Do you prefer native or Adobe Color ?

I prefer Adobe's Lightroom/ACR Color

6 (10.3%)

I prefer the camera manufacturer's converter color (C1, Leaf, DPP etc)  

39 (67.2%)

I find they're all good enough

4 (6.9%)

I'd like more choice, none of the above is really good.

9 (15.5%)

Total Members Voted: 55

[eronald]

Do you like the *results* from the Adobe software as much as the workflow ? Or do you prefer the camera manufacturer's rendering of the Raw files ? There have been several posts on this topic concerning the issues of getting good colors from Raw. Let's find out whether people are happy.

Edmund

[Dustbak]

Funny you bring this up. I was just trying to find out whether I should bother Nikon NX with my D300 files or just put them through ACR.

Sofar I find the NX workflow totally annoying and I am wondering whether the hassle is worth the results

With the Hasselblad I tend to process everything with people in it through Flexcolor and most product shots go through ACR via the DNG route.

Euh.... you are missing an option. Depending on the subject & amount of images to process I tend to choose a converter.

[eronald]

Funny you bring this up. I was just trying to find out whether I should bother Nikon NX with my D300 files or just put them through ACR.

Sofar I find the NX workflow totally annoying and I am wondering whether the hassle is worth the results

With the Hasselblad I tend to process everything with people in it through Flexcolor and most product shots go through ACR via the DNG route.

Euh.... you are missing an option. Depending on the subject & amount of images to process I tend to choose a converter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The point of this poll is to look ONLY at the *results* and ignore the ease-of-use and features.

I agree I'm missing an option.

 I think you should take the "need more choice" option in that case as none of the existing converters does all you want.

Edmund

[eronald]

The point of this poll is to look ONLY at the *results* and ignore the ease-of-use and features.

I agree I'm missing an option.

 I think you should take the "need more choice" option in that case as none of the existing converters does all you want.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bump. Let's get some more votes in !

Edmund

[Dinarius]

With the Hasselblad I tend to process everything with people in it through Flexcolor and most product shots go through ACR via the DNG route.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dustbak,

Interesting comment.

I am using a loan H3D back at the moment while (still!) waiting for my 39Mp MS.

Just about everything I shoot involves a Gretag CC, so I know its look on my computer screen like the back of my hand at this stage. My first impression was that I couldn't believe how red(!) the 3F files were straight out of the camera compared with the Mk3. Perhaps this has something to do with the "untouched", "linear" file that Hassie are aiming to provide. i.e. You do the work after capture. Fair enough. The softness of the file when first opened was another shock.

Anyway, if there's something in Flexcolor that equates to the HSL tab in ACR  (in terms of being able to quickly do a Bruce Fraser type correction on a GMB and apply it to all the images with a couple of mouse clicks, which is what I always do) I can't see it. So, like you, I'm using DNG and ACR.

Have to say that the files are fabulous once you get over the initial shock!    Extraordinary elasticity that the Mk3 files just don't have. I think it is this more than anything else that illustrates the difference. That and the "three dimensionality" that I had heard speak of. It's the breadth and subtlety of tone that gives that 3D feel, I think and I think that these points are far more relevant in comparisons than pixel counting, since most of us, most of the time, rarely go above A4.

So, yes, I do like the ACR results - a lot. Because I can get, for example, the exact 152, 52, 59 that I'm looking for on the red patch on the GMB CC, and very quickly too.  

D.

ps. Slightly tangenital, but one annoying thing is that what shows up as a blown highlight on the camera screen or the laptop (when shooting tethered) is nothing of the sort when finally opened in ACR. Don't know if that's my camera settings, or something that happens in the ACR/DNG conversion. Not really a problem as the shadows areas are showing no noise whatsoever.

[Dustbak]

ps. Slightly tangenital, but one annoying thing is that what shows up as a blown highlight on the camera screen or the laptop (when shooting tethered) is nothing of the sort when finally opened in ACR. Don't know if that's my camera settings, or something that happens in the ACR/DNG conversion. Not really a problem as the shadows areas are showing no noise whatsoever.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189880\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have the same thing. Flexcolor is just a tad more conservative. When I know I will be going the DNG route, I always expose a bit more so I just get the purple overexposure indication. When opening the files in ACR the exposure is spot on. This way I feel I can get the most out of the files. The difference is mostly appr. 1/4 to 1/2 stop.

[Dinarius]

I have the same thing. Flexcolor is just a tad more conservative. When I know I will be going the DNG route, I always expose a bit more so I just get the purple overexposure indication. When opening the files in ACR the exposure is spot on. This way I feel I can get the most out of the files. The difference is mostly appr. 1/4 to 1/2 stop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189917\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ahah!

So, I wasn't imagining things!

Thanks.

D.

[digitaldog]

I have the same thing. Flexcolor is just a tad more conservative. When I know I will be going the DNG route, I always expose a bit more so I just get the purple overexposure indication. When opening the files in ACR the exposure is spot on. This way I feel I can get the most out of the files. The difference is mostly appr. 1/4 to 1/2 stop.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well you're seeing how using this screen to judge the real exposure of the linear data isn't effective or "accurate". Michael's got of course, the ground breaking article on this site about exposing to the right. And there's this:
[a href=\"http://www.digitalphotopro.com/tech/exposing-for-raw.html]http://www.digitalphotopro.com/tech/exposing-for-raw.html[/url]

I'd expect the MF camera systems to be a lot better than what Canon and Nikon do (they live in a JPEG mindset) but its possible you need to shoot some exposure tests and try to correlated that to the clipping indicators you're seeing. But that you can get less noise and not blow out the highlights when using ACR indicates you've nailed the exposure, its this so called purple indicator that's off.

None of this should be affected by the use of DNG.