Several free updates are offered every year with minor fixes and tweaks. Kirk Baker at PhotoMechanic is highly responsive to questions and suggestions via a well put together and moderated forum. Both offer generous fully functional trial periods. In the past ten years I have only made one paid update on each of them, more out of curiosity than actual requirement. With PhotoMechanic and BreezeBrowser Pro there is no issue with recognition of output from new cameras. In my studio there is a place for all these programs. I'll frequently use BreezeBrowser Pro and PhotoMechanic alongside each other while managing a complex project. A folder of several hundred JPEG's renders in a heartbeat. Nothing on the planet comes near it for speed of loading and rendering a thumbnail grid of hundreds or thousands of RAW, DNG or chunky TIFF files. The only thing I use Bridge for now is the Output module to create PDF's.Įven faster though less fully featured is Chris Breeze's brilliant PC only image browser BreezeBrowser Pro. The ingest/sorting/ranking/metadata entry part of the workflow is a frustratingly cumbersome process using Lr or Bridge when compared to PhotoMechanic. I use it for ingest (to multiple locations) with renaming on the fly, sorting/ranking/metadata entry, convert the selects to DNG and then import into Lr. The power, unrivaled options and flexibility make it the go-to image browser for busy working photographers across the planet. Without the specific information of the sensor's unique design, the convertor will misinterpret the data from the sensor.PhotoMechanic? I wouldn't be without it. Some, such as newer designs from Fuji, even alter the pattern of which pixels are filtered by R, which by G, and which by B. Not all Bayer masks, for example, use the same exact colors for each of the R,G, and B filters. As new cameras are released with new sensor designs, updates to the DNG convertor must be made to properly convert the output from the new sensor. Since each sensor design is different, the output from the sensor must be interpreted based in the design of that sensor. As with all raw convertors that do not use the manufacturers own proprietary algorithms on data that may be encrypted (again, dependent upon manufacturer), there is no guarantee that the conversion of the data remaining in the DNG file by the third party software will be the same as conversions that use the manufacturer's algorithms. Some proprietary RAW formats from some camera makers include that information and others don't. This assumes the RAW format of the original file in question includes the data from masked pixels. Instead black point is computed and 'baked in' during the conversion process. For example, data from masked pixels used to determine black point are not carried over into the. There are additional things that the conversion strips as well. If you only use Adobe products to convert and edit your images you will not see a difference in this respect. Most all Adobe products ignore the maker notes, many other EXIF tools and RAW converters don't. dng will strip all of the information in the maker notes section of the EXIF data. Other steps, such as interpolating the monochromatic luminance values of each pixel into RGB values based on the color mask characteristics of a particular sensor, are not.Ĭonverting an image file from the manufacturer's raw format to. Some of the steps normally taken during demosaicing, such as setting black point, are performed when files are converted to DNG and can't be reversed later on.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |