.

so, if you want to stick with ASP for some of your work, my suggestions would be:
- switch off default sharpening completely. never worked for large scale printing, imho.
- use Wavelet Sharpen. the tweakers paradise for sharpening.
- use wavelet Denoise instead of Noise Ninja, try to stick to the color-denoise only.
- and maybe, add a tiny bit of Grain (also a plugin)

these together create a much more pleasing printable (!!) image. an image where the digital, pixical characteristic is transformed into a more analog one. since prints are analog entities in a real world the image should reflect that somehow - at least that is my approach to large print image preperations, and yes, i have done a lot of them and really big ones, too. oversharpening is your enemy and jaggies are way too sharp.

so lets hope the ASP developers will be able to make the jaggies dissapear soon

/signed.

Wavelet Sharpen is no solution for the jaggies or the the peculiar transitions and odd-coloured pixels at contrast edges. I've tried it with many of my problematic RAWs: On average, the results are worse than with Noise Ninja USM. In fact, these problems don't have anything to do with sharpening at all. They appear already in the unsharpened image, albeit to a much lesser extent.

I've been using Bibble/ASP for 5 years now, together with other converters as Capture One & RawTherapee (and trial versions of others). It's a great program, but in my opinion it's always been plagued by three problems: Bad colors for Olympus RAWs (solved), bad highlight recovery (solved for Olympus RAWs), bad demosaicing which is prone to moiré, cross-hatching, staircase artefacts and other problems.

And this isn't about pixel peeping: The demosaicing algorithm used makes the picture more "nervous", an effect that's often recognizable even after downsizing. Sharpening makes things worse by far. All in all, the results of other converters are much more pleasant - smoother, more film-like, less digital. It shouldn't be too difficult to change that shortcoming (even if it may cost processing time): There are plenty of demosaicing algos, why not just implement an alternative one?

Cheers
Frank

[thufor]

<rant>
The extension xmp is not allowed? Image file size restriction 256KB? Eh... too much pain to share stuff...
</rant>

[pefunk]

<rant>
The extension xmp is not allowed? Image file size restriction 256KB? Eh... too much pain to share stuff...
</rant>

Hi thufor,
I am speculating that you have come up with a good conversion of my raw-file. Would you please "PM" the xmp to me. I am eager to learn!

Peter

[KeithR]

I initially thought the same, but after afx talked about broken ASP sharpening I played around with that and he might be correct.

He's wrong about this and always has been - not least, I imagine, because I've noticed that for some reason the Bibble/ASP demosaicing algorithm definitely tends to suit his Nikon files, and he has little or no hands-on experience of the issues that users of other cameras see. (In fact the two users who I know to be Bibble/ASP beta testers are both Nikon shooters, which might explain a lot).

I don't use any in-Bibble or in-ASP sharpening, and I know bad demosaicing when I see it. I've used Raw Therapee as an educational test-bed for a good few years now, primarily because of its many demosaicing options: I've spent probably hundreds of hours testing demosaicing algorithms in RT and in other software, and I know that good demosaicing looks like and how to recognise poor demosaicing.

Sure, the sharpening in ASP is poor, and that makes the problems inherent in the demosaicing worse; but - as Frank also observes above - they're there anyway. Like Frank I've been using Bibble for years - since 2006 for me - and we know what we're talking about, despite the frenzied denial from some quarters.

ASP is better than Bibble, primarily because at long last Noise Ninja is working properly - and maybe because of colour management improvements (dark-light transitions seem a bit smoother) - but there's a long way to go yet, and in fact I understand that the devs are now finally looking into this seriously.

But for clarity, waaaay back in Bibble 4 days - as long ago as 2007, in fact - one of the devs (Colleen) posted on the old forum that they were actively looking at introducing new demosaicing algorithms because of recognised shortfalls in the one in use in Bibble; and nearly five years later we're still waiting for a solution to what was acknowledged all those years ago to be a real, observable and addressable issue, and the exact same problems identified in that thread (and other demosaicing-related issues) are being seen in ASP.