Our Great Photo Processing Shootout!

Different programs offer a variety of different features that are not related to the quality of the output image. Lightroom's cataloguing, geo-tagging, book and publish features for example. I use lightroom for those features, bit just for it's image editing features.



Well sure, but when comparing it's important to apply as much as possible the same parameters and processes.



But that's the point and the flaw with your test. You didn't apply the same inputs to each piece of software therefore the massive difference we see in the 2 examples is not down to the software at all, it's down to the artistic taste of the user.

When the same inputs ( as much as is possible ) are applied to different image editing software the differences aren't massive at all.


If the differences were massive each piece of software would have a definable signature and you'd be able to look at an image you'd never seen before and tell which program was used to edit it. Can anyone do that?

There could be differences in things like noise removal, which could be seen by looking at 100% crops. But web images don't tell as much about the software as the decisions made by the photographer. And yes, you probably can achieve similar results with freeware as big name software. It's just not going to be as easy or quick to do.

Hi Smeggy

I think I'm agreeing with most of what you're saying above. The point I was trying to make was that different software inevitably produces different results, notwithstanding artistic input. There's no doubting that artistic input produces perhaps even greater differences, but if the same person took the same RAW image and processed it with identical inputs via two different software process flows, the resulting two images would not be the same.

A good illustration of the effect software can have is a modern car engine. Re-mapping the software can up the power output by up to 50%, massively increase the torque and smooth the power delivery. It's the same car with the same engine, but managed by different software.

Regards
David

I use PSE8 which incorporates ACR6.2 and it is plenty good enough (for me). I also have installed the latest version of RawTherapee. It is fundamentally a RAW converter rather than an image editor. It is at least as good (I really mean much better, but then someone would probably argue if I said that) than ACR6.2 and has massively more functionality. It also has a huge learning curve, which is why I only use it when I absolutely must have the best quality RAW conversion possible.

Might be worth a look ..........

Andrew

Not exactly the same no, but pretty similar.


I agree you can take a piece of editing software and make a massive difference to an original image. The remapping of a car's ECU is akin to a user setting a number of variables for the software to work on, and indeed different car drivers will remap their ECUs to their taste, just as you two have done to the test image posted here. Remapping isn't different software, it's different variables.

What I am saying is that you can't properly compare the quality of the output image from different software unless you input the same set of variables ( or the same 'map' to sue the ECU analogy ).

To use your car engine analogy you'd have to use two different ECUs with different software and apply the same map to each and compare the difference in output. I suspect that in most cases the difference will be minimal. i.e it's the 'map' (the user input) that makes the difference.

And it's not only about the softwares actual technical processing capabilities - the interface and design of the editing functions can determine to a large extent what any individual user can achieve.

I still doubt that the particular exact effects in my version of the shot could be duplicated using PS or Lightroom etc (no one has yet shown it can be done!), but I know for sure that it was easier, more intuitive involving less complex preparation steps to achieve in the software I used.

Thats why I use it - I have found that each item exceeds in a particular area with an efficient and practical operating interface - This alone can make the creation of certain results only possible on this chosen software.

I must be losing the thread here ............. which "Particular exact effects" are you talking about that "no one has yet shown it can be done"? Has the RAW file been made available for others to try?

Andrew

I'll have a go and confine myself to Lightroom.

I think the conclusion was reached before the experiment was started. Photoshop is the single most powerful industry-wide imaging tool in existence, and the limits are those of the user.

Nobody has proved anything here because the original has not been available and the alternative programs have not been available to one user.

Even if the original image was available, if several people using different programs did their best with it and they were all compared, it would say more about the skills of the individuals than the programs themselves.

It's a similar misunderstanding to the "What a great photo, you must have a very good camera" that we have probably all heard at least once.

I had to have a go! (Using David's bluish version as a starting point). It was difficult to deal with those saturated blues which, I'm sorry David, do not look natural.




Would be good to have a go using the original RAW file.

I have been following this with interest as i use both Photoshop CS3 and Silkypix Developer 5 which is the latest version.
I enjoy the going out and taken of the photos more that the tweaking on the computer afterwards so i want a program that gives me quick accurate results.
I find that for me Silkypix gives the more pleasing results with the least time spent, of course everyone is different just as everybody's computer skills are different this just works for me.
Here are some comparisons,

DNG file opened in ARC and tweaked in Photoshop



DNG file openened and processed in Silkypix



100% crop of the Photoshop image



100% crop of the Silkypix image



I spent about a minute on each image which is long enough for me, the Photoshop image was just white balance, and sharpening in ACR and then levels in Photoshop
The Silkypix image was all set to natural with a little bit of the dodging slider added.

As i said this just works well for me.

Regards Robin

This one appears to have generated a lot of interest, which is what we intended, but it also appears to have revealed very strong opinions! I've re-processed my shot in ACR and Photoshop and this time I have reduced the blues. As stated earlier, the blues HAD NOT been boosted in my original image, they probably look fiercer because of an overall increase to vibrance. This version has had the blues reduced by about 35%, but I will say again that the blue is present on the original RAW file, so it is representative of what the camera took, whether it looks natural or not.

Here is my second attempt, which I think is very similar to Will's above:




I've said to Nigel (who started the thread) that I'm happy for anyone to have a go with the RAW file, but I think we may now be reaching the point of exhaustion with regard to different versions of the same image.

Regards
David

The comparison is flawed from the start, both participants need to process the same picture in both programmes & the subject needs to be simple - but quite apart from that, in this case I really have to say (and I rarely do these days) - the comments that the blue in image 2 is not real etc etc are not valid, I have seen scenes like this, colour cast is not always an artefact of phtography and neither is haloing, they are artefacts of light! Whether one choses to correct when processing is a matter of taste - I cannot see the benefit of a purist approach to landscape or for that matter photography in general. David you were there, if your picture reflects what you saw and you are happy with your rendition then stand by it!

Clare

Thanks for your comment Clare, I was wondering whether everyone thought I was fibbing! I think the clearest indication of the blue light is the shadows on the trees at the right, which clearly have a blue tone, even in the efforts of others where the blue has been reduced. These shadows would not be blue if the light were not blue, I think everyone has to bear in mind that this was about 6:30am in the morning when it was only just getting light and at that time, blue was the predominant tone of the light.

I did not have the camera on auto white balance, so it has not adjusted itself to remove the blue. Maybe most people are shooting with AWB, so this gets corrected to an extent in camera. I agree that the blue is overpowering, but I don't think it's fair for others to judge whether or not it is representative of the scene if they were not present! My second attempt above, whilst it may look more 'natural' is a long way removed from what the scene looked like in real life.

Regards
David

Pictures taken at high altitudes often look overly blue, but our eyes correct it out, whereas film and digital camerras don't. Hence we use filters or adjust WB to suit. It is perhaps the same thing here - none of David's images on his website look so overtly blue and his reworking of the image IMHO looks very much better.