Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Lee


Daniel,


Colin, Each RAW converter will render the RAW data slightly different from one another. I'll let Daniel do the in-depth. The originals are for anyone who wants to check the gradients up close and personal. If you really want to see something wild, develop this CR2 with ACR 4.4 or higher along with the Canon camera profiles. Standard, Faithful, Neutral, Landscape, etc. The outputs are miles apart when pushing a red gamut this hard. sRGB is as good as all the other color spaces when developing for the web.


That's why I'm curious as to which output renders the most true. I'd like to think that SilkyPix does. At least for me, 90% of the time it's really faithful at rendering accurate color output.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

My only experience in rendering raw data is with DPP and Adobe Lightroom.


According to the Canon descriptions, Faithful is the only rendering option that is accurate. Neutral is compressed in color space to minimize clipping and expects generous post-processing. Everything else is a stock enhancement preset. I played with lightroom for awhile, but while I subjectively liked a few renderings better in their effect, I couldn't get images that looked much like the 'Faithful' initial settings on DPP.


Something, though, bothers me. While I'm all for tweaking images for the best representation of what we want to present, if different software takes the same data and, by default, presents a drastically different image in the same color space, then, technically speaking, I would think that means that they can't all be right, i.e., most, if not all of them, are wrong.


I think I'll put these more advanced raw rending methods on my long term wish list, along with Photoshop and more sophisticated noise reduction software. Need more time for this.... [:P]