AfterShot Pro 2 - Bad Canon RAW conversion?

[FloridaDrafter]

This is my first dealings with AfterShot Pro. I've been using Digital Photo Professional, that came with my Canon DSLR, to view and sometimes edit my RAW (cr2) files. I installed the s/w and started putting it through it paces when I noticed that the images were a bit out and didn't look near as sharp and clear, with no artifacting, as DPP displayed. Anyone else using DPP along with ASP2 noticed this.
It is really obvious in a side by side comparison. Through some adjustment in ASP2, I can make the image resemble that in DPP, as far as color and sharpness, but the artifacting still remains.

The left is ASP2 @ 200% maginfication, the right is DPP @ 200%, same monitor. Doesn't really mater what zoom percentage, it's still noticible and transfers to JPeG, TiFF, and PNG, when exported.

[Dutchmm]

Let me start by confessing that I have never had a Canon camera, and therefore have no experience of DPP.
But I am a fairly experienced user of ASP and its previous incarnation Bibble Pro.
Your screenshot strongly suggests that you haven't yet developed a set of default settings which ASP should apply to every CR2 it comes across. One of the defaults I would have expected to see was the use of Raw Noise reduction. You will find the controls for this on the Detail tab. I hope this will help you to come up with prints you can live with. I say "prints" because I notice that the screenshots are made at 200% magnification, and in my experience the crud you can see at 200% has gone completely by the time the shot fits on a 24x16 print, or in a file you can show on a computer screen.

Hope this helps

[R Frydryck]

I am a long time user of Aftershot Pro 1, and an owner if many Canon cameras. Let me say that the software that comes with the Canon camera is very good, and can generate outstanding images with it. Though it lacks the bells and whistles of RAW editor. I used to use ASP1 to sort though my images and then use the Canon software to edit my raw images.

If you read though the forum many of us AFP1 users are sorely disappointed with Aftershot Pro 2 for many reasons. Someone even made an extensive post on how bad the noise reduction of ASP2 is compared to ASP1. Aftershot Pro 2 just seems rushed, and was pushed out after a long overdue update. It is just not up to the job to produce quality images of its competitors. If you want you can stick it out and hope they fix the issues, though Corel has a history of selling Aftershot and then abandoning it.

I am sorry to say that while I use other Corel products I have given up on Aftershot and moved on. Take a look at acdsee Pro 7 and try the free test drive. It is also on sale for $74.95 until July 12. Acdsee Pro 7 is far superior to Aftershot Pro2, and if you just bought Aftershot Pro2 you can get a refund.
http://www.acdsee.com/en/products/acdsee-pro-7

Also acsee Pro 7 has a feature called LCE. I can not live out it any more, as LCE has revolutionized how I do I RAW processing.
http://www.acdsee.com/en/lce
It's bruises are pretty cool too


@ FloridaDrafter
In your example I do not see artifacting, but I do see color noise. Also there is a difference between color noise and luminance noise. Luminance noise is not always bad and in some cases improve sharpness. acdee 7 Pro has two separate sliders to edit both color noise and luminance noise. It also has sliders to control artifacting.

[FloridaDrafter]

@Dutchmm: Thank you for the timely response! I do have a profile developed but used the defaults as a comparison in the screen shot, since I wanted to show the difference in straight up imports. I guess I am just shocked at the difference in the two. If I hadn't had DPP (Digital Photo Pro), I would never have known just how off ASP 2 was with cr2 (Canon RAW) files, by default. Even after applying my profile, those orange'ish splotches are still there and no amount of tweaking will remove them. As for the 200% mag, that is just for this comparison. However, even on an 11x17 hi-res print, they are still noticeable. It does seem worse in the green band, but have noticed the same types of splotches, of different colors, in other areas.

Thanx,

FD

[FloridaDrafter]

@R Frydryck: Thank you for the Reply! The color noise you see, when viewed at higher magnification, resembles the artifacting caused by heavy lossy compression like used in JPeG, so I called it atrifacting. Probably not the correct terminology, but that's what it looks like. Canon has been pretty good about providing software and firmware updates to DPP, my camera, and the lenses I use, in fact, the last updates I downloaded addressed both chromatic aberration and luminance for both of my primary lenses. If you haven't looked at the latest DPP release, check it out. They've added quite a bit. Nothing like these programs we are discussing, but not bad at all, JPeG adjustment as well as RAW comes to mind first off.
I'm like you, I've been using Corel products since Draw 3, and I own PhotoImpact X3, PSP X6, WordPerfect, etc., so I jumped right on ASP 2 without doing the free trial, I know, my bad. I didn't see the problems until after I bought it I did notice the same problems in PaintShop Pro X6 RAW conversion as that of ASP 2, probably the same conversion.

Thanks you for the heads up on ACDsee, I used that years ago (2004), but it just dropped off of my radar.

-FD

[R Frydryck]

Hey FD,

I did not know the pic was from an edited jpg, so you may be right about calling it atrifacting. I assumed it was all from RAW. My bad.

While Paintshop ProX6 has some very nice features* when editing photos, its RAW conversion is both primitive and sub standard compared to its competitors. I strongly suggest you never edit RAW with Paintshop Pro.
That said if you are still in your thirty day window you may want to look at a refund for your ASP2. Then after looking around if you still feel it is what you want then re-buy it. Or just stick with Canon software which always yields a clean image. If you used acdee in the past you will really like it now. I was shooting a model in a rock canyon under a heady canopy of trees right before storm. The background went very dark, and acdsee's LCE save the day.

Good luck FloridaDrafter!

[FloridaDrafter]

Hey FD,

I did not know the pic was from an edited jpg, so you may be right about calling it atrifacting. I assumed it was all from RAW. My bad.
<SNIP>
Good luck FloridaDrafter!

No bad on you! The image I posted IS from RAW, I just meant that the color splotching resembled artifacting as seen in highly compressed JPeG files.
I just didn't know what else to call it. If I keep hanging around here I might learn some terminology
I am usually really careful and try to get my adjustments set in camera, but like in the canyon situation you had, sometimes you just need a good RAW editor to save what could be the "money shot", so to speak.

Thanx again!

-FD

[mikkokan]

What was your jpeg compression setting in ASP? You can change it by right clicking on top of "Jpeg Full". How much is there difference in the file size between these two?

I think that this difference is because of the default settings are different in these two programs.

[bananahead]

I think that this sort of query comes up quite a lot in different forums.

People open a RAW image in processing software using out-of-the-box settings and then aren't impressed. But this isn't the way that it is supposed to be done. You are supposed to build a profile for your camera and then use that.

The Canon software is very good but not as good as ASP (maybe this will change with version 4 in a week or so). But what it does do OOTB is apply the settings set in your camera as the default. This means that it has applied sharpness, noise reduction and what ever else. This means that it is not a level playing field for comparisons because ASP does not do this.

The use of software is for producing the best picture. Why not try producing the best picture possible with both DPP and ASP and then compare the differences.

[FloridaDrafter]

What was your jpeg compression setting in ASP? You can change it by right clicking on top of "Jpeg Full". How much is there difference in the file size between these two?

I think that this difference is because of the default settings are different in these two programs.

I set ASP 2 to export max quality for JPeG, but I also exported tiff and png. The RAW is around 25mb+/- and the exported JPeG was around 4mb.

[FloridaDrafter]

I think that this sort of query comes up quite a lot in different forums.

People open a RAW image in processing software using out-of-the-box settings and then aren't impressed. But this isn't the way that it is supposed to be done. You are supposed to build a profile for your camera and then use that.

The Canon software is very good but not as good as ASP (maybe this will change with version 4 in a week or so). But what it does do OOTB is apply the settings set in your camera as the default. This means that it has applied sharpness, noise reduction and what ever else. This means that it is not a level playing field for comparisons because ASP does not do this.

The use of software is for producing the best picture. Why not try producing the best picture possible with both DPP and ASP and then compare the differences.

Thank you bananahead, for your comments and I agree with you to a point, but IMHO, a RAW editor should apply your camera settings. Kind of defeats the purpose of setting up a shot in camera, if your RAW editor is just going to strip them away. Besides, I did spend hours setting up a default profile and trying to make the images look good in ASP 2. I came close, but still couldn't get rid of some of the color noise. I guess it all boils down to what you expect from an application. I only use RAW editing for situations where it is near impossible to adjust my shot in the field, a surprise situation and the like. I like for my images to reflect, as close as possible, the way they were taken. And to be honest, DPP seems to do that just fine and 95% of the time, I only use it to look for my sharpest and in focus shots Sometimes I will rattle off 20-30 shots. My strategy here is that one of them will be a "keeper". Then, depending on the final destination of the image, I will use the original JPeG (I shoot RAW + JPeG) export to tiff or just print from DPP. I bit on ASP 2 because it just looked appealing and there are some situations where I may need the extended features.

[brucet]

I also like a converter that can apply what I've worked hard for with/in the camera. Simply ignoring the 'extra' information is just adding to my work load.
I shoot NEFs and like what simple ol Nikon software does. I'm currently using Capture NX-D beta. It makes use of the imbedded data. I like to have the choice as to whether I make changes or not. With ASP I have to start with the basic data and then try and recreate what I remember the scene looking like. (Yeah I know it's an issue getting Nikon to cooperate).
ASP has great features that can be used to 'enhance' the photo but is starts from a lower base initially. Then ASP adds to the issue of getting somethings wrong so more work is involved.

regards

[FloridaDrafter]

I also like a converter that can apply what I've worked hard for with/in the camera. Simply ignoring the 'extra' information is just adding to my work load.
I shoot NEFs and like what simple ol Nikon software does. I'm currently using Capture NX-D beta. It makes use of the imbedded data. I like to have the choice as to whether I make changes or not. With ASP I have to start with the basic data and then try and recreate what I remember the scene looking like. (Yeah I know it's an issue getting Nikon to cooperate).
ASP has great features that can be used to 'enhance' the photo but is starts from a lower base initially. Then ASP adds to the issue of getting somethings wrong so more work is involved.

regards

Thank you for the reply brucet! I hope NX-D beta is doing a good job. I think it's funny (ha ha funny) that Canon came out with an update for DPP just a few months after Nikon did. I guess it's good to keep these camera manufacturers on their toes and one step ahead of the competition The bad thing about the upgrade to DPP is they are only releasing a 64bit app that, on release day, will only support 6 cameras, which are all full frame. The 64bit part I can almost understand, but 6 cameras?

-FD

[bananahead]

I don't think that the RAW software is ignoring the camera settings, I don't think that Canon (or Nikon, Sony....) share the camera settings.

I have enough to think about with aperture, exposure and composition without also having to think about artificial sharpness, contrast and what have you at the time of shooting.

[afx]

No third party converter uses in cam image settings.
If you want that, use the converter from the camera manufacturer.

cheers
afx