On Jun 26, 2006, at 1:49 PM, mike wilson wrote: >> 1) The range of adjustment available with the Pentax LAB on RAW files >> is almost exactly what the camera itself is capable of and provides >> very little improvement over what you can do in full resolution JPEG >> *** out of the camera. Other RAW converters have much more >> capability, as well as being far faster and easier to work with. >> Adobe Camera Raw, Silkypix, RAW Developer, CS1, Bibble, etc etc are >> all much much better software. > > I don't use it for adjustments, only conversion. It _is_ bloody > awful to work with.
Then you're missing about 90% of the value of capturing in RAW format. The biggest advantage of using RAW format is that you can make fundamental adjustments to the image data prior to gamma correction and chroma interpolation, when the losses from such adjustment are minimized. Doing adjustments for color balance and contrast in RGB data is working data that has already lost 40-50% of its malleability. >> 2) The Pentax Browser is very slow and has very awkward controls, in >> my opinion. If my primary use was to sort and resample to low-rez >> JPEGs for presentation on a web page, Photoshop CS2 with Bridge or >> Photoshop CS with File Browser does a much better job. Other >> organizational tools (ACDSEE, iView MediaPro, JBuilder, Thumbs Plus, >> etc etc) are all superior performers and produce better quality >> output in less time. > > Nobody has yet explained how the output from Photolab is worse than > from other software. Image quality of output issues: - limited color adjustments - limited gamma curve editing - no or poor quality noise reduction - no highlight recovery algorithms - only modest edge retention (poor perceptual sharpness) Issues with the software - no easy way to set different sets of RAW parameters and then run a batch conversion - no in-RAW cropping or horizon leveling tools - slow operation - difficult to use interface with limited batch conversion options. - range of adjustment only so-so. Comparing Pentax Lab with Camera Raw or any of a half dozen other good RAW converters is kinda like comparing a 1975 home slide processing kit with a calibrated, replenished E6 processing machine maintained by a knowledgeable technician > Just done a batch conversion of 227 RAWs to 16bit TIFF in just over > an hour. 750MHz processor, Seagate 5400rpm 80Gb drive, 1Gb RAM. > No doubt it would be faster with a newer machiine. Yes. My system is a new fast bugger. Adobe Camera Raw v3.4 will pound 100 PEF files to 16bit TIFF in about 4 minutes. > ... I'm still waiting to see what the technical problems are. ... I hope the above helps. > A lot of the problem is the false advertising. People are givien > the impression that all they have to do is buy the camera and the > photographic world is their oyster. Then they find that they need > a whole pile of hardware to complement the camera. By the time > they get to software, where they can't easily see what they are > getting, it's no wonder that they want to start cutting corners. Frankly, I'm not addressing "People" here. I'm addressing what I presume to be photographers with some savvy about photography on this list. Photographers never accepted Kodak's "You take the pictures, we do the rest." slogan. Why should they believe that the marketing goons tell them about a digital camera? > I made the decision quite some time ago that I would be squeezing > every last bit of use out of any computer hardware I bought and I > am continuing to do so. I do the same. Our perceptions of what "every last bit of use" likely differ somewhat. ;-) > But, apart from ease of use, I still don't know what you find > lacking in Pentax Laboratory. Now you do. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
