|
|
|
|
|
by orbital-decay
1095 days ago
|
|
Yes, it is a list of operations but making your photos look like they came out of Adobe Camera RAW or Lightroom with the same edits is nearly impossible. >The cases most people care about are astonishingly simple. Like "+25 contrast", "+2 exposure", "-50 highlights". There's an entire iceberg under these words alone. What definition of exposure are they using? Which kind of math and curves to separate the highlights from other tonal zones? What's the color science behind their stuff? How do they approach things like perceptual uniformity? (ACR's colorspace axis are notoriously different from their typical definitions in color science). I'm not even starting on things that are always applied without you noticing, like the input curve or highlight recovery (which is surprisingly complex). It's also the thought process that needs to be reverse engineered, not the code itself. Without all that, you won't get nearly the same look, let alone identical. Try diving into the source code of something like RawTherapee or darktable (coincidentally, the thought process behind the latter is thoroughly documented) to understand how complex this magic actually is. And then there's the question of patents, competition (you are always behind), and adversarial actions by Adobe. It's simply a non-starter for a business. |
|