Guy Gowan on RAW conversion

Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
5,262
Location
NJ
I don't have the time to look at a one hour webcast. Can you give me an elevator-ride overview?
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,033
Location
Perth, Australia
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
I 'do' think it's worth making the time, however - Aperture is the best RAW converter by far, but if you must use ACR, use the 2010 process, rather than the latest one, and adjust using the Exposure slider. Apparently, Adobe build recovery into the latest process (regardless of what you want), and it doesn't do it well at all.
 

Growltiger

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
12,826
Location
Up in the hills, Gloucestershire, UK
I 'do' think it's worth making the time, however - Aperture is the best RAW converter by far, but if you must use ACR, use the 2010 process, rather than the latest one, and adjust using the Exposure slider. Apparently, Adobe build recovery into the latest process (regardless of what you want), and it doesn't do it well at all.
So Aperture is better than ACR or Capture NX2 at the quality of RAW conversion? An interesting discovery!

And he thinks one should use the older not so good ACR converter!

And he thinks ACR is not so good at recovery now as it used to be?

And we should watch him for an hour telling us all this!!!

I'll skip this one thanks.
 
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
2,640
Location
Virginia Beach, Virginia USA
Real Name
Bill Mellen
So Aperture is better than ACR or Capture NX2 at the quality of RAW conversion? An interesting discovery!

And he thinks one should use the older not so good ACR converter!

And he thinks ACR is not so good at recovery now as it used to be?

And we should watch him for an hour telling us all this!!!

I'll skip this one thanks.
+1
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
5,262
Location
NJ
I 'do' think it's worth making the time, however - Aperture is the best RAW converter by far, but if you must use ACR, use the 2010 process, rather than the latest one, and adjust using the Exposure slider. Apparently, Adobe build recovery into the latest process (regardless of what you want), and it doesn't do it well at all.
Interesting conclusions. One thing to be learned from professionals... they disagree on everything! It's hard to disagree with somebody who makes a living from their workflow, but obviously opinions vary! I'll see if I can review it tonight, I'm interested in his reasoning.
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
60
Location
Timbuktu
Care to share your take, after reviewing it, please?
Interesting conclusions. One thing to be learned from professionals... they disagree on everything! It's hard to disagree with somebody who makes a living from their workflow, but obviously opinions vary! I'll see if I can review it tonight, I'm interested in his reasoning.


Anyone else with pro or con views - do join in.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,033
Location
Perth, Australia
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
I would encourage people to not just accept my summary, and take the time to watch what he has to say. Disagree all you like - and I'd love to hear arguments disagreeing with him, if any of you have knowledge as solid as his - but don't make the mistake of dismissing something before you've seen it. That's just foolish.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
5,262
Location
NJ
I don't know what to think of it. He tells a compelling story, but i really don't like his—in my eyes quite arrogant “if you don’t see this you must be stupid”—attitude and that kind of overshadows his story.
Yes, the examples are convincing. But they're also hand picked and I've worked long enough in marketing to know that you can tell quite the story using the right material. Adobe's content-aware fill worked nearly perfect on the “randomly picked sample images” they showed us when introducing it, and magically the success rate is considerably lower when I use it. Looking at this video—which really could have been done in 15 minutes or less—gives me the same feeling.

Still, it’s always good to see a different opinion (on of the reasons I like KR—did I just Godwin this discussion?) because it shows there’s more than the well threaded paths most of us (including me) follow.
The pro’s that shoot jpeg, use cheap zoom lenses, non conventional workflows... it shows that there’s more to a good picture than simply throwing the best technology available at it, as long as you have an intimate knowledge of what goes on underneath it.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
I don't know what to think of it. He tells a compelling story, but i really don't like his—in my eyes quite arrogant “if you don’t see this you must be stupid”—attitude and that kind of overshadows his story.
.....
Looking at this video—which really could have been done in 15 minutes or less—gives me the same feeling.
I sure found exactly the same things you did. And while he did show how "he" does it, I did not hear any reasons why this way is better than others. When I was first learning NX, it was with Ron Reznick, and he sure had a way to do things as well, which can still be applied but easier ways have come to pass.

My biggest complaint was the amount of time to get to the point, that is an awfully long video for the amount of actual content in my opinion.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,033
Location
Perth, Australia
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
Yes, he's very confident (shall we say), and it is too long.

Out of interest, I processed a RAW file using Aperture on my MBP, both ways in Photoshop (in Windows), and using DxO Optics Pro. IMHO, the Aperture file 'was' the best, followed by DxO Optics Pro, ACR 2010, then ACR 2012. He's right about the highlights and the automatic 'recovery' applied by Adobe.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom