I'm feeling RAW

[MarkZ]

Conclusion: I'm not sure that PSP is the best choice at handling RAW and derivative uncompressed files.

Yup, many others agree with this conclusion. I don't use the NEF format, have found with my own testing, not as rigorous as yours, that conversion to other formats should be done with other software. Use PSP for what it does well.

[pdxrjt]

Cy,

What happened when you didn't use the default settings in the PSP Raw conversion? What did the TIF look like when you set saturation/white balance/noise levels etc. before you made converted it?

[cydevil]

Cy,

What happened when you didn't use the default settings in the PSP Raw conversion? What did the TIF look like when you set saturation/white balance/noise levels etc. before you made converted it?

This was not included in my rigourous testing, but from previous, less formal, trials, I can say reasonably confidently that the quality was not improved and may even be further compromised under some conditions.

[pdxrjt]

Well good to know. The default settings on any RAW converter rarely work well. The generic converter I use has a couple of tweaks in it just so I can get a sense of what the photo might look like after I am done post processing....but even there, the original RAW view is not great.

[cydevil]

Well good to know. The default settings on any RAW converter rarely work well. The generic converter I use has a couple of tweaks in it just so I can get a sense of what the photo might look like after I am done post processing....but even there, the original RAW view is not great.

I've been looking at some other converters/editors. The one incorporated in Sagelight Image Editor seems interesting. I believe that, judging from my NEF compressed RAW, it is as good as the Nikon one and has reasonable pre-conversion editing. It converts (I understand from any of the common camera RAW formats) into its own 16-bit editor and you can save it into uncompressed 16-bit TIF or other formats, still lossless. If your RAW file has burnt-in highlights, there is a setting in the NEF>RAW conversion to attempt to recover them, a failing, I believe, with many converters. I have a couple of NEF files of a bouquet containing a couple of white arum lilies, which are over-exposed. In some converters, it is possible to manipulate them to bring out some detail, but it's nice having it done automatically without affecting the other areas. On the other hand, its true 16-bit editor is just adequate for most operations but is very clunky, with only a fraction of the features available in PSP. For example, masking is a bit of a pain and, although it has alpha layers, these are not easily manipulated. Notwithstanding, I have produced some needle-sharp A4 prints with it, from heavily cropped NEF originals, where I've failed with PSP. I guess there is no way of getting the best of all worlds when you are on a budget!

[awm03]

1. Many have commented here and elsewhere on how poorly PSP converts RAW files: does that strictly mean the Camera RAW Lab or PSP itself? I rarely use PSPx6's Camera RAW Lab for my RAW files. After a quick scan in Manage, I switch to Adjust and make quick adjustments to my RAW files there. In fact, most of the time I just click on Smart Photo Fix & tweak the results. If I want further adjustments to the picture, I'll open it in Edit, wait for the Camera RAW Lab to open, click on the Edit button and bypass the Camera Raw Lab editor altogether to go straight to PSP's editing tools. When finished editing in either Adjust or Edit, I save the photo as a .jpg So is this process inferior somehow? The results seem ok to me, but I'm not nearly as sophisticated about this stuff as the other participants here.

2. My RAW files are Sony files. Does that make a difference? Do some camera RAW files work better than others in PSP?

Just curious what others have to say. I liked Aftershot Pro for RAW, but the White Balance adjuster was broken in last summer's update (makes my Sony files look neon). I've been playing with Lightroom, but can't say I see a significant difference in results yet; the WB adjuster is more like ASP's & the Levels tool is easy to figure out. But I miss the big, bright displays like in PSP or ASP. I might just wait to see if ASP v. 2 comes out in a few months before jumping on the Lightroom band wagon. In the meantime, am I really hampered by using PSPx6?

[LeviFiction]

The RAW conversion inside PSP leaves a lot to be desired by many professionals. So the recommendation is to use ASP to bring in and edit the image slightly, then if more editing power is needed, to export that to a 16-bit TIFF and finish the editing inside PSP.

In some ways not unlike the relationship between Lightroom and Photoshop. Just on a budgeted scale.

PSP's strength is editing, not RAW conversion. So its editing tools are decent, if you know how to use them. But you probably won't get the best out of your RAW images doing the initial conversion inside PSP.

Now PSP does work better with some formats than others. As the default settings may not be as optimally set for some. But it's still very limited in the initial conversion. It'll do alright, and produce images that some are just fine with. But when you compare to what it could be with a quality RAW conversion, you may decide the addition of a dedicated RAW converter to be a necessity.

[MarkZ]

1. Many have commented here and elsewhere on how poorly PSP converts RAW files: does that strictly mean the Camera RAW Lab or PSP itself?

2. My RAW files are Sony files. Does that make a difference? Do some camera RAW files work better than others in PSP?

Just curious what others have to say. I liked Aftershot Pro for RAW, but the White Balance adjuster was broken in last summer's update (makes my Sony files look neon).

In my experience PSP conversion of RAW is poorer than alternatives using both Camera RAW Lab and PSP itself. It's passable when the end result is not critical but not good enough when you really care.

Since all the programs handling RAW state which versions of files they support, I assume that a converter has to be written for each type of RAW file. One would hope that in the final analysis the method is the same so it doesn't matter if the initial file was produced by a Sony or a Canon. However, I have seen in the ASP forum that artifacts may occur for one type of camera and not another.

I use ASP as my first step processor. I often try the AutoLevel and Perfectly Clear and decide if I want that result or not. I've adjusted the settings on AutoLevel to something that is useable some of the time. Regarding white balance, there is a number of ways of adjusting and I have found that Custom Kelvin works for me when needed; the adjustments can be very small. I never use the eye dropper (click white). By the way, the Kelvin value for white balance in PSP/Adjust is meaningless.

[cydevil]

The RAW conversion inside PSP leaves a lot to be desired by many professionals. So the recommendation is to use ASP to bring in and edit the image slightly, then if more editing power is needed, to export that to a 16-bit TIFF and finish the editing inside PSP.

The problem with that, from my experience, is that PSP converts your 16-bit TIF into 8-bit. Please see Comment 2d in my post of Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:25 pm EET to show how I came to that conclusion. You can repeat the MO of my experiments to prove it for yourself.

I must say that it is easy to be more royalist than the king. It is probable that 8-bit JPG in the camera's best setting is more than adequate for IT use (website, e-mailing etc.) because you generally have to reduce it to, say, 800 px wide at 96 px/in, and this edits perfectly in PSP. It can also be more than adequate for printing full frame up to A4. For anything better than this, good RAW conversion becomes necessary, IMHO.

[LeviFiction]

I'll have to wait until I get home to try, but in my copy of X5 that I keep at the office here the 16-bit TIFF file I downloaded remained 16-bit when brought into PSP.

So if it does auto-convert there's either a very specific reason with your images, or a bug in X6. I do know that in X5 if you used a tool that was not 16-bit compatible it would auto-convert the image to 8-bit to let you use that tool. X6 provided a lot more 16-bit compatible tools so that shouldn't be as much of a problem. And you didn't indicate editing them so I doubt that's your issue.

EDIT: I said all of that not realizing it was already lunch time.

So, now that I'm at home I went ahead and re-downloaded the same files that I tested back in the office. They imported into PSPX6 as 16-bit images just fine, no converting to 8-bit.

If you still have PSP installed could I get you to download and test the images yourself?

http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.htm ... mages.html

Let us know if PSP also converts these to 8-bit for you? Or would you be willing to provide us with a test 16-bit image that you know was converted to 8-bit by PSP when imported?

[awm03]

I don't know...

I opened a Sony RAW file in PSPx6, ASP, and Lightroom. I immediately saved it as a jpg in each program, no adjustments, all about the same resolution (300+, 300, & 300). Do any of these pictures look significantly worse than the others? The middle one is a bit grainy, the left one is closest to the original in color, the right one is bright but a tad washed out-- but you'd have to pixel peep to notice these things. Anyone want to venture which picture was saved by which program?

[LeviFiction]

Sure, I love being wrong.

Left - LR
Middle - PSP
Right - ASP

[awm03]

You're 0 for 3, Levi

[LeviFiction]

YES!

[awm03]

Here are the photos, pasted & resized in MS Paint so you can't see the EXIF data to know which program was used: