Jump to content

eric_chan10

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    18

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by eric_chan10

    Why Doesn't Canon/Nikon License RAW Converters to Adobe, Apple, etc.?

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    Hi Bill, thanks for your comments.

     

    Regarding point #2: I understand the point you're making, but I don't agree entirely with the premise. While it is true that in theory the

    camera makers should have the most detailed knowledge regarding the behavior of their own optics & sensors, that does not

    automatically mean they know how best to "wring the last drop of image quality from their raw data" -- or, even if they do, that they choose

    to do so by default.

     

    For example, I noted earlier how DPP's default color renderings (via its Picture Styles) are "pleasing" but not "accurate"; this is a deliberate

    (and understandable) choice made by Canon, but whether it is "best" is in the eye of the beholder. While many users find these renditions

    very nice, others find them extremely heavy-handed and over the top (to be practically useless), while others still actually do need

    accurate scene-referred color for some applications. So some users would argue that Canon is actually providing a bogus starting point

    with respect to color. Again, color is highly subjective and depends on the user's needs.

     

    As another example, DPP also generally applies a higher level of baseline noise reduction (at default settings) compared to Camera Raw

    and Lightroom (also at default settings). So the common thinking is that a moderate-to-high ISO CR2 file processed in CR/LR will look

    noisier than the same file processed in DPP at default settings. The natural conclusion reached is that CR/LR has no idea how to process

    CR2 files because they don't have the same knowledge about CR2 files that Canon does.

     

    The more truthful reason is that Canon spends a good amount of time tuning the default DPP settings (and hence results) for their

    cameras, probably a lot more time than we do with CR/LR. This is understandable: many users form deep impressions about a camera

    from the first view of the image they see -- at default settings, without touching any knobs. So it is in Canon's interest to make sure that the

    first impression is as good as possible, since most users just use the defaults, and reviews by most sites are also conducted with defaults.

    This observation applies generally to all camera makers, not just Canon.

     

    Adobe's position & philosophy are different here. With CR/LR, Adobe aims to provide a fairly deep set of tools that allows the user to craft

    the raw image into the final rendered image. That's it. Yes, we do try to provide decent default settings, but we don't attach much

    significance to how the images look at their defaults. The defaults are just a starting point within CR/LR, not the finished product. It is really

    up to the photographer to use the available tools to render the final image to match his/her vision (on an image-by-image basis). This is,

    after all, the fundamental idea behind shooting raw: the raw files allow significantly more room for post-processing than a baked JPEG

    does; if little to no post-processing is desired, then shooting JPEG is really the best route.

     

    We do make it pretty easy for users to define their own defaults, so if they don't like the CR/LR defaults they can simply use their own;

    however, there are 2 drawbacks of this approach: (1) Most users are not familiar with how to set their own defaults, and (2) it doesn't get

    around the fact that the deepest impressions are still formed from the original Adobe-created defaults.

     

    The advantage of Adobe's approach is that I feel we have provided a pretty good set of tools (with more to come, of course). The

    disadvantage is that we're assuming users are willing to learn how to use those tools. Many users are, but many aren't (or aren't aware

    that they're supposed to).

     

    In summary, the camera makers tend to produce default images as close to the final output as possible (based on assumptions on how

    photographers want their output to look) whereas Adobe tends to produce a fairly neutral baseline from which to perform additional

    adjustments (based on assumptions that the photographers understand how to use tools to do so). In most cases, this philosophical

    difference is the primary reason for the difference in default renderings between CR/LR and the camera makers' software, much more so

    than any specific technical know-how.

     

    That said, some camera makers have been willing to work with Adobe and provide information on how their camera systems behave,

    which do aid in our image processing. This is a welcome step.

     

    Also, we've recognized the importance of first impressions and defaults, which is partly why we have the new camera profiles. The older

    profiles were based on accurate scene-referred colorimetry, the idea behind to provide a neutral and (reasonably) accurate baseline and

    let the users figure out how to map the colors using the available controls. That ended up not being really what users wanted.

    Why Doesn't Canon/Nikon License RAW Converters to Adobe, Apple, etc.?

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    Adobe doesn't use the Canon / Nikon SDK (or SDKs of other manufacturers, generally) for several reasons. One of the primary ones is that raw

    conversion via these SDKs is generally treated as a black box. This makes it difficult or impossible to insert specific kinds of functionality, such as

    highlight recovery or fill light. Scene-referred color profiles are another example. The application of these image processing steps need to be done

    on the raw data at specific stages; applying them to the rendered data obtained from an SDK is no good.

     

    On the subject of color, it's very subjective. Many folks find Canon's Standard Picture Style very pleasing. Colorimetrically, it is very, very

    inaccurate. (None of their Picture Styles are that accurate, actually.) But many users like it because the images look nice, and ultimately that's what

    counts in the vast majority of cases. Velvia is also pretty much as far as it gets from colorimetric accuracy and we all know how popular it is among

    landscape photographers.

     

    Camera makers often regard their color rendering as a matter of branding, i.e., product differentiators. These are "Canon colors" and those are

    "Nikon colors." They do not regard it in their interest to divulge how they render the colors from the raw data.

     

    On a technical note, the orange/red issue that has often been mentioned regarding Adobe's old profiles was due to a limitation of the color profile

    format used by Camera Raw and Lightroom in earlier versions. The older profiles were __deliberately__ hue & sat shifted to deal with excessive

    infrared sensitivity on some cameras, which would cause skin tones to turn a nasty shade of pink; the side effect was that deep saturated reds

    would often go orange, more so on some cameras than on others. That is all old news (and largely irrelevant now), because our profile format has

    been greatly expanded in the DNG 1.2 spec, which is used by CR and LR starting with CR 4.5 and LR 2.0, and has made possible the new beta

    profiles currently available on the Adobe Labs site.

     

    BTW, we have received feedback from those who actually __prefer__ the old-style Camera Raw colors because, in their words, "they are more

    accurate" (which is generally true). So it goes to show how subjective this is.

     

    And it's one reason we built the DNG Profile Editor. So folks who have their own opinions about how they want colors from raw files to be appear

    can build their own profiles to their hearts' content.

     

    Eric Chan

     

    p.s., Disclaimer: I work on the Camera Raw & Lightroom engineering teams and was responsible for building the new color profiles and DNG

    Profile Editor.

    To buy an Epson 3800 or use a lab? Headache or not?

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    The 3800 is superb for B&W out of the box. The ABW driver is easy to use and produces excellent results -- including some of the deepest blacks I've ever seen come out of a pigment printer. You can always fine-tune to get even better results, and of course there are other B&W solutions that will give you more flexibility (e.g., QuadToneRIP) but out of the box I'd say the 3800 is a solid choice for B&W.

     

    Note that for most B&W images you will want to use the ABW driver (Advanced B&W Photo) instead of the standard RGB color driver.

     

    Eric

×
×
  • Create New...