Picture Window Pro and RAW files

I have been comparing various raw converters and photo editing applications including Photoshop CS2, Photoshop Elements 4, Picture Window Pro 4, Bibble Pro 4.8 and PictureMan 5.0 Pro, all of which are available as trial downloads. I am particularly interested in the quality of the raw conversion and arrival at the 'baseline' image.

If I open a raw file through Photoshop using the raw plugin, it looks pretty much the same as through Pentax PhotoBrowser or Lab (full monitor profiling aside). I see that the PS plugin applies some default values for contrast and brightness, and as per the Pentax software, you can apply different WB settings, including 'as shot'.

If I open a raw file in Picture Window Pro, it will read the Pentax raw format and perform some contrast expansion, but doesn't apply any camera specific adjustments. The loaded image at this point is similar to the one in the PS plugin Open dialog with the contrast and brightness at 0 and no WB adjustment. There is a colour temperature adjustment available from the Colour Balance tool, which I can set to the same value as indicated by PS 'as shot', and then adjust contrast and brightness using the Brightness Curves tool and end up with a good image, but there is still a colour cast compared to the PS image, which appears to be mainly a lack of red saturation. I really like the Colour Balance tool in Picture Window Pro and it is easy to remove colour cast from incorrect white balance, but is there a way to access the 'as shot' WB setting from the raw file?

Having compared the converted RAW images from Pentax PhotoBrowser with those from PS and Picture Window Pro, I'd rather not use the Pentax s/w, which seems to introduce some messy black edges with its contrast adjustment and leaves odd blocks where colour changes should be smooth.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to a RAW workflow for Picture Window Pro, which would apply the 'as shot' white balance without manual fine tuning on every image?

I would also be interested in any opinions of any of the editors mentioned above. I'm also about to try RawShooterEssentials from PixManTec; anyone used that?

PS Is it me, or is it incredibly hard to remember colour accurately?

Don't forget Capture One LE
As far as I know it's the only one that lets you apply a camera specific colour profile to the RAW file. All the others do a bit of a "fudge" with values from Adobe - check out the dcRAW source code

Generally, any RAW workflow should work in the following sequence:
1. White balance correct
2. Basic exposure correction
3. Tweak WB, if needed (then check exposure again)
4. Apply curves and other exposure corrections.

BTW, don't both with RSE - it's been bought out by Adobe, and there's no more support

Just to throw something else in... there's SilkyPix.
The quality output is excellent (as is C1LE), and it'll be included in some of the newer Pentax DSLRs However, C1 still has the fastest workflow, IMO.

(Check out my sticky posts if you want to play with C1LE.)

Just in case you're wondering - I'm not affiliated with, nor paid by Phase One. It's just that I've tried pretty well all the RAW convertors and this one, for a number of reasons, is still top of my list.

As far as editing, I personally prefer Adobe Photoshop. If you can't afford CS2, then Elements is a very worthy package which will give you the same engine (but with fewer features). I could still do most of what I need in Elements... it's just that I have CS2

PS: I'm utterly useless at remember colour, though my wife is very very good at it!

Matt

Hi Matt, and Pygmy,

as you know (probably) I use GIMP for my editing, and although I'm trying out RSE, on the odd occasion that I shoot RAW, I've also used UFRaw, (which uses dcRAW also). There's a new version out now. If either of you have the time, would you like to check it out. It's free, and I don't expect it to compete with Phase One necessarily, but as it is free, it might be useful if someone wanted to get unlimited practice at RAW workflows, before deciding to purchase one of the others, or it may even be good enough as it is???

I find it quite intuitive, and as it's a standalone product, the files can be exported to PS, GIMP (it's a GIMP plugin) or whatever you use for editing.

On the above link there is some technical info and various links to more technical info.. etc. As it's open source, perhaps you may even be able to spot improvements that could be made Matt, as I know you can do that sort of stuff.

There's also GIMPShop, which is a version of GIMP, that is meant to look and "feel more user friendly" to users that have had previous experience of PhotoShop.. again a freebie. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at that as well.. time allowing of course.

Cheers

Liam

Thanks for the links Liam.
I had a very quick go of UFRaw and have these observations and experiences:
* I managed to crash it after a few minutes use
* There's no preview of the RAW file, so you have to open each one
* The *ist-D white balances are not supported
* It's interesting that it supports input and output profiles
* I couldn't display at 100%

To be honest, I know that GPL/GNU stuff can be really good, and these free tools look promising, but they just don't hit the mark (yet) for pro-type use. In my book there are a few things that are important in the RAW conversion:

* Repeatable and consistent. When dealing with 400 shots from an event I want them to all have good colour balance. Large batches of shots will require at least the same WB settings to be applied

* Fast workflow. This isn't the same as fast conversion. I like to be able to rip through a shoot, geting the RAW conversion settings correct for an image while the others are being processed. The "open a RAW, edit it, and save it, now do the next" workflow just doesn't work for me.

* Quality output. In evaluating this you should test at ISO200 and ISO1600, both with no sharpening applied in the RAW convertor. If the RAW convertor creates artifacts of its own - I ditch it. As I mentioned, the only two products that stand up to this test for me are C1LE and SilkyPix (BibblePro and Adobe Camera RAW coming close behind). RSE, RSP and most of the ones based on dcRAW just don't cut it.

* Support. If you're using your camera for serious stuff, you need to have some confidence that the RAW software will be supported. Pixmantec have just illustrated the point, I think - gets bought out by Adobe and RSE/RSP are dumped immediately.

And a final word - I don't think any RAW app is perfect (yet), C1 included. But I'm seriously considering paying for the Pro version, especially when version 4 hits the streets. Should I pay £xxxx for my gear and expect to pay nothing for good conversion just because it's software?

Matt

Hi Matt,

good review. Never having had to do any serious workflow with RAW, most of the points are ones I'd never have known I'd need to consider. I've toyed with RAW files of course, and I did do a birthday party shoot in RAW, just to make sure that I'd have a wide margin of error if needed, and for that I used RSE to convert.

So in conclusion, UFRaw is basically a good idea in principal, but not really any use for the pro, or serious amateur. :

I didn't understand this one..

"It's interesting that it supports input and output profiles"

though, (not didn't understand why you made the comment, BTW, just don't know what input/output profiles are exactly).

Re GNU apps, I'm just trying out any that I come across, because I can try for free. That doesn't mean that I'm tight with buying software (no really) , but if I can find a free app that does what it says on the tin, I'll use it.. GIMP being every bit as good as it purports to be, has probably made me see others with rose tinted specs to some extent.

Anyway, better go and earn a crust now.

Cheers

Liam

Liam,
Input profiles are to the RAW file what the Spyder/WiziWYG are to the monitor Capture One comes with a set of half decent profiles that are 90% there (generic ones). I've found some ones that work better on my *ist-D and *ist-DS (I'm still trying to get them released for public consumption).

As I mentioned, the dcRAW driven stuff just assumes that the CCD is perfectly linear and uses direct conversions. Capture One allows the assignment of a profile for the particular camera. For example, try the "Nikon D100 Portrait" profile in Capture One and you'll get lovely soft colours from the *ist-D (Hint: the *ist-D and the Nikon D100 share the same CCD from Sony).

The output profile is for the colour space you want to output the JPG or TIFF. Check out the thread on basic colour management!

I agree with you about the GPL/GNU stuff - I'm a coder and make fairly full use of what's out there...

Matt

Liam, Matt, I'm eager to learn all I can about an open source project called cinepaint. it has been used on some major hollywood films recently. It used to be called film gimp and apparently can do much of what the gimp does, but also does video and works in higher bit color. anything you guys can teach me will be apreciated!

Hi Matt,

thanks for the explanation. As always, when explained by some one who knows what they're on about, it makes perfect sense. So in reality, it is almost like choosing a film for a particular look.. for instance I used to use Fuji for it's greens, and Kodak Ektar (iso 25) for accurate colour rendition for landscapes etc.

Hi Don,

I'm at work at the moment, but I'll see what I can dig up about it later on. I do remember one of the sourceforge pages (Google that, plus any extra detail to find the open source stuff) mentioning something about a whole film being animated using a GIMPesque app recently. I'll see what I can find out for you.

http://www.cinepaint.org/

is the homepage, but I guess you've seen it already. I had a very quick scan, and I think you may need to download the GTK runtime environment to use it, as with GIMP. This is (IIRC) because it is designed to run on a Linux platform, rather than Windows. Not sure about Mac though. I'll find it all out later for you..

Cheers

Liam

My new macbook can run parallels which means it'll run linux...any particular flavour of linux you'd recommend?

Matt, Liam, thanks for the info.

I tried C1LE and it seems to do a great job.

One thing I don't quite understand - With WB set to 'as shot', C1LE, BibblePro, PS raw plugin, RSE and Pentax PhotoLab all show a different colour temperature. Why is that? I know that the AutoWB camera setting will not do a perfect job and that some correction will be required, but it would be nice to know that the starting point is correct.

Also, with C1LE, the image will only display all pixels when at 100%/25% or at 400%/100%. When zoomed to 200%/50%, which would be a convenient size for previewing of the adjustments, it shows no more image pixels than 100/25. What's going on here?

PygmyTwittle.

Sorry Don, I've only ever spent a day using Knoppix off of a CD, to try to rescue some data of an old PC, but that's perfectly useable as an op, even from the CD. Obviously it'll run a lot faster from the HD.

I think one of the later Redhat variants, or Suse seem to be the most popular from what I've read, but again, I've not used them. I know there are a couple of Linux affionados around here, so hopefully they'll see this thread and jump in.

Cheers

Liam

PygmyTwittle,
The preview window is fast - it doesn't show a pixel perfect display
Use the main window to get colour and exposure, not to evaluate detail etc.

If you want to scrutinize how the image is, use the "Zoom" tool in the "Focus" tab - that's accurate.

The actual value for the WB is a pain, as far as I know. What I do know is this - if I use an Expodisc, or something like the QPcard, then C1 will get me superb colour every time. However, in C1 you have a few options available:

1. You can hit the magic want in the "White Balance" tab - often very good indeed!

2. With the "White Balance" tab select, click in the main window on something grey. As you move the cursor over the area, the top left window in the tool tab will show whether it's a good sample (Either: "If Selected (poor)" or "If Selected (good)". When you find a good spot, just click and you'll get a white balance.

3. You can pick the WB from another frame, or even another session, and save it - use the disk icon at the top of the tool area for the "White Balance".

4. You can click the little down arrow (to the left of the magic wand) and select one of the other camera defaults.

Generally, I take a WB reading using the *ist-D's custom WB memories and an Expodisc. This just pulls straight into C1, and I don't even have to worry about it at all

Changing the camera input profile
Click the menu "Workflow" and "Color Management Settings".
If you are currently viewing a Pentax RAW file, you should see your camera in the "Camera Product" area.

Now the Camera profile will be set to "Pentax istD generic" (for instance). You can experiment by selecting different profiles.
Big hint: select "Nikon D100 Portrait" or another D100 profile. You might like them better than the *ist-D generic profile

Once you have selected the profile you should see all thumbnails, and the main window, update with the new profile.

I'll post another thread about alternative profiles for the *ist-D series and Capture One... when I've checked with the author (but PM me if you are interested in them!)

Have fun!
Matt

Yes please, I am interested in the other camera profiles which can be applied to *ist DS RAW files. I will send a PM.

I was planning on getting a Lee filter holder and ND grad set soon - there is a white 'lens' cap which goes on the holder adapter which apparantly can be used for WB. I've not tried the custom WB on the camera yet - think I'll take a look tonight.

I just downloaded SilkyPix to try also, although there seem to be quite a few things missing from the 'free mode' which I assume will be the one which ships with new Pentax cameras.

Assuming all goes smoothly for the trial period, C1LE looks like the best option. That's where you say "could've told you that and saved you all that time trying this and that'. Still, you gotta learn what's wrong to know what's right, right?

Thanks,

PygmyT

PygmyT,

I have the Lee Foundation kit (beautiful) and the Cokin Z-Pro ND grad set. ( www.speedgraphic.co.uk have a great deal on the Z-Pro sets!) and the white caps are not bad at setting a WB.

Just watch out for scratching - the Z-Pros, though superb, are delicate, and the Lee filters even more so! I also heard that the Cokins handle blue skies better, but the Lees produce a more "moody" image. I plumped for the Cokins mostly because they were about half the price

However, the Expodisc is calibrated and has produced consistently superb results since I bought it last year. I'm almost tempted by the 100mm Expodisc to fit the Lee filter holder

The *ist-DS manual WB setting isn't too bad to use. My wife has the *ist-DS, and I have the *ist-D (which is much easier and faster to use custom WB settings).

For complex lighting conditions, you can just expose a grey card and use the dropper in C1LE. I have the QPcards which are really portable and very good for difficult lighting (sometimes easier than an Expodisc).

Also, with that method you can just forget WB altogether - just use AWB on the camera. If you can guarantee a rock solid black/grey/white in the frame then C1 makes it really easy to apply the WB setting to a batch of images taken on the same shoot. If you're a pro, then you'll probably use the Gretag Macbeth colour chart - which will do the same thing.


C1LE is worth persisting with - it takes some practise. One thing I forgot to mention is its ability to manage highlights very well. I rescued many RAW shots that I just couldn't process with Adobe Camera Raw, that were a complete breeze in C1.

Have fun!!
Matt

Matt, thanks for the info on WB.

Of course, I couldn't resist trying SilkyPix, since the trial version allows full product mode for two weeks - once I got used to the crazy menu duplication and rather clumsy translation to English, it does seem pretty good.

PygmyT