Shadow detail rendering among Raw converters

I was converting a few images late last night from a bird of prey shoot using LR and noticed a significant loss of detail in background shadow areas.

Parts of the image (although close to black) showed some quite sharp granular transitions. I opened the same set of image in a few other RCs, namely DXO, Silkypix, RSP, DPP, C1b4 and their differences in rendering shadow detail was quite astonishing.

Unfortunately, it was getting too late to post examples, so i'll aim to post some image comparisons late today.

Has anyone else noticed this?

John_Nevill said:

I was converting a few images late last night from a bird of prey shoot using LR and noticed a significant loss of detail in background shadow areas.

Click to expand...

I assume it is due to the (non-linear) tone curve used. Also, in LR and ACR, try reducing the 'Blacks' slider (although that'll show more noise).

Bart

John_Nevill said:

..Has anyone else noticed this?

Click to expand...

Yes, I have indeed. But this is a widely discussed topic. Not all RCs are created equal and there is not an absolute winner which converts all kinds of images in the best possible way. Having said this, I was wondering which one did the best job for your particular bird shot?

From own experience and common wisdom I gathered around the net, I think that DPP is one of the best out there; resolution wise. But it has very few options and shadow recovery and curve adjustments are not so easy to realize.

LR and ACR are rather good for regular pictures. I almost exclusively use LR on a daily basis.

For optically challenging shots (lots of CA, barreling, pincushion, etc), I use DxO occasionally. But I have discovered that DxO is worse than DPP/LR/ACR as far as the resolution of the final image is concerned. Details in the shadows get lost very easily. I wonder how version 5 will look like.

I have tried C1 in the past. Although it does a very decent job and there are lots of fans of it out there, I could not come to terms with it. Maybe I should try again if the vaporware version 4 becomes a reality <LOL>. Bibble is also one of those converters that I never really liked.

Lastly, Lightzone. I like it a lot due to layers and rudimentary selection tools. It also does a decent job at H-S recovery. But when I started testing the version 2 it was very buggy and used to crash every 30 mins. Also, it used up all the system memory, 4 GB I had on my machine was just not enough. So I stopped using it. Maybe I should take another look soon.

Just my $ 0.02, ymmv,

Cheers,

C1 is well worth the learning curve IMHO.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Hi Cem,

I agree exactly with what you say, possibly with the exception wrt lightzone. (I think it will always be slow, due to its java implementation). All this raw stuff is just playing with numbers, I wonder if it is possible to get exactly the same conversion in any of the converters (with different settings, of course)? For most of our images, I would expect the camera manufacturer to get it right - at least their version of right- in most cases- since they do not have to reverse engineer anything. However, at the extremes, then more specific conversion software could be of benefit.

Then, of course, there is ease of use, sensitivity of sliders, etc. Most things are a compromise, analogue to digital anything has to be so.

Best wishes,

Ray

Here's the comparison, apologies for the large jpeg!
Nothing added and no adjustments and no sharpening (file replaced)

John_Nevill said:

Here's the comparison, apologies for the large jpeg!
Nothing added and no adjustments apart from default sharpening

Click to expand...

Hi John,

Thanks a lot for the trouble you've gone through, I appreciate it. There is much to be learned here.

Might I make a respectful suggestion? I am of the opinion that this comparison is not entirely correct due to the fact that you have used "default sharpening" in the converters. They all have varying degrees of default sharpening, one is subtle and another can be rather aggressive. And some even have built-in sharpening you cannot influence.

To make an honest comparison, you should either have turned off all the sharpening and do a conversion without any adjustments or better yet, you should have manipulated the images in each RC until the end result really satisfied you (ie these manipulations including all color, curve, WB, noise reduction and sharpening settings, etc). That way you can then compare the end results knowing that you've utilized each RC to its full extent and how it really performs against the others.

Just my $ 0.02.

Cheers,

Cem, valid point, image replaced (in earlier post) with all sharpening parameters off or disabled.

Hi John,

You are great, thanks again. However, it would be very educational if we can see both of your images (with and without sharpening) underneath each other. Am I asking for too much? Can you add the original link above the new link to the unsharpened picture please? <smile>

Regards,

Cem, would you believe it!

I overwrote the PSD and subsequent jpeg, to retain the same filename on ftp. )

John_Nevill said:

Cem, would you believe it!

I overwrote the PSD and subsequent jpeg, to retain the same filename on ftp. )

Click to expand...

Yes, Murphy's at work again <LOL>. Well, what we now have is a very good picture which we can study and discuss. However in my case, I have to attend to some other business right now before going to bed, so I'll reply only tomorrow. In the meanwhile, I am also curious as to what others will make of this comparison <smile>

Cheers and good night (here it is already night)

Here's a whibal version (yep I had one with me) with default sharpening settings for all RCs.



As for my take on the shadow detail renderings, I believe SilkyPix, C1 and DPP have the edge.

Shadows are shadows

Hey thanks for the work here... But IMHO the rest of the image is much more important than shadows and in this comparision the eagle looks more real/alive in the LR, DPP, SP . I think such a comparison however is flawed unless you do your best adjustment including capture level sharpening for each RAW converter. IOW - I think this image could be rendered much better with some curves adjustment, fill light, sharpening tweaks - better for each software.

I've done many tests myself and have also found that besides being camera dependent, the best RAW converter will depend on subject shot (ie, skin or flowers, hi key or low key) and also what ISO used. It also will depend on how deep you go into the tools each provides. I don't know any that will give you a really great file without some adjustments.

I've also found that if you want to do digital images with really good shadow detail, you have to get a camera that can do it - most can't. I noticed huge differences between my canon 5D and the Leica DMR and phase p20 with regard to shadow detail. It just isn't there in the canon files. Sure you can bring it out with various techniques, but the smooth tonal gradations are just not there.