• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

RAW skin tone conversion comparison

Michael Tapes

OPF Administrator/Moderator
Peter,

I would only suggest from a forum perspective to use smaller versions of the pics so they download faster and can be viewed in full. When viewing color issues, it is easier and faster to view smaller files IMHO.

Thanks for the post and examples...
 

Don Lashier

New member
The thing is that any number of conversion settings can have a much more dramatic effect on skin tone that the difference between RC's. I've found that if you equalize tonality and WB, output from the various RC's is remarkably similar. Skintone seems to be particularly sensitive to both tonality and WB. See this example, all done with C1, but moderate variations in WB controls and tonality controls:
http://www.lashier.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=27442

- DL
 

Michael Tapes

OPF Administrator/Moderator
Don Lashier said:
The thing is that any number of conversion settings can have a much more dramatic effect on skin tone that the difference between RC's. I've found that if you equalize tonality and WB, output from the various RC's is remarkably similar. Skintone seems to be particularly sensitive to both tonality and WB. See this example, all done with C1, but moderate variations in WB controls and tonality controls:
http://www.lashier.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=27442

- DL

Don,

Perfect example of how Exposure, Contrast and Saturation affect the perceived color. people discuss changing the "color" via profile or WB, when in fact they could adjust the other parameters and have more control over the perceived color of the photo. of course WB and Tint "do" affect the true color, and is relevant as well. But easier to use a proper WB and adjust other things to keep the pixels in order.

Great to have you here!
 

John_Nevill

New member
I totally agree with your findings, and yes one could do the same in RSP, silkypix etc, but I must add that there are noticeable differences in how each render engine interprets RAW data. Some exhibit patterning and mottling in their rendering algorithms, while others dont.
 

Don Lashier

New member
John_Nevill said:
I totally agree with your findings, and yes one could do the same in RSP, silkypix etc, but I must add that there are noticeable differences in how each render engine interprets RAW data. Some exhibit patterning and mottling in their rendering algorithms, while others dont.

Hi John,

I totally agree. I didn't mean to imply that choice of RC's doesn't matter, just that a lot of attributed differences of color, skin-tone etc. are in fact due to differences in default tonality treatment, which is where RC's most obviously differ re image appearance.

Similarly, claimed signifancant differences in shadow detail or highlight detail and recovery are also mostly due to different default tonality.

However, as you point out, there are often significant differences in how RC's handle shadow noise, aliasing (tight patterning), clipped highlight channels etc. I have some (rather outdated but relevant on principle) examples of this on my website.

In addition, the RC's choice (or choices) of default tonality treatment can also make it easier or harder to achieve the results you desire, and the answer is not necessarily the same for everyone varying with your total workflow and nature of images you shoot, and even brand/model of camera.

The toolset, workflow, and adjustment facility of RC's are equally important criteria.

- DL
 

John Burkus

New member
I downloaded these RAW comparisons and have been comparing them on a screen that shows them all at one time. My conclusion is that I could live with any of these renderings because they are all very good. I too have spent countless hours comparing seven different RAW converters with different scenes and have concluded that by a large there is no one convereter is best for all shots.

I think that my problem is that I am a RAW converter junkie and I fear that there is no cure for it. I can hardly wait for my next fix. DxO Optics is coming out with a new converter is Sept. Nikon just came out with NX which my machine won't load. Lightroom for Windows should be around soon...and on it goes. Oh yes, that reminds me that I should be concentrating on taking better pictures rather than seeking the RAW Holy Grail.
 
Top