Full image, that’s what I thought. But it seems that the forum’s 100% is not the same 100% as when I viewed my OOC jpg in RT. In RT the shutter verticals are much, much larger???
100% should be 100%. I saved all the pixels that I found in the original raw file 
. Download the image and view it in an image viewer. Then you can magnify it to more than 100% to see the details more clearly.
However, keep in mind, that you would normaly not print or display an image like that.
Canon user here. I have to do some things to make a raw image somewhat similliar in sharpening to the canon version:
- unsharp mask
- (very important, and ommitted by other replies) “contrast by detail level” → “contrast +”
- contrast
Regarding sharpening → it will not affect the image when viewed small, it affects only enlarged image (you will not see the effects of it when viewing at 15%). Thats why when sharpening using method Step 2 above (contrast by detail level), you are sharpening the things which will be visible after shrinking the image. Of course you could resize the image and sharpen the small image, as proposed, but this method does work for me - I preffer to have a large image and have the possibility to enlarge my images and the images look good both small and when enlarged. Hope that helps.
One more thing. Do not use RT as a viewer to judge your processing. It is a very poor viewer for pictures. It shows you very poor resolution of your image. The only way is to process in RT and watch your final image in some other software.
BTW - it would be a huge improvement in RT, if it would be possible to watch last processed image in a high-resolution with all the processings as external software would show you (e.g. embedded in windows 10 photo viewer). So for example, I can click “add to queque”, and then I can click “show last processed image”.
Do you know of any other image processing software that does this?
Is this true? How can you develop an imgage when you can not see what you do?
What extra processing shows external software?
1 Like
Maybe I’m wrong, here are the same size images to compare:
RT screen:
Windows 10 image viewer on processed image from “coverted” folder:
Canon zoombrowser on processed image from “converted” folder:
In my opinion, the second and especially the third image is somewhat crispier …
(processing is: contrast by detail levels, rl deconvolution)
After performing a simple test and showing the three images, I have to roll back my strong opinion. It was subjective and I remembered to use external software to judge.
Now when I compared it (my previous post), I think, that the difference is here, but it is not as strong, as I expected.
So now I regard my “very poor viewer for pictures” opinion as too strong.
If you downscale below 100% (as above), the image viewers might indeed differ because they use different algorithms for rescaling. But that should not be used to judge the actual full scale image.
Thanks for the tip. As I am very new to RT, I can’t comment on your point that RT is a poor image viewer. However, I use Faststone as my viewer as I can compare 4 images at a time; and, I feel that the viewing is a true representative of the image.
I use Faststone as my viewer. Can view 4 images at a time and can magnify as much as I want to. Understood about about not printing/displaying at more than 100%.
Just to be sure I understand, when you say “contrast by detail level,” you are referencing to using the Threshold Contrast slider with the Sharpening Contrast Mask, yes? This is something I always use and usually set the mask mostly to define the edges of the image.
Thanks for the heads up re “contrast by detail level.” Haven’t paid any attention to this tool, yet, as I’m trying learn and utilize the “basics” first.
Try clicking once “contrast +” button → try it and see the results by yourself.
One more my subjective opinion, when using RT with different Cameras and Lenses …
When using camera with small sensor (like your FZ1000) and maximum zoomed in - the picture viewed at 100% sometimes seems to be fuzzy and not sharp.
In this special scenario - try using the Sharpening tool → RL Deconvolution and increase the radius.
Here is example from hx90 (1/2.3’’ sensor).
The results are pretty spectacular. Combined with contrast by detail levels it makes the magic.
When using larger sensor and decent glass the results are not as spectacular.
Here is my take of your picture in the thread.
RL Deconvolution
Contrast by detail levels
Cool tool. Does a reasonable job. Thanks.
I dl’d your image and compared it to my original OCC jpg using Faststone. There really was hardly any differences between the two except for some noise reduction. For me, aside from learning another PP software, one of my goals was to see if I could produce a jpg OOC that would be as good (or nearly as good) as its processed RAW. So, from your efforts with RT, I’ve learned some stuff and most importantly, I see that my OOC jpg is pretty good to begin with (at least nice and sharp. Hopefully, this will mean that for many shots, I won’t have to spend excessive time with PP…except for shots that I “really” want to get into.
The biggest improvement to your image (for me) was noise reduction and local contrast. Luminance around 30 was needed for my eye to be happy with NR. It didn’t appear noisy at all until looking at it 1:1. (i do prefer “some” grain in a lot of my edits).
As a side-note… adding back that -.66 exposure made it pop for my eye as well.
Cheers. IG: FreshOuttaFocus