NX2 vs LR3.3 vs C1 v6 Skin tones

insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
edited March 29, 2011 in Finishing School
Here is a comparison of some skin tones, you decide.

I wanted to test for good balance for pleasing, accurate, and how well each program handles near blown out skin tones. I allow ONE simple adjustment for each program.

LR 3.3 : -32 exposure
C1 v6 : used portrait starting curve
NX2 : Set to Neutral Picture control.
NX2 : Portrait Picture control with -.2 exposure.
Can you guess which is which?


1233087752_dyFBS-X2.jpg


1233086605_8ehVu-X2.jpg

1233085504_bayWp-X2.jpg

1233106868_wvq4P-X2.jpg

Comments

  • MarkRMarkR Registered Users Posts: 2,099 Major grins
    edited March 29, 2011
    ne_nau.gif I think any of the above mentioned tools could make any of these images look like any of the other images. What are you trying to accomplish with this exercise?
  • insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited March 29, 2011
    MarkR wrote: »
    ne_nau.gif I think any of the above mentioned tools could make any of these images look like any of the other images. What are you trying to accomplish with this exercise?


    Sure you could get similar look with any program, but with how much effort? Skin tones are important to some people, and for some one that wants them with the least amount of effort a good program will do this. When I shoot an event, I want the best, fastest with the least effort. So I can spend time with my family. iloveyou.gif
  • MarkRMarkR Registered Users Posts: 2,099 Major grins
    edited March 29, 2011
    Yes, but there are some mitigating factors:

    1. Experience with the tool usually counts more than the tool itself. A skilled Bibble user will run rings around a confused C1 user.
    2. Raw converter 1 will quickly give good results for images a, b, g, and h. But you need tool 2 to quickly get c, d, e, and f the way you want it.

    I've played with all the major raw converters. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. I've found it best to stick with one tool and learn to use it as best as I can, so I can spend time with my family.
  • insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited March 29, 2011
    MarkR wrote: »
    Yes, but there are some mitigating factors:

    1. Experience with the tool usually counts more than the tool itself. A skilled Bibble user will run rings around a confused C1 user.
    2. Raw converter 1 will quickly give good results for images a, b, g, and h. But you need tool 2 to quickly get c, d, e, and f the way you want it.

    I've played with all the major raw converters. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. I've found it best to stick with one tool and learn to use it as best as I can, so I can spend time with my family.


    This is why I allowed just one simply adjustment, to rule out the experience part of it. If I was going to match them, yes, it'll take someone more skilled in a particular program to do that.
    BTW, I actually have much more experience with NX2 than LR3 or C1. And I have never been able to get as good as C1.
  • MarkRMarkR Registered Users Posts: 2,099 Major grins
    edited March 29, 2011
    Then it sounds like you should use C1 if that's the tool that most closely matches your vision.
Sign In or Register to comment.