Our Great Photo Processing Shootout!

And we have. We have found that people view and interpret photographs primarily in an artistic and emotional way, rather than in purely technical terms - prefering what they individually perceive to be a natural and realistic 'norm'. To allow a purely technical comparison we have learned it will necessary to nutralise or equalise those artistic and emotional values, or at least agree a common starting point.

We have learned that to fairly assess different processing workflows effectiveness we first need to agree common aims and desired results. It is this part of the methodology that now needs to be worked on. You can all rely on my continued enthusiasm to keep you in the piture and involved.

I have been interested in this thread, that is for sure. But I think what you have found so far would say that you cannot take the artistic side away from the argument.

But your enthusiasm to continue does you credit. Good luck. I'll be watching.

I appreciate that. I am feeling somewhat the underdog now But rest assured, my full software arsenal is oiled and highly tuned ready to take on the best that any challenger can throw its way!

Hey, what's happened to those votes - only 48 so far? Come on people!

In some small way I feel partly responsible for this thread since a couple of weeks ago I posted the question "Does anyone know of a tutorial for PCU4 ?"

Nigel was kind enough to respond that he likes it and would help by posting some advice on its use. The rest, as they say, is history !

However, having just got back from a week away I am amazed at the discussion that has been generated and which makes fascinating reading.

If I may be as bold as to say there are two old sayings that spring to mind -
1) "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like !"
This would seem to apply to the many differing opinions seen on this thread ? One thing is for certain is that we all look at things through different eyes ("One man's meat is another man's poisson !")

2) "The more you know, the more you know you don't know !"
You are never too old to learn and I'm truly grateful for the 'pearls of wisdom' that drop out of Pentax User Forum threads.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter WHICH PP software you use as long as you are satisfied with the end product.
However, other people's comments on your work are extremely welcome as they can help you develop your skills and modify your own expectations.

Long live discussion !

Peter

By the way, Nigel, I'm not saying that you are wrong. In fact, I suspect that you are right. So, now prove it!

I would like to see that too.

The first problem, though, is to define EXACTLY what is meant by "better" and then write that down in the form of a simple, precise, hypothesis that can be tested. I worry that we couldn't actually get that far, because most of the measures of the goodness of an image are subjective and cannot readily be measured.

Andrew

No it hasn't. Not in the slightest. All your 'test' has proved is that different people will do different things to images regardless of the software used.

The original aim of your test was to see which software produced the better quality output. just giving an image to someone and saying "see what you can do with it" is complete flawed in analysing the quality of the software itself

Well I have learned something new. The Royal 'We' in which the use of 'we' to refer to oneself, is called a 'nosism'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We


Nosism. Good word that

I would say 'better' in technical terms is that the algorithm does what is expected with the least amount of unwanted artefacts.

An example:

In Lightroom's process version 2010 [PV2010] there was the Fill light parameter in which shadow areas could be brightened. An artefact of this was halo effects aropund high contrast boundaries.

Adobe changed the process version to PV2012 and got rid of the fill light parameter and replaced it with the shadows and highlights control.

This allowesd the same results to be achieved, but without ( or with a lot less ) unwanted halo effects.

Or another example would be a better noise reduction algorithm that was able to get rid of noise witout making the image look like a screenshot of a mashy 1980s VHS recording of an Anmerican NTSC broadcast.

I value your acceptance that this might in fact be a possibility! This is a welcome contrast to others' outright dismissal, to me anyway

I'm working on some clearer objectives. There will be variations within each area of image 'quality', but I suspect there may prove to be sufficient technical differentiations obvious between the different approaches to lead to a consistent opinion and clear outcome.

This is not the place to try any kind of scientific testing, like is done on lenses for example, and I'm certainly not the person able to do this. Here the ultimate judge will always be photographers natural inclinations on what is seen as natural, realistic and just 'right'.

Based on the results of this first 'shootout', (48 / 0 so far) it would seem fair to conclude that by the means of these natural photographers instincts that this forum will be able to deliver a decisive verdict on any future comparison.

Smeggy, are you suggesting I should fall off my high horse

Smeggy, it is exactly the kind of process (in Lightroom) you refer to that I am trying to put to the test. Similarly, in Sagelight, there is a 'Smart Fill' slider, with radio buttons to control what secondary processes are automatically applied simultaneously when applying the fill - EG: 'Add Contrast', 'Soft Light' 'Reduce Saturation' etc.

It is precisely these intelligent processes that I would like to highlight, and offer people the opportunity to experience and compare.

See, I've only used 'I' in this post.

My Loyal Subjects, (and any miscellaneous plebs out there), tell me tell me tell me do, have I spoken for any of you?

No, I would refer you to Jon's post here

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/our-great-photo-processing-shootout--37536/p-6#comm421553

I would rather discuss the differences between how specific software achieves certain edits - I have always found the info you have provided on Lightrooms' workings very informative. Sounds like Sagelight has similar functioning, but implemented in a different way, and with a different style of user control input. This is the kind of thing a comparison working on a photo could try and illustrate any advantage of one over the other.

I continue to agree with all that a much more tightly defined comparison regime needs to be set up beforehand, and all who are judging need to know these criteria in before.