If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release
On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release Is here, and so far I am impressed. It is a
great improvement over previous On1 products. I believe that it is good enough to be a viable Lightroom/Photoshop alternative for those looking for one.All the usual familiar stuff, including nondestructive layers, and Resize are available, and there are plenty of tutorials available for learning the finer points. For those continuing with an LR/PS workflow, On1 Photo RAW 2018 installs, and works as an LR& PS plugin as it did in the past. Mac users also get an Apple Photos extension if they choose to go in that direction. https://on1help.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001800631 https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxzf2nbtwdz1b0y/screenshot_214.png -- Regards, Savageduck |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release
On 11/9/2017 7:36 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release Is here, and so far I am impressed. It is a great improvement over previous On1 products. I believe that it is good enough to be a viable Lightroom/Photoshop alternative for those looking for one.All the usual familiar stuff, including nondestructive layers, and Resize are available, and there are plenty of tutorials available for learning the finer points. For those continuing with an LR/PS workflow, On1 Photo RAW 2018 installs, and works as an LR& PS plugin as it did in the past. Mac users also get an Apple Photos extension if they choose to go in that direction. https://on1help.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001800631 https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxzf2nbtwdz1b0y/screenshot_214.png It works fine for me, as a PS plugin. I am first starting to use LR instead of Bridge and think it is far more convenient. For my workflow I made a mistake in converting some of my NEF files to DNG when importing them. I use Capture purely as an aid to diagnose problem files, so the conversion to DNG removes that value for me. Also, I am surprised that I am unable to find a free DNG codec from Adobe. I don't see any real advantage in converting to DNG. -- PeterN |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release
In article .com,
Savageduck says... On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release Is here, and so far I am impressed. It is a great improvement over previous On1 products. I believe that it is good enough to be a viable Lightroom/Photoshop alternative for those looking for one.All the usual familiar stuff, including nondestructive layers, and Resize are available, and there are plenty of tutorials available for learning the finer points. For those continuing with an LR/PS workflow, On1 Photo RAW 2018 installs, and works as an LR& PS plugin as it did in the past. Mac users also get an Apple Photos extension if they choose to go in that direction. https://on1help.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001800631 https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxzf2nbtwdz1b0y/screenshot_214.png I gave it a try and wasn't impressed. The JPEG engine is not good (poor detail and crispness) and it didn't apply the lens profile: http://myolympus.org/test/raw_comp_detail1.png ON1 is the top left one (top right is the our of camera JPEG). -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release
On Nov 10, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com): In iganews.com, Savageduck says... On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release Is here, and so far I am impressed. It is a great improvement over previous On1 products. I believe that it is good enough to be a viable Lightroom/Photoshop alternative for those looking for one.All the usual familiar stuff, including nondestructive layers, and Resize are available, and there are plenty of tutorials available for learning the finer points. For those continuing with an LR/PS workflow, On1 Photo RAW 2018 installs, and works as an LR& PS plugin as it did in the past. Mac users also get an Apple Photos extension if they choose to go in that direction. https://on1help.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001800631 https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxzf2nbtwdz1b0y/screenshot_214.png I gave it a try and wasn't impressed. When did you give it a try? The JPEG engine is not good (poor detail and crispness) and it didn't apply the lens profile: http://myolympus.org/test/raw_comp_detail1.png Strange. I have not had any issues editing/adjusting JPEGs with On1. Was this the only image you tested? Did you check the Lens Correction panel to see if the Lens Profile was active? Whether or not On1 PR has the lens profiles for your particular Oly lens/camera I have no idea, all I can demonstrate is, they seem to have Nikon and Fujifilm lens/camera profiles onboard. Moreover, they are applied. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0i5e90usilyq7p8/screenshot_215.png ON1 is the top left one (top right is the our of camera JPEG). To start with, why did you choose a problematic, badly shot/exposed JPEG? I have a hard time believing that any software could do much for that shot. You have an f/4 ISO 200 1/8s shot with visible camera shake, and movement blur in the hands of the woman on the right. The CA/purple fringing is present in the SOOC JPEG, and you have made it worse in your adjusted examples. How did you think you were going to get away with making that shot, with the indoor scene on the right, and the blown highlights through the glass door on the left? Are the other three shots your examples of On1 PR adjustment? If so, what did you do to screw things up so badly? Why did you not test a RAW image file, or do you shoot JPEG only? -- Regards, Savageduck |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release
In article .com,
Savageduck says... The JPEG engine is not good (poor detail and crispness) and it didn't apply the lens profile: http://myolympus.org/test/raw_comp_detail1.png Strange. I have not had any issues editing/adjusting JPEGs with On1. Was this the only image you tested? Yep, this or perhaps another one as well. I tested ON1 and other RAW converters. Did you check the Lens Correction panel to see if the Lens Profile was active? Can't remember exactly, probably yes. I did put in some effort to find a way to activate the lens profile corrections. FYI, also other RAW converters I tested were unable to properly apply the lens corrections. I even had an extended email exchange with the technical support of Corel regarding Aftershop Photo 3. Despite many emails, it was impossible to solve the issue. Besides the lens profile issue, I also wasn't impressed by the crispness of the pixels of the RAW converter. snip To start with, why did you choose a problematic, badly shot/exposed JPEG? It's not a problematic badly shot/exposed JPEG. It's the interior of a church and the section you see is the one with the door, where obviously there is some overexposure, but only there. The rest of the image is reasonably well exposed. You can see the complete image he http://myolympus.org/test/raw_comp_overall.png In defense of the ON1 I can mention that it recovered nicely the overexposed area on the pillar to the right. I have a hard time believing that any software could do much for that shot. You have an f/4 ISO 200 1/8s shot with visible camera shake, Where do you see the camera shake? The stabilisation of the camera did a very good job. and movement blur in the hands of the woman on the right. The CA/purple fringing is present in the SOOC JPEG, and you have made it worse in your adjusted examples. To be accurate: the ON1 RAW converter got the worst results here, probably because it didn't apply a lens profile. All other RAW converters corrected the CA better than ON1. How did you think you were going to get away with making that shot, with the indoor scene on the right, and the blown highlights through the glass door on the left? Again: what you see is just a small section of the image. That door makes out only a few % of the entire image. The camera was set up for center-weighted metering, that's why it chose that exposure. It probably decided that it was ok to overexpose 1%-2% of the image, rather than underexposing the entire image and having more noise. Are the other three shots your examples of On1 PR adjustment? All images you see are sections of images from conversions from the *same* RAW file. You can see it from the filenames (P6055084*). If so, what did you do to screw things up so badly? Nothing is screwed up here. You have to look at the entire image. Why did you not test a RAW image file, or do you shoot JPEG only? This *is* a RAW file test. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release
On Nov 11, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com): In iganews.com, Savageduck says... The JPEG engine is not good (poor detail and crispness) and it didn't apply the lens profile: http://myolympus.org/test/raw_comp_detail1.png Strange. I have not had any issues editing/adjusting JPEGs with On1. Was this the only image you tested? Yep, this or perhaps another one as well. I tested ON1 and other RAW converters. Did you check the Lens Correction panel to see if the Lens Profile was active? Can't remember exactly, probably yes. I did put in some effort to find a way to activate the lens profile corrections. FYI, also other RAW converters I tested were unable to properly apply the lens corrections. This sounds like operator error rather than a software failure. I even had an extended email exchange with the technical support of Corel regarding Aftershop Photo 3. Despite many emails, it was impossible to solve the issue. See above. Besides the lens profile issue, I also wasn't impressed by the crispness of the pixels of the RAW converter. I have a feeling that you need to develop some familiarity with the software before making a blanket condemnation. As I said in my OP I have been impressed with the result I have managed to get from it, and from other reports other folks seem to be happy with the results. snip To start with, why did you choose a problematic, badly shot/exposed JPEG? It's not a problematic badly shot/exposed JPEG. It's the interior of a church and the section you see is the one with the door, where obviously there is some overexposure, but only there. The rest of the image is reasonably well exposed. You can see the complete image he http://myolympus.org/test/raw_comp_overall.png So that was not a SOOC JPEG. To my mind that is a scene which calls for HDR. Also, the JPEG crop is quite severe, and does not do the entire scene justice. In defense of the ON1 I can mention that it recovered nicely the overexposed area on the pillar to the right. That was a blown highlight area. However, the recovery by each of the apps is minimal. I have a hard time believing that any software could do much for that shot. You have an f/4 ISO 200 1/8s shot with visible camera shake, Where do you see the camera shake? The stabilisation of the camera did a very good job. I think the issue was visible artifacts resulting from your severe crop. and movement blur in the hands of the woman on the right. The CA/purple fringing is present in the SOOC JPEG, and you have made it worse in your adjusted examples. To be accurate: the ON1 RAW converter got the worst results here, probably because it didn't apply a lens profile. All other RAW converters corrected the CA better than ON1. There are two issues relating to CA; the first is the CA is in visible in the cropped JPEG, which lays the blame on the lens/camera combo. Then regarding whatever you did to fix the CA/fringing, it looks like you exacerbated the problem rather than correcting it. Again I think it boils down to your lack of familiarity with the software, or just poor technique. However, the CA/Fringing is worse in all three examples from On1, ACDSEE, or PS7 than in the alleged SOOC JPEG. How did you think you were going to get away with making that shot, with the indoor scene on the right, and the blown highlights through the glass door on the left? Again: what you see is just a small section of the image. That door makes out only a few % of the entire image. That is the reason the crop you shared was not a fair representation of the entire image. It was not an SOOC JPEG. The camera was set up for center-weighted metering, that's why it chose that exposure. It probably decided that it was ok to overexpose 1%-2% of the image, rather than underexposing the entire image and having more noise. Hmmm... Are the other three shots your examples of On1 PR adjustment? All images you see are sections of images from conversions from the *same* RAW file. You can see it from the filenames (P6055084*). If so, what did you do to screw things up so badly? Nothing is screwed up here. You have to look at the entire image. You have only just posted what the entire image looks like, and still not posted a good full final rendition. Why did you not test a RAW image file, or do you shoot JPEG only? This *is* a RAW file test. Not the file you originally shared, that was not even what you claimed it to be, a SOOC JPEG. What you originally shared was a severe crop of a small area of the original, and the artifacting due to the crop was misleading. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release
In article .com,
Savageduck says... This sounds like operator error rather than a software failure. It's very easy to call things "operator error". Sometimes the software is at fault. Other RAW converters just apply the lens profile. ON1 did not. This should happen automatically - if the software is not capable of that, it's not good enough. snip I have a feeling that you need to develop some familiarity with the software before making a blanket condemnation. As I said in my OP I have been impressed with the result I have managed to get from it, and from other reports other folks seem to be happy with the results. Other RAW converters create good results by default. Besides, I did spend some effort to get good results out of ON1, and I'm not exactly clueless for what concerns image processing and RAW conversions. So that was not a SOOC JPEG. The out of camera JPEG is image in the top right, the other three images are RAW conversions. I posted also (a crop of) the out of camera JPEG as a comparison. To my mind that is a scene which calls for HDR. In fact I also did that (have five RAWs, at 0EV and +-2EV). Also, the JPEG crop is quite severe, and does not do the entire scene justice. Now I don't follow you. The JPEG crop is just meant to show a section of the image at 100%, to be able to compare the pixel level image. That was a blown highlight area. However, the recovery by each of the apps is minimal. The output of ON1 and another RAW converter show the details in the overblown area (except for the door area, where there is just too much overexposure; but the column highlight is recovered much better). snip Then regarding whatever you did to fix the CA/fringing, it looks like you exacerbated the problem rather than correcting it. Again I think it boils down to your lack of familiarity with the software, or just poor technique. However, the CA/Fringing is worse in all three examples from On1, ACDSEE, or PS7 than in the alleged SOOC JPEG. The CA you see is what the ON1 converter is creating, simply because it is not using the lens profile information. The ON1 and ACDSee RAW converters here have the worst CA (left side of the image; top right is the out of camera JPEG). snip That is the reason the crop you shared was not a fair representation of the entire image. It was not an SOOC JPEG. I'm not complaining about the CA or highlight recovery. I'm complaining about the lack of crispness (at pixel level) in the image and the unability of the RAW converter to apply the lens profile. These two issues make the ON1 converter useless for me. By the way, the Corel converter (the latest versíon) initially even refused to open the RAW files of the Olympus E-M1 II. I had to raise the issue to Corel and they gave me a link to a place where I could download a camera profile for the E-M1 II. Only after I did that and loaded the camera profile into Aftershot, Aftershot was able to open the ORFs of the E-M1 II. This is not operator error - it's a clear programming error of Corel. The E-M1 II has been around for a year, yet Corel haven't managed to include it in their Aftershot RAW converter. snip You have only just posted what the entire image looks like, and still not posted a good full final rendition. I don't follow you here. I'm posting crops of the RAW conversion results. Or do you want me to post the four full resolution images? Why did you not test a RAW image file, or do you shoot JPEG only? This *is* a RAW file test. Not the file you originally shared, that was not even what you claimed it to be, a SOOC JPEG. What you originally shared was a severe crop of a small area of the original, and the artifacting due to the crop was misleading. Seems you still have not understood what the first test result is. - Top left is a crop of the ON1 RAW conversion - Top right is a crop of the out of camera JPEG (from the RAW+JPEG output of the camera) - Bottom left is a crop of the ACDSee RAW conversion - Bottom right is a crop of the ACR RAW conversion By the way, all crops are 100% crops. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release
On Nov 11, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com): In iganews.com, Savageduck says... This sounds like operator error rather than a software failure. It's very easy to call things "operator error". Sometimes the software is at fault. Sometimes it isnât. So far I havenât found anything to give me cause to believe there is anything wrong with On1 Photo RAW 2018. Other RAW converters just apply the lens profile. ON1 did not. This should happen automatically - if the software is not capable of that, it's not good enough. It seems quite capable of doing that for my Nikon, and Fujifilm RAW files. snip I have a feeling that you need to develop some familiarity with the software before making a blanket condemnation. As I said in my OP I have been impressed with the result I have managed to get from it, and from other reports other folks seem to be happy with the results. Other RAW converters create good results by default. What other RAW converters? Besides, I did spend some effort to get good results out of ON1, and I'm not exactly clueless for what concerns image processing and RAW conversions. I guess your effort got lost in translation. So that was not a SOOC JPEG. The out of camera JPEG is image in the top right, the other three images are RAW conversions. I posted also (a crop of) the out of camera JPEG as a comparison. Yeah! Yeah! I got that from the start. I can read. To my mind that is a scene which calls for HDR. In fact I also did that (have five RAWs, at 0EV and +-2EV). Also, the JPEG crop is quite severe, and does not do the entire scene justice. Now I don't follow you. The JPEG crop is just meant to show a section of the image at 100%, to be able to compare the pixel level image. The quality of your original particularly in the area showing of the 100% crop is poor to start with. That was a blown highlight area. However, the recovery by each of the apps is minimal. The output of ON1 and another RAW converter show the details in the overblown area (except for the door area, where there is just too much overexposure; but the column highlight is recovered much better). snip Then regarding whatever you did to fix the CA/fringing, it looks like you exacerbated the problem rather than correcting it. Again I think it boils down to your lack of familiarity with the software, or just poor technique. However, the CA/Fringing is worse in all three examples from On1, ACDSEE, or PS7 than in the alleged SOOC JPEG. The CA you see is what the ON1 converter is creating, simply because it is not using the lens profile information. The ON1 and ACDSee RAW converters here have the worst CA (left side of the image; top right is the out of camera JPEG). ....but the CA is still there in the original, and you should have been able to correct, not exacerbate it with all three of the processors you used for your comparison. snip That is the reason the crop you shared was not a fair representation of the entire image. It was not an SOOC JPEG. I'm not complaining about the CA or highlight recovery. You should. I'm complaining about the lack of crispness (at pixel level) in the image and the unability of the RAW converter to apply the lens profile. These two issues make the ON1 converter useless for me. Again, I donât believe the quality of the original shot, particularly in the detail area of the crop would ever make a good test subject. This is a separate issue to the lens profile being applied, or not. An applied lens profile isnât going to make a difference to âcrispnessâ, it might help reduce the CA. It is also worth noting that, the two other processors didnât do much better. If you look at the screen shot of the Lens Correction panel I had previously sent you, you would see that the lens profile application was set to âautoâ. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0i5e90usilyq7p8/screenshot_215.png If you check the On1 preferences there is an option to set that as a default. By the way, the Corel converter (the latest versĂ*on) initially even refused to open the RAW files of the Olympus E-M1 II. I had to raise the issue to Corel and they gave me a link to a place where I could download a camera profile for the E-M1 II. Only after I did that and loaded the camera profile into Aftershot, Aftershot was able to open the ORFs of the E-M1 II. This is not operator error - it's a clear programming error of Corel. The E-M1 II has been around for a year, yet Corel haven't managed to include it in their Aftershot RAW converter. I really donât give a damn about the Corel software. I donât use it, and I am not testing it. snip You have only just posted what the entire image looks like, and still not posted a good full final rendition. I don't follow you here. I'm posting crops of the RAW conversion results. Or do you want me to post the four full resolution images? Donât worry about it. You have obviously made up your mind. The only thing I can say is, I donât think that you selected an appropriate image for testing. Why did you not test a RAW image file, or do you shoot JPEG only? This *is* a RAW file test. Not the file you originally shared, that was not even what you claimed it to be, a SOOC JPEG. What you originally shared was a severe crop of a small area of the original, and the artifacting due to the crop was misleading. Seems you still have not understood what the first test result is. Nope! I understood from the start. Note that you didnât say anything regarding a 100% crop when you shared the test shots. - Top left is a crop of the ON1 RAW conversion That I understood. - Top right is a crop of the out of camera JPEG (from the RAW+JPEG output of the camera) However, when you originally shared the panel of four shots you did not say anything about a crop. - Bottom left is a crop of the ACDSee RAW conversion - Bottom right is a crop of the ACR RAW conversion That much I get. What I donât understand is how you got the PS7 version of ACR to convert a RAW file from a recent camera. By the way, all crops are 100% crops. OK! I pretty much figured out what you had done. I think the bottom line is, you and this software are not a match. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release
To cut it short and avoid a long discussion, how about if I send you the
RAW file and you show me what you can get out of it from ON1? And if your result are really so much better, you tell me how you did it. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release
On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 20:44:37 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote: To cut it short and avoid a long discussion, how about if I send you the RAW file and you show me what you can get out of it from ON1? And if your result are really so much better, you tell me how you did it. I have the new On1 too, so if you want to post a download link, I'll play along. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Did You Know That About Google Picasa Build 28.32 The Final Release? | Mr.Google | Digital Photography | 1 | November 10th 06 11:59 PM |
Preview vs final photo | madz | Digital Photography | 10 | March 26th 05 09:04 PM |
The final hope for rec.photo.* groupers | Jeremy | 35mm Photo Equipment | 15 | August 3rd 04 06:40 PM |
The final hope for rec.photo.* groupers | ColynG© | Digital Photography | 29 | August 2nd 04 04:46 AM |
The final hope for rec.photo.* groupers | Jeremy | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | July 31st 04 05:43 AM |