Let's ignore work-flow and library/directory/storage considerations for the
moment: I am very interested in list-member experience and opinion on the
qualitative effect various software has on final images. (Most reviews
comparing software like elements and lightroom emphasize workflow and
library and image management comparisons, not whether, for example, the
sharpening or contrast/color tools are "better" from an output
perspective.)
Context: I do larger gallery-style prints, abstracts and landscapes
primarily. I realize the notion of "quality" or "better" is something of
a personal matter, though sharpness, contrast, color rendition, etc. are
examples of factors I would like to take into account.
Question: let's consider the "quality" effect software has on a specific
image. Assume I begin with a single (OK) RAW and an (OK) JPEG image from,
say, an EM1. By OK I mean the exercise is not primarily to rescue a not-OK
image. If I took the same image through alternative software (per below),
what would your experience and opinions suggest would produce the "better"
result? Assume the outcome is to be a 16x20 or 20x24 or even a 24x36
print. Again, let's ignore workflow issues.
You'll note I'm not discussing PS. Also I'm not really concerned about the
availability layer-based tools, which I think of as process not engine
related. I'm interested in differences in the basic engines. Or are the
engines the same, only the (workflow) packaging and layering is different?
Some possibilities. The "using" would be sharpening, color rendition,
contrast, B/W conversion, and so forth.
1. Starting with RAW, using either elements or lightroom ... would the
image result be discernibly different? In what area?
2. Starting with JPEG, using either elements or lightroom ... would the
image result be discernibly different? In what area?
3. Considering the elements or lightroom choices, would starting with a
RAW vs. JPEG image result be discernibly different?
4. Would using Viewer 3 for RAW, then either elements or lightroom, make a
discernible difference?
5. Would you add another software choice that would in fact be discernibly
different? (Not PS though.) For example, would you use a separate
sharpening tool, or a separate perspective tool, and expect discernibly
different results?
6. Would you expect either choice to be discernibly different from using
basic tools like Picasa?
Thanks
Bob Benson
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|