1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

RAW development: built-in lens correction profiles

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by Moula, May 12, 2016.

  1. Moula

    Moula Mu-43 Regular

    60
    Mar 9, 2016
    Which RAW development SW support MFT's in RAW build-in lens correction profiles? Not self-created profiles (AfterShot Pro), not Lensfun, not RAW to JPEG comparision (RawTherapee), not Adobe. Thanks.
     
  2. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    What about Lightroom / ACR's support for the built-in lens correction profiles do you not like? In terms of distortion and vignetting they are identical to OOC JPEGs, and you have infinite control over chromatic aberration removal.
     
  3. Moula

    Moula Mu-43 Regular

    60
    Mar 9, 2016
    Not interested in Adobe's CC nonsense. I'm just very angry due to Corel's attitude to development of AfterShot Pro, that I currently use (on Linux). So I'm thinking about alternatives.
     
  4. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    SilkyPix
     
  5. NCV

    NCV Mu-43 Regular

    69
    Mar 9, 2016
    Italy
    Nigel
    DXO does a good job for me.
     
  6. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    I don't bother with Adobe's CC nonsense (as it were), either, I just use Lightroom 6, which wasn't particularly expensive for how good a program it is. It irked me a little bit that I don't get the new features introduced immediately afterwards in the CC version (Dehaze, panoramic distortion unwrap) but there aren't many other companies that give away feature upgrades in between major releases anyway.
     
  7. Moula

    Moula Mu-43 Regular

    60
    Mar 9, 2016
    Tried Lightroom and Elements, but seems bit like bloatware for me. Quite like Zoner Photo Studio, but I'd have to switch to Windows, that I'm not familiar with. Probably will have to learn with RawTherapee, Darktable or LightZone.
     
  8. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    Hi
    I'm not sure what you're saying about RT... RT does distortion correction well when clicking the Auto button.

    Barry
     
  9. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I don't understand the hate for Adobe stuff. LR and PS are both excellent programs and for about £90 a year (UK) you'll get every upgrade that comes. I think it's excellent value for money. After being let down first by Bibble and then Corel I'm actually quite happy to pay a subscription if it means the product stays competitive and fresh.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  10. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    Hi

    I think that for a starter the software that came with my camera does that. Also, if you are using any version of Adobe CS, then if you use Adobe DNG converter then I thought that the corrections would be done by ACR for you (even in older versions like CS and CS2 and I think some Photoshop Elements versions too). So it requires a bit more jiggery pokery ... but you may wish to just convert your RAW's to DNG and that converter is free (I keep my raws).

    PS: No it seems not! I've just tested this and the lens corrections are unavailable.

    This then answers one of my earlier questions on what are the differences between the ACR formats that are target destinations for the DNG ... it seems that if I make the DNG target ACR 7 then ACR 2.4 (which is what I have on CS) can not use it.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I don't understand either. I spend less per year with the subscription then I did buying the upgrade to PS & LR every year or so.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Drdul

    Drdul Mu-43 Regular

    104
    May 16, 2015
    Vancouver, BC
    Richard
    I use Iridient Developer (Mac only), which supports the built-in lens correction profile, but also allows you to turn it off so that you get the full un-corrected image captured by the sensor. I sometimes have an image I didn't frame quite right and cut off a bit of something at the edge, and with Iridient Developer I can often recover that something. The only drawback to the app is that there are no local adjustments like in Lightroom, so when I use Iridient Developer I then bring the image into Photoshop for local adjustments as well as any distortion corrections and transforms.
     
  13. Moula

    Moula Mu-43 Regular

    60
    Mar 9, 2016
    Maybe it is. For professionals. Not for amateurs/home users.
    Adobe CC for photographers (LR + PS): £115 every year
    Olympus SW: free
    Zoner Photo Studio: £45 first time (£25 with good timing), upgrades usually for £15-20 (and you can decide if you need to upgrade, or not)
    In my case add £85 for Windows licence (and I do not like Windows, I feel more comfortable elsewhere). Recalculated from local CZK and EUR prices and rounded. For comparison I paid approximately £495 for E-M10-II with 14-42RII and £145 for 17/1.8.
     
  14. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    raw therapee on Ubuntu has been working well for me ... although I didn't mention it before because the lens corrections are not based on the raw file data, but are replicated from the embedded JPG and have not been very good.

    see my posts on this thread: RawTherapee, in-file lens correction not picked up?
     
  15. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    DxO downloads a lens profile everytime it finds a new lens so I suppose it does not use the embedded corrections too(?). Darktable uses Lensfun.

    BTW I do not get where exactly lies the problem with using custom correction profiles that are probably just a copy of the official ones or maybe differ for a couple of pixels.

    Honestly I would choose an editor on the basis of other things.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Moula

    Moula Mu-43 Regular

    60
    Mar 9, 2016
    There is no issue with custom profiles. This is just another bit of information I was not able to find out. When the profile is already stored in RAW, why not use it. Darktable is currently closest to become winner. I'll give a few weekends to test Darktable, RawTherapee and LightZone and will see which will suit best. Thanks for suggestions.
     
  17. GBarrington

    GBarrington Mu-43 Veteran

    You've pretty much eliminated EVERY lens profiling options available. What else is there? Are you asking about a totally unique proprietary lens profile library not currently used by the major software publihers? Maybe DXO, but to be honest, I don't really know where they source their lens profiles from. They MIGHT have built a totally unique lens profile library and support infrastructure from the ground up, but it wouldn't surprise me if they also didn't license some technology from the others.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Moula

    Moula Mu-43 Regular

    60
    Mar 9, 2016
    No. I know about applications that are using these options and I'm trying to get known who's using the last possibility: profile embedded in RAW file from lenses' firmware. I only know about Adobe and Olympus. So question is: who else?
     
  19. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 Top Veteran

    767
    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    Ya, if you tend to update on a yearly basis anyway, then the subscription model is probably a great fit and really who it was intended. But subscriptions tend to be more costly for those of us who buy a package and then stick with it for 3+ years until we absolutely need to finally update (like getting a new camera not supported with the old version, etc.).
     
  20. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    One good reason could be to standardize the format: they support several brands, lens lines, bodies, etc. each with its own format for these informations that may even change once in a while when new features are added/updated. And not all the lenses provides the same infos, if any (maybe distortion but not CA, etc.). So it may be simpler and safer to convert this data to a static proprietary format instead of trying to handle in real-time whatever data may come out of the EXIF records.