Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: stewarthemley on July 29, 2012, 05:47:17 am
-
...before I go entirely insane trying to use Image Data Converter.
It's not only slooooow, it crashes every couple of images. How can the same company that produced such a superb little camera (and quite a few others) let a pile of crap like this loose on the world?
In the meantime, while we wait for LR, if anyone knows of a RC, any RC, that will handle the raws, please say so.
-
It is probably worth pointing out that Adobe are likely hard at work giving LR and ACR RAW capability for your camera.
If they are not it is likely Sony has yet to provide them with the required information.
Apart from Phase One and possibly Hasselblad camera manufacturers seem generally incapable of putting together decent RAW conversion software.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Hope you're right, Tony.
And I agree, Phase and Hasselblad are the only two camera makers who seem able to produce good, actually great, software. If I were Mr Canon or Mr Nikon I'd be quite embarrassed by that.
-
Hi,
I'm actually quite happy that we are not dependent on vendor software.
I'm pretty sure the next release of LR will support the RX100, Adobe seems to release four times a year.
Best regards
Erik
Hope you're right, Tony.
And I agree, Phase and Hasselblad are the only two camera makers who seem able to produce good, actually great, software. If I were Mr Canon or Mr Nikon I'd be quite embarrassed by that.
-
Make sure you ask Sony to offer DNG as an option. Their new cameras would then be supported from day 1.
-
Good point, John. But am I mistaken in thinking that even with DNG there are "varieties" on offer? Is Phase's DNG the same as everone else's? It's a genuine question: probably the differences are in the metadata area and don't really affect the image quality?
And I agree Erik. If the maker's software was up to the job then we probably wouldn't have LR, C1 and a few other good converters to choose from.
-
Hi!
Yes, there are different versions of DNG and different options, but Adobe defines DNG so LR would always support all options.
Now, DNG is a flexible format, so makers could add their own tags, in effect extending the format.
There is also something called linear DNG, which is demosaiced. Not a good thing in my book.
Would camera vendors unite around a single raw file specification it would make life simpler for a lot of people. Also, Sony developing it's image data converter is just insane. The software is of very little use and they give it away free. So, where is the beef for Sony. Competitive advantage? No! Earning money? No!
Best regards
Erik
Good point, John. But am I mistaken in thinking that even with DNG there are "varieties" on offer? Is Phase's DNG the same as everone else's? It's a genuine question: probably the differences are in the metadata area and don't really affect the image quality?
And I agree Erik. If the maker's software was up to the job then we probably wouldn't have LR, C1 and a few other good converters to choose from.
-
Hope you're right, Tony.
And I agree, Phase and Hasselblad are the only two camera makers who seem able to produce good, actually great, software. If I were Mr Canon or Mr Nikon I'd be quite embarrassed by that.
I think Mr Nikon would disagree?
-
I think Mr Nikon would disagree?
Funny, this same thing is coming up on the ArgyllCMS listserve. I noted in a reply that none of my friends who have Nikon equipment nor I use Capture NX2. I really wonder whether Nikon (or Canon for that matter) make any significant money from their software. Using an open DNG standard makes so much more sense and frees up resources (admittedly not a great deal) for camera and lens design which is what they do best.
-
...I really wonder whether Nikon (or Canon for that matter) make any significant money from their software...
I think the Nikon variety sells in retail stores but Canon bundle their RAW converter with every Canon body that shoots RAW.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
The latest Raw Developer does support the Sony Rx 100. I just one and am using Raw Developer for it. Beware that it is a Mac only program.
Hope this helps.
Jed
-
Funny, this same thing is coming up on the ArgyllCMS listserve. I noted in a reply that none of my friends who have Nikon equipment nor I use Capture NX2. I really wonder whether Nikon (or Canon for that matter) make any significant money from their software. Using an open DNG standard makes so much more sense and frees up resources (admittedly not a great deal) for camera and lens design which is what they do best.
Some Nikon devotees use Capture because the in camera settings are honoured. They think that they are truer to what they captured. LR doesn't honour them except for WB. I am a Nikon user but very much prefer LR.
-
Are you sure, Jedbest? I checked the Raw Developer supprted cameras list and its not on but I downloaded it anyway. Tried to import the files but it said no deal. I really hope I'm wrong and that there has been an update.
-
Hi,
I'm actually quite happy that we are not dependent on vendor software.
I'm pretty sure the next release of LR will support the RX100, Adobe seems to release four times a year.
It's worth noting that Phase One's ability to produce good software that tethers to their camera and converts their raw files (as well as to Canon, Nikon etc), does not make anyone "dependent on vendor software" as Lightroom, Aperture, Irrident Raw Developer etc all provide support for Phase One raw files.
-
It seems to be opening my RX 100 files. I believe it is version 1.9.5.
Jed
-
Just checked. Raw Developer 1.9.5 did open a Sony RAW file from the DSC RX 100.
Jed
-
But am I mistaken in thinking that even with DNG there are "varieties" on offer?
IF Sony, Canon, Nikon etc just wrote out a DNG to spec, you’d be working with those files the day the camera shipped with any 3rd party converter that properly supports DNG. Just like you can access the JPEG the day the camera ships. Why is a raw file any different?
-
I find the proprietary RAW thing totally mystifying. As far as I can tell, it doesn't provide any advantage to the manufacturer, either image-quality-wise, or (given the multiplicity of RAW converters out there, some of which are open source/free) economic/marketing advantage-wise. If there is a rational reason for manufacturers to use proprietary formats, I'd sure like to hear it.
-
Hi,
Yes Raw Developer works but it does not have lens corrections that the RX100 needs badly as it has very bad barrel distortion at short focal lengths.
Also, I do admire Raw Developer but I don't see it as a replacement for Lightroom. Raw developer is a raw developer while Lightroom is a workflow solution.
Best regards
Erik
Just checked. Raw Developer 1.9.5 did open a Sony RAW file from the DSC RX 100.
Jed
-
Jed and Erik, you're right. The latest Raw Developer does open the RX 100 files and it lacks the lens corrections.
So, if I get time today I'll try this workflow: get everything how I want it in RD then see how the lens corrections work in either PT Lens or PS.
And I agree with the consensus: why do companies think it's a good idea to release half-hearted software for their products? Seems like a bad advert IMO.
-
Not sure if I should post this in the LR thread but as I've started...
Just did a quick check with RD and I'd forgotten just how good it is. The detail and overall quality of the image with the RX is amazing. This camera is incredible. The only fault is a little chromatic ab'n at the very widest setting, but PS easily fixed that, along with a quick slide on the distortion thingy (technical term for the clever ones). The distortion seems quite uniform and predictable so it really is a quick slide. As the angle gets less wide the CA and distortion go.
If LR can match this with a good lens profile, it will be a superb combination. Michael's "Wow" was no exaggeration!