C.Oldendorf wrote: Sun Sep 21, 2025 7:26 am
Great, that was an easy thing to fix but it had to be noticed first. Thanks.
Of course, I should have put it in the Bugs Topic.
I reworked the two previous examples with the ColorPOS module.
Here you can compare the results between PerfectRAW and ColorPOS.
The workflow is always the same for both modules; basic desaturation without the intervention of CC Tonal.
Graduated White and Exposure with the same parameters, not numerical, but modus operandi, that is, I stopped them at the same points on the histogram, useful for having a yardstick. So it can be argued that they are not technically identical, but they are identical in their shadow and highlight stops appropriate to the two different photographs. I don't know if I've explained myself well
This modus operandi was adopted not only in the comparison between the two modules, but also between the two photographs with different subjects.
The B&W processed with ColorPOS is technically better and more beautiful in appearance.
It appears denser, with darker shadows, but they seem to be darkened in the right places, preserving detail.
I won't comment on the contrast, because it seems to me that some areas of one are more contrasted than some areas of the other, and vice versa.
Perhaps one could say that PerfectRAW is more contrasted, and ColorPOS is denser and deeper.
Here, in the comparison, you can see the difference between the two.
Here is the second example.
In this comparison, however, the differences between PR and CoP are similar to the previous comparison, but not completely identical.
In fact, PerfectRAW remains more contrasted, but ColorPOS is less dense and deep.
I would think that, being a basic desaturation without the intervention of CC Tonal, the green of the leaves remains brighter and softer, less dense. The contrast also seems weaker, but I think it is only perceptually weaker, that is, it could be the right contrast for this photograph, for this light, and for this green color.
It should be remembered that the two photographs, or rather the four examples, were processed in exactly the same way. As described above.
It follows that, between the two different photographs, if one scene is more contrasted than the other, with the same modus operandi, the result will always be that one remains more contrasted than the other. As it should be.
I mean, there is no risk of giving too much contrast to one or too little to the other.
The contrast is just right, especially if you can find the right point where to stop the black and white.
In this way, you don't add excessive contrast, what I call software contrast, i.e., excess contrast, but you exploit and enhance only the real contrast of the scene.
If one scene is softer than the other, when you identify the precise point of black and white, the rest no longer matters. That's fine; if it's soft, it remains soft, but it will be a softness with the right contrast for that scene to be printed on paper. It will be the contrast recorded by the sensor, without the addition of contrast from software.
If the scene is more contrasted, it will be the same as above, but instead of being soft with the right contrast, it will be contrasted with the right contrast.
The point is to find the exact stop on both the right and left, which is the stop I'm not sure I've found yet.
Once the stop point has been found, all photos in the world are the same, they all come out the same, but they will all be different; on the right and left, in blacks and whites, in shadows and highlights, they will all be the same in the mutual correspondence of the values recorded in the sensor, the diversity will be in the middle, which will gradually decrease as the extremes are reached.
There is a first point that says stop, going beyond this point is “excess.”
It is possible, in fact I think that many photographers go beyond it, but in practice it would serve no purpose other than personal interpretation, artistic form.
One could say that up to that first point it is merely an enhancement of the sensor data, beyond that point it is artistic interpretation.
I can understand the relativity of this concept, albeit technical, but we have to start somewhere.
Then, if everything is the opposite of everything else, personal, artistic interpretation refutes this thesis.
But that's another matter. I interpret too.
But if I have to think in technical terms, or better still, as a purist, this is how I understand the technical and expressive side of photography. Right or wrong.
A rigorous philosophy, which is also evident in Color Perfect when it talks about color integrity.
