Adobe camers raw and Sigma format files

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike Engles, May 5, 2004.

  1. Mike Engles

    Mike Engles Guest

    Hello

    It seems that the new Adobe Camera Raw can do quite a good job cleaning
    up some aberations on Sigma format files. Its noise reduction works
    pretty well at cleaning up red/green artifacts.

    It would be great if it could work on scanned images as well as a
    general
    Photoshop tool.

    http://www.btinternet.com/~mike.engles/mike/Adoberaw.jpg

    I think that it will be obvious which is which.

    Mike Engles
     
    Mike Engles, May 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mike Engles

    Searching_ut Guest

    Have you played with the two programs enough to determine if the differences
    you're seeing in noise levels is a result of just the noise reduction
    filters? The Sigma Raw conversion software does significant luminance
    channel sharpening at the default setting while I don't believe the Adobe
    Raw conversion software is applying.

    Whatever happened, the Adobe software did a great job of getting rid of the
    purple fringe in the eye, but seems to have taken a bit of a toll on the
    image sharpness. Such a bummer that everything seems to come with trade
    offs.

    For what it's worth

    Jeff
     
    Searching_ut, May 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mike Engles

    Mike Engles Guest

    Searching_ut wrote:
    >
    > Have you played with the two programs enough to determine if the differences
    > you're seeing in noise levels is a result of just the noise reduction
    > filters? The Sigma Raw conversion software does significant luminance
    > channel sharpening at the default setting while I don't believe the Adobe
    > Raw conversion software is applying.
    >
    > Whatever happened, the Adobe software did a great job of getting rid of the
    > purple fringe in the eye, but seems to have taken a bit of a toll on the
    > image sharpness. Such a bummer that everything seems to come with trade
    > offs.
    >
    > For what it's worth
    >
    > Jeff



    Hello

    I don't own a Sigma or any DSLR.
    It's just that I have found 6 X3F format images from the Sigma site, to
    fiddle about with. The Adobe does not do a great deal as default, but
    does produce 'warmer' tones. It has a very interesting filter to reduce
    colour noise.

    I will have afurthe r fiddle to see what the differences are.

    Mike Engles
     
    Mike Engles, May 6, 2004
    #3
  4. Mike Engles wrote:
    > Searching_ut wrote:
    >
    >>Have you played with the two programs enough to determine if the differences
    >>you're seeing in noise levels is a result of just the noise reduction
    >>filters? The Sigma Raw conversion software does significant luminance
    >>channel sharpening at the default setting while I don't believe the Adobe
    >>Raw conversion software is applying.
    >>
    >>Whatever happened, the Adobe software did a great job of getting rid of the
    >>purple fringe in the eye, but seems to have taken a bit of a toll on the
    >>image sharpness. Such a bummer that everything seems to come with trade
    >>offs.
    >>
    >>For what it's worth
    >>
    >>Jeff

    >
    >
    >
    > Hello
    >
    > I don't own a Sigma or any DSLR.
    > It's just that I have found 6 X3F format images from the Sigma site, to
    > fiddle about with. The Adobe does not do a great deal as default, but
    > does produce 'warmer' tones. It has a very interesting filter to reduce
    > colour noise.
    >
    > I will have afurthe r fiddle to see what the differences are.
    >



    I've been using the new RAW plug in to test Sigma, Nikon, Fuji, Kodak,
    Olympus and Minolta files (I don't seem to have any Canon RAW - that's
    probably because most of my magazine writers use Canon, so I don't have
    to borrow the cameras myself to test - someone always gets one and
    offers me a report before I have a chance).

    The 'Chromatic Aberration' correction is extremely useful and with most
    lenses/sensors, a level of less than plus or minus 30 on the scale cures
    the faults and produces no sharpness loss. With Sigma 18-50mm, it needed
    a figure of 45 and some smudging of detail results. The Minolta A2 needs
    +20 on one slider only.

    Generally, the plug-in offers better results and more control all round
    than any maker's own program, and is MUCH faster. The exception is for
    Kodak files, where it has no controls and produces poor results. It
    lacks the X3 Fill Light function which the Sigma software has, but I
    have been finding the Sigma PP2 preview simulation window understates
    the effects of using controls compared to opening the finished file in
    Photoshop - while the Photoshop plug-in gives a very accurate idea of
    the finished result.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, May 6, 2004
    #4
  5. Mike Engles

    Mike Engles Guest

    David Kilpatrick wrote:
    >
    > Mike Engles wrote:
    > > Searching_ut wrote:
    > >
    > >>Have you played with the two programs enough to determine if the differences
    > >>you're seeing in noise levels is a result of just the noise reduction
    > >>filters? The Sigma Raw conversion software does significant luminance
    > >>channel sharpening at the default setting while I don't believe the Adobe
    > >>Raw conversion software is applying.
    > >>
    > >>Whatever happened, the Adobe software did a great job of getting rid of the
    > >>purple fringe in the eye, but seems to have taken a bit of a toll on the
    > >>image sharpness. Such a bummer that everything seems to come with trade
    > >>offs.
    > >>
    > >>For what it's worth
    > >>
    > >>Jeff

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Hello
    > >
    > > I don't own a Sigma or any DSLR.
    > > It's just that I have found 6 X3F format images from the Sigma site, to
    > > fiddle about with. The Adobe does not do a great deal as default, but
    > > does produce 'warmer' tones. It has a very interesting filter to reduce
    > > colour noise.
    > >
    > > I will have afurthe r fiddle to see what the differences are.
    > >

    >
    > I've been using the new RAW plug in to test Sigma, Nikon, Fuji, Kodak,
    > Olympus and Minolta files (I don't seem to have any Canon RAW - that's
    > probably because most of my magazine writers use Canon, so I don't have
    > to borrow the cameras myself to test - someone always gets one and
    > offers me a report before I have a chance).
    >
    > The 'Chromatic Aberration' correction is extremely useful and with most
    > lenses/sensors, a level of less than plus or minus 30 on the scale cures
    > the faults and produces no sharpness loss. With Sigma 18-50mm, it needed
    > a figure of 45 and some smudging of detail results. The Minolta A2 needs
    > +20 on one slider only.
    >
    > Generally, the plug-in offers better results and more control all round
    > than any maker's own program, and is MUCH faster. The exception is for
    > Kodak files, where it has no controls and produces poor results. It
    > lacks the X3 Fill Light function which the Sigma software has, but I
    > have been finding the Sigma PP2 preview simulation window understates
    > the effects of using controls compared to opening the finished file in
    > Photoshop - while the Photoshop plug-in gives a very accurate idea of
    > the finished result.
    >
    > David



    Hello

    I would love to have the aberation and colour noise filters as a normal
    Photoshop tools. It would be brillaint for cleaning up my Nikon Ls50
    scans. This scanner seems to have a bit of red/green fringing at the
    edges as well as red/green smeary noise in mid tones. I suppose the Ls40
    suffered from this also, but it did not show up like 4000dpi shows it.

    Mike Engles
     
    Mike Engles, May 6, 2004
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ross Allan

    Camers age by serial number.

    Ross Allan, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    967
    J. A. Mc.
    Jul 10, 2003
  2. Roland Karlsson

    Sigma RAW format?

    Roland Karlsson, Aug 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    663
    Roland Karlsson
    Aug 3, 2003
  3. Z Man
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    484
    Bauie
    Nov 27, 2004
  4. Reciprocity failure in digital camers?

    , Sep 12, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    627
    Alan Meyer
    Sep 19, 2006
  5. Douglas

    logitech Camers Viewing

    Douglas, Jul 23, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    505
    Synapse Syndrome
    Jul 23, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page