I know my lens goes barrel to pincushion with zoom, but does distance/focus have much to do with it?

Man, no brick buildings or anything else useful close by. I'll have to drive over to RIT, which is massively brick!

OK. Reading here- https://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/tech-raw.htm#lens it wasn't clear to me that you had to do this for each lens yourself. Seems like a massive undertaking! I know that Affinity has a huge database but I don't think they did it themselves. Lensfun maybe, though I don't see my lens listed there. If the data is in the raw file, even if not optimum, it seems that would be far better than nothing. Regardless, I'll see if I can come up with a set of grid patterns for you.

Thanks & best regards,
Conrad

Hi- noticed that I'm not getting lens correction with my Nikon Z6 and 24-70 mm f/4 S lens in the raw files. Strong pincushion distortion. Is there something I need to do to turn it on? It gets corrected in other programs that do raw conversion. This isn't anything new or related to recent versions AFAIK, just something I noticed when shooting rectangular objects.
Thanks!
CH

Had a quick look and the look is good!

Naturally, one can program just about anything, but Microsoft has promoted a certain look and feel since the beginning of Windows. They've "fine-tuned" it ever since, not always (ever?) for the better. It's nice if a program maintains the same icon-based system, but it's just not appropriate for some things. The Qimage interface takes a bit of learning and open-mindedness but it's absolutely appropriate to the task. I admit to swearing at it on more than one occasion, but once I understood how to do what I wanted, and why it was designed that way, I had to admit it was quite brilliant.

My main tools are now Qimage and Affinity Photo. Just a heads up, for a few more days Affinity is having a 50% off sale on their products.

Interesting! It does have a florescent source. I'll see what the big scanner/copier at work has and see if I can use that. My control over what it's doing is more limited but being new, I bet it uses LEDs.
Thanks!

Thanks Bill! After much testing, I discovered that my Red River factory profile gives a wider gamut in the green than my Profile Prism profile. I like the Profile Prism results better in every way, other than the green, so I started a post in the Prism forum. You noted that my image was out of gamut in the shadows, which is exactly what I see with the Red River factory profile. With my profile, the entire green leaves are out of gamut. We'll see what happens if I can improve my Prism profile.

1) My Red River factory profile produces a wider gamut in the green than my Profile Prism efforts. My target has been stored well, but is 15 years old! I have a pretty good T/R densitometer (Xrite 811, I think). Can I measure my target and compare the results to the matching text file to determine if it's faded? What's the organization of the file? Can I create a new one myself?

2) I've seen some PR stuff on targets with wider range. Would something like that deliver a better profile? (If I could afford it!) My scanner is an Epson 4490 Photo. I think it's decent, but could it be causing a lack of gamut in the green? Maybe I have problems with other colors, but right now I'm fixated on green. FWIW, I like the results of my Profile Prism profiles better than factory in every area except for the green limitation.

Where is this "attaches file" you speak of?

Being an old black and white darkroom guy, I always use glossy paper for the range. Same with color, one of the Red River glossies. Learned something new again, that negative fill will make the problem worse, not better. So I increased the fill, reduced the saturation and contrast and things did get somewhat better. Still not quite what I remember the scene looked like, but tolerable. Soft proofing is doing a surprisingly good job of predicting what I'll get. I was also surprised to see how bad perceptual rendering can make things. I'm sure there's a problem it solves, but this definitely wasn't it.

Thanks,
Conrad

Wandering the woods yesterday I shot some plant life shortly after it rained. The light was good and what I see on the screen is reasonably close to what I remember things looking like. Qimage says the green leaves are out of gamut and, as expected, printing is a problem. Perceptual destroys all the contrast and detail.  Relative isn't as bad, but the resulting green is nothing like what it should be. My printer is a Canon PRO-100. Any hints on which way to go with this- less saturation or shift the color to something else or just shoot less green leaves?

http://www.conradhoffman.com/rawtest/DSC_1274.NEF
http://www.conradhoffman.com/rawtest/DSC_1274_.NEF.flt
http://www.conradhoffman.com/rawtest/DSC_1274_.NEF.qrs

Also, not sure how to make the last two save as files rather than display in Chrome.

Thanks!

Same here- have used it for years and it just works!

Works great! Thanks!
CH