Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: laughingbear on May 17, 2009, 07:54:18 am
-
Hi Michael,
The high frequency parts of the RAW file are better protected or treated in a somewhat better way in C1 compared to other converters. This appears to be the consensus amongst colleagues.
You set sharpening and denoise all to zero in C1, so you leave eventual noise treatment and all sharpening steps to other products as well, would that be correct?
Best
Georg
P.S. Tried C1 yesterday the first time, what I liked spontaneously is that it can display horizontal and vertical inches when you crop. Very handy. Should be a feature in LR imho.
-
P.S. Tried C1 yesterday the first time, what I liked spontaneously is that it can display horizontal and vertical inches when you crop. Very handy. Should be a feature in LR imho.
Having horz/vert inches in LR's crop tool doesn't make sense because in LR you apply the crop to a master image (i.e., output-independent). Consequently, having a fixed set of output dimensions (e.g., 6" x 4") displayed isn't applicable, particularly if you are preparing images for the web, where the only thing that matters is the number of pixels, not the number of inches / cm / mm, etc. Thus LR provides you with setting aspect ratios (e.g., 3:2, 5:4, etc.). Where having physical dimensions shown makes sense within LR is the Print Module, because that's where you actually deal with output-specific matters. You can show those dimensions via the Guides section, in the right panel.
-
. Where having physical dimensions shown makes sense within LR is the Print Module, because that's where you actually deal with output-specific matters. You can show those dimensions via the Guides section, in the right panel.
Hi Eric,
....print was what I was thinking about! I did not know that about the guides section, pretty cool, thanks for the hint!
Ahem.... Did I mention we need softproof... LOLOL
Best
Georg
-
Ahem.... Did I mention we need softproof... LOLOL
Somebody might've mentioned it once or twice ...
-
This workflow seems to be a good solution for those cameras "requiring" C1 to do the raw coversion...e.g. the P65+. The alternative for others say M8 s DNG or the Nikon .NEF would be to import directly into LR and export the selects as DNG s for processing in C1 . The C1 TIFF s could then be returned to LR . This would allow you to leverage LR s excellent image management and selection features and only convert the selected DNG s with C1. Are there disadvantages to this alternative?
-
I highly appreciate Michael's explanation about how to use an "external" RAW converter while still using LR's catalog and image refining features. This is relevant to me since I am trying to integrate RAW Developer and LR in a similar way. My main remaining question would be if capture sharpening and initial noise reduction (chroma mainly) would be something that should or can be applied already in the external converter (C1 or RAW Converter or similar). My feeling is that capture sharpening and initial NR in this step would have advantages, but maybe somebody else has different insights already?
Thanks, Thorsten
-
Hey Michael,
what makes you think that you are using the "best of both worlds" ?
Or is it just the best of your world?
What is this judgement for?
Cheers
happyman
-
LR has the workflow and capabilities most like, C1 has the better raw processing result, but not the workflow. Interesting article, but it's more a workaround for 2 good but flawed programs. Bit like wallpapering over the cracks, it's not really convincing.
I would like to see C1 have better workflow and dam capabilities.
I would like to see LR have a decent raw engine
I will let C1 off a bit (but only a bit), as they might not have aspirations for the same target market. But Adobe have had notable feedback across the internet about the performance of their raw engine, which is rather lacking in the high ISO dept to say the least.
The time for excuses has ended, let's have some results ;-)
-
LR has the workflow and capabilities most like, C1 has the better raw processing result, but not the workflow. Interesting article, but it's more a workaround for 2 good but flawed programs. Bit like wallpapering over the cracks, it's not really convincing.
I would like to see C1 have better workflow and dam capabilities.
I would like to see LR have a decent raw engine
I will let C1 off a bit (but only a bit), as they might not have aspirations for the same target market. But Adobe have had notable feedback across the internet about the performance of their raw engine, which is rather lacking in the high ISO dept to say the least.
The time for excuses has ended, let's have some results ;-)
No kidding, Barry. You would think that all of the bad chatter that Adobe has gotten in relation to their raw engine over the last year or two would force them to reevaluate things....and, as you know, things are even worse if you shoot Sony. It seems like every forum I go to has folks using things like RPP and Raw Therapee as alternatives, because the conversions are so much better. I finally abandoned LR altogether, after 2 years of using it, as I'll always choose quality over convenience.
-
Hey Michael,
what makes you think that you are using the "best of both worlds" ?
Or is it just the best of your world?
What is this judgement for?
Cheers
happyman
The mere fact that Michael prefers one work flow over another is a judgment. How dare he? It would have been a much better article had he not thought about the subject and just rambled.