Best RAW converter for HLs?

[Keith B]

I have a very laymen comment:


I have processed identical RAW files with ACR and Aperture and Aperture flat out blew away ACR as far as highlights go. I have been absolutely amazed at Aperture's ability to bring back detail in blown out areas.


If you are on a PC sorry to have wasted your time.

[canoli]

You might be referring to when I said that DPP sets the wrong white point for some ISO settings, clipping up to 1/3 stop of highlight data.

yep, that was it. Is that, in effect, doing what I said - showing overexposed HLs when they're not really overexposed? You mentioned the 5DII and its "hidden" extra +0.33 EC; I assume the rest of the cams have similar latitudes that are hidden...? How do you find that information?


thanks for the Rawnalyze link - looks like a pretty steep learning curve for me, but I'd love to learn enough to see the RAW data histograms as opposed to the camera's processed histogram. I think I'm seeing that simply by choosing the Histogram mode...the Mapped and Fine subsections are a little confusing to me right now, but I'll get it eventually I'm sure...


Do they have a user forum over there? I didn't find it if there is.


I'm hoping I can determine just how conservative my camera's blinkies really are. I think that would be helpful, provided of course that I'm using a RAW converter that can retrieve those blinkie HLs. From what you said, it sounds like all of them can do that.


Do you agree this would be an important bit of knowledge to have in the field?


Thanks again!

[canoli]

thanks Keith - I agree, I've been very impressed with Aperture overall - robust editing features, friendly GUI, etc. Unfortunately I'm a PC user 90% of the time, so Aperture isn't available to me very often.


one of these years maybe I'll make the leap to Mac...

[Daniel Browning]

Is that, in effect, doing what I said - showing overexposed HLs when they're not really overexposed?

Yes. It's a pretty minor effect, IMHO, but the idea of losing any highlights (even a small amount) just annoys me.

You mentioned the 5DII and its "hidden" extra +0.33 EC; I assume the rest of the cams have similar latitudes that are hidden...?

Yes, Adobe adjusts the profiles for all cameras to make it look as if they are the same. Some it's +0.33, others it's -0.33.

How do you find that information?

You can use the DNG profile editor, it's a free beta from their R&D site.

thanks for the Rawnalyze link - looks like a pretty steep learning curve for me, but I'd love to learn enough to see the RAW data histograms as opposed to the camera's processed histogram.

You'll pick it up very fast; there's nothing to it.

I think I'm seeing that simply by choosing the Histogram mode...

Yep!

Do they have a user forum over there? I didn't find it if there is.

No forum. The creator posts on luminous landscape forums as "Panopeeper", you can probably get help there.

Do you agree this would be an important bit of knowledge to have in the field?

Yes!

[canoli]

You'll pick it up very fast; there's nothing to it.

Ha! Thanks for the vote of confidence, but quite frankly the user's guide begins at a level I'm not sure I'm up to yet. But I'll go over to the LL website, see if I can find some help there - thanks for the suggestion.


One thing though, do you know what the Adj checkbox is for? I haven't been able to make it "do" anything, and I haven't found any reference to it in the user's guide - so far anyway. I'm using version 2.9.9.9


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.05/rwn_5F00_scrnsht_5F00_crp.gif[/img]

[Daniel Browning]

One thing though, do you know what the Adj checkbox is for?

It doesn't affect the visual image, it just makes certain numbers easier to read and compare.


Normally, the raw numbers displayed by Rawnalyze are the exact same ones that are in the raw file. (If you draw a red rectangle around some part of the image with the right mouse button, you'll see the numbers I'm talking about.) That's good because most of the time we want to see the *actual* numbers


But these can be difficult to compare between different cameras because they have different bit depth (12-bit vs. 14-bit) or black points. That's where the "Adj" checkbox come in: it maps the values to 8-bits (which most of us are used to seeing anyway) and puts 0 at the black point and 255 at the white point.

[canoli]

ah! thank you, that makes perfect sense.