December 2021 there were 26 million Adobe Creative Suite subscribers and growing. There is, for example, high-levels of integration between Adobe tools that is simply not present in open-source. Specifically, in terms of Adobe, I think it is deeply unfair and unfounded to call it "inferior". However I think its only fair and reasonable to admit that it is possible to make high quality closed-source software. I know the open-source evangelists live in a rose tinted world where open-source automatically equals better. I'm afraid I don't buy this unfounded muck-slinging. > Where Adobe, MS, and other big companies thrive is the amount of high quality training and tutorials for inferior software. Unfortunately, this is only fully possible in their custom crappy desktop apps. That's why I strongly believe that both amateurs and pros want the camera vendor's rendering in RAW as a starting point. You fully dismissed a huge amount of value and are unlikely to regain it. If you'd take that RAW file and open it "neutral", without the proprietary demosaicing, curves, noise reduction, you're going to spend forever trying to reproduce the Nikon look. And it's not just color science, also tone compression and noise reduction. In the case of wedding photography, typically the photographer wants to Nikon rendering as it was intended. Their engineers spent decades perfecting it and it even carries through in lens design. To comment on the Nikon domain, Nikon is widely praised for its color science. In sports and wedding photography, not so much. In landscape photography, people use RAW to maximize the use of dynamic range, hence tweak it a lot. A huge amount of amateurs use RAW and they might actually have more time/interest to do max tweaking on a file compared to a pro, who is on the clock.īut there's also big differences between disciplines. Well, it's funny how that could go either way. "but if the defaults require significant tweaking that isn't going to be something that will stop a professional, although they might find it annoying as a matter of workflow."
#DEFRINGE RAWTHERAPEE PLUS#
Plus you can save some of the raw processing steps that you did to a profile that you can load onto the camera and use in the field, so if you're shooting to JPEG you can bake in some of that processing ahead of time.
#DEFRINGE RAWTHERAPEE FOR FREE#
If you're a professional this probably doesn't matter, but for an amateur who just wants to shoot RAW to take great lossless photos and be able to do some tweaking in post-processing it can be frustrating.įor Canon at least, their in-house raw converter/photo editor is available for free (Canon Digital Photo Professional) and while its features are definitely not quite as good as either free or commercial offerings, its features are (for a total amateur like me) "good enough", and it will produce images that are identical to what comes off the camera.
#DEFRINGE RAWTHERAPEE SOFTWARE#
So whether or not you trust the camera company to do the best job of demosaicing their own sensor is up to you, but if you use open-source software you're still going to get great images, but they're never going to look exactly like the JPEGs you get off the camera. Likely that's what they used in-house when developing the camera software. Thus, when you view a RAW file in the camera (or a JPEG straight off the camera), or in a commercial offering, you're getting an image that looks more like what the manufacturer of the camera intended. These algorithms are also embedded in the camera firmware and are responsible for converting the RAW sensor data into something resembling an image. One interesting thing to note about open-source vs commercial software when it comes to RAW conversion is that commercial offerings like Adobe CS, CaptureOne and Affinity Photo sometimes have a relationship with camera manufacturers to get access to their proprietary demosaicing algorithm for their camera's sensors.
0 kommentar(er)
