processing, or 2 different processes, which do you prefer ?: Macro and Still Life Photography Forum: Digital Photography Review (2024)

I had a stack the other day i quite liked, it was stacked using the jpgs and then edited (light touch of exposure, highlights, contrast, sharpness, crop)

As i have a trial of PL7 I thought i'd try using its dxo (deepprime) to export the raw as Tiffs, and then stacked them, and edited as above

PL7 changed the colours (for good or bad), or perhaps the default OM colours are just different, so I then used OMworkspace to export the raws as tiffs, stacked those, and edited as above

The latter 2 options took more time obviously, but are they better? What do you think & prefer

stack from jpg

stack from dxo tiffs

stack from omworkspace tiffs

Jim

another example , standard jpg stacked vs dxo deeprime tifs stacked

jpg stacked

dxo export tiff then stacked

I use Dxo to develop raw images and it uses a wide color gamut by default, hence the color difference. You can adjust that and tones to your preference as there are several options. I usually try the options that give the sharpest result.

Edit: Another thought- I’ve read that tiffs 16bit will give you the sharpest results when processing. I do use this on images that I might save but usually delete the source files due to the space requirement and large files. Otherwise I usually just use jepgs for posting online.

macrouser wrote:

To me the DXO stacks from TIF looks more detailed and sharp. They are more yellow and more contrast. That can be adjusted.

I do prefer the dxo processed version, I also tried stacking the raws in om workspace but wasn’t as happy with its output.

Marceppy wrote:

I use Dxo to develop raw images and it uses a wide color gamut by default, hence the color difference. You can adjust that and tones to your preference as there are several options. I usually try the options that give the sharpest result.

Edit: Another thought- I’ve read that tiffs 16bit will give you the sharpest results when processing. I do use this on images that I might save but usually delete the source files due to the space requirement and large files. Otherwise I usually just use jepgs for posting online.

I thought I’d turned off all the colour options in photolab, perhaps I missed something as it’s not my usual software, I’ll have another look

While i do think the result is better though I’d probably just process jpgs as it’s quicker, and only go the raw and tiff route for the few that seem worth spending time on

macrouser wrote:

I tend to keep way more files than I need to. My computer I got around November 2023 has 21 terabits of storage. I am hoping that will be enough for a few more years.

TB’s!!! I’m still only using my pc’s ssd and a couple of drives for duplicate backups, I do use the delete key though…

jim mij wrote:

PL7 changed the colours (for good or bad), or perhaps the default OM colours are just different...

Differences in white balance and color space (Adobe Color, Camera Neutral, etc.), and tint can shift the pallet quite a lot. Every time I make a change to the way that I diffuse my flash I have to change one or more of those three.

John K wrote:

jim mij wrote:

PL7 changed the colours (for good or bad), or perhaps the default OM colours are just different...

Differences in white balance and color space (Adobe Color, Camera Neutral, etc.), and tint can shift the pallet quite a lot. Every time I make a change to the way that I diffuse my flash I have to change one or more of those three.

Thanks, That gives me an idea. I’ll have to go check what camera settings were used as i remember setting the WB to 5500 or 6000k to see what happens. I generally just process the jpgs which already have been “corrected” in some wizardy way

jim mij wrote:

John K wrote:

jim mij wrote:

PL7 changed the colours (for good or bad), or perhaps the default OM colours are just different...

Differences in white balance and color space (Adobe Color, Camera Neutral, etc.), and tint can shift the pallet quite a lot. Every time I make a change to the way that I diffuse my flash I have to change one or more of those three.

Thanks, That gives me an idea. I’ll have to go check what camera settings were used as i remember setting the WB to 5500 or 6000k to see what happens. I generally just process the jpgs which already have been “corrected” in some wizardy way

that was it, the photolab /dxo default WB was off, even when i changed its WB to flash it was reading 7500k. When I then changed it to 6000k as per the camera settings the colours came back to where OM workspace was using

charlyw64 wrote:

I would rate both shots and both methods as equally displeasing and the stacks as such have failed (as expected). Stacks don't work on complex subjects. It's especially visible on the second image, in one of them the background got quadrupled in an vain attempt to mask the unavailability of the area in question on the other the inevitable halo is obscuring areas of the background in place of that...

its only 1 stack of shots, with 3 different processing methods. I was trying to work out which of those methods was best

To stack or not to stack, that is a separate question

Jim

jim mij wrote:

charlyw64 wrote:

I would rate both shots and both methods as equally displeasing and the stacks as such have failed (as expected). Stacks don't work on complex subjects. It's especially visible on the second image, in one of them the background got quadrupled in an vain attempt to mask the unavailability of the area in question on the other the inevitable halo is obscuring areas of the background in place of that...

its only 1 stack of shots, with 3 different processing methods. I was trying to work out which of those methods was best

Yes and yet all three methods are complete and utter failures by my book - not that the algorithms can do anything against that except to invent detail where there is none available...

To stack or not to stack, that is a separate question

If you don't stack then all this pondering is not needed. IMHO stacks (physically) work at high magnification (from 5:1 and higher) or at low magnification (1:20 and lower)...

charlyw64 wrote:

jim mij wrote:

charlyw64 wrote:

I would rate both shots and both methods as equally displeasing and the stacks as such have failed (as expected). Stacks don't work on complex subjects. It's especially visible on the second image, in one of them the background got quadrupled in an vain attempt to mask the unavailability of the area in question on the other the inevitable halo is obscuring areas of the background in place of that...

its only 1 stack of shots, with 3 different processing methods. I was trying to work out which of those methods was best

Yes and yet all three methods are complete and utter failures by my book - not that the algorithms can do anything against that except to invent detail where there is none available...

To stack or not to stack, that is a separate question

If you don't stack then all this pondering is not needed. IMHO stacks (physically) work at high magnification (from 5:1 and higher) or at low magnification (1:20 and lower)..

I don’t use your book, but hopefully you enjoy what’s in it

jim mij wrote:

charlyw64 wrote:

jim mij wrote:

charlyw64 wrote:

I would rate both shots and both methods as equally displeasing and the stacks as such have failed (as expected). Stacks don't work on complex subjects. It's especially visible on the second image, in one of them the background got quadrupled in an vain attempt to mask the unavailability of the area in question on the other the inevitable halo is obscuring areas of the background in place of that...

its only 1 stack of shots, with 3 different processing methods. I was trying to work out which of those methods was best

Yes and yet all three methods are complete and utter failures by my book - not that the algorithms can do anything against that except to invent detail where there is none available...

To stack or not to stack, that is a separate question

If you don't stack then all this pondering is not needed. IMHO stacks (physically) work at high magnification (from 5:1 and higher) or at low magnification (1:20 and lower)..

I don’t use your book, but hopefully you enjoy what’s in it

I hope you enjoy the horrible artifacts that physics produce...

The Panasonic Lumix S5II launched the second generation of Panasonic’s full-frame mirrorless camera system and was the first Panasonic to feature phase detect autofocus. As our review reveals, it’s a heck of an all-around camera for both still and video shooters.

The latest Lumix puts a Four Thirds sensor in a full-frame body with boosted AF and a wealth of stills and video capabilities to create a Swiss Army Knife of a Micro Four Thirds camera.

The fourth camera in Leica's SL series of full-frame mirrorless cameras sees the 60MP BSI sensor from the Q3 and M11 models arrive with a significant interface redesign.

The Fujifilm X100VI is the sixth iteration of Fujifilm's classically-styled large sensor compact. A 40MP X-Trans sensor, in-body stabilization and 6.2K video are among the updates.

The Nikon Zf is a 24MP full-frame mirrorless camera with classic looks that brings significant improvements to Nikon's mid-price cameras. We just shot a sample reel to get a better feel for its video features and have added our impressions to the review.

What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.

What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked.

Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.