A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 10th 17, 01:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital, alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release

On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release Is here, and so far I am impressed. It is a
great improvement over previous On1 products. I believe that it is good
enough to be a viable Lightroom/Photoshop alternative for those looking for
one.All the usual familiar stuff, including nondestructive layers, and Resize
are available, and there are plenty of tutorials available for learning the
finer points.

For those continuing with an LR/PS workflow, On1 Photo RAW 2018 installs, and
works as an LR& PS plugin as it did in the past.

Mac users also get an Apple Photos extension if they choose to go in that
direction.

https://on1help.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001800631

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxzf2nbtwdz1b0y/screenshot_214.png
--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #2  
Old November 10th 17, 03:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release

On 11/9/2017 7:36 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release Is here, and so far I am impressed. It is a
great improvement over previous On1 products. I believe that it is good
enough to be a viable Lightroom/Photoshop alternative for those looking for
one.All the usual familiar stuff, including nondestructive layers, and Resize
are available, and there are plenty of tutorials available for learning the
finer points.

For those continuing with an LR/PS workflow, On1 Photo RAW 2018 installs, and
works as an LR& PS plugin as it did in the past.

Mac users also get an Apple Photos extension if they choose to go in that
direction.

https://on1help.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001800631

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxzf2nbtwdz1b0y/screenshot_214.png


It works fine for me, as a PS plugin. I am first starting to use LR
instead of Bridge and think it is far more convenient. For my workflow I
made a mistake in converting some of my NEF files to DNG when importing
them. I use Capture purely as an aid to diagnose problem files, so the
conversion to DNG removes that value for me. Also, I am surprised that I
am unable to find a free DNG codec from Adobe. I don't see any real
advantage in converting to DNG.



--
PeterN
  #3  
Old November 10th 17, 10:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release

In article .com,
Savageduck says...

On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release Is here, and so far I am impressed. It is a
great improvement over previous On1 products. I believe that it is good
enough to be a viable Lightroom/Photoshop alternative for those looking for
one.All the usual familiar stuff, including nondestructive layers, and Resize
are available, and there are plenty of tutorials available for learning the
finer points.

For those continuing with an LR/PS workflow, On1 Photo RAW 2018 installs, and
works as an LR& PS plugin as it did in the past.

Mac users also get an Apple Photos extension if they choose to go in that
direction.

https://on1help.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001800631

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxzf2nbtwdz1b0y/screenshot_214.png


I gave it a try and wasn't impressed. The JPEG engine is not good (poor
detail and crispness) and it didn't apply the lens profile:
http://myolympus.org/test/raw_comp_detail1.png

ON1 is the top left one (top right is the our of camera JPEG).
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #4  
Old November 10th 17, 11:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital, alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release

On Nov 10, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In iganews.com,
Savageduck says...

On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release Is here, and so far I am impressed. It is a
great improvement over previous On1 products. I believe that it is good
enough to be a viable Lightroom/Photoshop alternative for those looking for
one.All the usual familiar stuff, including nondestructive layers, and
Resize
are available, and there are plenty of tutorials available for learning the
finer points.

For those continuing with an LR/PS workflow, On1 Photo RAW 2018 installs,
and
works as an LR& PS plugin as it did in the past.

Mac users also get an Apple Photos extension if they choose to go in that
direction.

https://on1help.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001800631

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxzf2nbtwdz1b0y/screenshot_214.png


I gave it a try and wasn't impressed.


When did you give it a try?

The JPEG engine is not good (poor
detail and crispness) and it didn't apply the lens profile:
http://myolympus.org/test/raw_comp_detail1.png


Strange. I have not had any issues editing/adjusting JPEGs with On1. Was this
the only image you tested?

Did you check the Lens Correction panel to see if the Lens Profile was
active?

Whether or not On1 PR has the lens profiles for your particular Oly
lens/camera I have no idea, all I can demonstrate is, they seem to have Nikon
and Fujifilm lens/camera profiles onboard. Moreover, they are applied.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0i5e90usilyq7p8/screenshot_215.png


ON1 is the top left one (top right is the our of camera JPEG).


To start with, why did you choose a problematic, badly shot/exposed JPEG?
I have a hard time believing that any software could do much for that shot.
You have an f/4 ISO 200 1/8s shot with visible camera shake, and movement
blur in the hands of the woman on the right. The CA/purple fringing is
present in the SOOC JPEG, and you have made it worse in your adjusted
examples.

How did you think you were going to get away with making that shot, with the
indoor scene on the right, and the blown highlights through the glass door on
the left?

Are the other three shots your examples of On1 PR adjustment?

If so, what did you do to screw things up so badly?

Why did you not test a RAW image file, or do you shoot JPEG only?

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #5  
Old November 11th 17, 03:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release

In article .com,
Savageduck says...

The JPEG engine is not good (poor
detail and crispness) and it didn't apply the lens profile:
http://myolympus.org/test/raw_comp_detail1.png


Strange. I have not had any issues editing/adjusting JPEGs with On1. Was this
the only image you tested?


Yep, this or perhaps another one as well. I tested ON1 and other RAW
converters.

Did you check the Lens Correction panel to see if the Lens Profile was
active?


Can't remember exactly, probably yes. I did put in some effort to find a
way to activate the lens profile corrections. FYI, also other RAW
converters I tested were unable to properly apply the lens corrections.

I even had an extended email exchange with the technical support of
Corel regarding Aftershop Photo 3. Despite many emails, it was
impossible to solve the issue.

Besides the lens profile issue, I also wasn't impressed by the crispness
of the pixels of the RAW converter.

snip

To start with, why did you choose a problematic, badly shot/exposed JPEG?


It's not a problematic badly shot/exposed JPEG. It's the interior of a
church and the section you see is the one with the door, where obviously
there is some overexposure, but only there. The rest of the image is
reasonably well exposed.

You can see the complete image he
http://myolympus.org/test/raw_comp_overall.png

In defense of the ON1 I can mention that it recovered nicely the
overexposed area on the pillar to the right.

I have a hard time believing that any software could do much for that shot.
You have an f/4 ISO 200 1/8s shot with visible camera shake,


Where do you see the camera shake? The stabilisation of the camera did a
very good job.

and movement
blur in the hands of the woman on the right. The CA/purple fringing is
present in the SOOC JPEG, and you have made it worse in your adjusted
examples.


To be accurate: the ON1 RAW converter got the worst results here,
probably because it didn't apply a lens profile. All other RAW
converters corrected the CA better than ON1.

How did you think you were going to get away with making that shot, with the
indoor scene on the right, and the blown highlights through the glass door on
the left?


Again: what you see is just a small section of the image. That door
makes out only a few % of the entire image.
The camera was set up for center-weighted metering, that's why it chose
that exposure. It probably decided that it was ok to overexpose 1%-2% of
the image, rather than underexposing the entire image and having more
noise.

Are the other three shots your examples of On1 PR adjustment?


All images you see are sections of images from conversions from the
*same* RAW file. You can see it from the filenames (P6055084*).

If so, what did you do to screw things up so badly?


Nothing is screwed up here. You have to look at the entire image.

Why did you not test a RAW image file, or do you shoot JPEG only?


This *is* a RAW file test.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #6  
Old November 11th 17, 04:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital, alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release

On Nov 11, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In iganews.com,
Savageduck says...

The JPEG engine is not good (poor
detail and crispness) and it didn't apply the lens profile:
http://myolympus.org/test/raw_comp_detail1.png


Strange. I have not had any issues editing/adjusting JPEGs with On1. Was
this the only image you tested?


Yep, this or perhaps another one as well. I tested ON1 and other RAW
converters.

Did you check the Lens Correction panel to see if the Lens Profile was
active?


Can't remember exactly, probably yes. I did put in some effort to find a
way to activate the lens profile corrections. FYI, also other RAW
converters I tested were unable to properly apply the lens corrections.


This sounds like operator error rather than a software failure.

I even had an extended email exchange with the technical support of
Corel regarding Aftershop Photo 3. Despite many emails, it was
impossible to solve the issue.


See above.

Besides the lens profile issue, I also wasn't impressed by the crispness
of the pixels of the RAW converter.


I have a feeling that you need to develop some familiarity with the software
before making a blanket condemnation. As I said in my OP I have been
impressed with the result I have managed to get from it, and from other
reports other folks seem to be happy with the results.

snip

To start with, why did you choose a problematic, badly shot/exposed JPEG?


It's not a problematic badly shot/exposed JPEG. It's the interior of a
church and the section you see is the one with the door, where obviously
there is some overexposure, but only there. The rest of the image is
reasonably well exposed.

You can see the complete image he
http://myolympus.org/test/raw_comp_overall.png


So that was not a SOOC JPEG.

To my mind that is a scene which calls for HDR.
Also, the JPEG crop is quite severe, and does not do the entire scene
justice.

In defense of the ON1 I can mention that it recovered nicely the
overexposed area on the pillar to the right.


That was a blown highlight area. However, the recovery by each of the apps is
minimal.


I have a hard time believing that any software could do much for that shot.
You have an f/4 ISO 200 1/8s shot with visible camera shake,


Where do you see the camera shake? The stabilisation of the camera did a
very good job.


I think the issue was visible artifacts resulting from your severe crop.

and movement blur in the hands of the woman on the right. The CA/purple fringing is
present in the SOOC JPEG, and you have made it worse in your adjusted
examples.


To be accurate: the ON1 RAW converter got the worst results here,
probably because it didn't apply a lens profile. All other RAW
converters corrected the CA better than ON1.


There are two issues relating to CA; the first is the CA is in visible in the
cropped JPEG, which lays the blame on the lens/camera combo.

Then regarding whatever you did to fix the CA/fringing, it looks like you
exacerbated the problem rather than correcting it. Again I think it boils
down to your lack of familiarity with the software, or just poor technique.
However, the CA/Fringing is worse in all three examples from On1, ACDSEE, or
PS7 than in the alleged SOOC JPEG.

How did you think you were going to get away with making that shot, with the
indoor scene on the right, and the blown highlights through the glass door
on the left?


Again: what you see is just a small section of the image. That door
makes out only a few % of the entire image.


That is the reason the crop you shared was not a fair representation of the
entire image. It was not an SOOC JPEG.

The camera was set up for center-weighted metering, that's why it chose
that exposure. It probably decided that it was ok to overexpose 1%-2% of
the image, rather than underexposing the entire image and having more
noise.


Hmmm...

Are the other three shots your examples of On1 PR adjustment?


All images you see are sections of images from conversions from the
*same* RAW file. You can see it from the filenames (P6055084*).

If so, what did you do to screw things up so badly?


Nothing is screwed up here. You have to look at the entire image.


You have only just posted what the entire image looks like, and still not
posted a good full final rendition.


Why did you not test a RAW image file, or do you shoot JPEG only?


This *is* a RAW file test.


Not the file you originally shared, that was not even what you claimed it to
be, a SOOC JPEG. What you originally shared was a severe crop of a small area
of the original, and the artifacting due to the crop was misleading.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #7  
Old November 11th 17, 05:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release

In article .com,
Savageduck says...

This sounds like operator error rather than a software failure.


It's very easy to call things "operator error". Sometimes the software
is at fault.

Other RAW converters just apply the lens profile. ON1 did not. This
should happen automatically - if the software is not capable of that,
it's not good enough.

snip

I have a feeling that you need to develop some familiarity with the software
before making a blanket condemnation. As I said in my OP I have been
impressed with the result I have managed to get from it, and from other
reports other folks seem to be happy with the results.


Other RAW converters create good results by default.

Besides, I did spend some effort to get good results out of ON1, and I'm
not exactly clueless for what concerns image processing and RAW
conversions.

So that was not a SOOC JPEG.


The out of camera JPEG is image in the top right, the other three images
are RAW conversions. I posted also (a crop of) the out of camera JPEG as
a comparison.

To my mind that is a scene which calls for HDR.


In fact I also did that (have five RAWs, at 0EV and +-2EV).

Also, the JPEG crop is quite severe, and does not do the entire scene
justice.


Now I don't follow you. The JPEG crop is just meant to show a section of
the image at 100%, to be able to compare the pixel level image.

That was a blown highlight area. However, the recovery by each of the apps is
minimal.


The output of ON1 and another RAW converter show the details in the
overblown area (except for the door area, where there is just too much
overexposure; but the column highlight is recovered much better).

snip

Then regarding whatever you did to fix the CA/fringing, it looks like you
exacerbated the problem rather than correcting it. Again I think it boils
down to your lack of familiarity with the software, or just poor technique.
However, the CA/Fringing is worse in all three examples from On1, ACDSEE, or
PS7 than in the alleged SOOC JPEG.


The CA you see is what the ON1 converter is creating, simply because it
is not using the lens profile information. The ON1 and ACDSee RAW
converters here have the worst CA (left side of the image; top right is
the out of camera JPEG).

snip

That is the reason the crop you shared was not a fair representation of the
entire image. It was not an SOOC JPEG.


I'm not complaining about the CA or highlight recovery. I'm complaining
about the lack of crispness (at pixel level) in the image and the
unability of the RAW converter to apply the lens profile. These two
issues make the ON1 converter useless for me.

By the way, the Corel converter (the latest versíon) initially even
refused to open the RAW files of the Olympus E-M1 II.
I had to raise the issue to Corel and they gave me a link to a place
where I could download a camera profile for the E-M1 II. Only after I
did that and loaded the camera profile into Aftershot, Aftershot was
able to open the ORFs of the E-M1 II.

This is not operator error - it's a clear programming error of Corel.
The E-M1 II has been around for a year, yet Corel haven't managed to
include it in their Aftershot RAW converter.

snip

You have only just posted what the entire image looks like, and still not
posted a good full final rendition.


I don't follow you here. I'm posting crops of the RAW conversion
results. Or do you want me to post the four full resolution images?

Why did you not test a RAW image file, or do you shoot JPEG only?


This *is* a RAW file test.


Not the file you originally shared, that was not even what you claimed it to
be, a SOOC JPEG. What you originally shared was a severe crop of a small area
of the original, and the artifacting due to the crop was misleading.


Seems you still have not understood what the first test result is.

- Top left is a crop of the ON1 RAW conversion
- Top right is a crop of the out of camera JPEG (from the RAW+JPEG
output of the camera)
- Bottom left is a crop of the ACDSee RAW conversion
- Bottom right is a crop of the ACR RAW conversion

By the way, all crops are 100% crops.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #8  
Old November 11th 17, 06:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital, alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release

On Nov 11, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In iganews.com,
Savageduck says...

This sounds like operator error rather than a software failure.


It's very easy to call things "operator error". Sometimes the software
is at fault.


Sometimes it isn’t.
So far I haven’t found anything to give me cause to believe there is
anything wrong with On1 Photo RAW 2018.

Other RAW converters just apply the lens profile. ON1 did not. This
should happen automatically - if the software is not capable of that,
it's not good enough.


It seems quite capable of doing that for my Nikon, and Fujifilm RAW files.


snip

I have a feeling that you need to develop some familiarity with the software
before making a blanket condemnation. As I said in my OP I have been
impressed with the result I have managed to get from it, and from other
reports other folks seem to be happy with the results.


Other RAW converters create good results by default.


What other RAW converters?

Besides, I did spend some effort to get good results out of ON1, and I'm
not exactly clueless for what concerns image processing and RAW
conversions.


I guess your effort got lost in translation.

So that was not a SOOC JPEG.


The out of camera JPEG is image in the top right, the other three images
are RAW conversions. I posted also (a crop of) the out of camera JPEG as
a comparison.


Yeah! Yeah! I got that from the start. I can read.

To my mind that is a scene which calls for HDR.


In fact I also did that (have five RAWs, at 0EV and +-2EV).

Also, the JPEG crop is quite severe, and does not do the entire scene
justice.


Now I don't follow you. The JPEG crop is just meant to show a section of
the image at 100%, to be able to compare the pixel level image.


The quality of your original particularly in the area showing of the 100%
crop is poor to start with.

That was a blown highlight area. However, the recovery by each of the apps
is
minimal.


The output of ON1 and another RAW converter show the details in the
overblown area (except for the door area, where there is just too much
overexposure; but the column highlight is recovered much better).

snip

Then regarding whatever you did to fix the CA/fringing, it looks like you
exacerbated the problem rather than correcting it. Again I think it boils
down to your lack of familiarity with the software, or just poor technique.
However, the CA/Fringing is worse in all three examples from On1, ACDSEE, or
PS7 than in the alleged SOOC JPEG.


The CA you see is what the ON1 converter is creating, simply because it
is not using the lens profile information. The ON1 and ACDSee RAW
converters here have the worst CA (left side of the image; top right is
the out of camera JPEG).


....but the CA is still there in the original, and you should have been able
to correct, not exacerbate it with all three of the processors you used for
your comparison.

snip

That is the reason the crop you shared was not a fair representation of the
entire image. It was not an SOOC JPEG.


I'm not complaining about the CA or highlight recovery.


You should.

I'm complaining about the lack of crispness (at pixel level) in the image and the
unability of the RAW converter to apply the lens profile. These two
issues make the ON1 converter useless for me.


Again, I don’t believe the quality of the original shot, particularly in
the detail area of the crop would ever make a good test subject. This is a
separate issue to the lens profile being applied, or not. An applied lens
profile isn’t going to make a difference to “crispness”, it might help
reduce the CA. It is also worth noting that, the two other processors
didn’t do much better.

If you look at the screen shot of the Lens Correction panel I had previously
sent you, you would see that the lens profile application was set to
‘auto’.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0i5e90usilyq7p8/screenshot_215.png

If you check the On1 preferences there is an option to set that as a default.

By the way, the Corel converter (the latest versĂ*on) initially even
refused to open the RAW files of the Olympus E-M1 II.
I had to raise the issue to Corel and they gave me a link to a place
where I could download a camera profile for the E-M1 II. Only after I
did that and loaded the camera profile into Aftershot, Aftershot was
able to open the ORFs of the E-M1 II.

This is not operator error - it's a clear programming error of Corel.
The E-M1 II has been around for a year, yet Corel haven't managed to
include it in their Aftershot RAW converter.


I really don’t give a damn about the Corel software. I don’t use it, and
I am not testing it.

snip

You have only just posted what the entire image looks like, and still not
posted a good full final rendition.


I don't follow you here. I'm posting crops of the RAW conversion
results. Or do you want me to post the four full resolution images?


Don’t worry about it. You have obviously made up your mind. The only thing
I can say is, I don’t think that you selected an appropriate image for
testing.

Why did you not test a RAW image file, or do you shoot JPEG only?

This *is* a RAW file test.


Not the file you originally shared, that was not even what you claimed it to
be, a SOOC JPEG. What you originally shared was a severe crop of a small
area
of the original, and the artifacting due to the crop was misleading.


Seems you still have not understood what the first test result is.


Nope! I understood from the start. Note that you didn’t say anything
regarding a 100% crop when you shared the test shots.

- Top left is a crop of the ON1 RAW conversion


That I understood.

- Top right is a crop of the out of camera JPEG (from the RAW+JPEG output of the camera)


However, when you originally shared the panel of four shots you did not say
anything about a crop.

- Bottom left is a crop of the ACDSee RAW conversion
- Bottom right is a crop of the ACR RAW conversion


That much I get. What I don’t understand is how you got the PS7 version of
ACR to convert a RAW file from a recent camera.

By the way, all crops are 100% crops.


OK! I pretty much figured out what you had done.

I think the bottom line is, you and this software are not a match.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #9  
Old November 11th 17, 08:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release

To cut it short and avoid a long discussion, how about if I send you the
RAW file and you show me what you can get out of it from ON1?

And if your result are really so much better, you tell me how you did
it.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #10  
Old November 11th 17, 10:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default On1 Photo RAW 2018 Final Release

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 20:44:37 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

To cut it short and avoid a long discussion, how about if I send you the
RAW file and you show me what you can get out of it from ON1?

And if your result are really so much better, you tell me how you did
it.


I have the new On1 too, so if you want to post a download link, I'll
play along.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Did You Know That About Google Picasa Build 28.32 The Final Release? Mr.Google Digital Photography 1 November 11th 06 12:59 AM
Preview vs final photo madz Digital Photography 10 March 26th 05 10:04 PM
The final hope for rec.photo.* groupers Jeremy 35mm Photo Equipment 15 August 3rd 04 06:40 PM
The final hope for rec.photo.* groupers ColynG© Digital Photography 29 August 2nd 04 04:46 AM
The final hope for rec.photo.* groupers Jeremy 35mm Photo Equipment 0 July 31st 04 05:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.