Hello Jeremy,
You perfectly right, that in the begenning, that was the idea of the
test. Is it possible to arrive the same result with DT than with LR.
Was also thinking (I don't know LR at all) that it was possible to
reproduce the same developement in the two soft.
Finaly I understand that the tools are not the same, and just try to
approch the result of LR. I'm agree with you that it is bias but it was
the initial test.
For the next developement we decide just to do the work each of us like
we want, not to copy, the developement of the others.
If some of you want to participate I can send a link for the next
picture.
That's also right that I'm not very good in DT, and others did better
job than me. But still, I think that the noise reduction in LR is more
easy and better.
I didn't know until now the lowlight vision module, but I will try it
right now, thanks.
Ary
Le jeudi 13 juin 2013 à 09:32 +0200, jeremy rosen a écrit :
> There is an important (but unavoidable) bias in the methodology too...
>
>
>
> in your test you processed the image under lightroom then try to
> reproduce the same result with DT
>
>
> this has sevral unfavorable consequences for DT (the same problem
> would be reverted if you went the other way round, which is why I say
> it's unavoidable)
>
>
> * the method under DT will always be more complicated because DT
> doesn't provide the same tools so you have to use multiple tools and
> usually the complex/low level ones to get a similar result. Moreover
> you need to really master them well since you need to have an idea
> what LR does "under the hood" to do something similar in DT. Thats
> probably one of the reason why Johanes (which is one of the guy with
> the best knowledge of image processing around this ML) did a better
> job than you...
>
>
> * the result will most likely be less flattering for DT, again because
> we are trying to achieve someone else's result with different tools,
> so we can only be an aproximation.
>
>
> If you do the opposite (develop a low light image in DT, reproduce in
> LR) the results would probably very different and LR would
> (legitimately) be the one struggling...
>
>
> I would be particularly be interested to see how well LR can reproduce
> what our "lowlight vision" plugin does. I personally think it gives
> very natural looking results for night images because it reproduces
> "what the eye really sees" (by oposition to "what the sensor sees")
> and rings a bell in our brain...
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:19 AM, ary brami <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello Matthias,
>
> I'm agree with you, about the noise reduction, unfortunatelly.
> I was sure before that test, that DT was closer than that...
> I think that it's also due to the ISO level. Particularly on
> this image where ISO 6400, DT don't achieve the job as good as
> LR. But on ISO level lwer, DT is very good.
>
> We decide with two other bloger to continue this kind of test
> LR vs DT once or twice a month, in order to know better if in
> some picture the difference is realy smaller or if DT is even
> better than LR.
>
> Ary
>
> Le mercredi 12 juin 2013 à 07:58 +0200, Matthias Bodenbinder a
> écrit :
>
>
> Am 11.06.2013 10:31, schrieb ary brami:
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > I just publish on my blog a post about developement of the
> same image, with lightroom and darktable.
> > The picture was VERY noisy (ISO 6400, at night), and on that
> point, I must admit that I didn't achived to reduce the noise
> in Darktable as well as in Lightroom.
> > If somebody want to try to do better, the link to download
> the raw file is in the post
> here
> :http://aventurereflex.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/darktable-vs-lightroom-le-logiciel-dadobe-est-il-un-must-pour-les-photographes/
> >
> > We will renew this type of developement both in LR and in
> DT, sure that some time, DR will be closer or even better
> thant LR.
> >
> > Ary
> >
>
> Hello Ary,
>
> that is interesting. And I am actually shocked about the big
> difference between Lightroom and Darktable. I find two aspects
> very odd.
>
> (1) DT has a noise profile for the 600D at iso3200. Even with
> that it is almost impossible to reduce the noise properly. And
> Denoise (non-local means and bilateral) do not do any better.
> I thought that noise profiles is the best you can get in terms
> of noise reduction.
>
> (2) The color cast in the background is weird. The blue
> background of the DT image looks artificial while the grey
> background of the Lightroom picture looks much more natural.
>
> And by the way, rawtherapee is not doing any better than DT.
>
> Kind Regards
> Matthias
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Darktable-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Darktable-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
