dcp from ACR).ĪSP also desperately needs a better noise handling (at least for my Sony and Minolta files). I don't know how difficult it would be to enhance ASP to be able to read other peoples profiles (RawTherapee in its latest version can read. Maybe all profiles need a work over, but with all of them beeing discontinued I doubt that will ever happen. I do not experience more difficulties with the A500 than with the other cameras. My succession of cameras was Minolta Dimage 7hi, Konica Minolta A200, Sony A100, Sony A500. green but not only) ever since the first preview of Bibble 5. I have been struggling with shadows (esp. Having said all that, your version is still much better than my try with ASP. You also adjusted the blacks to -10 and changed the curves on the "dark side", which cost you almost all local contrast and you also lost the blacks. The Sony A500 is exremely good in the highlights and still preserves detail in the shadows, you just need a raw converter that is able to recover it without introducing too much noise.Īs I may have been a bit heavy handed with the sharpening, you may have overdone the noise reduction (Raw Impule Noise+Raw Noise+NN Luma Chroma at default levels) quite a bit of the dark green detail has been lost. I see I get three different versions, of which I like V3 best.
So I copied it into my pictures folder to replace my original xmp. I can open your file in the editor, but it is too much work to read. All the profiles are probably embedded now (at least I do not see them in the /opt/AfterShotPro directory anymore), so one cannot tell whether they added new profiles or fine-tuned old ones.Īnyway, here is my attempt to convert your raw file: I suspect ASP of using the Sony A550 profile instead, which is a bit unfortunate because A500 has a different sensor. There was no extra profile for A500 in B5, neither in ASP 1.0.0.39. I think that part of the problem could be a wrong camera profile. Particularly in dark greens ASP produces an ugly blotchy green noise.ģ) on the other hand, color seems to be more accurate in the case of A500 I have bought one recently, and found that:ġ) A500 has less space in shadows but more in highlights (on the contrary to my older cam - Minolta 5D), andĢ) ASP has far more problems with A500 than with 5D. Just noticed that your photo discussed above was taken by Sony A500. Actuallly I would like to swich back to Bibble/ASP if only for the one reason that it doesn't force me to use a library. In case anybody is interested, I put a small gallery of those ominous pics on the web that serve me as touchstone for every new ASP version. (I am still mourning the loss of Sean's Ansel pro plug-in). My "hero" is Ansel Adams": every zone should be represented on the final print. Should I end up with a flat HDR look I would look at it as a failure. What I aim at during raw-conversion is to re-create my vision, how I experienced the scene at the location.
It is only the default tone curve that cannot cope and I don't expect it to cope. I actually see detail in the shadows the sensor does too (otherwise there would not be anything to retrieve). But my eyes - or is it the brains - adjust. I know there is harsh light.I can measure it. if you take a look at my webarchive you will see i really like dark, fat shadows. you like to take images in harsh light and then push them towards the flat HDR look.