Pentax 645z color in Capture One deliberately broken?

[torger]

Just grab a Phase Raw file, substitue the pixel data, write the stupid thing back and feed it to C1.
It's not rocket science.

I did that just for demonstration back when the 645z was new, it works. I posted it here if I remember correctly.

Hacking C1 if P1 really don't want to support the camera seems to me to be a bit overkill though, just use some other software. You'll need to make a profile in any case.

[AlterEgo]

Torger, et al,

Have you seen this guy's workaround? http://www.alexmunoz.net/capturefix/

He wrote a Javascript, I suppose, to enable C1 to use Pentax files, even built a default ICC profile for use with them. I've tried it and it works, but C1 v.7 renders the color pretty far off and is reluctant to use the profile if modified.

I'd be curious to hear your experience if you try CaptureFix to access the files & see if that would enable using dcamprof to generate a better profile. I would try myself, but I'm Mac-based and my Unix skill set is firmly in the "for dummies" category...

John

Torger has software that mutates 645z DNGs to 250 IIQs as he noted above

[AlterEgo]

Hacking C1 if P1 really don't want to support the camera seems to me to be a bit overkill though, just use some other software. You'll need to make a profile in any case.

for some people raw converters are like religion (or in case when you are heavily into DAM - like a wedding ring)... imagine somebody who for example has both P1 backs, but also uses 645* for outings in the wild... why 2 raw converters ?

[jduncan]

I wonder if it's only the header in the exif data, i.e. the name of the camera being 645z.  With LR I have worked around this issues (when the XT-1 was released both C1 and LR were a bit slow to get support however the files/sensor image etc were the same as from the X-E2) so I just changed the header. 

It's not something you really want to so a lot of unless you have a batch conversion and being a programmer, Torger I know you might have access to one.

The sensor is the same between all 3 cameras, Hasselblad, Phase, Pentax.  I agree with Michael (LuLa's Michael) that Pentax seems to have gotten the best from the sensor, in both DR and high iso.  They also have focus peaking on the LCD, (getting off topic sorry),
but my point is that you might get by the issue by a file rename.  I realize that the Pentax raw is in a dng format so it this might not work.  I have heard that you can open Lecia DNG in C1, but of course there is no profile.  Which can be worked around for sure.

Paul

I guess photoshop or some photoshop plug in should be able to do it. The other option is automator on the mac, and that do work. In the other hand I agree : I don't believe that it's worthy. So much talk about DNG.

Best regards,

[torger]

for some people raw converters are like religion (or in case when you are heavily into DAM - like a wedding ring)... imagine somebody who for example has both P1 backs, but also uses 645* for outings in the wild... why 2 raw converters ?

Yes, I shall confess I understand this problem and I would suffer myself I was in that position. However, if you're the type of user that can switch brands depending on what the currently best on offer, getting dependent on Capture One in the first place is probably not a good idea. Lightroom is not that bad if you make profiles for it, and there's also a bunch of smaller third party software too.

If we do a hack now that becomes popular, there's a risk that P1 blocks that, and then we need to do another hack etc... a cat and mouse game I would not enjoy spending time on. So my recommendation would still be -- if you're a MF shooter and don't like brand lock-in then ditch Capture One, it will be painful to start with due to the relearning process but then you're free to play with any camera you like.

While C1 certainly has some features many other raw converters don't have, I think their main attraction is their color profiles. Investing some time in learning how to make our own profiles is also a way to break free, then you can get your desired color in any raw converter. That's one of the key reasons I started the camera profiling project DCamProf.

[synn]

Not professing to be an expert or anything, but if you want to batch export images with certain settings straight into photoshop or any other editing tool of your choice, C1P does it just as fast as any other tool. You can also export high res tiffs into photoshop and generate web thumbnails at the same time, which afaik, LR cannot do.

Where it does lag behind is in catalog management, where LR is a lot better. Personally, this is not a problem for me as I now strictly work on project basis, so sessions are a better option for me. Also, this allows me to move files from one computer to another with edits intact, much easier than in a catalog based software. LR's catalogs make vacation photo management a hoot though.

One of the underrated yet very important actors that swing me towards c1p is that when I set star ratings on camera, they show up in the software. This makes my workflow a lot faster as I can get working on the keepers straightaway.

Lastly, regarding costs, if you're staying within the phamiyaleaf universe, you don't need to pay a dime for upgrading the software. I just do it for my Nikon cameras.

Also, you don't really NEED to buy a new software every time a new camera is out. For months after the D800's launch, I used adobe's DNG converter as I had not upgraded my software.

But the thought that a full time pro can spend 4 or 5 figures on hardware, but not justify one tenth of that on software is Interesting though.

[eronald]

J,
 I'm going to be a bit rude; you can dial down the saturation while reading.

 You're managing an industrial process. It's industrial "art" because you get paid on time, and you negotiate the rate ahead of creating the piece. If you are having toothache, or the talent wakes up on location with alcohol food poisoning or boyfriend issues of the crying sort, you still need to wrap, give the rental stuff back and take the plane out to the next shoot. So for you it's ALL ABOUT WORKFLOW and schedule. It HAS TO BE. You need to get paid. Or rather you've decided that your photographic lifestyle is about running teams, working to deadline, and getting paid up front. If the most important thing is the deadline, what counts most is workflow.

 I guess industrial "art" is like industrial cooking. If you go to a banquet, the hotel may have the best cook in the world but when he has to feed 500 people at the same time the food tastes REWARMED. The chef may know the bought-in stuff isn't so good, but he can't say - "well guys, the fish we got in today is not so fresh, so the main course tastes as much of shoe as of sole. And anyway, your speaker ran late, so I had to put everything on the warmer for 30 minutes. I'm sorry guys, but yesterday we had some of the best beef we've seen this year, today you're out of luck" .

 Everybody here AGREES WITH YOU that Adobe has the BEST WORKFLOW. But the sh*t gunk which comes out of their converter is still like factory-frozen fish. You can make a meal from it, but it will NEVER TASTE LIKE THE STUFF WHICH JUST GOT PULLED OUT OF THE SEA.

 For some of the guys here, it's all about image quality, not workflow. They want good food, in small helpings. They're crazy about their shots precisely because often time constraints in their day jobs mean they get do so few of them. Or because their setup time is so long that they just don't care about speed in post (thinking of the architecture guys here). So they don't share your casual attitude of "if it's not so good, the retoucher gets paid to fix it in post".

 Somebody should give Adobe a smart kick where it gets results. 

 In the mean time, we either use something else or close our eyes and think of England

Edmund

PS. The Japanese —  I don't mean US citizens, I mean the inhabitants of the archipelago of 日本, subjects of his Imperial Majesty the 天皇, descendant of 天照大神 — like eating fresh fish, in fact it is an essential part of their diet, and they have set up a very effective market system that makes sure that fresh produce reaches the consumer in record time. You can have quality and workflow combined, but you need to ask for it very firmly.

For a long time I felt c-1 was the best raw convertor, even went so far a to buy our retouchers c-1 licenses.

Then moved to other cameras and I found c-1 to be less intuitive than light-room, which we use for batch galleries and photoshops arc for single final conversions.

I just think lightroom is faster to use and more intuitive and since I'm going to finish in photoshop it's just faster to drag a raw file into arc and stay in the program.

To a retoucher that works fast and does  lot of volume, most do everything in adobe and in regards to raw conversion, that's just the first early step of the process.

IMO

BC

[synn]

I don't want to jump into the mud slinging contest (Edmund is talented enough to hold his own fort on that front), just wanted to point out that:

- I use Nikons and Leaf (And some other files form time to time) and I can't possibly see how moving from C1P will save me time (My personal expectations of quality notwithstanding).

- I respect your work very much BC, but there are plenty of other professionals who extensively invlove retouchers who are more than happy with a workflow that involves C1P. Drew Gardner is one name I can pluck form the top of my head.

- Regarding the topic of propreitary files, it's funny, because I used to work in post production for a long time and I always remember transfering files form 3Ds Max to Maya or Shake to AFX or Premiere to FCP all being nearly impossible or major pains in the ass at the least. The whole industry is full of propreitary formats. What matters is having industry standard intermediate files that can be pushed through the workflow. C1P is fully capable of generating 16 bit TIFs in any color space you want, so I don't really get this problem. That is a perfectly workable file for any retoucher. I know, because I have done it for quite a few people in the past.

- I have watched quite a few webinars by P1 and they have mentioned several times that if enough users ask for it AND if the camera companies provide a proper API, they are more than happy to build a tethering module for those cameras (Except the MF competition of course).

[eronald]

J,

 A good Raw converter is like a different camera. Don't believe me? Take your assistant's Canon and spend an hour with Canon's own free DPP.  Just try it, look at the color and sharpness, rather than saying I speak from the outside.

 As for accusing me of being a Phase fanboy ROTFL. I think half the forum will be holding their belly in and hoping they don't break a rib from laughing. But C1 *will* squeeze incredible results from a Phase back just as DPP works well with Canon. The reason is that both P1 and Canon have proprietary information about the camera which they never share with third parties, and algorithms which are tuned specifically for their hardware. In the engineering world this is called "codesign" when you design software and hardware to cooperate on a job.

 As for people on this forum being fanboys of C1 the software, well that can be attributed to the fact that either C1 is incredibly pleasant to use (which I doubt) or that almost everyone here is an idiot (statistically unlikely) or that everyone here has a Phase back (oh the happy few) or that Beezelbub has incredible evangelical ability (but if he's so smart why ain't he President) ,  or -here comes Ockham -  that CAPTURE ONE OFTEN MAKES LESS OF A MESS OF THIRD PARTY FILES THAN ADOBE'S CONVERTER AND PEOPLE HERE LIKE IMAGE QUALITY (this may make sense).

Adobe make extremely useful solid software; but ALL of it is NOT the best available. You know better. The converter core itself is the weak point of Lightroom, while the Lightroom workflow tools are superb, and Photoshop itself is the industry standard.

Your fashion clients would hate the idea that a sneaker is a sneaker is a sports shoe, and that only one company makes good shoes. Why should we think that only the largest company makes good software?

In the old analog film world, people spent a lot of effort choosing an emulsion, and getting development just right for a certain BW film. Of course with color eg. Kodachrome there was no choice - it was proprietary all the way. And nobody complained. You have forgotten that when you call it "just an intermediate step" and talk about "inclusionary tools".

 As for my professional skills, here is the talent emoting while I lense

 Let's not lose our cents of humor.

Edmund

PS. They seem to have found water on Mars. Now, life on Mars, that would be more interesting than C1 vs. ACR.

My point is c-1 ACR, DPP, Raw developer, lightroom, in the real world there is little difference (most just personal) and in film world terms digital processing is just the intermediate step anyway,

Professional finish requires professional skills and inclusionary tools.   No one would buy After Effects, Photoshop, Resolve, Baselight, Autodesk Smoke (it's a long list) if they only worked with proprietary files.

Your view is 180 degrees from mine.


BC