Paul Y said:
Erin... thanks very much. First, what I think I hear you saying is that working with the standard editor out of the gates is not compromising the image quality at all,i.e., not like starting with a jpg where 20% of the file info is gone before you start. Correct? Basically then, it is just a matter of needing / wanting the capabilities of the RAW processor not otherwise available in the standard editor.
Although you say you are aware of the basic differences between RAW processing and standard image editing, I'd just like to point out for anyone unclear on this that the main difference in this respect has to do with workflow. With the standard image editor, in order to commit your changes, you need to save them to another format. If you wish to tweak those settings, you have to either start over with the original RAW and figure out what you did last time, or accept that the processing you did the first time around may have made some further processing impossible. For instance, if you oversharpen the first time, there is no backing this off - you've got to start over. Whereas with RAW Processing, next time you enter the tool, you'll find all settigns right where you left them, and you can easily back them off. FWIW, I also find the RAW processor loads faster than the image editor on the same RAW file.
BTW, Erin - you say that sending a RAw file to the editor is the equivalent of first converting to 48bit TIFF. But I'm assuming that is still demosaiced - that is, rather than (say) 12 million pixels each with a single 12-bit value that is either R, G, or B, you've got 4 million pixels each with a 48-bit RGB value, and that decisions have already been made as to which of the original 12 million pixels get collapsed into the 4 million RGB pixels. Thus, some operations - like sharpening - might not be able to work quite as well as they could have in RAW processing. No?
While I have your 'ear'.... a small issue has been bugging me through many versions of ACDsee... the default sharpening values. They are, for my tastes, FAR too extreme. I have a number of presets that I use, but I still have to go throught the pointing and clicking to get to them. When processing a lot of files the repitition is tiresome. Sure wish there was a way for us to define our own default.
Me too, although I find it interesting that in Pro 1, the most common complaint was that default sharpening was not nearly enough.
Posted On September 20, 2007 - 05:16 PM (2 years ago) (
Permalink to this post)
New Content Since Last Visit
No New Content Since Last Visit
