Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: design_freak on October 06, 2008, 08:52:11 am
-
I want to know what kind of software you use to developing your raw files. Your camera raw converters ( Phase C1, Hasselblad Phocus, Leaf Capture) or use Adobe or Aperture.
-
I'm a little bit curious too, despite the huge variety of workflows people use. I am moving from shooting a Canon DSLR for the past few years to a P30+ this week. I have every photo I've ever taken (even before the DSLR) logged into Lightroom; most are keyworded, organized into folders, and collections, etc. From what I've been reading C1 is supposedly the best at converting and correcting Phase One back files. But I am VERY reluctant to leave Lightroom and all my organization behind.
How do I use C1 for conversion and editing, and Lightroom for overall image management? (Not trying to hijack your thread)
-
99.99% of my files I run through Iridient Raw Developer. The .01 are files that have some moire and I will use Leaf software to clean that up.
-
How do I use C1 for conversion and editing, and Lightroom for overall image management?
Make your corrections in C1 4.x then export as DNG to Lightroom? Slower but fits your needs at the moment.
-
Make your corrections in C1 4.x then export as DNG to Lightroom? Slower but fits your needs at the moment.
That works. Do I then have to archive the original Raw and the DNG? Is anything lost in the convert to DNG? I know with the Canon raw files, there's not a whole lot of specialized data that gets lost in the DNG convert, so I never bother to save the original CR2 files.
-
I previously used my camera makers software; Nikon's Capture and then Capture NX. I switched to Lightrrom 1.0; the workflow was much better, but the initial conversion was not up as good as I hoped. Calibrations scripts to improved matters but I was still forced to rely on NX for certain images.
The advent of the DNG Profile Editor from Adobe has proved to be very helpful to me. Now I can get very reliable 'Nikon color' on initial conversion.
-
I used leaf capture for the conversion to 16bits tiff prophoto and than worked on them in photoshop.
At the moment I'm using Aperture and testing if I like the workflow more, at the moment I give a bit of preference to Aperture, except on Moire Leaf captures wins there hands down.
-
If I'm shooting tethered I usually work like this...
CaptureOne 4.x -> export as DNG -> open in LR2/ACR -> Photoshop CS3 for final edits/retouching
If I'm shooting to CF card I usually skip C1, but this might change with the Pro version released on the 15th.
-
Somehow I never liked the ACR engine.
With Canon I used the C1 engine, and with the Leaf files the Leaf software and now aperture.
Why do you convert to DNG, and still use ACR that way ?
Or do you like ACR more ?
-
Somehow I never liked the ACR engine.
With Canon I used the C1 engine, and with the Leaf files the Leaf software and now aperture.
Why do you convert to DNG, and still use ACR that way ?
Or do you like ACR more ?
LR2/ACR has a bunch of absolutely brilliant tools that are missing from C1, that's why I use it.
The reason I convert to DNG is to be able to save the edits made without a sidecar file.
-
I use Phocus. And I am really happy with this software. It's fast and give me best quality. DAC is working very good. I don't have any problems with noise. I don;t use DNG. I do the test with Adobe Lightroom 2.0, I got a lot of noise in shadows. Color was strange... So adobe LR is not for me I process everything in Phocus. And work with tiffs in Photoshop when I need it. It;s better that working on DNG in my opinion.
Freak
-
@AMSP,
If you are working on a Mac try Aperture, it has the same (and more) nice tools as ACR but I find the results better.
Still comparing to the Leaf output by the way, it's a bit 50/50 but I disliked the ACR engine.
It can vary per camera by the way, I heard people with Nikon full of praise on ACR.
-
@AMSP,
If you are working on a Mac try Aperture, it has the same (and more) nice tools as ACR but I find the results better.
Still comparing to the Leaf output by the way, it's a bit 50/50 but I disliked the ACR engine.
It can vary per camera by the way, I heard people with Nikon full of praise on ACR.
I already tried Aperture 2.1 thank you, it's a very good program but I find LR2/ACR superior, especially the latest version.
I've compared output quality between Aperture 2.1, C1 4.1, and LR2/ACR, they're all very similar with a minimal edge to C1 (with my P25), but nowhere near enough to give up all the goodies you get with Adobe. Maybe you haven't tried it in a long while Frank? Or maybe it just doesn't do a good job with Leaf files, I dunno. However, I think if you're getting bad results with any modern RAW converter today it's most likely the user who's at fault. I use whatever program(s) that have the edge for the moment and constantly reevaluate as new versions of them are released.
-
I worked with ACR ever since I started working digital.
The problem I have with it is a faint blurry/waterlike effect arround some high contrast areas when I use fill light, with Aperture this is gone.
Also the color of Aperture and Leaf Capture are slightly better in the skintones, somehow ACR is a little reddish/magenta.
I can surpress this with a custom profile but still it's not up to par with Leaf Capture and Aperture (without profile).
I agree that the differences are very minor, all RAW developers can give good results in the end however it's what fits the look you want.
With Aperture or Leaf Capture I get a better result, but I think most people will be seeing no difference.
I switch to Aperture only a week ago so it can't be that I know that program more
The reason I switched to aperture had more to do with it's database options and in second place the lack of the artifact with fill light.
By the way the artifact only showed up on some shots, especially with high contrast and only on one side of the picture. I tried it on different machines and even took a sample with me to a tech on the pro-imaging in 2008, they saw the artifact and knew about it but did not know an answer, it appeared not often enough I think.
I'm not bashing ACR by the way, it's just that nowadays it's in the fine details and I decided that the combination of great dB structure and slightly better RAW control justified Aperture.