Do you like your Corel PaintShop Pro X7?

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by frans_waterlander, Dec 4, 2014.

  1. How do you like it for common image editing, with and without layers? How about working with RAW files? Appreciate any inputs.
     
  2. It does everything I need to do and does those things quite well. I prefer Capture NX2 for processing RAW files, PSP does handle them quite well but I like the availability of the color control points. I've never understood why so many photogs feel they need photoshop when this package is available.
     
  3. I like it very much. I have both PS and X7. In the light of what Adobe is doing these days, requiring subscription and on-going payments, it is especially good.
    Though it is not popular to say this, I think a ton of Photoshop's capabilities are just wasted or used making goofier and goofier pictures. This is not to say that X7 is not feature rich.
    Unless you must use PS because it is the standard at work I would save your money and use Paintshop. At least until there is something you must do that it can not do. That will be a long time for most of us.
     
  4. I used to be a loyal PSP user, up to PSP 9. I really loved PSP 9's user interface and still prefer it to PS CS5. But before I jumped ship to PS, I upgraded to PSP X on the promise of full 16 bit editing capabilities (with all their tools). The 16 bit capabilities were a farce, both with X and the subsequent two versions. However, if the user interface now is similar to that of 9 and X, it's very, very good. I found both versions to be very capable, except for the 8 bit editing limitation. They weren't fancy, but they were capable -- a collection of good, solid tools.
    Now if I might piggyback onto the OP's question: Has Corel developed a full complement of 16 bit editing tools, or are they still dinking around with 8 bit?
     
  5. ted_marcus|1

    ted_marcus|1 Ted R. Marcus

    Sarah Fox's comments make me laugh. I was also a long-time PSP user who fell for Corel's empty promises of PSP X. For me it was the promise of color management as well as 16-bit editing. I was so frustrated with what could only be called a "pre-beta" release (with documentation so incomplete that a group of loyal users effectively donated their labor to produce their own on-line reference) that I decided to make the switch to Photoshop CS2. It would be no exaggeration to say that it was Corel that sold me Photoshop!
    That said, I really would like to see PSP become a serious alternative to Photoshop. Adobe alienated many users when they went to a rental model, so there's a large market for a genuine alternative. I know Corel have been adding numerous features since PSP X, but I haven't made the effort to assess whether they're actually delivering finished software that offers 16-bit editing in wide-gamut color spaces.
    For the time being, I'm sticking with Photoshop CS5 and converting raw files from my new camera to DNG (I know that's also making a deal with the devil, but it's a less unattractive option than renting Photoshop). But for the long term, I'd really like to see Adobe have to face genuine competition after they exerted their monopoly power.
     
  6. It's worth noting that PSP was a great product before Jasc sold it (ver 9 being the last Jasc version). The developers were great. I had a couple of enlightening conversations over the phone with one of them. I passed along a suggestion or two that they actually implemented. They really cared about their users.
    But Corel? Blech! Corel bought a great software product and made it rather stupid. Of course there's at least one company worse than Corel: Adobe, with their new line of rentalware! I think I will be a CS5 user until I'm forced to buy something else (planned obsolescence). But I will never rent. So I hope PSP will eventually offer a product as serious as the one Jasc sold.
     
  7. Downloaded the 30 day free trial of Corel PaintShop Pro X7. First issue: it didn't read the EXIF information of a .dng file correctly; it said the image I imported was taken in 2098 instead of 1998; also got the color temperature as shot wrong, 3500K or something versus the actual 4350K. You can't read the EXIF data correctly? Hmmm. Next was the RAW "converter" with extremely limited adjustments. Then, you can't finish the conversion and go on editing; you first have to save the file as e.g. a tif to whatever folder you want to and reimport the file into the program! The edit menus are far from intuitive, but be that as it may, the preview function was a joke: you are making adjustments say to the saturation of different colors and up to a point there are no changes to the preview; when you continue adjusting, there comes a point where PaintShop decides to wake up and do something, temporarily blocks any user inputs while clunking away at some computations and then after maybe 15 or 20 seconds the preview is updated and you can continue adjusting, all this while you haven't left the particular menu. The next preview update is similar. At that point I decided I'd had enough.
     
  8. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    3500K or something versus the actual 4350K. You can't read the EXIF data correctly? Hmmm.​
    Even if it could, every raw converter would produce a different result. Those numbers represent a big range of colors, not a specific one. Same numbers, different numbers, what you get as a result of the rendering from the raw data can be all over the place.
    Heck, even in Lightroom, if you examine the CCT value, update a DNG profile, that value can change as does the color appearance. Those numbers? Forget about it.
     
  9. Andrew,
    This color temperature is NOT what the raw converter calculated from the image content; it's the "image as shot" data in the EXIF file! Got it?
     
  10. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    This color temperature is NOT what the raw converter calculated from the image content; it's the "image as shot" data in the EXIF file! Got it?​
    It doesn’t matter Franz. The CCT numbers from that EXIF are a broad description of an assumed color. You didn’t get the spectral data of the scene, not with the camera and raw. Heck you didn’t even get tri-stimulus RGB data. As I said, forget the numbers, certainly as anything based on precision data collection. They are fine within a broad ballpark use but every converter will treat them differently. The same converter will too as I illustrated by changing one input specific parameter.
     
  11. I agree with Don Cooper about a good way to use PSP. We've had the product since around 2003, through the multiple generations, the sale to Corel and the fumbling start that Corel had on the X versions. Now on 7, and it does everything we need (and much more). We use Canon tools for RAW; PSP for everything else. Pretty much abandoned PS a couple of years back, not because of the subscription model but because we just weren't using it enough to keep it up to date.
    Occasionally we will use PSP for RAW files, but I've never really built that into any workflow, and don't see the advantage.
     
  12. Andrew, you still don't get it. I'm not talking about the merits of CCT numbers. I'm talking about the fact that PaintShop Pro 7X incorrectly reads the EXIF file information that was created by my Nikon camera: it got the date wrong and the CCT number.
     
  13. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    http://digitaldog.net/files/CCTandRaw.jpg
    [​IMG]CCT
     
  14. Andrew,
    First of, the temperature numbers in question are NOT from the EXIF file, but from the RAW converter analysis; my mistake. For the same RAW file I would expect any RAW converter to be able to calculate the CCT within a couple of 100K; after all we are talking about RAW data as shot and not yet modified in any way and accurate calculation of the CCT under those conditions should be a breeze: average out all pixels and find the line perpendicular to the black body locus. I think I'm way to generous with a couple of 100K.
    I looked at some more images to compare the Corel PaintShop Pro X7 RAW converter calculated CCT and what Photoshop CS came up with; the differences were anywhere between 800 and 1200K! That's way too much difference in my book and tend to put way more trust in Adobe's numbers.
     
  15. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    First of, the temperature numbers in question are NOT from the EXIF file, but from the RAW converter analysis; my mistake.​
    Yes, they are. But the numbers can’t be taken to the bank (any more than saying always calibrate a display to D50 or anything else!). You’re too caught up in numbers as absolutes which in both cases isn’t going to happen. Your idea of CCT values from a DSLR and how one should always set WP display calibration to D65 are equally flawed based on your misunderstanding of the process and thus the numbers provided. I only point this out so lurkers who read your mini-review will take the salient points in mind and forget the complaint:
    also got the color temperature as shot wrong, 3500K or something versus the actual 4350K.
    I'm talking about the fact that PaintShop Pro 7X incorrectly reads the EXIF file information that was created by my Nikon camera: it got the date wrong and the CCT number.​
    The actual color isn’t something you have at your disposal without the proper tools and have you ever actually measured the same illuminant with two different brands of Spectrophotometers? I have. If you expect them to give identical CCT values, you’re in for a rude awaking Frans.
    For the same RAW file I would expect any RAW converter to be able to calculate the CCT within a couple of 100K...​
    And your expectations, based on how this all works is flawed and why I pointed out, your portion of a review knocking the CCT values provided isn’t an issue in anything but your thinking about this.
    You’re simply NOT measuring the colorimetry at the scene, not with a single capture DSLR that spits out a raw document (did you miss the part about the Spectrophotometer and tri-stimulus RGB data?).
    I looked at some more images to compare the Corel PaintShop Pro X7 RAW converter calculated CCT and what Photoshop CS came up with; the differences were anywhere between 800 and 1200K!​
    Yes and that’s to be expected (hopefully from you now too).
    That's way too much difference in my book and tend to put way more trust in Adobe's numbers.​
    If you do put your trust into those numbers, you’ve missed the lesson and deserve to be spoken to as someone you may know did just here, yesterday:
    Frans Waterlander , Dec 10, 2014; 03:37 p.m. Andrew, you still don't get it.​
    The numbers vary, they are calculated differently, the raw converter plays a role and the capture device is inadequate for measuring what you are hoping to take to the bank. Simple as that.
     
  16. So, let me see, Andrew: while evaluating the same RAW file, the temperatures calculated by your Lightroom and Iridient are 149K apart, the temperatures calculated by my Photoshop CS and PaintShop Pro 7X are up to 1200K apart and that's to be expected? Really?
    Could you explain, beyond your usual "it's all over the place", how two RAW converters looking at the same RAW file can be 1200K apart and how that's just to be expected?
    And by the way, I'm not looking for the capturing device, the camera, to come up with an accurate number for color temperature; I'm looking for RAW converters to come up with a reasonably similar answer when looking at the same RAW file.
     
  17. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    I did explain Frans. There’s a group of variables. The number represents a range of color. Bottom line, the criticism you made regarding the numeric values being wrong isn’t valid.
     
  18. Your "explanation" is nothing more than your routine "it's all over the place" assertion; no rationale as to how close RAW converters should or could be, no supporting data, no explanation of how the numbers are or might be established, no reference to clarifying articles, etc.
     
  19. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Your "explanation" is nothing more than your routine "it's all over the place" assertion...
    It isn’t an assertion, it’s a fact, illustrated by two raw converters providing different numbers and worse, not that of the scene illuminant. The differences spread CCT 411 K. These facts illustrate that your beef with the values (the color temperature as shot wrong, 3500K or something versus the actual 4350K.) provided are baseless no matter why the two converters get different values. Here’s the same raw with a difference of 100K just by virtue of a camera profile!
    [​IMG]
     
  20. Andrew, I don't know the program you are using. It apparently allows you to change the camera profile so now it seems to me that you are no longer comparing apples to apples.
    You continue to make the point that "it's all over the place" without qualifying that in terms of how much difference is to be expected and why. Again, I don't see any reason why two different RAW converters, when looking at the same image taken with the same camera shouldn't come up with a color temperature within a couple of 100Ks.
     
  21. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Andrew, I don't know the program you are using.​
    Lightroom. And exactly the same change happens in ACR of course.
    Again, I don't see any reason why two different RAW converters, when looking at the same image taken with the same camera shouldn't come up with a color temperature within a couple of 100Ks.​
    The facts are they do and the facts make your point about this converter something other’s should ignore, at least in terms of the CCT values.
     
  22. Well, in my version of ACR I can't change the camera profile. So, how about the apples-to-apples issue with what you did in Lightroom? Want to gloss over that too?
    You continue to evade the issue of how close the numbers ought to be.
     
  23. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Well, in my version of ACR I can't change the camera profile.​
    Sure you can. You just don’t know how to. Pointless to continue.
     
  24. So, educate this dummy and tell me how in ACR 3.7 I can change the camera profile, and respond to the apples-to-apples issue with what you did in Lightroom and address the issue of how close the temperature numbers ought to be for different RAW converters.
     
  25. Andrew,
    ACR 3.7 only supports Adobe Standard Profiles; there is no Camera Calibration tab with a Camera Profile pop-up menu. So I can't apply a different camera profile. Period. And if I could, I would assume that my temperature number would change and then it's no longer an apples-to-apples comparison.
    Per Adobe's website, the camera records the white balance at the time of exposure as a metadata entry and ACR reads this value and makes it the initial setting when you open the file. So, ACR doesn't second-guess the recorded temperature number and doesn't re-evaluate or measure anything. Period.
    Call me crazy, but I would expect other RAW converters to do the exact same thing. Well, Corel's PaintShop Pro X7 for one doesn't do that; it somehow comes up with its own, dramatically different color temperature number as the initial setting. This may be on purpose or it may be a flaw in the program, but I don't have much confidence in what Corel is doing here.
    So, I'd appreciate it, Andrew, if you could be a little more specific as to why you feel that different RAW converters can and should come up with drastically different numbers if all they initially should do is read the temperature number in the metadata.
     
  26. Quite a lively discussion about color temp! I wonder whether either of you could tell me/us whether PSP has finally developed a full complement of 16 bit tools, or whether operations like cloning, dodging, softening, etc. can be done only after converting a 16 bit image to 8 bit. I would go to Corel's promotional literature for answers, but they've lied before (and wasted quite a bit of my time and money). I'm also reluctant to install such a huge program just to find out for myself.
    Thanks for your help!
     
  27. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    ACR 3.7 only supports Adobe Standard Profiles; there is no Camera Calibration tab with a Camera Profile pop-up menu.​
    My god man, you’re on CS2, that’s 10 years old? As I said, pointless, it doesn’t matter that the facts I illustrated with a modern version of Lightroom (that you obviously missed among other salient points, you had to ask despite the labeling on the presented images: Andrew, I don't know the program you are using. You’re not paying attention. This isn’t a tea party debate Frans, we’re talking about science based facts dude). There is zero reason you need to take us down another rabbit hole with your ancient version of ACR. You could download a demo of a current version of LR and see EXACTLY what I illustrated with differing CCT values from just the alteration of a profile, just one minor point about how the CCT numbers are not the same nor consistent! The facts above prove that the numbers differ and don’t match the scene. It shoots holes in your criticism of the raw converter in question due to numbers you didn’t’ expect because you don’t understand this process a lick! WHY the numbers change isn’t the same as the fact that they do depending on a large number of variables in the process I’ve outlined, you can’t understand or accept. Either way, like your review of Solux lamps or ideas about CCT values, you’re simply not connecting the dots based on actual observable processes (science). So it’s pointless to continue with you other to point out:
    1. You are using a really old software product which is telling, then expecting out of your ignorance that CCT values for As Shot should match in all converters. They don’t, that’s been proven, you can try the same tests yourself. As such, your beef about PRO X raw converter is based on ignorance and other’s here should dismiss another of your flat earth color theories, that’s the bottom line.
    2. You make a lot of opinionated observations about color that have no basis in fact and when someone who knows a bit more than you tries to assist you in your understanding you get pissy as I’ve outlined then ignore the prime mistakes in your thinking by hoping we’ll ignore it while you press on with another route (this time, DNG profile which do alter CCT values, only one tiny point among others I’ve made), you’ve latched onto to ignore the fact that your assumption of the numbers provided in differing raw processors is flat out WRONG).
     
  28. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    I wonder whether either of you could tell me/us whether PSP has finally developed a full complement of 16 bit tools, or whether operations like cloning, dodging, softening, etc. can be done only after converting a 16 bit image to 8 bit.​
    Well in terms of rendering raw data it’s doing all the operations up till you export a TIFF or rendered image AND it supports saving high bit, dollars to doughnuts it’s doing everything high bit internally like other raw processors. Raw data is high bit, but if you feed a raw converter a rendered image, and that data isn’t high bit, it’s converted to high bit for processing but there’s no real gain here. It’s not like you actually fed the converter high bit data. Now high bit may not be 16-bit per color! And few capture devices produce true 16-bit per color anyway (many are 10-12-14-bit) yet the benefits of editing is still there; less rounding errors from processing the data you feed the converter.
    Don’t ask Frans . He still needs to connect the dots about CCT values and how they are broad indicators of moving an image from warm to cool appearance via it’s settings.
     
  29. Thanks, but my question wasn't really about RAW conversion or even whether RAW data are good for a true 16 bits of color depth. My question was more to do with whether one is forced into 8 bit processing and must suffer the rounding errors you mention. Restated, I would ask this: Assuming you generate a 16 bit tiff from whatever your preferred software might be (even if some of those 16 bits might be superfluous), and assuming you open that 16 bit tiff in PSP for editing, are you forced to drop the color depth to 8 bits before you can conduct operations like cloning, dodging, burning, etc." Or has Corel FINALLY implemented those tools in 16 bit?
     
  30. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Sarah, seems Coral isn't answering:
    http://community.coreldraw.com/talk/coreldraw_graphics_suite_x7/f/811/t/46377

    Again, in terms of raw, it better and should support high bit editing.
     
  31. Sarah, PSP allows you to import 16 bit files. I did several basic operations with a 16 bit file and it didn't tell me to convert to 8 bits. However, I didn't do extensive editing because I had had enough after a while; the misreading of the year info in the metadata, the questionable white balance as-shot temperature (which, as it now turns out appears to be a bug, but I'll address that in a separate post) and the awkward preview updating I referred to previously disqualify this program for me.
     
  32. Sarah, I've done extensive editing on 16bit files without any issues. I can't vouch for every effect but I've used a lot of them and have no complaints. I couldn't care less about the preceding debate about the metadata and really don't think most people do, or would. I find it to be a solid application, I've been using X7 for a couple of months and am still waiting for the first crash.
     
  33. Andrew,
    That's much better: attack, vilify, destroy. But on a more constructive note, let's see what Adobe has to say: "A digital camera records the white balance at the time of exposure as a metadata entry. The Camera Raw plug-in reads this value and makes it the initial setting when you open the file in the Camera Raw dialog box." This is the case for the February 2007 ACR 3.7 when used with CS2 as well as the November 2014 ACR 8.7 when used with Elements 13. The age of CS2 has nothing to do with it.
    When applying different camera profiles in ACR 8.7, the white balance as-shot temperature and tint values don't change one iota, as I would expect it to be the case.
    On the issue of Corel's PaintShop Pro X7: Corel just confirmed to me that the white balance information in their Camera RAW lab, when opening a RAW file, is supposed to be taken directly from the metadata without any modifications. It appears that there is a bug in PSP and they are now working with me on this issue as well as on the issue of misreading the year information in the metadata.

    So, what say you?
     
  34. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    That's much better: attack, vilify, destroy.​
    What I’m destroying is your credibility in understanding basic color image processing, thanks in large part to your writings here! Just like your take on display calibration, it’s an opinion without any facts to back it up.
    "A digital camera records the white balance at the time of exposure as a metadata entry. The Camera Raw plug-in reads this value and makes it the initial setting when you open the file in the Camera Raw dialog box."
    As you prefer to write so often, you still don't get it! Nothing in the above text is incorrect expect your understanding! Of course it records white balance, where do you think the numbers in the EXIF come from? Are they correct values? Nope. I illustrated that already. The actual illuminant as measured from a proper device shows a difference 262K CCT from what LR and ACR report. And as illustrated, differing converters will treat the data and end up with different values. But we’ve been over that, you still don't get it.
    When applying different camera profiles in ACR 8.7, the white balance as-shot temperature and tint values don't change one iota, as I would expect it to be the case.​
    Wrong again Frans but at least you are consistently showing us you really don’t understand the subject. Case in point (same file and same profiles shown already in LR):
    http://digitaldog.net/files/CTT&DNGprofiles.jpg
    [​IMG]
    First issue is you’re unable to use the tools correctly, secondly you can’t accept a submission of a raw showing differing CCT values for ‘as shot’ which are clearly and correctly presented to you now using multiple screen captures. You didn’t even know what software product I was showing to illustrate the differences in CCT from the same raw so it’s pretty obvious you’re not willing to pay any attention.
    On the issue of Corel's PaintShop Pro X7: Corel just confirmed to me that the white balance information in their Camera RAW lab, when opening a RAW file, is supposed to be taken directly from the metadata without any modifications. It appears that there is a bug in PSP and they are now working with me on this issue as well as on the issue of misreading the year information in the metadata.​
    It appears it’s a bug or someone specifically at Corel told you it’s a known bug? Who would that person be Frans? It’s supposed to take the metadata and provide identical values from the same raw, while two other NON COREL converters also show differing values from the same raw. Explain that Frans. If you can, I’m sure like the other posts here, they will be humorous.
    So, what say you?​
    I say you still don’t get it, your science is still flawed (When applying different camera profiles in ACR 8.7, the white balance as-shot temperature and tint values don't change one iota, as I would expect it to be the case.) they clearly can, and you’re probably not the person to take at his word that indeed Corel has confirmed you discovered a bug. Lastly and most importantly, trying to educate you is pointless but pointing out your lack of understanding and ability to accept facts is so entertaining.
    Even if there IS a bug Frans, it is perfectly reasonable and expected to find the same raw file providing different CCT values, by several hundred K or more in differing converters. Something you didn’t know but bitched about in your review. It’s been shown above, and it doesn’t even have to be linked to differing camera profiles as shown between LR and Iridient Developer. I should waste more of my time showing you different CCT values in even more raw converters? Here’s a new rabbit hole you can start digging....
     
  35. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Sarah, see:
    http://howto.corel.com/index.php/Corel:What_commands_and_features_work_with_16-bit_per_channel_color_images_in_PaintShop_Pro?family=corel&uselang=en&kb=true&product=Category:paintShop&version=&topic=&sKey=16-bit
    With the introduction of 16-bit per channel color support in Paint Shop Pro X and Paint Shop Pro Photo XI, some of the features support 16-bit, while others do not.

    The following commands and tools support full 16-bit per channel images:
    Adjust -> Add Noise
    Adjust -> Backlighting
    Adjust -> Blur
    Adjust -> Blur More
    Adjust -> Brightness/Contrast
    Adjust -> Channel Mixer
    Adjust -> Clarify
    Adjust -> Color Balance
    Adjust -> Colorize
    Adjust -> Curves
    Adjust -> Digital Camera Noise Removal
    Adjust -> Fill Flash
    Adjust -> Gamma Correction
    Adjust -> Gaussian Blur
    Adjust -> Highlight/Midtone/Shadow
    Adjust -> High Pass Sharpen
    Adjust -> Histogram Equalize
    Adjust -> Histogram Stretch
    Adjust -> Hue Map
    Adjust -> Hue/Saturation/Lightness
    Adjust -> Levels
    Adjust -> Negative Image
    Adjust -> One Step Photo Fix
    Adjust -> One Step Noise Removal
    Adjust -> Red/Green/Blue
    Adjust -> RGB
    Adjust -> Sharpen
    Adjust -> Sharpen More
    Adjust -> Smart Photo Fix
    Adjust -> Soften
    Adjust -> Soften More
    Adjust -> Threshold
    Adjust -> Unsharp Mask
    Adjustment Layer -> Brightness/Contrast
    Adjustment Layer -> Channel Mixer
    Adjustment Layer -> Color Balance
    Adjustment Layer -> Curves
    Adjustment Layer -> Hue/Saturation/Lightness
    Adjustment Layer -> Invert
    Adjustment Layer -> Levels
    Adjustment Layer -> Posterize
    Adjustment Layer -> Threshold
    Blend Mode -> Normal
    Clipboard -> Clear
    Clipboard -> Copy
    Clipboard -> Cut
    Clipboard -> Paste
    Effects -> Black & White Film
    Effects -> High Pass
    Effects -> Infrared Film
    Effects -> Posterize
    Image -> Canvas Size
    Image -> Count Colors
    Image -> Crop
    Image -> Decrease Color Depth
    Image -> Flip
    Image -> Free Rotate
    Image -> Greyscale
    Image -> Increase Color Depth
    Image -> Mirror
    Image -> Resize
    Image -> Rotate [Counter Counter] Clockwise
    Image -> Split to RGB
    Image -> User Defined Filter
    Layer -> Promote Background Layer
    Palettes -> Histogram Palette
    Tool -> Blemish Remover
    Tool -> Eyedropper
    Tool -> Flood Fill
    Tool -> Freehand Selection
    Tool -> Magic Wand
    Tool -> Move
    Tool -> Pan
    Tool -> Pick
    Tool -> Perspective Correction
    Tool -> Raster Deformation
    Tool -> Red Eye
    Tool -> Selection
    Tool -> Straighten
    Tool -> Toothbrush
    Tool -> Zoom
     
  36. Andrew,
    I just downloaded Lightroom 5.7 and the WB As Shot Temp and Tint don't change one iota when I apply any Camera Calibration Profiles, which is exactly what happens in Elements 13 using ACR 8.7. And you say?
     
  37. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    I just downloaded Lightroom 5.7 and the WB As Shot Temp and Tint don't change one iota when I apply any Camera Calibration Profiles, which is exactly what happens in Elements 13 using ACR 8.7. And you say?​
    You certainly are a Glutton for Punishment. It’s simply, amazing you’re still not connecting the dots. Why it’s the profile of course. But that doesn’t matter and why you continue to belabor the point is a typical MO of yours. If you would examine the screen captures you’d know something about the profiles selected, heck, they are named. Next, you’d realize that the profiles are simply one tiny data point to illustrate that the same raw data, with the same ‘as shot’ value CAN and DOES change, both in ACR and LR.
    Don’t tire yourself trying to understand this bit about profiles, you’ve not yet figured out the simpler facts I presented to you: the identical raw file showing differing as shot values in two different converters. And you say?

    You expected based on your misunderstanding of this topic that each raw converter should examine and produce the same as shot values. That’s wrong. You should know by now it’s wrong, I’ve provided a screen capture showing this from two products accessing identical data. And I’m not fixing this for my benefit, you’re welcome to the DNG and associated profiles but what’s the point? You’ll get the same CCT values as I did. And you say? Actually whatever you say, it will unlikely be that you’re understanding of what a raw converter reports for CCT can and does change in some situations.
     
  38. Nice try, Andrew, but the fact is that my copies of CS2, Elements and LR show the identical As Shot Temp and Tint information and when I apply a different camera profile in LR or Elements the numbers don't change. Adobe says that they show the metadata as it was generated when the shot was taken (what other meaning could the term "As Shot" have?) but somehow your copy of LR does something that is in direct conflict with what Adobe says and what my copy of LR does. Are you sure your copy of LR isn't corrupted?
     
  39. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Nice try, Andrew, but the fact is that my copies of CS2, Elements and LR show the identical As Shot Temp and Tint information and when I apply a different camera profile in LR or Elements the numbers don't change.​
    As do *some* profiles I have, so what. I have profiles that behave as illustrated. So because you are unable to figure out how to use other DNG profiles which DO affect the values, then no such differences can ever exist? That’s flat out wrong Frans. So because you are unable to select a DNG profile that does affect CCT As Shot values, therefore it’s not possible and what I’ve provided is what, science fiction?
    Look, you’re being idiotic. Some profiles will not alter CCT, some will. The same raw using the same profile WILL change CCT values in differing converters. Those are facts. That you can’t replicate this due to your lack of understanding hasn’t and will not change the facts presented above.
    As I’ve written, as you continue to ignore, even without dealing with DNG profiles, the same raw produces differing CCT values for As Shot in two converters. Using the same profile. I know you want to ignore this but it proves your misunderstanding that all raw converters should produce identical ‘as shot’ values is flat out wrong. You simply can’t focus on that critical, simple and proven reality can you?
     
  40. Explain how some profiles will alter the Temp and Tint values that are coded into the metadata at the time the shot was taken.
    Yes, I've experienced myself how two different converters (Adobe's and Corel's) can come up with different answers and by the looks of it Corel's converter has issues, that's why. But all three Adobe converters used in CS2, Elements 13 and LR 5.7 show me the same Temp and Tint numbers, regardless of camera profile.
    Go ahead, explain.
     
  41. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Explain how some profiles will alter the Temp and Tint values that are coded into the metadata at the time the shot was taken.​
    The why isn’t important, you’re not ready for that yet. The fact is they do. Which again has nothing to do with the other fact you simply can’t get me to stop shoving in your face and has nothing to do with profiles: Two different converters treated the identical raw data differently in terms of the CCT values. Why don’t you think about that before you confuse yourself with how a particular raw processor deals with CCT values with a DNG profile. IF you can.
    Yes, I've experienced myself how two different converters (Adobe's and Corel's) can come up with different answers and by the looks of it Corel's converter has issues, that's why.​
    And so does the Adobe converters differ from Irident Developer and if you looked even father without my aid here, you’d find others do as well. A point I made in my first post to assist you in your misunderstanding of CCT numbers. Backed up with facts of which you simply can’t accept. Or understand, or both. Again, this is all so pointless expect it’s typically kind of fun seeing you dig a big hole for yourself.
    Worse, you’re SURE Adobe’s number are right, Corel’s is wrong yet you have no way to test this. I’d put my money on Adobe too but I’d measure and examine this all before I put the money down, something that clearly separates us in terms of understanding how these things work.
    But all three Adobe converters used in CS2, Elements 13 and LR 5.7 show me the same Temp and Tint numbers, regardless of camera profile.​
    Regardless of ALL profiles? Wrong again. That the ACR converters behave as you describe (with the very limited testing you’ve done and without the proper DNG profiles to use) believing that ALL other converters behave the same, despite the facts presented to you, really make you appear quote foolish.
     
  42. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Oh Frans, here’s one more converter to look over that once again, gets the same, identical raw file right or wrong (you’re so good at picking) but one thing is clear, different!
    Same data, same raw. Three different converters. Three different CCT numbers.
    The correct CCT value is 5262K, this converter is 4550K, LR says 5000K, so now, we have a whopping 450K among JUST three raw converters.
    Go ahead, explain.
    http://digitaldog.net/files/photoNinja.jpg
    [​IMG]
     
  43. Andrew,
    When I ask you to explain something that you claim to be an expert in, you weasel out. And yes, I've had enough of your "shoving stuff into my face" as you call it. Don't bother to answer if you're not interested in an honest, constructive discussion.
     
  44. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    When I ask you to explain something that you claim to be an expert in, you weasel out.​
    When you stop weaseling out, admit that CCT values vary from the same data from differing raw converters, hundreds if not more values (I’ve shown simply three examples), THEN I might explain further why (and no, it isn’t necessary and yes, I’ve done this in as simplistic a way as possible considering the person asking). In fact, I already give you a number of reasons why the numbers vary, you’ve decided to ignore them. Start here (READ my 1st post again, it all in B&W)):

    Andrew Rodney [​IMG][​IMG], Dec 10, 2014; 10:48 a.m.
    And yes, I've had enough of your "shoving stuff into my face" as you call it. Don't bother to answer if you're not interested in an honest, constructive discussion.​
    It’s been answered while every question I’ve asked of you hasn't which again is your typical MO in these forums. As such, it doesn’t appear to me you’ve ever had an interest in an honest and constructive discussion. Bottom line (again, I keep having to point this out to you):
    For the same RAW file I would expect any RAW converter to be able to calculate the CCT within a couple of 100K...​
    Your expectations are wrong, baseless, not shown to be true!, That’s been illustrated to you now with three different products (actually 5). As you said early on in your so called desire for an honest, constructive discussion, as usual, then setting the mood of the discussion:
    This color temperature is NOT what the raw converter calculated from the image content; it's the "image as shot" data in the EXIF file! Got it?​
    It seems it is you sir who doesn’t get it despite my efforts to again educate you (which as I predicted was pointless but entertaining in the process). What I get is you have some very flat earth theories on color that have no basis in fact that you can’t prove.
     
  45. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Here’s some math** for you to chew on Frans but RGB data is necessary making this raw value weaseling a fact:
    http://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/8949/how-do-i-calculate-the-color-temperature-of-the-light-source-illuminating-an-ima
    Also, bear in mind that CCT is only an approximate metric for most colors, since only a single curve in the color space actually represents color which can be obtained from a real world black body radiator. Thus for all other colors, the calculated color temperature is simply an approximation of the black body temperature it most closely represents. Thus, for some colors (especially greens) it can actually be a somewhat meaningless value, at least in a physical sense. This is illustrated well in the following image.
    Also, since your question specifically references Adobe Lightroom, I found this while searching around:
    The sliders [in Adobe Lightroom] adjust not the black body temp of the light, but the compensation applied to the image to compensate for the black body temp of the light. This goes the other way round.
    So bear in mind that the color temperature you see on the Lightroom slider will not be the same as those calculated from the above formulae.
    **Your calculations Frans, do let us know HOW you’ll calculate RGB values from the raw data, kind of affects the math and resulting values:

    1. Convert the RGB values to CIE tristimulus values (XYZ) as follows:
    X=(−0.14282)(R)+(1.54924)(G)+(−0.95641)(B)
    Y=(−0.32466)(R)+(1.57837)(G)+(−0.73191)(B)=Illuminance
    Z=(−0.68202)(R)+(0.77073)(G)+(0.56332)(B)
    2. Calculate the normalized chromaticity values:
    x=X/(X+Y+Z)
    y=Y/(X+Y+Z)
    3. Compute the CCT value from:
    CCT=449
    n
    3
    +3525
    n
    2
    +6823.3n+5520.33
    where n=(x−0.3320)/(0.1858−y)
    Which can be combined to form the following equation:
    CCT=449
    n
    3
    +3525
    n
    2
    +6823.3n+5520.33
    where n=((0.23881)R+(0.25499)G+(−0.58291)B)
    /((0.11109)R+(−0.85406)G+(0.52289)B)
    Maybe an equation you can’t fight from someone other than I will start to convince you how wrong you’ve been.
     
  46. Andrew, I've just had enough of your insults. That's it.
     
  47. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Andrew, I've just had enough of your insults. That's it.​
    Excellent plan to run away and ignore the math and facts provided to you that illustrate your unfounded assumptions about color and CCT values. Maybe you actually learned something although I’d never expect you to admit that. If anything, perhaps in the future you’ll actually study the subject before making conclusions that have no basis in fact.
     
  48. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    argue.net Don't let him get to you, Frans
     
  49. Andrew,
    Maybe you could use this thread as a teaching moment. Instead of only stating that different RAW converters come up with different numbers for as-shot WB temperatures, without any explanation as to why, apart from your meaningless "it's all over the place", and insulting me repeatedly in the process, you could have made a positive, constructive contribution by presenting the real reasons why:
    1. There are no standards for translating RAW file metadata into WB temperature
    2. Different camera manufacturers use different algorithms and metadata formats
    3. Camera metadata can change with firmware updates
    4. Adobe doesn't have access to much of the camera metadata
    5. Adobe decided to apply their resources to make Photoshop as useful as possible, rather than try to design different temperature conversion algorithms for a long and growing list of digital cameras
    6. Adobe's website is in error where it claims that the camera's temperature data is the initial value of the WB as-shot temperature
    7. Different RAW converters use different algorithms
     
  50. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Maybe you could use this thread as a teaching moment.​
    Some people like yourself Frans would rather disagree than learn! You were so involved arguing that your incorrect expectations that the values should be the same/similar from my first post, it’s incredible you now expect to learn! You got the math, you got examples that the values change and why. Above in this discussion and from your old post here and on LuLa about CCT values for Solux. If I and others have to provide the same lesson over and over again, and you still can’t get it, it isn’t our fault.
    Here’s more for you to learn below, but the bottom line again is this, you wrote:
    For the same RAW file I would expect any RAW converter to be able to calculate the CCT within a couple of 100K
    You’ve come back now, days later, do you have the same incorrect expectations especially after points 1-7 you just posted? Or those points you learned recently (?) in the intermission are an admission that what you originally wrote isn’t correct and now you’ve come back to agree with me that your expectations were incorrect as I attempted to point out to you?
    For the same raw file do you expect any raw converter to calculate the CCT value within a couple of 100K’s? Because that isn’t not going to happen and it has been illustrated to you.
    More data points to back up my attempt to explain the numbers are a range and your expectations were based on faulty misunderstandings:
    https://forums.adobe.com/thread/312584?start=0&tstart=0:
    > ACR doesn't read the 5D white bal metadata.
    Actually, ACR does.
    > The camera K setting is used for in-camera processing and by Canon utilities.
    There are no camera K settings. There are scalar multipliers that control the gains required to the R, G, and B camera values to achieve white balance. This is related to the correlated color temperature, but the CCT itself is generally not stored.
    > But note that the raw data are white bal agnostic results are subject to a camera profile which may differ between OEM and ACR.
    True. Every raw converter applies its own math given the camera multiplier values to obtain the white balance. Similarly, each raw converter has its own math to compute CCT Kelvin values, assuming they are shown and displayed to the user in the first place. Since each raw converter has separate math used, the resulting displayed Kelvin values may be different.
    > Contrary to what G Sch writes above, the same K setting ought to give the same results if a "Kelvin" setting is to have real meaning
    That's assuming the camera profiles applied are the same in all cases. But they're not the same, since each raw converter has its own set of profiles. So the results won't be the same.
    Eric (Chan of Adobe)
    -----------
    http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/nlpip/lightinganswers/lightsources/whatisCCT.asp:
    CCT values are intended by the lighting industry to give specifiers a general indication of the apparent "warmth" or "coolness" of the light emitted by the source.
    Another weakness of CCT is illustrated in Figure 8 by points A and B, representing two light sources with the same CCT (3000 K). Although lights A and B have exactly the same CCT they have very different chromaticities and will look very different to the eye.
    -------------
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature:
    Although the CCT can be calculated for any chromaticity coordinate, the result is meaningful only if the light sources are nearly white.[31] The CIE recommends that "The concept of correlated color temperature should not be used if the chromaticity of the test source differs more than [] from the Planckian radiator."[32] Beyond a certain value of , a chromaticity co-ordinate may be equidistant to two points on the locus, causing ambiguity in the CCT.
    -------------
    http://www.pro-lite.uk.com/File/colour_temp.php:
    It is in the exact definition of CCT that we can be badly tripped up. While the chromaticity coordinates of a true blackbody source must (by definition) fall exactly on the Planckian locus, the chromaticity coordinates for an LED of a certain correlated colour temperature can fall anywhere along a so-called “ISO-CCT” line that intersects the blackbody locus at the equivalent (true) colour temperature (see Figure 2) . In other words, a CIE standard illuminant A incandescent lamp with a true colour temperature of 2856 K will have chromaticity coordinates of exactly x = 0. 4476 and y = 0.4075. In the CIE 1960 colour space, these coordinates become u = 0.2560 and v = 0.3495. A light source with a correlated colour temperature of 2,856 K can have actual chromaticity coordinates which deviate from the blackbody source by up to duv = ± 0.02. Given that in the 1960 uv colour space a difference of just ± 0.001 in u or v is generally considered to be noticeable, the definition of CCT permits the colour of white light sources to deviate more than 20 times beyond the point where an observer would start to notice the difference.
    What this means in practice is that if you only define the colour of your white LEDs by means of their CCT, you will potentially end up with a whole variety of shades of white.
    So Frans, after your post last week, I was really hoping you moved on. And now your are back and I’ve again provided more data points that attempt by illustration of other’s that your assumptions about the CCT numbers are incorrect. What more do you expect? What I’d hope is you now expect what I wrote in my very first post to you about the CCT numbers vary. Far more than 100K. Got it now?
     
  51. Andrew,
    The teaching moment remark is obviously lost on you. You could have explained the reasons why there are different numbers and brought up the points I made in my previous post right away. Instead you decided to repeatedly insult me and not answer my requests for explanations; by your own admission, you thought that was kind of funny. Haha.
    I was misled by Adobe's statement that the initial temperature number came straight from the camera's metadata. If that were the case, why couldn't other RAW converters do the same? Yes, I assumed that Adobe was correct; my mistake.
    I also thought that IF the temperature was calculated from color coordinates that you could and should expect an accuracy of a couple of 100K.
    Yes, I now understand how sloppy this issue is being dealt with by Adobe and others and have no longer an expectation of any accuracy, but that's not thanks to- but in spite of- you.
     
  52. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    The teaching moment remark is obviously lost on you.​
    The learning is lost on you! Especially after dozens of outside posts from others that have dismissed your misunderstandings.
    Since you are now so interested in learning, you should ask yourself where and how you incorrectly learned about CCT to believe that for the same RAW file you would expect any raw converter to be able to calculate the CCT within a couple of 100K. It’s simply wrong.
    I was misled by Adobe's statement that the initial temperature number came straight from the camera's metadata.​
    And so much more. But as I said posts and posts ago, it’s pointless. You are treating the scientific facts provided by multiple sources including me as if this was one of your tea-party debates and up to some political interpretation. That will not work here Frans.
    Yes, I now understand how sloppy this issue is being dealt with by Adobe and others and have no longer an expectation of any accuracy, but that's not thanks to- but in spite of- you.​
    The only thing sloppy is your initial understanding and worse, your inability to study the facts from multiple sources that dismiss your assumptions. But it is typical of you to blame any and everyone but your self, this time Adobe.
    Now isn't it really time to move on?
     
  53. Yes, good idea, move on and go insult someone else.
     
  54. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Yes, good idea, move on and go insult someone else.​
    If attempting to educate you, then having to spend a lot of time providing evidence of your misunderstanding ad infinitum results in insulting you, sorry bud. But it was you sir who threw the first stone! I pointed that out just after you did so but you missed it as usual. And you completely ignored the facts as usual.

    Here's an insult based on your participation here after I attempted to steer you into the right thinking about CCT: you're not very bright in that you simply can't accept the facts if it gets in the way of your uneducated and incorrect understanding of color.
     
  55. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    ETTR
     
  56. Monitor gamma.
     

Share This Page