ACDSee Pro 3

Back to Topic Overview Post New Reply

Nikon D90 RAW conversion

(30 posts)

Started by marekbrejl
Started on October 6, 2009 - 01:16 AM (5 months ago)
Latest reply from Marc Sabatella (1 day ago)

Tags:

Nikon

1 2 Next »

marekbrejl
Member

I am an eager user of ACDSee 6.0 and since I purchased Nikon D90 I started testing v3.0. I ran into one issue - same for both v2.5 and 3.0:

I use Nikon D90 .NEF raw images. They show very nicely in the "manage" or "view" mode. However, when I open them up in "DEVELOP", after couple seconds of processing their histogram compresses to the darker and they get visually darker. The same effect happens when I directly (without processing) covert the RAW images into JPG. When I compare this to Adobe Lightroom, the images in Lightroom are the same in view or processing and after conversion - and are similar to ACDSee in VIEW mode.

Why is ACDSee converting the images to darker during DEVELOP mode or JPG conversion? What is even more difficult is that the "VIEW" mode does not correctly represent what the image would look like after conversion.

Is this a known problem that will have fix to it? Is there a setting I could make to eliminate/reduce the problem?

Thank you.

Posted On October 6, 2009 - 01:16 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Eli
Member

I have observed the same problem. I also notice that in Manage mode, the image in the thumbnails looks different than in the lower left Preview pane.

Posted On October 6, 2009 - 09:21 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
myfotoguy
Focus Group

I believe the image in manage and view is genearate from the embedded jpeg in the file, based on in camera settings.

The develop version is ACDSee's interpretation of the nikon image settings. It is not even close to what NX2 produces for RAW conversion which uses all the Nikon in camera settings.

Basically, the ACDSee RAW conversion for Nikon files doesn't produce an initial RAW conversion that closely matches the Nikon one. Adobe seems to have a better conversion for NEF for the time being, it is closer to the Nikon NX2 itnitial conversion.

Posted On October 6, 2009 - 04:22 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
LV_Bill
Member

To: Marekbrejl & Eli -

Tibu is correct. And, it should be added that this shift in the image color is normal behavior. At first, you are seeing the imbedded jpeg image. Then, after a couple of seconds, the actual raw image is decoded and displayed. So, this is not a bug.

To: Marc Sabatella, et. al -

I would love a confirmation on an additional aspect of this question. I know that the in-camera settings are applied to the Jpeg which is visible for a few seconds. However, when the fully decoded Raw image is displayed, have the in-camera settings been applied to what the users sees? OR, is the visible decoded Raw image absolutely raw - no camera settings applied?

Posted On October 6, 2009 - 05:03 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Eli
Member

I'd like to try to clarify some of the issues discussed in this thread.

1. The behaviour one sees in Pro 3 depends on what option is selected in tools/Options/General Raw Display.

If Speed: use embedded JPEG is selected, the image displayed in all the Manage View/Preview pane appears to be the lighter JPEG image, but the image displayed in the Manage View thumbnail and thumbnail popup preview when you hover over the thumbnail appear to be the darker RAW image. In View Mode, the display is of the ligher JPEG. In Process Mode, the display is the darker RAW image.

If Quality: perform high quality decode is selected, the views in the Manage view appear the same as above. The fact that the two views in Manage show different interpretations of the same image on the same screen I believe IS A BUG. They should be consistent. In View mode, the image displayed is first the JPEG, and a second or two later it displays the darker RAW image. In process mode, the display is the darker RAW image.

2. In any event, the "decoded" NEF RAW display in ACDSee Pro 3 is much darker than the JPEG, and much darker than the same NEF file displayed in Capture NX2, Adobe Camera Raw, Adobe Photoshop Elements, and Picassa (the last two of which may be only displaying the embedded JPEG).

3. There also seems to be an issue with how ACDSee Pro3 handles NEF files which have been modified in Capture NX2. Capture NX2 writes its edits directly into the NEF file in a non-destructive way; that is the edits are separate from the original RAW image in the NEF file. Capture NX2 also writes an updated JPEG into the NEF file. In ACDSee Pro 3, it seems that sometimes the program just displays the JPEG image, and sometimes it displays the RAW image without some of the edits performed in Capture NX2.

Posted On October 6, 2009 - 09:45 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
LV_Bill
Member

Eli - Thanks for the clarification. BTW, I too am seeing a darker more color saturated image when the full raw decode is completed. I posted this in another thread when I spotted a noticeable diffference in the color and lighting when the same raw image was viewed by Pro 2.5 and Pro 3.0. I'm still waiting for one of the resident experts to explain the difference.

Posted On October 6, 2009 - 09:58 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
marekbrejl
Member

Indeed, thanks for the explanation. It would be interesting to know whether ACDSee is planning to change their algorithm so that the decoded images resamble the original colors and brightness (or the embedded JPG) little closer. It seems like a bug in the decoder - the images are consistently darker, it is not something that you sometimes like and sometimes not.

Those of you that use NEF images, what is your workflow? After experiencing this, I am very reluctant to use ACDSee for the RAW conversion. How do you use ACDSee in your workflow?

Posted On October 7, 2009 - 06:17 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Philip Weir
Member

I've tried ViewNX, ACDP2.5 and ACDP3 on some Raw images from my D80. The images displayed within ACDP2.5 and 3 are exactly the same. (I believe that both versions of the program are using the same raw converter so maybe that's no too surprising). On the other hand there is a difference, as others have reported, between ViewNX (presumably using the same algorithms as CaptureNX) and ACDP3. I actually prefer ACDP3's interpretation. I've also noted that the image as rendered by ACDP3 seems to be a little bit sharper. Could that have anything to do with the different colour renditions?

Posted On October 7, 2009 - 09:50 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Philip Weir
Member

An update to my previous post:

The raw converters being used withinACDP2.5 and 3 are different. in 2.5 it is version 4.0.70 whilst in 3 it is 4.1.

ACDSee have a PDF file on how to adjust their raw converter to mimic another converter. Its at http://files.acdsystems.com/english/acdseepro/manuals/acdseepro-raw-processing-guide.pdf

Posted On October 7, 2009 - 10:50 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
LV_Bill
Member

Phillip - Thanks for the tip about the Raw PDF document. I've still got 3-4 questions I'd love to get solid answers for.

Posted On October 7, 2009 - 04:40 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
myfotoguy
Focus Group

If I understand correctly, that document helps you set to a completey RAW state, no file interpretation, no "pre-adjustments".

Posted On October 7, 2009 - 04:45 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Marc Sabatella
Moderator

As noted, the general option setting controls whether the viewer shows the embedded preview or the ACDSee-generated conversion.

As for why D90 images might look significantly darker, I'm guessing you have Active D-lighting enabled. That's a Nikon-specific processing mode that ACDSee doesn't try to emulate (although it *does* try to emulate at least some other camera JPEG settings). It works by deliberately underexposing the image to preserve highlights, then applying some special magic during the pre-processing of the image to bring the tonal range up to where you might expect, while trying to achieve a more "balanced" dynamic range than the default processing would. I would imagine Nikon considers the algorithm they use to implement this a trade secret, and there's pretty much no chance any other RAW processing application would be able to duplicate it. Basically, you shoul treat Active D-lighting as something to use only when shooting JPEG or when processing images using Nikon's software, as it requires a level of cooperation between camera and processing software that is outside the bounds of what third party RAW processing software can achieve (unless of course Nikon were to share the aglorithm, which doens't seem likely).

Posted On October 7, 2009 - 05:28 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
myfotoguy
Focus Group

Mark makes a good point about D-Lighting. But IMO, particularly for people shots, even with D-Lighting OFF, the RAW conversion algorithm's in ACDSee are not satisfactory. Maybe I an comparing too much to NX2, the Nikon branded convereter and expecting too much. The out of camera jpegs and NX2 conversions render people beautifully in my opninion.

Fellow Nikon users have commented that Lightroom, and Aperture have good pre-sets that get the RAW file very close on intial conversion.

I guess the bottom line is I need to spend more time figuring out how to get ACDSee to do what I would like for Nikon RAW files. Try and create my own pre-set that will get the image closer to how I saw it, and other converters interpret it.

Or maybe, I'm way off base and the ACDsee Nikon RAW conversion is great, and it's just my particular tastes.

Posted On October 7, 2009 - 05:37 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Philip Weir
Member

Marc, In my own case I was seeing the same effect with my D80 which doesn't have ADL.

Posted On October 7, 2009 - 05:56 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
marekbrejl
Member

Marc - that you for your input, I wish that was the solution. Unfortunatley, what I described happens without the use of D-Lighting. So, the problem is somewhere else. I would really like to figure out whether there is solution. I am very hesitant to purchase ACDSee now. While I love everything else, this seems to put a really big wranch into the workflow of processing Nikon images.

Posted On October 7, 2009 - 07:01 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Marc Sabatella
Moderator

It's certianly normal for their to be small variation between how different RAW processing programs convert the same image. That's the nature of RAW. Those differences should eb relatively minor and entirely subjective things, where if you didn't know which was which, you'd have a hard time consistently picking one as "better". If you're seeing something where, even without d-lightin, you are getting consistently/significantly darker results, to the point where anyone could tell without knowing which was which that one was "correct" and the other "incorrect", then that is a problem, sure. But in general, the differences should be much smaller and much more subjective than that. if you're seeing otherwise you might want to post examples here, and then consider submitting support ticket if others agree it really is a problem and not just a small subjective difference.

BTW, you can also address differences by developing your own preset that perhaps pushes coor one way or another, applies custom curves, etc, and then apply that preset to your images before doing anything else.

Posted On October 7, 2009 - 07:37 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
k h
Focus Group

Neither Nikon Capture NX2 nor any other RAW converter has been able to develop JPEGs which closely approximate the ones straight from the camera. Apparently, not even Nikon's own Capture NX2 software comprehends all of the sooper seekrit algorithms built into Nikon cameras.

Surprisingly, I find the RAW conversion done by ACDSee Pro3, with default settings, often looks better than the in-camera JPEG, and furthermore, often looks better than I can get from Capture NX2 with any amount of tweaking. Not only that, Pro3 is a lot faster and crashes a lot less than NX2. I hardly use NX2 anymore except when I need to paint a mask to control an adjustment.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or so they say.

Posted On October 8, 2009 - 05:52 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Eli
Member

The significant difference (and darker) rendering of Nikon NEF RAW images occurs whether you use Active D-Lighting or not. Even when it is turned off, the images are significantly darker than the embedded JPEG image and how the image is rendered by other converters such as Capture NX2, Adobe Camera Raw, etc. I don't agree with k h that beauty is in the eye of the beholder as far as this issue is concerned; it has to do with rendering the RAW image in an accurate way.

Posted On October 8, 2009 - 12:01 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
LV_Bill
Member

Not sure this will help here. but FYI...... In another thread, I've been questioning why Canon Raw images appear darker and more color saturated in Pro 3.0 vs. Pro 2.5. The answer turned out to be: Pro 2.5 showed true raw, without the camera settings. Pro 3.0 shows raw with the camera settings included in the visible image.

Nobody explained to me that I should expect a pronounced rendering difference if I happened to have the settings boosted in my camera. Now a lot of things make sense. Maybe Nikon is similarly affected?

FWIW, Bill

Posted On October 8, 2009 - 03:13 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
myfotoguy
Focus Group

k h said:

Neither Nikon Capture NX2 nor any other RAW converter has been able to develop JPEGs which closely approximate the ones straight from the camera. Apparently, not even Nikon's own Capture NX2 software comprehends all of the sooper seekrit algorithms built into Nikon cameras.

Surprisingly, I find the RAW conversion done by ACDSee Pro3, with default settings, often looks better than the in-camera JPEG, and furthermore, often looks better than I can get from Capture NX2 with any amount of tweaking. Not only that, Pro3 is a lot faster and crashes a lot less than NX2. I hardly use NX2 anymore except when I need to paint a mask to control an adjustment.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or so they say.

Your first statement doesn't sound right to me. For camera models with picture controls NX2 initial render matches the JPEG process settings in camera. I am not sure if you have to have downloaded all the extra picture controls or not, but my experience has been that NX2 renders the RAW intially as the Jpeg appears, and in the panel on the right in NX2 I can even see the in camera settings that were used.

I here you as far as the "eye of the beholder" but the intial conversion is not anywhere near NX2, not even close in my eyes (For people specifically, for landscape it's not as big of a deal to me personally, but I still see the difference). This is with D-Lighting off and I'm certain of that since I don't use it. I have also heard from other users that they are getting close results in Lightroom, I should download a trial and compare to see just how close it is and compares, just to see for myself.

Posted On October 8, 2009 - 05:51 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)