Bad RAW development quality - what am I missing?
I am almost sold and about to buy C1 Pro. However, it looks like I'm having a hard time getting acceptable quality images from RAW files. Hopefully someone can help me understand what I'm doing wrong, or if there is a flaw with Capture One that needs fixing.
At first glance the results look ok, but after looking closer at details, I found the reason why developed RAW always look worst than the JPEG rendered by the camera. There seems to be some pre-processing (smoothing) in effect that I can't seem to disable anywhere.
Compared to the camera's own JPEG, a Capture One developed RAW shows less differentiation and detail and higher contrast in areas with fine structures. Technically speaking, information is lost. The result is more of an abstraction, as if it was painted with a brush. The artifact is most noticeable with trees and plants and to a lesser extent also with sand, grass and rock.
Three examples (you can right-click on the zoomed images and open them in a new tab, so you can switch between tabs for direct A/B comparison):
Full image:
http://i.imgur.com/09sKMgU.jpg
Detail from camera's own JPEG:
http://i.imgur.com/3kKi0VU.png
Detail from C1 processed RAW (exported as JPEG): Note the blurred desert bush in the background and lost details on the dry twigs. Despite activated and analyzed chromatic aberation, there's still purple edges that don't go away with the removal option.
http://i.imgur.com/jXX7xmd.png
Full image:
http://i.imgur.com/ZT7PMSX.jpg
Detail from camera's own JPEG:
http://i.imgur.com/78j8WUB.jpg
Detail from C1 processed RAW (exported as JPEG): Note the artificially looking trees and the overly contrasted edges of rock.
http://i.imgur.com/M2bz0kt.jpg
Detail from camera's own JPEG:
http://i.imgur.com/CzucdpO.png
Detail from C1 processed RAW (exported as JPEG): Note the loss of details in the trees and their artificial "painted" look.
http://i.imgur.com/e6NFxEs.png
I tried and lowered the contrast, saturation, to no avail. There is definitely information lost by some "smoothing" that can not be turned off (unless I missed something). This may seem nitpicking, but as other RAW converts and the camera do a better job with the same RAW source, there's probably something with the algorithm that could be tweaked.
Is this possibly a side effect of the camera/lens not yet being directly supported? There's a ICC profile listed for the LUMIX FZ1000 (and automatically selected), but no lens profile yet. Would a specific lens profile fix this, or where else should I look?
I would really love to use Capture One for my workflow, but as of now, I can't seem to make it work for me. Thanks for your help in advance.
At first glance the results look ok, but after looking closer at details, I found the reason why developed RAW always look worst than the JPEG rendered by the camera. There seems to be some pre-processing (smoothing) in effect that I can't seem to disable anywhere.
Compared to the camera's own JPEG, a Capture One developed RAW shows less differentiation and detail and higher contrast in areas with fine structures. Technically speaking, information is lost. The result is more of an abstraction, as if it was painted with a brush. The artifact is most noticeable with trees and plants and to a lesser extent also with sand, grass and rock.
Three examples (you can right-click on the zoomed images and open them in a new tab, so you can switch between tabs for direct A/B comparison):
Full image:
http://i.imgur.com/09sKMgU.jpg
Detail from camera's own JPEG:
http://i.imgur.com/3kKi0VU.png
Detail from C1 processed RAW (exported as JPEG): Note the blurred desert bush in the background and lost details on the dry twigs. Despite activated and analyzed chromatic aberation, there's still purple edges that don't go away with the removal option.
http://i.imgur.com/jXX7xmd.png
Full image:
http://i.imgur.com/ZT7PMSX.jpg
Detail from camera's own JPEG:
http://i.imgur.com/78j8WUB.jpg
Detail from C1 processed RAW (exported as JPEG): Note the artificially looking trees and the overly contrasted edges of rock.
http://i.imgur.com/M2bz0kt.jpg
Detail from camera's own JPEG:
http://i.imgur.com/CzucdpO.png
Detail from C1 processed RAW (exported as JPEG): Note the loss of details in the trees and their artificial "painted" look.
http://i.imgur.com/e6NFxEs.png
I tried and lowered the contrast, saturation, to no avail. There is definitely information lost by some "smoothing" that can not be turned off (unless I missed something). This may seem nitpicking, but as other RAW converts and the camera do a better job with the same RAW source, there's probably something with the algorithm that could be tweaked.
Is this possibly a side effect of the camera/lens not yet being directly supported? There's a ICC profile listed for the LUMIX FZ1000 (and automatically selected), but no lens profile yet. Would a specific lens profile fix this, or where else should I look?
I would really love to use Capture One for my workflow, but as of now, I can't seem to make it work for me. Thanks for your help in advance.
0
-
What kind of camera and lens are these images from? 0 -
In the first one, there's considerably more chromatic aberration visible in the C! output than in the camera's JPG. Have you tried looking at that? In the lens tab, is the box for chromatic aberration selected? What amount is set? Also you can often improve the correction of CA by asking C1 to analyse the image. Click the ... next to where it says chromatic aberration, and select analyse. Also what about the purple fringing slider? Does that make a difference?
Ian0 -
Is there default Noise Reduction set to 50|50 values? 0 -
What kind of camera and lens are these images from?
Panasonic LUMIX FZ1000 with a Leica Zoom (25-400).In the lens tab, is the box for chromatic aberration selected? What amount is set? Also you can often improve the correction of CA by asking C1 to analyse the image. Click the ... next to where it says chromatic aberration, and select analyse.
Yes, already analyzed it (it does have a positive effect, the result already as shown above). There is no option to set a value, only a switch. Distortion is set to 83% which gives exactly the frame of the camera's JPEG. Profile is set to "Manufacturer Profile" and Sharpness and Light Falloffs are grayed out (disabled).Also what about the purple fringing slider? Does that make a difference?
No difference, at least not noticeable.Is there default Noise Reduction set to 50|50 values?
Yes. Changing values here has only very minor effects.
I suspect there's something with the generic RAW conversion algo that applies some "intelligent" fixing by default. DxO and Silkypix deliver results extremely close to the camera's own, so I doubt it's the camera that does heavy fixing. I'd prefer C1 for many reasons, if only the RAW performance was satisfactory with this camera (if it depends on the camera in the first place).
Basically I would need to know: Can and will this be addressed in the future, or will I need to look for another software?0 -
The way to get an official response to your question is to raise a Support Case.
This being a User to User forum you may get comment and speculation but not much that can properly inform your decision.
"Manufacturer profile" means that C1 is using the manufacturer data for lens correction as supplied by lens and camera rather than an independent analysis performed by Phase in house.
HTH.
Grant0 -
Thanks for explaining Manufacturer Profile. How does C1 know about it? Is it embedded in the RAW file? Or would it need to import that from the original memory cards? 0 -
[quote="ansbil" wrote:
Thanks for explaining Manufacturer Profile. How does C1 know about it? Is it embedded in the RAW file? Or would it need to import that from the original memory cards?
I would expect the information to be embedded in the RAW file and quite likely the jpg as well.
However if you want properly qualified responses raise a Support Case.
I'm not convinced that what is known as pixel peeping at what looks like 400% on a processed jpg is certain to be helpful here but there are potentially a number of variables to look into - not the least being the "style" settings in camera (or whatever the equivalent is) for the internal jpg - but to my eyes the differences are small, given the zoom factor, and no different to things that are quite common differences in images from different process sources.
Maybe you could share a complete image in both camera jpg and RAW form so that people here could check using their own favoured processes to see if they get different variations to those that you observe?
People usually do that via a file sharing service and then provide links in a forum post.
HTH.
Grant0 -
Thanks for your reply, Grant. Pixel peeping is certainly not what I'm after, but I understand that my example regions may not be chosen well. The artefacts are noticeable enough also on the whole image from a distance (tested with unsuspecting people). I zoomed in to maybe better understand what's going on.
With the help of Support, I found that, in addition to the lens distortion, the default noise reduction and sharpening of C1 is the culprit. I wrongly thought "Reset" would suffice to disable it. Forcing all noise reduction values to zero got rid of some of the information loss.
However, no matter how careful I adjust the sharpening, I can't seem to avoid visible information loss and artefacts being added, sort of a "Van Gogh" effect is added (i.e. the first looks like a photograph, while the second looks like a painting). Both pictures grabbed from screen in C1 at 200% near the left edge of the picture. The sharpening above was set to Amount 329, Radius 1.4 and Threshold 1.3. Hope this example is better (please right-click and open in separate tabs to A/B):
Camera:
http://i.imgur.com/2fdrIeG.png
C1:
http://i.imgur.com/kPYYtsx.png
Whether that's mostly due to lens distortion, color profile or sharpening, I don't know. Me and others just notice instantly that the camera JPG is natural and crisp to the edges, while the converted RAW has issues. The artefacts look more like the result of an algorithm than from color profile or distortion, but I may be wrong.
The program was "Landscape", but I assume same parameters are applied to both JPG and RAW and mainly affect exposure and color profile.0 -
I use Capture One because it can make the image "pop" more than other raw converters, it simply draws more out of the raw file ❗️
However.. i have to agree, it struggles a little with the details... but if you have a relatively low iso image file and turn the noise reduction sliders all the way down, Color -20, Clarity -20, Structure +10 and use raw presharpen preset 2. The details rendering can get pretty close to perfect 😎0 -
Don't forget that the default behavior for sharpening is to have on for your preview but turned off for processing. You have to go to the output tab and click on Adjustments and uncheck the Disable Sharpening option in order to have your processed file sharpened. 0 -
[quote="ansbil" wrote:
Whether that's mostly due to lens distortion, color profile or sharpening, I don't know. Me and others just notice instantly that the camera JPG is natural and crisp to the edges, while the converted RAW has issues. The artefacts look more like the result of an algorithm than from color profile or distortion, but I may be wrong.
The program was "Landscape", but I assume same parameters are applied to both JPG and RAW and mainly affect exposure and color profile.
If I have understood this correctly the camera was set to a Landscape Style when the shot was taken. These are settings that would be applied to the jpg rendition but not the RAW data - which is just a file of raw data with an embedded thumbnail version of the landscape style adjusted jpg file.
The camera creates the jogs using the "Landscape" settings and the information it has to correct the lens characteristics. Many lenses these days are designed to require quite significant correction during processing in order to overcome the limits of optical physics and keep the price affordable. It's one of the "benefits" of the digital age.
Processing from RAW mans that the software has to apply the lens fixes (based in this case on the data provided by the lens via the camera and read form the RAW file). The application also attempts to interpret the data according to its own assessment - which will probably not be entirely aligned with the camera's internal settings but rather have a more generic result.
There is no reason to expect that the results would be identical. Actually no point - it the jpg suits, use it and save a lot of time! 😉 ) but it should be possible to tweak things to identify where the interpretation differences come from. They may not be entirely obvious at first - or even at last. Trees are especially troublesome.
I think I would be looking to fine tune the white balance and probably adjust for Level for each colour channel separately and see what that gives. Used as a generic guide if you can see from the camera what values are adjusted (compered to a default) when the Landscape style is adopted you may get some clues about how the internal processing has been applied.
HTH.
Grant0 -
[quote="Peter50" wrote:
Don't forget that the default behavior for sharpening is to have on for your preview but turned off for processing. You have to go to the output tab and click on Adjustments and uncheck the Disable Sharpening option in order to have your processed file sharpened.
I don't think that is the default. I have never had the disable sharpening option enabled in all the years I have been using C1 (since version 4). In any case, you can set it or unset it as an option in any of your process recipes. As far as I can see, the default (that is, what you get if you hit the + to create a new recipe) is TIFF, uncompressed, Adobe RGB ICC profile, 300 px/in, scale fixed 100%, (on the basic tab). And on the adjustments tab both disable sharpening and ignore crop are unchecked.
Ian0 -
Well, my issue is that I so badly WANT to use C1, that I'm sad it doesn't seem to work for the camera I always take with me when on the road and out in nature. turn the noise reduction sliders all the way down, Color -20, Clarity -20, Structure +10 and use raw presharpen preset 2.
@ j thorsen: Thanks. This does indeed make a difference. The result is not as sharp, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. My only concern is that I'm using Clarity a lot. It's a fantastic feature for landscapes. What do you mean by "Color -20" I couldn't find that setting?
As Grant explained, I understand that C1 attempts to resemble what the camera does internally. The FZ1000 obviously does an incredible job in this regard (looking at the unprocessed RAW and the final JPG, it's plain magic to me) and it's a challenge to match that in software! I don't expect results to be identical, which is impossible and also not needed. However, since both DxO and Silkypix come extremely close (with default settings), I would expect C1 to come similarly close (in whatever way).
But as it looks now, C1 just won't fit my needs. At least not with this camera and nature/travel content. I demo'ed C1 with some 8,000 images, most of them still JPG, only a couple hundred RAW. For better color correction and enhancements, I want to switch to RAW entirely.
At first I thought I'd do a batch convert of all RAW to TIFF (to preserve full color space) with some external utility before importing into C1, but then that's pointless, as the strength of C1 is its integrated workflow. And I doubt such a utility exists. I love to browse 1000's of images and make adjustments on-the-fly, good presets management, have batch processing running in the background, etc. And I love its advanced color editor. Other converters don't allow this convenience.
You may have noticed I'm new to RAW. Didn't expect this to be so unpredictable 😉 Will have to look further, I'm afraid.
I wish there was a camera/lens profile creator/editor for C1! How many profiles exist out there? Why not import and edit them yourself? At least this will give users more control and take a burden off the shoulders of the C1 developers.0 -
[quote="ansbil" wrote:
What do you mean by "Color -20" I couldn't find that setting?
In the noise reduction settings, on the details tab, there are four sliders: Luminance, Detail, Color and Single Pixel.
Actually they run from 0 to 100. By default, the Color one seems to be at 50, so I suppose he means 20 down from that so about 30? Or does he mean some other slider? (Because he also suggests turning the NR sliders all the way down.)
And in the discussion of this have we checked that the output recipe you are using is suitably set up? What JPG quality, ICC profile, resolution, etc?
Ian0 -
[quote="ansbil" wrote:
turn the noise reduction sliders all the way down, Color -20, Clarity -20, Structure +10 and use raw presharpen preset 2.
@ j thorsen: Thanks. This does indeed make a difference. The result is not as sharp, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. My only concern is that I'm using Clarity a lot. It's a fantastic feature for landscapes. What do you mean by "Color -20" I couldn't find that setting?
Sorry, i meant saturation slider..🤭 in the exposure tool tab, it is just to take off some over saturation that tends to blur the details.0 -
Sorry, i meant saturation slider
Thanks. Unfortunately, my demo expired today, so I can't try anymore. Maybe I get a chance to try on a different Mac? Will give it a try.And in the discussion of this have we checked that the output recipe you are using is suitably set up?
The last two examples are taken right from the screen at 200%, no export or output involved. For the other examples, I used 90% JPEG, sRGB color (camera's ICC profile used), original 100% resolution 5472 x 3080. I don't think it's the output. It's rather the sharpening algorithm that struggles with fine textures.0 -
Didn't expect this to be so unpredictable
It's not really, once you get past this initial stage with a camera. Get it right, set those as the defaults, and then pretty much all images from there are right, on import.0 -
If you are getting great results out of the software you already have, are there particular things that C1 does that you are missing? If not, get off the software testing merry-go-round and just enjoy life. 😊
(Although for a lot of people, myself included, software testing is actually enjoyable, so feel free to ignore that)0 -
If you are getting great results out of the software you already have, are there particular things that C1 does that you are missing?
I'm getting good results, but am missing the great mass workflow of C1. I need to skim and correct large numbers of images, organize them in albums, re-order, export/process with new names so they are alphabetically sorted in that new order, etc. Also I have two monitors and I much like the full screen viewer. And the advanced color editor.
With C1, I was able to correct hundreds of actually bad images on-the-fly that were shot from inside a moving car, at odd angles, with a green bias and windshield spots, making them great to watch (not quite for print, though). If I had reliable RAW development, my results would even get better. Now I did all pictures in JPEG, which is a shame.
I found the OS X RAW converter plug-in for the camera does a good job. Much better than C1. Except for the chromatic aberration, but that could be done later. I maybe using Automator to batch convert all RAW to TIFF with OS X, before importing them as TIFF into C1. But then, this is no longer the desired integrated workflow and a waste of storage.
I so much wish the FZ1000 was properly supported 😭0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
19件のコメント