I export as dng all changes - the result in apple photos initially is as edited in PL9 then a second or so later changes. Generally an overall lightening of shadows and I guess tonal balance. If I export as dng optical and denotes only result is a match for what I see in pl9. Similar of jpeg and tiff. In fact an unedited PL9 tiff using the camera body colour rendering is a very close match to the 16 bit tiff from Nikon studio.
Why does the edited dng export not retain its integrity as edited and have to use jpeg and or tiff to do so? Nikon Z5 nefs.
The result in Apple photos actually worked well for a series of sunrise low light ballooning trip shots as the denoising of some of the higher iso shots of course was excellent and the embedded colour profile also was better than the more contrasty Nikon output.
Different though for another shot where I wanted it exactly as showing in the resulting dxo edit. Switching on same Apple Studio screen between Apple photos resulting import and the PL9 customise screen. Recapping if exported using optical and denoising only, retains the integrity of the image as seen in PL9 then pretty much an exact match.
Denoise and optical corrections only would not alter the colour space, where selecting all edits, I imagine, would. The sudden âflipâ of colours is probably switching from an embedded preview to Photosâ own rendering of the DNG. The embedded preview may not have the same colour space, or may not be treated the same by Photos.
It is important to note that DNGs output from PhotoLab are RGB images, not RAW. As such, there is little practical difference between a DNG and a TIFF export from PhotoLab. If TIFFs work, perhaps just use those.
Thanks for adding to my understanding and yes TIFFS will work for me. I did not realises that important detail in that the DXO DNGs are in fact RGB images which it seems. Apple Photos as you say, interprets differently and sometimes subjectively of course in a better way. However If I wish the result to appear exactly as in DXO preview then TIFF output is the answer.
Over time, the more you learn about colour, the more youâll think black and white is the way to go!
That sounds more like (personal) resignation than encouragement.
Which is where I am at Ătudes en N&B | Flickr
From memory my first roll of film was B&W and self developed - still hav e the tank I think, in my early yeens under the guidance of my step dad May of his pictures are in a little book âTwo Men of Mourneâ Put out by the Down County Museum in Ireland. An excerpt âPat was primarily recording the places he lived in or love, for his own interest and also using photography as an art form. As a result, many of his photographs are quite different in character from others in the museum collection.They provide striking images of town and country in there mid twentieth centuryâ All B&W. He left Ireland and spent many years in East Africa, the fifties, so volumes of photos, slides and 16mm movies. For me B&W most certainly has its place but celebrating the glorious infinite to infinitesimal nature of colour most especially that of nature is hard to ignore. I am not a student or in any way an expert photographer but I do notice most particular on the new Foto site, that B&W features very strongly, is it a resurgence in popularity or is it that the site is more popular with true proponents of photography whether as a record or as an art form?