Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: glenerrolrd on May 19, 2009, 12:41:08 pm
-
It is becoming apparent that the raw convertors specific to a proprietary raw format..eg. .NEF ....can provide superior raw conversions. The workflow issue is do you convert every file (create 16Bit TIFFs ) or only the many fewer files selected for output or display.
Starting with new files ..its easy to understand the trade offs ..but what about the archive ? With LR when the capabilities improve its easy to reprocess a single file from its raw original. But now I need to find the raw original and get it to the new raw convertor (say C1 or NX2) .
In that context .....does LR really offer the option to export an original or has some processing taken place.
-
Lightroom never touches the original raw file. All edits are virtual.
Michael
-
It is becoming apparent that the raw convertors specific to a proprietary raw format..eg. .NEF ....can provide superior raw conversions. The workflow issue is do you convert every file (create 16Bit TIFFs ) or only the many fewer files selected for output or display.
Starting with new files ..its easy to understand the trade offs ..but what about the archive ? With LR when the capabilities improve its easy to reprocess a single file from its raw original. But now I need to find the raw original and get it to the new raw convertor (say C1 or NX2) .
In that context .....does LR really offer the option to export an original or has some processing taken place.
Yes. Michael's right (of course!) that LR never touches the original RAW file, in addition, if you use Export with the RAW option you get two files, an identical copy of the RAW file, and a second file containing the settings information. C1, NX2, etc., will have absolutely no trouble working with that RAW file.
--Joe
-
You can always go Ctrl R / Cmd R to see the original in Explorer / Finder, then just double click it to open the OS's default application. Equally, if you are wanting to do this, it's quite possibly a sign that you're not getting as much out of LR's conversion as you could - and that's not necessarily LR's failing....
John
-
It is becoming apparent that the raw convertors specific to a proprietary raw format..eg. .NEF ....can provide superior raw conversions.
No, what is apparent is that for some people, the proprietary raw conversion seems to provide an "easier" optimized image without a lot of effort and expertise. It's only natural that by "default" Nikon's or Canon's own software has better image defaults because they match the camera JPEG and the view you see in the LCD. If you don't become expert at using the myriad of tools in Lightroom to completely control your raw capture's rendering, then yes, it can be argued that the proprietary software is "better". I would argue it's "easier" and show a lack of skill on the part of the Lightroom or Camera Raw user though...but hey, that's just me...I kinda know how to use Camera Raw and Lightroom :~)
-
You can always go Ctrl R / Cmd R to see the original in Explorer / Finder, then just double click it to open the OS's default application. Equally, if you are wanting to do this, it's quite possibly a sign that you're not getting as much out of LR's conversion as you could - and that's not necessarily LR's failing....
John
John
You indicated this on another forum and I really don t understand your point. MR approach front ends LR ....this certainly works but requires the workflow to manage both a raw file and the converted TIFF. The other alternative is to export only selected files from LR ..not one at a time but probably 10% of what you have . (This also works for files you may have imported or referenced previously). This is the context of my question.
What I have been trying to determine....and believe have concluded on.....if you export a file from LR from the Library module and specify "original" will you get the original raw file that you previously imported or referenced. My tests and feedback from others indicates that yes ....if you started with the raw file .......you would a copy of the raw file in the folder you exported to.
You other observation implies that ..its just me ...LR is just as good as any other converter of my raw files. While in general that might be true....I am seeing increasing evidence that for example Capture One does a better job on the M8 files and that CNX has some advantages with the new larger .NEF files from the D3X. This isn t meant as any criticism for LR .
Roger
-
Michael's approach seems more to use LR as the back end rather than the front. With files from certain cameras, he opens them first in Capture One and generates TIF files which he saves in a "watched folder". This is a folder which LR watches, and then automatically imports any new files. He then adds any metadata, and outputs the file.
A second route is your export option, and you have no need to do any tests or have any doubt - if you specify original, that is exactly what you get. It is so original that it lacks any keywords and other metadata which you'll have to spend time adding again. Export as originals may leave you with an export folder which you can work your way through in the other converter, which may be helpful to process large numbers, your 10% or whatever. It has more benefit if you set lots of the in-camera settings like picture styles, sharpening, and other proprietary stuff. But you now have duplicate copies of some of the raw files. That soon becomes pretty messy.
The Ctrl R / Cmd R option ties in with my other point, which is essentially the same as Jeff's. Your original statement and underlying assumption is far too sweeping, but can be valid for individual images - hence the one by one suggestion. What's more, it's inevitable that you're not going to be as skilled and / or as productive with a range of raw converters. Something has to give.
John
-
No, what is apparent is that for some people, the proprietary raw conversion seems to provide an "easier" optimized image without a lot of effort and expertise. It's only natural that by "default" Nikon's or Canon's own software has better image defaults because they match the camera JPEG and the view you see in the LCD. If you don't become expert at using the myriad of tools in Lightroom to completely control your raw capture's rendering, then yes, it can be argued that the proprietary software is "better". I would argue it's "easier" and show a lack of skill on the part of the Lightroom or Camera Raw user though...but hey, that's just me...I kinda know how to use Camera Raw and Lightroom :~)
Jeff
Wouldn t you agree that the skill and commitment of the individual ..should be a major factor in establishing a workflow. Getting an excellent result without requiring great skills is a valid priority. I would argue that whats possible in the hands of a world class expert ..is about as relevant as what clubs Tiger Woods is using. I have been using LR since it first came out and have been exceptionally happy with it in almost every area. However I am seeing increasing discussion on the forums regarding the superior raw conversions possible with say Capture One and the M8 s .DNG files. It seems logical to me that the camera specific calibrations can be better at least in the hands of the average serious LR user.
But that was never the purpose of the post. If you wanted ..for any reason ..to use a different raw converter but wanted the rest of your work flow to use LR ..how best to accomplish this . MR proposed a solution which accomplishes the objectives .....but would seem to give up the really good importing and selection capabilities within LR . The other alternative work flow would seem to be using LR for the bulk of the heavy lifting and then only reconverting the selects. If I understand his post this will not work for the P65+ files ..but it would work for my M8 .DNG files. So if wanted to use another raw convertor and had the option ..front end convert all files to TIFFs ..or selectively reprocess say 10% of your raw captures......which would be preferable ?
Appreciate any input you might have.
Roger
-
Getting an excellent result without requiring great skills is a valid priority.
Well, I suppose in this day and age of easy being the best, yes...I suppose there's something to be said for the best result for the least effort. That's not the way I approach my work however and I certainly don't respect anybody whose primary goal is quick and easy (or down and dirty).
Clearly, the camera software is designed yo produce the 'Nikon Look' or 'Canon Look' where by default, the software is designed to match the JPEG image on the LCD display. Nikon and Canon can afford to do that because with their cameras and software they are trying to create a closed loop system.
Camera Raw/Lightroom support almost 200 different raw file formats from a myriad of manufacturers...the Camera Raw team doesn't really care about matching the manufacture's looks so much as creating a useful "normalized" default rendering–which the user is free to override. As a nod to those who claim Nikon or Canon produce better color off their raw files Adobe created the DNF Profile and added that to the DNG spec. So, as it relates to match up with camera looks, that's covered. If you think that Capture One or Raw Developer or Capture NX or Canon's DPP produce better detailed rendered files, I would suggest that you don't know how to use Camera Raw/Lightroom's Detail sliders for noise reduction and sharpening.
Yes, I'm predisposed to use Camera Raw/Lightroom. I was personally involved in the development and I've written a book on Camera Raw. So, I better use what I am involved with and try my best to evangelize what I think is the optimal raw processing pipeline. That's not to say I don't whisper in the ears of the ACR/LR engineers about improving this or that to try to make ACR/LR the hands down best raw processing pipeline in the industry. There are weaknesses in the current pipeline that I would like to see addressed (and I'm kinda in the position of helping to bring about that change).
But I get pretty tired of people claiming this or that raw processor is hands down better that Camera Raw or Lightroom when the person making that claim doesn't have a friggin' clue how to use ACR or LR and just let the software run at near default and then piss&moan™ that "It is becoming apparent that the raw convertors specific to a proprietary raw format..eg. .NEF ....can provide superior raw conversions."
Sorry...I seriously doubt that, ya know?
Learn to be expert with the software you decide you want to use and quit wagging your tongue about the assumptions of the masses (they generally don't have a friggin' clue).
-
MR proposed a solution which accomplishes the objectives .....but would seem to give up the really good importing and selection capabilities within LR .
As to Mike's use of the P65+ and Capture One, I've just received my Phase One camera and P65+ back and I'm facing the same issue.
I have a different approach in that I use Capture One to fix the lens correction and then use Capture One to create Linear DNG files that I either open in Camera Raw or import into Lightroom for post demosiaced white balance and other post processing in Camera Raw.
I would much prefer to export Linear DNGs out of Capture One than bake a color space and gamma tone curve in a TIFF. So far, that seem optimal at the moment...
-
Jeff,
I wasn't aware that a C1 linear DNG contains C1's lens correction. What else does it contain?
Michael
-
I wasn't aware that a C1 linear DNG contains C1's lens correction. What else does it contain?
When Capture One 4.8.x outputs a DNG, it does the actual demosiacing....so any lens corrections (and AtoD corrections) are performed on the linear DNG output. In that regard it's much like DxO's linear DNG lens corrections...
You do need the demosiacing to take advantage of the lens corrections but saving out the linear DNG means you aren't locked into Capture One's color/tone output to a tiff file. The DNG's ain't tiny mind you...I think they're about 117MB and it does take a degree of zen like patients when working on the files in ACR/LR...but I much prefer ACR/LR tone and color controls compared to Capture One (not to mention the image sharpening).
:~)
-
Thanks. I just learned something – as I always do from you.
Michael
-
I'm learning something too! Does that mean that by going through DXO with just the lens correction options and exporting to DNG I basically get a very close approximation of a "lens corrected RAW file" ?
It's very important to me: I shoot high-end 360 panos, using A D3+14-24 combination, and the lens-tailored DXO corrections are needed for the stitching software (autodesk realviz) to work optimally. But of course it's throwing me out of my standard LR+PS workflow.
-
I'm learning something too! Does that mean that by going through DXO with just the lens correction options and exporting to DNG I basically get a very close approximation of a "lens corrected RAW file" ?
It's very important to me: I shoot high-end 360 panos, using A D3+14-24 combination, and the lens-tailored DXO corrections are needed for the stitching software (autodesk realviz) to work optimally. But of course it's throwing me out of my standard LR+PS workflow.
You get something equivalent with what Schewe gets from C1 for his Phase One files. Read his post above. Refrain from using any color rendering related operations in DxO since the conversion to Linear DNG can mess up things when the files opens in LR.
-
Jeff,
so you think that ACR is better than any other raw converter if it is taylored by one who knows what to do?
I am very happy about converters that do the job nearly out of the box, like C1, RD or NX2.
They are time savers and the opposite of "quick and dirty" solutions.
ACR lives from tuning, C1 gives you a look from the beginning.
The interface of ACR always let me feel i have forgotten something to look after and didn´t have a perfect file.
As said, its a personal feeling.
BTW, my clients and me like it quick and clean :-)
happyman
-
Lightroom never touches the original raw file. All edits are virtual.
Michael
I'm coming back to this forum after a long absence, but is that strictly true? Doesn't LR have a option to adjust the metadata dates, and doesn't that cause LR to rewrite the raw files? (AND, didn't an early LR have a bug that corrupted .NEF's because of this rewriting?).
Thanks.
--Milt--
-
Doesn't LR have a option to adjust the metadata dates, and doesn't that cause LR to rewrite the raw files? (AND, didn't an early LR have a bug that corrupted .NEF's because of this rewriting?).
No...it wrote into the .xmp file (or the xmp bock in the case of DNG) only. If you toss the .xmp file the raw file is still absolutely untouched...what the bug was causing was problems in the database record of the file...not the original file at all.
You may have been confused abut an earlier version of Capture NX actually writing inside the actual raw file and that bug resulted in the raw NEF being corrupted...
-
Well, I suppose in this day and age of easy being the best, yes...I suppose there's something to be said for the best result for the least effort. That's not the way I approach my work however and I certainly don't respect anybody whose primary goal is quick and easy (or down and dirty).
Clearly, the camera software is designed yo produce the 'Nikon Look' or 'Canon Look' where by default, the software is designed to match the JPEG image on the LCD display. Nikon and Canon can afford to do that because with their cameras and software they are trying to create a closed loop system.
Camera Raw/Lightroom support almost 200 different raw file formats from a myriad of manufacturers...the Camera Raw team doesn't really care about matching the manufacture's looks so much as creating a useful "normalized" default rendering–which the user is free to override. As a nod to those who claim Nikon or Canon produce better color off their raw files Adobe created the DNF Profile and added that to the DNG spec. So, as it relates to match up with camera looks, that's covered. If you think that Capture One or Raw Developer or Capture NX or Canon's DPP produce better detailed rendered files, I would suggest that you don't know how to use Camera Raw/Lightroom's Detail sliders for noise reduction and sharpening.
Yes, I'm predisposed to use Camera Raw/Lightroom. I was personally involved in the development and I've written a book on Camera Raw. So, I better use what I am involved with and try my best to evangelize what I think is the optimal raw processing pipeline. That's not to say I don't whisper in the ears of the ACR/LR engineers about improving this or that to try to make ACR/LR the hands down best raw processing pipeline in the industry. There are weaknesses in the current pipeline that I would like to see addressed (and I'm kinda in the position of helping to bring about that change).
But I get pretty tired of people claiming this or that raw processor is hands down better that Camera Raw or Lightroom when the person making that claim doesn't have a friggin' clue how to use ACR or LR and just let the software run at near default and then piss&moan™ that "It is becoming apparent that the raw convertors specific to a proprietary raw format..eg. .NEF ....can provide superior raw conversions."
Sorry...I seriously doubt that, ya know?
Learn to be expert with the software you decide you want to use and quit wagging your tongue about the assumptions of the masses (they generally don't have a friggin' clue).
Schewe,
with all due respect, I think you are missing a point. If I am wrong, or the subject has more to it (very likely) please point it out. I understood you as such: If one wants good results out of Lightroom he has to tweak, and you dont respect someone who espects an easy out of the box good result as the vendor-specific softwares provides.
Now I see it only as natural to expect from lightroom the same quality as from the native converters. I only work with Canon so here is my experience and toughts.
In lets say 98% of all Raws I can get the same quality out of Lightroom as from DPP. I have a LR preset wich comes close to my DPP settings. Often it matches 100% visually, sometimes it doesnt. Then I take the DPP image as a reference to adjust the file further, and usually I can emulate it very good.
So, I find DPP renders the tones out of the box better than Lightroom. If I had never installed DPP and only LR my conversions would be worse, tonal-wise. Large batches of comparisation renderings show the DPP tones to be consistently better. LR results are good too, but sometimes a bit dull to describe it in short. So well, of course I'd expect that LR can do the same.
So when you bash inexperienced users you are missing the point. Blaming the users is not the way to go. Of course I can fix it and make it appear like DPP, thats not the point. The point is that the software should get it right in the first place.
At the end one might wonder why I use LR/ACR at all when DPP is so much better. Well, very simple: Better noise reduction, gets better results out of lower quality base files, is generally more flexible. Also DPP is crippled severly workflow-wise.
And about me: Im used to work with Maya and other vastly more complex apps than Photoshop is and Im used to find workflows for myself. Of course Im not as competent as the LR experts, but I consider me to be reasonably competent. I am not a lazy user who just protests. I can get it like I want, but I say, LR should deliver better defaults.
If this is easy to do or not is an entirely different issue. And I respect it if this will not change, I have my solution anyway. But the issue exists, and I find it too easy to just blame the users.
All the best
Christian
-
Of course I can fix it and make it appear like DPP, thats not the point. The point is that the software should get it right in the first place.
And of course, the question of getting it "right" ain't such an easy task. If you are talking about getting a more accurate rendering of a raw capture, I suspect you would be surprised to find that Adobe Standard with most cameras renders colors more accurately than DP or NX. No, ACR/LR doesn't match the camera jpeg or LCD as easy out of the box. But the camera jpeg or LCD rendering is wrong far more than it's accurate. The camera maker's aren't after "right" they are after a pleasing "look" that makes the image appear better and hides some of their lack of image quality.
If you are thinking somehow that the camera makers know what's "right" I've got some ocean front property I'll sell you in Arizona. Neither Nikon nor Canon have any long term culture or tradition regarding scene rendering. Prior to digital, their primary responsibility was to maintain a light tight environment and to form a sharp image the film. When they had to come up with image processing to take raw captures into jpegs they adopted existing technologies and used their own image expectations regarding what the image should look like and "right" wasn't really high on their priority list ya know.
If by "right" you mean the first two dimensional representation (you camera's LCD) you really, seriously need to quit chimping so much and not fall in love with scifi (which is what the back of the camera is showing you).
-
And of course, the question of getting it "right" ain't such an easy task. If you are talking about getting a more accurate rendering of a raw capture, I suspect you would be surprised to find that Adobe Standard with most cameras renders colors more accurately than DP or NX. No, ACR/LR doesn't match the camera jpeg or LCD as easy out of the box. But the camera jpeg or LCD rendering is wrong far more than it's accurate. The camera maker's aren't after "right" they are after a pleasing "look" that makes the image appear better and hides some of their lack of image quality.
If you are thinking somehow that the camera makers know what's "right" I've got some ocean front property I'll sell you in Arizona. Neither Nikon nor Canon have any long term culture or tradition regarding scene rendering. Prior to digital, their primary responsibility was to maintain a light tight environment and to form a sharp image the film. When they had to come up with image processing to take raw captures into jpegs they adopted existing technologies and used their own image expectations regarding what the image should look like and "right" wasn't really high on their priority list ya know.
If by "right" you mean the first two dimensional representation (you camera's LCD) you really, seriously need to quit chimping so much and not fall in love with scifi (which is what the back of the camera is showing you).
I see you have no inhibitions to object to very direct language! You seem to be used defending yourself frequently from harsh critique!
I read my text again and see how you could come to the impression Im after the Cameras default rendering. Of course I tweak individually and am not after the cameras default. Was so self-evident for me that I didnt mentioned it. So, if I tweak a series of images both in LR and DPP, and I do this frequently, generally I like the tonal result of DPP more often then the look from LR/ACR (with camera profiles.) Period. My experience, Im just mentioning it.
And thanks for your explanation why it is so! So ACR/LR deliberately does not try to sweeten and to fix. Was not thinking about this before, but makes perfect sense. I would not see fixing and sweetening as bad per se, when I judge from my results, but I can see that it would be extremely hard if not impossible to implement (for each camera). So the only chance IS to make it as accurate as possible, with the consequence that individual rendering MUST fall a bit short, wich you adressed partly with custom curves. At least thats how I understand it now. Again, thank you very much!
Christian
//Edit: Do you see it as bad that the other vendors implement sweeteners/fixes? You sound to me a bit like that. (Ok they should allow to turn it on/off.)
-
//Edit: Do you see it as bad that the other vendors implement sweeteners/fixes? You sound to me a bit like that. (Ok they should allow to turn it on/off.)
Yes, I think it sucks because it leads people to expect or want essentially inaccurate results and then somehow get it in their head that the sweetened rendering is the correct one.
I go back to film days and bet that chrome shooters tend to like the camera JPEG rendering because it's got a steepened tone curve and punched up colors like Kodachrome. People who used to shoot B&W or color neg prefer to see an accurate rendering of what's in the file and don't want artificial tone curves or saturation added.
People who prefer to season to taste rather than have the chef dictate the seasoning don't have a problem tuning an image to render they way they want...
-
Thanks Jeff,
I thought so. My opinion differs in some aspects. But - getting to know the LR/ACR philosophy from you was interesting, was very insightful for me.
best regards
Christian
Yes, I think it sucks because it leads people to expect or want essentially inaccurate results and then somehow get it in their head that the sweetened rendering is the correct one.
-
I know its OT, but the issue kept my busy thinking. So here is how I see it now:
If a fix adressed a technical weakness and could be turned on/off, then it would be ok. Same for sweetening. But since it cannot be controlled in the vendors softwares, people dont recognize these fixes, and that leads to wrong expectations. Lightroom on the other hand just cant emulate everything 100%. Likely because these fixes are likely not documented, and it is also the question if they are always good.
So from a user perspective this creates the irritating result that quite often DPP looks better - but, sometimes, I instead prefer the Lightroom/ACR version. Either this are the cases where these fixes fail, or where I happened to just tweak one version better. Really hard to know, since the fixes cant be separated. At least I dont know a way.
Correct?
-
I know its OT, but the issue kept my busy thinking. So here is how I see it now:
If a fix adressed a technical weakness and could be turned on/off, then it would be ok. Same for sweetening. But since it cannot be controlled in the vendors softwares, people dont recognize these fixes, and that leads to wrong expectations. Lightroom on the other hand just cant emulate everything 100%. Likely because these fixes are likely not documented, and it is also the question if they are always good.
So from a user perspective this creates the irritating result that quite often DPP looks better - but, sometimes, I instead prefer the Lightroom/ACR version. Either this are the cases where these fixes fail, or where I happened to just tweak one version better. Really hard to know, since the fixes cant be separated. At least I dont know a way.
Correct?
Interesting perspective, don't know if this is why I have taken the path I have which is:
1: Used a color checker to determine calibration slider settings in lightroom such that my two DSLR bodies give very close standard conversion results of the same scene (even though their technology vintage is about 3 years apart)
2: Only use lightroom for conversion and really try to learn that well
I think in the end that will lead to more consistent results between my pictures which in my mind is more valuable than switching software/converters and spend endless times trying to create similar looks between the different workflows.
Yes, once in a while after reading online forums I have a nagging feeling that maybe noise or color could be improved for some pictures using a new approach, but in the end I rather spend that time taking pictures or becoming better in my standard workflow as there the return on time investment is greater. This perspective is heavily influenced by being a pure amateur photographer with limited time to spend on a hobby. This approach will obviously not work for everybody, but for me it has given me great pleasure and a continuous move up the learning curve with still many miles to go.
-
If you are thinking somehow that the camera makers know what's "right" I've got some ocean front property I'll sell you in Arizona. Neither Nikon nor Canon have any long term culture or tradition regarding scene rendering. Prior to digital, their primary responsibility was to maintain a light tight environment and to form a sharp image the film. When they had to come up with image processing to take raw captures into jpegs they adopted existing technologies and used their own image expectations regarding what the image should look like and "right" wasn't really high on their priority list ya know.
I am late to this party, but I am quite struck by this concept of "right" - especially given how often it is the topic of adversarial proceedings on this and other forums. I had never thought of how it was that Nikon, Canon, etc. became the custodians of "right"; however, of course, this prerogative used to belong to Kodak, Fuji, Agfa and others. The best example of this are the film emulations which are part of many software packages - each one aiming to produce a version of "right" based on a different standard. In that context, a RAW conversion that is "accurate" and technically sound is an incredible value because it gives you a reliable starting point for moving towards your idea of "right" - whatever that may be.
-
No...it wrote into the .xmp file (or the xmp bock in the case of DNG) only. If you toss the .xmp file the raw file is still absolutely untouched...what the bug was causing was problems in the database record of the file...not the original file at all.
You may have been confused abut an earlier version of Capture NX actually writing inside the actual raw file and that bug resulted in the raw NEF being corrupted...
Jeff,
I'm sorry but, as the result of some research, I must respectfully disagree.
First, for LR version 1, here is a direct quote from Victoria Brampton's "Missing FAQ" book, page 164:
"In version 1, for proprietary raw files, most metadata is written to an XMP sidecar file, however, the updated capture time is written back to the raw file itself, changing the modified date of the file."
"That shouldn't cause any problems as it's only written to the metadata file header, and doesn't affect the raw image data itself, however it is a point of concern for some people who they[sic] feel that the raw files should never be touched in any way."
As to the bug in version 1, here is forum thread discussing it:
http://forums.adobe.com/message/1454773#1454773 (http://forums.adobe.com/message/1454773#1454773)
Now, for LR version 2, it looks like there are two modes. The next paragraph in Victoria's book is:
"For that reason, in version 2, there is a setting in Catalog Settings > Metadata panel to allow you to choose whether the updated time is stored only in the catalog, exported files, and XMP sidecar files, or whether it can be updated in your original raw files."
So, considering Michael's original statement of:
"Lightroom never touches the original raw file. All edits are virtual."
I think a fairer statement would have been:
"For LR V2, the original raw file is never touched, with the exception of the case of changing the metadata capture date of the photo when you have the appropriate mode set in the Metadata panel. (For LR V1, changing the metadata capture date of the photo always changes the original raw file.)"
--Milt--
-
"For LR V2, the original raw file is never touched, with the exception of the case of changing the metadata capture date of the photo when you have the appropriate mode set in the Metadata panel. (For LR V1, changing the metadata capture date of the photo always changes the original raw file.)"
Yeah, well I actually set my cameras to the correct date and time when I start shooting an important project–it's one of my check list items...and as you note there is an option to alter or not alter the time stamp in 2.x. Me, personally, I really wouldn't want to touch original the raw file (proprietary raw) and only edit DNGs that are designed for it.
-
Yes, I think it sucks because it leads people to expect or want essentially inaccurate results and then somehow get it in their head that the sweetened rendering is the correct one.
I go back to film days and bet that chrome shooters tend to like the camera JPEG rendering because it's got a steepened tone curve and punched up colors like Kodachrome. People who used to shoot B&W or color neg prefer to see an accurate rendering of what's in the file and don't want artificial tone curves or saturation added.
People who prefer to season to taste rather than have the chef dictate the seasoning don't have a problem tuning an image to render they way they want...
If Mr. Schewe is interested in an "accurate" representation of the scene, then he should consider using scene referred data, where the recorded pixel value is proportional to the scene luminance. A raw file is scene referred within the dynamic range response of the sensor. One can easily obtain scene referred data with ACR as described in an ICC White Paper (http://www.color.org/scene-referred.xalter). The first step is to set the sliders on the main tab of ACR to zero (contrast, brightness, black point, linear tone curve, etc) and convert the raw file. This will essentially give scene referred data with a gamma encoding; the gamma encoding can be removed by converting to a linear profile if desired. The problem with scene referred data is that the dynamic range usually exceeds that of the display device. To obtain a useful display or print, the data must be compressed so that they fit the dynamic range of the output device. This is done by rendering (http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/ps_pro_primers.html), as discussed in an Adobe white paper by Karl Lang. This process usually involves rolling off the highlights and shadows and increasing contrast in the midtones, essentially applying an "S curve" to the data.
Both ACR and the JPEG engine of the camera render the images as described above, but the default curves vary somewhat. For example, here are characteristic curves obtained with ACR and the Nikon D3:
[attachment=15222:TRCsBl.gif]
The ACR defaults for the D3 have a black setting of 5, which rolls off the shadows, but the standard camera curve does not. If one sets the black to zero with the Adobe standard curve, the results are similar to the Camera Standard curve, but the camera standard curve has a steeper slope for the midtones. The Camera Standard curve is very similar to what would be obtained with the camera JPEG engine set to the Standard Picture Control. Both the Adobe and Camera TRCs boost midtone contrast and neither are accurate. If one wants "accurate" data, the ACR linear tone curve could be used, but the results are not pleasing. Some photographers (such as Mark Segal, an expert who contributes articles to this site) like to start with a linear curve so as to see what is in the image and then apply the necessary edits. Others prefer to start out with an image that more closely resembles the final image. As long as you know what you are actually doing, these approaches are matters of personal preference.
Anyone who has looked at the H & D curve of a black and white negative film knows that it is not linear. It has a knee and shoulder just like the Adobe Standard curve or the Nikon curve. In the first case, the curve is applied automatically by the process. Also, the slope of the curve is less than unity and is affected by development. Mr. Schewe is not looking at "accurate data" in his black and white negative. Scene referred data may be extracted from film, but the process is not simple (see the paper by Debevec (http://www.debevec.org/Research/HDR/debevec-siggraph97.pdf)).
-
Anyone who has looked at the H & D curve of a black and white negative film knows that it is not linear. It has a knee and shoulder...
Huh...and here all these years I thought it was called a TOE and shoulder. Leastways that's what Minor White called in back in school at RIT.
-
Huh...and here all these years I thought it was called a TOE and shoulder. Leastways that's what Minor White called in back in school at RIT.
I stand corrected, it is TOE not knee. I misspoke extemporaneously, but the substance of my argument is correct (unlike yours). Do you care to comment on "accuracy"?
-
Hi,
To my best understanding the linear DNG:s from DxO are demosaiced. In my view this is a major issue because DxO's demosaic algorithm may not be the best one. Also, keeping original, non demosaiced, non interpolated RAW makes it possible to use different algorithms in the future. So going to "linear" DNG looses some information.
When doing demosaicing the file size increases by a factor of three, as two new pixels are interpolated for each pixel. So big file means that some spacial information is lost.
I'm not very happy about the state of "RAW". We need something like DNG, IMHO. Unfortunately some RAW-converters, namely DxO and Bibble, don't support DNG, at least as a true RAW format.
Lightroom lacks some essential features IMHO.
- It would be nice if we had a "heavy weight" noise reduction like NoiseNinja integated in Lightroom as a parametric edit.
- Lens corrections would be needed
- Perspective correction would be needed
The reason is really that the whole idea with Lightroom is parametric edits. Once you leave Lightroom trough an external editor you are actually working on a rendered file.
The other issue is that especially noise reduction should be done before sharpening. Lightroom has AFAIK pretty good capture sharpening, but you should probably not use with Noise Ninja, Dfine or the other tools.
Best regards
Erik
When Capture One 4.8.x outputs a DNG, it does the actual demosiacing....so any lens corrections (and AtoD corrections) are performed on the linear DNG output. In that regard it's much like DxO's linear DNG lens corrections...
You do need the demosiacing to take advantage of the lens corrections but saving out the linear DNG means you aren't locked into Capture One's color/tone output to a tiff file. The DNG's ain't tiny mind you...I think they're about 117MB and it does take a degree of zen like patients when working on the files in ACR/LR...but I much prefer ACR/LR tone and color controls compared to Capture One (not to mention the image sharpening).
:~)
-
Lightroom lacks some essential features IMHO.
- It would be nice if we had a "heavy weight" noise reduction like NoiseNinja integated in Lightroom as a parametric edit.
- Lens corrections would be needed
- Perspective correction would be needed
Don't be at all surprised if the Camera Raw/Lightroom elves have a little something up their sleeves with regards to your wishes...
:~)
And I really only suggested Capture One linear DNG as a workaround to the lack of lens corrections in Camera Raw/Lightroom. It gives me the lens corrections of Capture One but allows me to keep using the color and tone correction that I prefer in ACR/LR. But I don't see that as a long term solution...linear DNGs from a P 65+ back are pretty figgin' big, ya know?
-
... "accurate" representation of the scene...
Thanks for your post and the mention of the papers. I was wondering about that "accurate" as well.