Just to add another angle to the discussion; I found myself seriously disappointed with the photoshop plugin. As far as I can see, the bayer interpolation is based on dcraw's vng code, which is dodgey, at best.
Having said that, Pentax's raw convertor is possibly worse, but compared to Canon or Nikon's tools, the photoshop plugin (and dcraw) are dreadful quality. It generates horrible edge aliasing and artifacting, not to mention nasty colour interference in some cases. As always, this is just an opinion. YMMV. Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday Director of Development, eyeon Software ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:13 PM Subject: RE: Photoshop CS RAW Converter > Sshhh Mark - or you will be costing me a lot of money! > > I am desparately stopping myself downloading the trial CS because of the > UK price of the thing! > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Cassino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 23 February 2004 22:29 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Photoshop CS RAW Converter > > > > > > Based on Herb and Paul's comments, I downloaded and installed > > the Photoshop > > CS update today. > > > > I am _really_ impressed. > > > > A while back I took a shot that was calculated to overwhelm > > the resolution > > of the *ist-D. It was basically a wider-angle landscape shot > > with lots of > > branches, twigs, dried leaves, etc in it. After processing > > it with the > > Pentax RAW converter, upsampling it to 12x18 in Genuine > > Fractals 2.0, and > > then sharpening, I found the print to be unacceptbale in terms of > > detail. Trees looked plastic and the areas with lots of > > branches resolved > > into a sort of haze. With the CS RAW converter I upsampled > > and sharpened > > the image as part of the RAW processing, and then just made > > some color > > adjustments. It's considerably better than the first > > attempt, though I > > still would not consider it to be acceptable. The 35mm film > > exposures > > (Velvia) taken at the same time are still better. > > > > The shot I used as a test was packed with tons of info - I > > really went out > > a picked a scene that I expected would need more resolution > > that the *ist-D > > could possibly deliver. But other scenes that are not so > > demanding - like > > some lighthouse shots were there is just not much fine detail > > - have been > > fine with the *ist-D and Pentax converter, and look really > > outstanding with > > the CS converter. > > > > I'd rate Photoshop CS as a 'must have' utility, if you want > > to print larger > > images. > > > > - MCC > > ----- > > > > Mark Cassino Photography > > > > Kalamazoo, MI > > > http://www.markcassino.com > > ----- > > > >
