Now, what am I bid for the remains of poor Yorick ..... ?

Daniel, feel free to post whatever you like.

Andrew

I have just spotted the LinuxPhoto website which seems to have carried out tests on a whole ruck of (old versions of) RAW converters. He also makes his RAW test images available for download.

Do you folks think that replicating what Jacek Góźdź did and published on LinuxPhoto, but using the various current versions of the RAW converters in use by PU forum members might be a sensible approach? At the very least, the RAW downloads provide an available and fixed starting point for members that also includes white/grey cards so that colour/brightness/contrast manipulations can be measured too.

Andrew

I've been looking for something a little longer and preferably a little better than the 18-55mm kit lens for quite some time. After seeing DaveHolmes refer to the F35-70 as a "Bag of Primes" in another thread, I thought I'd give it a go. I manage to pick one up from SRS cheaply a week or so back and had a bit of a wander around in the sunshine this weekend to see whether it deserves that accolade.

This is what Oldham looks like, on quite a hazy day, from near my home, when it's not raining (70mm, f/8 ).




and here is a 100% crop from that.




I spotted these a little later (70mm, f/8 )



and a 100% crop from that.




On the way back home ( 50mm, f/8 )



and another 100% crop




In the park this afternoon ( 35mm, f/7.1 )



and a 100% crop




I had to try at least one using the lens's macro setting - a bit fiddly but it works well enough ( 70mm, f/7.1 )



and a final 100% crop




Not bad, is it? It is substantially better than some of the others in that focal range that I've tried. It seems sharp enough at all focal lengths. For around £30, I think it's quite a bargain. DaveHolmes - I owe you one - thanks.

All of the photos were taken with a Pentax K200D. The RAW files were converted using RawTherapee and resized/cropped in PSE8 ('coz its easier). NOTE: I usually use ACR6.2 for RAW conversion but felt like a change. RawTherapee seems to work very well.

Andrew

For a RAW converter, aren't retrieval of image detail, minimisation of demosaicing artifacts, noise reduction and sharpening the crucial elements that can be scored with reasonable objectivity - i.e. they require a better/worse decision not a "Do I like it?" decision.

Aren't the application of adjustments to white balance, brightness, contrast, tone curves and so on all very subjective? If an experiment compared these, wouldn't we would again be comparing the human input/skill/creativity rather than the effect of the software itself?

Andrew

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

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

Andrew

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'm not sure what we can really conclude from your "Great Photo Processing Shootout". For sure, it proved that different folks using different software can produce different results - but then again, I'm not sure anyone disputed that.

Andrew

You might like the freebie RawTherapee, esepcially if you like the notion of being able to make lots of adjustments at the RAW conversion stage - rather than later in Photoshop or Elements.

Briefly, it ....

* Gets the most details and least artifacts from your raw photos thanks to modern and traditional demosaicing algorithms: AMaZE, DCB, fast, AHD, EAHD, HPHD & VNG4.

*Advanced color handling from white balance to HSV (Hue-Saturation-Value) curves and color management.

* Enhanced exposure and tonality tools: tone and Lab curves, highlights and shadows tools, etc.

* Multiple denoising methods: luminance, chrominance, impulse (for salt and pepper noise) noise reduction.

* Several tools to enhance details: unsharp mask, RL deconvolution, contrast by detail levels.

Rawtherapee also records the settings for each RAW file in a side file - so you can continue to adjust the processing over time - or start again if you aren't happy with the results to far.

Althought it is primarily a RAW converter, it can apply several of its tools to JEPGs as well as to RAW files. For exampe, it can adjust the white balance of a JPEG - might be usefull for those who don't normally shoot RAW. PSE8 cannot do that (unless I've overlooked it)!

Personally, I tend to use ACR/PSE 'coz it's easy and works well enough, but one of these days I just might invest the time to learn RawTherapee properly. It looks like a killer App to me.

Andrew