Our Great Photo Processing Shootout!

This was a challenge to try and produce the best quality output,in visable terms, using two different software approaches - the integrated all-in-one (such as ACR+PS or Lightroom) against the 'modular' approach - using different programs for specific processing functions. That was the clearly stated aim.

I challenged users of an integrated type approach to try their hand against my software arsenal. I have been provocative in my claim that picking the best functions from different software would lead to higher quality output.

Another aim was to have some fun! And learn a few things. I have for sure, I hope others have appreciated these aspects of it too.

I am reluctant to draw any firm conclusions at this point, as there has been much good questioning about the methods - but I think it is fair to conclude from the results that the modular approach has proved more sucessful in terms of extracting greater finer detailing and a greater range of tones. That seems to be what most people have said, at least as far as this particular 'shootout' is concerned.

In terms of the competitive methods, well, yes, I have learned from this that we need to lay out some common editing parameters that will be applied by each side. Firstly, we need to agree in general terms what the prominent WB and colour tones will be, and also agree to apply specific adjustment types to different areas of the image - eg 'increase cloud detail - reduce sky noise, targeted NR in deep shadows, boost colour tones on highlights etc etc'.

With these aims set out at the beginning then everyone will have common factors to compare. Watch this Space!

That's not at all what people have said. There's no denying your enthusuiasm but you don't seem to be taking on board what people have actually said.

We used to have a regular 'PP' challenge. I can't remember any particular software having much influence on who won, so much as the skill and taste of the photographer. Which is exactly as you'd expect.

I did say 'as far as this particular shootout is concerned'. What has been said then, more accurately, is that my particular image was more successful in these ways. When comparing the two images that is what people have been saying, is that not true?

I know it has not yet been proved that my approach is the only way this could have been achieved. It is still my assertion that ultimately a modular approach would give the better quality - we just have to find a better way to put it to the test!

The problem people see is that your assertion has not been proved, rather more disproved, but you are still trying to prove it.

This is not the way to good science. Experiments made with the intention of proving somthing don't work, and even established scientific minds can fall into this trap.

The process is to postulate a theory and then test it, but without preconceptions as to what we will find. How we go about the experiment is vitally important and what people are saying is that this exercise was flawed from the start.

It has been suggested that I'm not getting certain things, or that my experience is lacking in certain areas. Well, the one thing in all of this that I really can't understand - and I don't think there has been any coherant explanation for this particular position - is this idea that the only difference is down to the person working the software - that any individual (so long as they had similar skill levels on the different programs) would absolutely be able to replicate the precise same effects and quality of result on either software.

It seems to me that this remains as much a myth as my my own assertions concerning the ultimate potential of the different outputs.

Unless I misunderstand, folks have said that they prefer the appearance of the image you produced - and that the other was "too blue" and lacked some detail. I don't think anyone has concluded that the differing results were due to the software used.

Andrew

I have seen the flaws in the method John, as much as everyone. Lets see if we can improve science

As the original RAW file has not been made generally available, that is just speculation.

Andrew

I accept that. Thats still only my assertion. It remains to be proved that only a particular software lineup could produce specific results - but I still think this can be demonstrated, we just need more sophisticated methods to do so.

I've been looking on the web to see what articles might assist. It goes to probably too complex stuff, but from a cursory glance it's clear that all the information is already out there. The Nikon site went into quite a lot of technical stuff regarding the camera side, and I'd start with Adobe to see what they have published.

Probably the best book to get a thorough understanding of what image processing is about is one of the Martin Evening books on Photoshop CS5 (or CS6) for Photographers.

Surely good scientists don't just give up a theory simply because the first experiment failed to prove it?

Good scientists re-examine the facts and develop a new, improved theory.

I'm working on that

Only if they have found any new facts from the first experiment!