ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Other Software > Found Deals and Discounts

Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

<< < (10/32) > >>

JavaJones:
Really? Hmmm. Lame. Well, maybe he can just tell someone else and they can publish the results themselves as "verification". :D

- Oshyan

Darwin:
I suspect it's more of a "gentlemanly" thing... Don't slam the competition.

Dormouse:
my absolute biggest priority is *proper* RAW processing. Which is why it's so important to me that he names the packages he tested, so I know A: how to reproduce the tests he's done with my own files and B: potentially what products to avoid or at least be wary of due to improper RAW processing. There is also the possibility that he accepted the program's defaults but that there are ways to get more "baseline" RAW output from a given tool and he just didn't use it, in which case naming the software would allow users of it to point out how the test might be made more fair.-JavaJones (April 13, 2010, 03:24 PM)
--- End quote ---

He has to have accepted the default automatic settings. To do anything else would be seen as unfair (the other progs' developers will have chosen their default setting) as the settings would have been chosen by him and could not be reproduced others unless he explained what settings he chose and why. And trying to get the best possible photo out of them all would have taken a great deal of time. I think what he was drawing attention to is factors in developing raws that a lot of people don't know or ignore and that (some) other programs have a tendency to choose automatic settings that look better than Sagelight initially, but have actually lost information by doing so.

I think most, if not all, the major raw processors will allow you to choose settings that lose no information and will also allow you to automate it slightly by using the same formula for groups of photos that you think are similar. I'd be quite alarmed if they lost information unnecessarily whatever you did. What he is suggesting you do when you are testing raws is to check the histograms of the befores and afters. And the other thing, of course, is not to convert into jpgs if you expect to be doing much more processing, especially if it will involve a number of stages and saves.

It's not something I worry about. over much As long as I have a pristine copy of the raws, I can always go back. Any type of automatic processing or using defaults or using the same settings for a number of images is a compromise between time saved and quality. You choose the best mix you can according to your needs at the time.

Lutz_:
I do not know how the author did the comparisons for the previously mentioned blog post (http://sagelighteditor.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/some-raw-truth-about-raw-converters/ ).  RAW converters usually have a lot of optimization options.  It is a great read however.

I did my own comparisons of the highlight recovery tools in several RAW converters a while ago with a challenging test picture from a German blog: Ansichten eines Sturkopfs.  I have added Sagelight to this comparison and the highlight recovery performs as good as indicated in the authors blog post (one has to use the  ">> File >> Open RAW file with Highlight Recovery Options" menu).  In my eyes Sagelight is one of two converters with superior highlight recovery (together with Scarab Darkroom).  Please note that for this test I did focus my efforts only on the best highlights. The images are rendered quite differently in all other aspects by most converters.
The test images can be downloaded in full size from here.  The Sagelight example is the last one.

JavaJones:
Would anyone be interested in a website setup specifically to share source and output comparisons for RAW conversion? For example you would register, then upload a RAW file that you took for others to convert using their software of choice. Others would then upload their conversions, with e.g. details of program, version, and settings used. Then you could run a side-by-side or maybe a mouse-over flip comparison to judge the differences, as well as maybe download the full-size result files for better comparison.

This is something I've been thinking of doing lately, and I'm curious if anyone else would actually be interested not just in the results, but in contributing to it. Lutz, it looks like you'd have something to contribute. ;)

- Oshyan

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version