Linear Workflow Comparison
I have been working on a linear workflow, because of my belief that this is the best option for RAW conversion. It does require work, and a few who have tried complain of all sorts of issues (noise, blown highlights, etc.) that are less about the workflow than their technique. Others claim that DCRAW is artifact ridden. I have found, with a significant learning curve, you can produce higher quality images with DCRAW than with any other method. Here is an example.
I developed the same RAW file with the EVU, EVU - linear, and DCRAW. With the EVU I sharpened as aggressively as I could with the Russell Brown split darken/lighten technique. Then I did the resize for the overview photo, and a crop for the closeup. For the two RAW files, I opened, assigned the linear profile from Al Pacheco, converted to CIE gamm 1.0 D65 space, adjusted the white point of levels slightly, pulled a slight gamma curve, added +8 saturation, and sharpened. Converted to sRGB and similar resize/crop. I will publish a detailed workflow if there is interest.
Here is the overview. EVU non linear on the left, DCRAW in the middle, and EVU Linear on the right.
First of all - the EVU color of the canoes is just wrong. Too orange. Second, compared with the two RAW files there is less highlight detail in the water above for the EVU non-linear file. Below, you will see there is MORE shadow detail in the two linear files as well.
Now for the closeups. EVU on top, dcraw next down, then EVU-Linear:
No question in my mind that the DCRAW is a sharper image - was from the unedited version, and retains that sharpness throughout. The shadows are a little noisier with DCRAW, but only because the noise is sharpened. In any case, this is far outweighed, especially with a print, by the increased sharpness. There is a small "defect" on the red hull, midway down to the left of the rope. Maybe a stuck pixel? Look for it in all three photos.
The results are, to my eyes, unquestionable.
