I did a quick sweep in my lightroom Norway directory and found some images that I here use as examples of what the differences are between Raw Developer DNG and Raw developer X3F. I found that Lightrooms way of handling colors was pretty much the same as Raw Developer + x3f’s converted to DNG’s. ISO100 – 400. and some as close as 500%. Images always sharpened the same way and if possible I used eye dropper for white balance (clouds or snow etc). DNG mode in RD will only use RGB sliders. No temp slider. So it wasn’t that easy to make them look the same.
Left: DNG – Right X3F
X3F seems to be better!! … Sharpness is really different ( much better with X3F…)
I have a K10D , i never tried too compare difference betwen PEF and DNG “out of the box” … :)
i kind a like the DNG version better, more intensive colors..
Hello Carlm
In the first and lastest photo,X3F is better than DNG.
And in others,DNG is a little warmer,so I like it more.
This is the first time I enter you blog.(I got it from Linn’s blog,but anyway I just a traveller absorbed by the cake and photo from you and Linn.They are so beautiful!!!
I saw my own page on a laptop just now and realized that some of you might not see that much of a difference. :) – On my calibrated CRT on the other hand the difference is quite big. For your info, my green hat I just had in front of me with something like the same light as on the scene and it’s more like the X3F version. And I know my lips looks more pale! :D As in the X3f! And the sky DON’T have that “greenish” color to it as in the DNG – my trousers have the blue color as on the X3F and – colors are just more real in the X3F than they ever been with Lightroom (I love lightroom BTW)
I will download SPP 2.2 too :D And see if and what I would gain by switching back. Still waiting for SPP3 for Mac. Sigma!
And don’t get me started on Sharpness! You need to sharpen the DNG A LOT in order to get close to the X3F and the X3F is already sharp without artifacts! – I might add that the last picture is ISO400 and looks way better as a DNG due to the massive amount of noise using X3F – also much better shadow information. So everything isn’t better using X3F.
Hi Lina! Welcome to my little spot on the web! :) I have some follow up questions for you, if you don’t mind.
You said first and last looked better as X3F? The last one with the flies eye? Don’t you think it’s annoying with all the noise?
And what about this one:
http://www.tnirp.com/sd14/x3fvsdng/2.jpg
What blue would you pick for a sky?
Thanks for stopping by! Say Hi to Linn! :D
:),I don’t like the flies,I chose X3F of it,only becuasee it’s a more clearly one.(I’m not a expert,just enjoy the beautiful world.)
About the photoes of mountain and lake,I like the left(DNG) one,the “greenish”in it let me like it,even it isn’t actual color. :)
I understand, I like clarity too. even if I dislike splotches. ;) Thanks for your time to answer. :) Greenish is maybe more nice even if it’s less real. Hmm.. :) Art. Maybe I’ll ask you again some day.
Interesting. Thank you Carl.
My observation is that DNG conversion bayerizes the Foveon output. Sharpness is decreased and also in some cases resolution.
Thanks Ali, It’s an old comparison but I think it’s more or less true even with todays software. The DNG conversion recreates the X3F to something different, half processed and half processable.
I would never recommend making DNG’s to anyone. :)
The DNG version of an X3F is a linear DNG rather than a raw DNG, which means that the raw data is pre-converted into RGB. So if you decide to convert your X3Fs to DNG be sure to use the option to embed the original raw data into the DNG so that it can be extracted later.
By the way, your photography is awesome, Carl.
But raw developer is probably not using the as data right even if it’s preserved? So if I swich off that function result would still be the same?
Maybe Brian could answer this..