RF 16mm 2.8 Adobe lens profile
- Thread starter Felix
- Start date
Hi Felix
Here three images from the same raw file.
The second is the file processed to taste in Lightroom. 1/60 @ f/8, ISO 1000 on an R. Normally I'd add just a touch of vignette, but left this off for the comparison
The first is the same file with the lens profile turned off. Settings identical to the second image - notice how much extra exposure the Lightroom profile gives most of the image. Note the dark corners and the curved horizon.
The third photo is converted to a tiff in DPP, imported into Lightroom with the same settings (apart from profile) as in the second photo. I placed these together to simplify a comparison.
Note that the LR image is significantly wider than the DPP file and yet corner image quality is quite good.
I have started some comparisons of LR vs DPP with some astrophotography images (BTW I shoot at f/4 as the reduction in coma is worth the slight loss in light gathering - probably less than a stop). Those photos are typically at ISO 3200, where DPP has aggressive noise reduction, noticeably softening the images. I could play around with NR in DPP, but I can't be bothered as I am used to my workflow in LR/PS.
Another BTW, the IQ of the RF 16mm @f/4 is not far off my Samyang 14mm f/2.8.
Here three images from the same raw file.
The second is the file processed to taste in Lightroom. 1/60 @ f/8, ISO 1000 on an R. Normally I'd add just a touch of vignette, but left this off for the comparison
The first is the same file with the lens profile turned off. Settings identical to the second image - notice how much extra exposure the Lightroom profile gives most of the image. Note the dark corners and the curved horizon.
The third photo is converted to a tiff in DPP, imported into Lightroom with the same settings (apart from profile) as in the second photo. I placed these together to simplify a comparison.
Note that the LR image is significantly wider than the DPP file and yet corner image quality is quite good.
I have started some comparisons of LR vs DPP with some astrophotography images (BTW I shoot at f/4 as the reduction in coma is worth the slight loss in light gathering - probably less than a stop). Those photos are typically at ISO 3200, where DPP has aggressive noise reduction, noticeably softening the images. I could play around with NR in DPP, but I can't be bothered as I am used to my workflow in LR/PS.
Another BTW, the IQ of the RF 16mm @f/4 is not far off my Samyang 14mm f/2.8.
Upvote
0
Very nice, thanks for sharing!
Kind of cool how these digital corrections allow third party image editing software to essentially run tbe lens outside of the official spec and thus enhancing its capabilities.
Kind of cool how these digital corrections allow third party image editing software to essentially run tbe lens outside of the official spec and thus enhancing its capabilities.
Upvote
0
Here is a quick astro photo from a recent trip around NZ's South Island. Its our summer so the core of the Milky Way is not visible. This is a stack of four photos (10s @ f/4 ISO 3200) stacked in Sequator merged with a single shot of the foreground, with limited processing in Lightroom - added some clarity to the Milky Way - skies down here are very dark. Photo taken at 4:15 am with the sun starting to rise in the east. I had to apply a little extra CA reduction beyond the profile, but you can see that coma is reasonably well controlled at f/4.
Upvote
0
