Guy Gowan on RAW conversion

[Sventek]

I'm a big fan of Guy Gowan, and have learned a lot from him. This is a public (free) webcast on his thoughts on RAW conversion.

http://guygowan.com/ggtv/public.php

 

[Lurker]

I don't have the time to look at a one hour webcast. Can you give me an elevator-ride overview?

 

[Sventek]

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]

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.

 

[BillM]

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

 

[Lurker]

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.

 

[ubuntu]

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.

 

[Sventek]

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.

 

[Lurker]

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.

 

[Retief]

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.

 

[Sventek]

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.

 

[Sventek]

Edit: I got a double post for some reason.