I'm feeling RAW

[cydevil]

I downloaded PSP SP2 64 bit trial and did some testing from NEF files from a Nikon D40 cam. The quality subjectively seemed poorer than I was used to, so I did a deeper test:
I started with a NEF file that I knew was virgin in the camera and converted it to RAW using the Nikon ViewNX 2 software and displayed it on the screen at 200%, without any editing whatsoever. Rather than risk having any differences due to JPEG algorithms/settings, I took a screen dump of a small patch and converted it to highest quality JPEG. This is the result:



I then did exactly the same with the Paintshop Pro Camera RAW Lab, except that the screen dump was bigger, but the scale was the same. This is therefore an apples to apples comparison. This is the result:



I promise you that there is absolutely no reason for the quality of the images to be different, unless the NEF>RAW conversion in the softwares is not identical. This appears to be the case; look at the fine hairs on the insect's leg, as well as the general appearance. Now look closely at the places where there is a strong contrast on a diagonal; pixellation is more apparent in the second image. I speculate that the main difference is due to the Nikon software results in a 12-bit image (known) while Corel does it in 8-bit (guessed).

It would seem that not all camera>RAW converters are created equal, but some may be less equal than others (sorry, Mr Orwell!).

My daughter has a Canon camera and she will be visiting us in 3 weeks with it and the software disk. It will be interesting to see whether its RAW performance is similar.

Any comments?

[MarkZ]

I've done some comparisons for RAW editing/conversions - my preference is to use Corel AfterShot Pro for good raw files and if I'm looking for better handling I go to the SilkyPix that came with the camera. I don't use SilkyPix all the time because the interface is clunky and ASP has other, very important, advantages. I find PSP RAW Lab the poorest quality and never use it because, in my opinion, it is so poor.

If you haven't tried ASP, get the trial version. It takes a little getting used to (like all new software) but has lots of editing options, good organizing/filing capability, an active forum and decent RAW handling and the cost is low. I'm not sure if it is compatible with your NEF files - Corel is slow in providing drivers for new cameras - but if it handles your files it would be worth comparing.

[pdxrjt]

I'm sure others here can comment far more wisely. My thought is that basically it has to do with the automatic adjustments that any RAW converter makes. The RAW converter in PSP can make it look just the same as the Nikon converter, but it doesn't do it automatically. That is a fairly typical complaint of people who switch from RAW specific software to generic RAW software. As RAW is simply all of the data collected by the camera during the shot, it is just a bunch of data....doesn't really look like anything until converted. IMHO the primary differences between RAW converters are how easy the interface is to use, how smoothly it works and what the first "automatic" conversion looks like. People who make a switch to generic RAW converters often create a preset which can be applied to their RAW files as a starting point which is closer to the way they see it, then fine tune from there. I think the best RAW converter is made by another company, so I won't mention it here. I've used After Shot Pro, but dislike it and uninstalled it. But that is just my 2 cents.

[larrewl]

Has anyone tried the beta Nikon NX-D software by Silkypix? I'm wondering if anyone has compared it to Camera RAW Lab. PSP X6 SP2 can process my D5300 NEF RAW images but I'm wondering if NX-D does a better job. Aftershot doesn't directly support the D5300. If so, I'd use NX-D to convert NEF to TIFF, then use PSP to do the rest. Any opinion is welcomed.

[cydevil]

OK, thanks for your input.

I looked at the Sillypix site but didn't proceed with it, because it is exorbitantly expensive for a NEF>RAW>TIFF converter, so I can't make a judgement on its quality.

I did proceed with the Corel Aftershot Pro trial and did a conversion of the same NEF file as in my first post; the result at 200% looked strictly identical to the ViewNX2 results. Being a cynic, dare I suggest that Corel put an inferior converter in PSP so as to not compromise sales of ASP? I must admit that I was not too keen on the default ASP GUI but I didn't pursue it.

Devil

[MarkZ]

PSP had its RAW Lab before ASP came into the picture (no pun intended?). Corel purchased Bibble, which had been around for quite a while with a large fan base, and repackaged Bibble as ASP, with many changes, of course. As I stated earlier, it does a decent job, especially wrt cost.

Pdxrjt, I don't know what you mean by a generic RAW converter. Take a raw file and convert it with different engines without any adjustments - the results can be strikingly different. I think that would be the case even if the product were a TIFF file. I'll have to try that one day with the three programs I have available.

[brucet]

I'm a frustrated ASP user so my views may be tainted somewhat!! My results out of PSP with raw are/where not good.
I have given the beta of Capture NX-D a workout. So far the results are looking very good. The catch is that you need to be careful not to be to heavy handed with the adjustments in NX-D. I tend to believe that Nikon knows NEFs better than anyone else so they 'should' know how to handle NEFs. For sure it's a very basic converter when compared to programs such as ASP. However the results out of NX-D and fine tuned in PSPx6 'seem' to be better than what I'm getting out of ASP.
The catch for me is that my work editor, PSPx6, is on a dedicated desk top that is not connected to the internet. Never will be. Capture NX-D requires an internet connection to get it started. So my experience with NX-D is only with a laptop.
Corel, and others, do this internet trick as well. Why? They assume everyone one is connected.

I'm about to purchase a new camera. NX-D wont work on my desk top. ASP wont support new cameras. Is it any wonder Adobe is laughing all the way to the bank.

regards

[hartpaul]

Markz I think what is meant by generic in this case is any Raw converter that is not the camera manufacturers. I use Canon DPP the raw converter that came with the camera and yes it is a simple converter which only adjusts in effect the ISO , Contrast and color balance and a couple of others to give a basic adjustment. Then I can finish the other 95 % of steps in PSP.

It seems that others that promote Lightroom, ASP are doing at least 60% of processing there and still going to the other program to do the other 40% . So in my case and theirs we are still using two different programs and it is just the % of work done in each that varies.

[brucet]

I think in an ideal world Corel would replace PSP's raw module with ASPs. Best of both worlds in one package.
But I'm dreaming of course.

However I agree with hartpaul that it's only a matter of how much work you do in each program that matters. For me the 'basic' raw conversion in one package and 'all' the 'real' adjustments in PSP.

regards

[MarkZ]

I do about 30% of my adjustment in ASP; exposure, cropping, straightening and sometimes curve adjustment. I rarely use the plugins, but they are powerful. Perspective correction is very good when you need it. I usually finish off with PSP - lots of tools that don't exist in ASP.

I had tried Bibble and couldn't get used to it. When I was invited to participate in the ASP beta before it was introduced it forced me to stay with it and figure things out. Once I did, I liked it and liked the quality of conversion. This converted me to shooting in RAW. What clinched ASP for me was the file management or Data Asset Management. Not as powerful as many other stand-alone programs, from what I have read, but sufficient for my needs. I store a large portion of my images off line and ASP allows me to browse previews of those files. I like the non-destructive editing and batch processes as well.

There is no correct way to handle photography, each of us has his/her preferred process.

[pdxrjt]

Pdxrjt, I don't know what you mean by a generic RAW converter. Take a raw file and convert it with different engines without any adjustments - the results can be strikingly different. I think that would be the case even if the product were a TIFF file. I'll have to try that one day with the three programs I have available.

What I mean is that RAW is just data. You can't look at it and it has to be converted to see anything....so all cameras essentially take a RAW shot....and then convert it to jpeg (and, of course, some cameras don't save the RAW file) that you can see. Hence the difference between cameras which are taking the same pic....some will be more saturated, some with less contrast, some oversharpened etc. etc. It depends on the cameras internal conversion algorithm. Now by a generic RAW converter, I meant one which converts lots of different types of RAW files....... ASP is one such and there are many others. There are also camera specific RAW converters (which most likely came as free software with your camera.) The primary difference (IMHO) in the initial output of various converters is simply the algorithm they use to make the conversion. There is almost no (again, IMHO) difference in what most RAW converts can do. Yes, to get a similar result you may have to tweak one more or less, but the final result will be very similar. I find this different than most pixel level editors for example, which often have their own sets of fancy features. One example of this would be vibrancy. Initially this was a photo tweak found only on one type of editor, then it became much more generic and is now available on several. But most RAW converters are pretty basic and don't have those types of tweaks. The difference you see when you initially open a photo is the conversion algorithm. The advice about RAW converters I read most often is buy the one which is comfortable to you, easy to understand and meets your works style....because the results will be almost identical when all is said and done. But that is just my opinion and experience.

[cydevil]

The advice about RAW converters I read most often is buy the one which is comfortable to you, easy to understand and meets your works style....because the results will be almost identical when all is said and done.

I'm not sure I can agree with you, at least theoretically. Look at the two images in my first post, please. Now imagine doing half-a-dozen identical edits on each. As the size of the pixels is visibly larger in the second one, can you be sure that each edit is not going to cause more artefacts on individual pixels, so that the aggregate negative effect when converting to TIFF 16-bit/ch, or even 8-bit will be more noticeable? I haven't yet advanced in my studies to prove this but I have an instinctive gut feeling this is so. At least, if the edits are done in RAW, I think the sharpness of the image will suffer. If the editing is done in post-TIFF 8 bit/ch conversion, it probably would not make much difference, but it would in uncompressed post-TIFF 16-bit, IMHO.

[pdxrjt]

No worries agreeing with me or not. We're all just doing our best. I think there are no "identical edits" as moving a slider to 5 in one program may not mean the same thing as moving the slider to 5 in another. I would wonder if the "pixel size" was nothing more than the "radius" setting (or equivalent) when using sharpening in PSP. Not sure where I found it, but within the last week someone compared 4 different "generic" RAW converters and concluded what I said. But I and he can be wrong (it has happened before!!) If you find one you like (I have) go for it. My motto is any tool that works for you should go in the toolbox. At any rate, a good post and good luck hunting for a converter you like!

[cydevil]

Going slightly off-topic, I uninstalled Corel AfterShot Pro because it gives identical results on NEF files as the freebie Nikon ViewNX 2 and I don't need a generic converter. After uninstallation, I found it left a residue of 132 lines in the registry, 3 folders related to Catalog and 2 files that had to be manually deleted. Corel is not alone in leaving toxic residues on uninstalling programs, unfortunately, but I consider it to be poor installer programming when this happens.

[cydevil]

OK, I've done some more research and what I've found is not pleasing. Unfortunately, the RAW files and their derivatives involved are too big to post on a forum so, unless you duplicate what I did, you will have to take my word for my findings. Unless mentioned otherwise, n-bit in the following refers to per channel, e.g. an 8-bit RGB totals 24-bit or a 16-bit aRGB totals 64-bit

Phase 1
1a. I downloaded a virgin 12-bit NEF file into ViewNX 2 using default settings and converted it into a 16-bit uncompressed RGB TIF file
1b. I downloaded the same 12-bit NEF file into ViewNX 2 using default settings and converted it into an 8-bit uncompressed RGB TIF file
1c. I downloaded the same 12-bit NEF file into Paintshop Pro (PSP) Camera RAW Lab using default settings and converted it into an uncompressed RGB TIF file (no choice of bit size)
1d. Comment: I carefully examined the same part of the three images in their RAW state (before conversion) at 400% (the max allowed by ViewNX 2). 1a and 1b were identical, of course, and high quality. 1c was distinctly and visibly poorer in quality with larger pixels.

Phase 2
2a. I Opened the TIF 1a file into the PSP Editor
2b. I Opened the TIF 1b file into the PSP Editor
2c. I Opened the TIF 1c file into the PSP Editor
2d. Comment: I carefully examined the same part of the three images, as in Phase 1, in the Editor at 500% and, using the Tabs, was able to switch between them to get direct comparisons. To my total surprise, 2a and 2b were rigourously identical! In other words, the 16-bit file was converted in the editor to an 8-bit image, similar to 1b, which was poorer in quality than I expected, similar to 1a. Clicking on Image Properties, this confirmed that 2a was 8-bit. Disappointingly, high-resolution pixel corrections were therefore impossible. 2c was similar to 1c, poorer than both 2a and 2b.

Phase 3
3a. I did a few identical edits (Straighten, Crop, Duplicate layer, Resize and Brightness) to each of 2b and 2c, with a Save between each edit (it was deemed useless on 2a, being identical to 2b).
3b. Comment: At 1:1 frame size, the images were still good. Zoomed at 500%, the images had considerable pixel-shifts from the originals and 'pixel-clusters round a small or large artefact appeared totally different in size and gradation. One edge line of an object increased from an average three pixels between solid dark to solid light to five pixels on 2b. On 2c, it was more difficult to judge as it varied up to about 5 or 6 on 'before' and was worse on 'after', but almost impossible to put a figure on, as it was more random from the start. I then put the two images 3b and 3c on a full screen viewer. 3b showed a satisfactory image, looking acceptably sharp but 3c was visibly less distinct on careful examination. I guess that printed to A4 quality photo-paper at best, you would probably be hard-put to tell the difference but you probably could on A3 scale.
3c. Comment: In the editing in 3a at every save, I got the following message. The "24 bit depth" refers to 8-bit RGB. It would seem that PSP is paranoid about 16-bit TIF files or obsessive about 8-bit ones.



Conclusion: I'm not sure that PSP is the best choice at handling RAW and derivative uncompressed files. One can ask what the purpose is to shoot in RAW (or, in my case, NEF) format, if it can't be edited with as few losses and artefacts as possible? Note that what I have said applies only to the combination of NEF and TIF formats; other formats may be better or worse or just the same - this must be tested before being categorical.