Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...

[sperera]

.....we all mostly agree its second to none in handling and batching large numbers of photographs....and we all use it in our workflows to some extent....but will it ever be allowed to be THE raw convertor....as it deserves to be....if manufacturers like Nikon just don't allow them to open up their files as perfectly as they do in their own software....Capture NX2 in this case....I dont care what anyone says....NO WAY DOES A NIKON NEF look as good in Lightroom as it does in Capture NX2....in my opinion of course.....

so....I think we're all doomed into extra laborious workflows cos camera makers will always have their own programmes to peddle and sell....ok...hasselblad has Phocus and its free...same thing....iHasselblad fots dont open as great in Lightroom as they do in Phocus.....

Fact: Hasselblad UK told me they had given Adobe the profiles etc needed to open up files in Lightroom but they claim Adobe drag  their feet and hence they brought out Phocus as they cant depend on Adobe etc to do what has to be done to open up files as they should be open.....

Is this true or sales bull??? it sucks for us sitting in front of these damn screens either way....

[James R]

The camera companies aren't giving Adobe the proprietary file formats so that LR and ACR can process the files, Adobe is reverse engineering the formats to allow LR/ACR the ability to process as many camera file formats as possible. That can all be verified with the LR/ACR developers. That's why the pixel level look of the files won't match the camera companies' software. Sure LR now has the calibration profiles to mimic DPP and NX, etc. but there is still a difference, just as there is a difference in image quality from Raw Developer to LR to Capture One and so on.

I would bet you a 1,000,000 to 1 that Hasselblad is full of it. Phase, Leaf, and the newest Sinar files now all open in Adobe products. So whose fault do you think is now. Hassey raws have not been cracked to work in LR. I'm sure LR would process Hassey raws, but I imagine Hassey is the culprit here.

I've found Capture One v 4.6 pulls as much, if not more, detail from a D3 file than NX2.  The CO files look just as good as NX2's.  So, if Phase One can get the Nikon's raw right, why can't Adobe?

[James R]

I'm toying with ingesting with PhotoMechanic, work the files with CO, batch from CO to another file as tif's, and then ingest with LR2.  God, I hate the idea, but no single program does it all.  NX2 and CO are very slow ingesting.  I will try it a time or two and then decide.

[James R]

Ingesting is a funny thing, if applying metadata and such to a file while saving it from a CF card can be useful but some apps do it very slowly. Slower than just copying files to your hard drive and batch applying metadata when viewing the files in your chosen raw converter.

I find copying files from CF cards manually very fast using Sandisk Extreme IV cards and dedicated card reader. If the files are Canon, I view them to do super fast culling in PhotoMechanic then pull the images I actually want to present to the client will run through LR for adjustments where the metadata gets applied. For my Leaf files the process slows down quite a bit and I just cull and edit in LR.

PhotoMechanic is the fastest viewing app I have ever seen to mark keepers and dump the rest. I see full screen images in PM as fast as clicking the right arrow key and hitting the '.' key for keepers.

I agree, PM is the fastest way to cull through hundreds or thousands of images.

[Panopeeper]

There is a whole bunch of myths around this issue, some repeated often in these forums as well. Let's keep some things straight, even though it has no practical relevance.

1. The native raw files contain lots (I mean tens of kilobytes) of proprietory information: some of that may be relevant for the proper interpretation of the raw data.

2. It is a myth, that Adobe do not know how to interpret that data. I don't know exactly how much Adobe know, but for example regarding the interpretation of Canon raw data there is no "unknown" information to my knowledge. Nikon and Sony are different.

In order to understand this subject, one needs to know, that much of the information actually used by LR/CR and the DNG converter is among that "secret" information and is not supposed to be known by Adobe. Examples: white balance, Highlight Tone Priority, even the ISO in some cases.

3. The most important aspect is, that the scope of the raw data interpretation by LR/ACR is limited not by the camera manufacturers' reluctancy to disclose the "secret" data but by the DNG specification.

[BernardLanguillier]

As far as Nikon files is concerned:

- I think that the ACR engine is doing a good job with Nikon files, but it is not doing a great job. One aspect to point out though is that colors got a lot better recently with profiles,
- I don't agree that NX2 is doing the best job on D3x files for instance. To my eyes this goes to Capture One overall, and to Raw Developper as far as detailed is concerned. Both of these software appear to do a better job with demoisaicing and capture sharpening than NX2 and ACR.

Therefore, I don't agree that the current inferiority of ACR for Nikon file is the direct concequence of Nikon not providing enough information to them.

Raw conversion is a very competitve game with a reasonnably low entry bareer and the Adode team working on these matters is simply not on top of their games. They are doing a very good job as opposed to a few other companies doing an outstanding job.

Cheers,
Bernard

[sperera]

There is a whole bunch of myths around this issue, some repeated often in these forums as well. Let's keep some things straight, even though it has no practical relevance.

1. The native raw files contain lots (I mean tens of kilobytes) of proprietory information: some of that may be relevant for the proper interpretation of the raw data.

2. It is a myth, that Adobe do not know how to interpret that data. I don't know exactly how much Adobe know, but for example regarding the interpretation of Canon raw data there is no "unknown" information to my knowledge. Nikon and Sony are different.

In order to understand this subject, one needs to know, that much of the information actually used by LR/CR and the DNG converter is among that "secret" information and is not supposed to be known by Adobe. Examples: white balance, Highlight Tone Priority, even the ISO in some cases.

3. The most important aspect is, that the scope of the raw data interpretation by LR/ACR is limited not by the camera manufacturers' reluctancy to disclose the "secret" data but by the DNG specification.

regardless, the bottom line is that we have a ridiculous workflow....perfect for me would be Photoshop/Lightroom opening all files at 100% quality not the 80% (in my opinion) they give us now....its just not good enough....that 'thing' you get when you buy better cameras is lost and muddied by Adobe's inferior RAW development....thats my opinion....

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Phocus does some 'non standard' image manipulation in that it corrects CA (Lateral Chromatic Aberration), distortion and vignetting. It could be argued that LR should do this, too, but at this time it doesn't do any of these automatically. The ability to handle distortion is simply lacking.

IMHO we have a situation where we have a couple of paramatric "raw-processor", both LR and Aperture doing a decent but not perfect work and specialized raw converters which often do a better job but require a 16-bit TIFF based workflow. Neither approach is optimal in my view.

Best regards
Erik

.....we all mostly agree its second to none in handling and batching large numbers of photographs....and we all use it in our workflows to some extent....but will it ever be allowed to be THE raw convertor....as it deserves to be....if manufacturers like Nikon just don't allow them to open up their files as perfectly as they do in their own software....Capture NX2 in this case....I dont care what anyone says....NO WAY DOES A NIKON NEF look as good in Lightroom as it does in Capture NX2....in my opinion of course.....

so....I think we're all doomed into extra laborious workflows cos camera makers will always have their own programmes to peddle and sell....ok...hasselblad has Phocus and its free...same thing....iHasselblad fots dont open as great in Lightroom as they do in Phocus.....

Fact: Hasselblad UK told me they had given Adobe the profiles etc needed to open up files in Lightroom but they claim Adobe drag  their feet and hence they brought out Phocus as they cant depend on Adobe etc to do what has to be done to open up files as they should be open.....

Is this true or sales bull??? it sucks for us sitting in front of these damn screens either way....

[mrcmrc]

As far as Nikon files is concerned:

- I think that the ACR engine is doing a good job with Nikon files, but it is not doing a great job. One aspect to point out though is that colors got a lot better recently with profiles,
- I don't agree that NX2 is doing the best job on D3x files for instance. To my eyes this goes to Capture One overall, and to Raw Developper as far as detailed is concerned. Both of these software appear to do a better job with demoisaicing and capture sharpening than NX2 and ACR.

Therefore, I don't agree that the current inferiority of ACR for Nikon file is the direct concequence of Nikon not providing enough information to them.

Raw conversion is a very competitve game with a reasonnably low entry bareer and the Adode team working on these matters is simply not on top of their games. They are doing a very good job as opposed to a few other companies doing an outstanding job.

Cheers,
Bernard

100% agree.

I'm stunned from the details C1 render by defaults to my D700's NEFs. Much more than DX2. However PhaseOne have to work a bit more on the stability of the application. With 4.6 I got a lot of crashes (on a Mac).

[barryfitzgerald]

I tried C1 4.5 a short while back..

Not bad..but

Hmm, I just cannot get into the work flow with it. Much as I want to like it, not sure I can. I have some issues with LR2, though workflow and GUI is not one of them. I would not be shocked if C1 beats it for details etc..not a bit.
But the package overall is what bothers me. I am def willing to look at LR alternatives..but so far have not found anything that suits me. Maybe bibble 5 will be interesting, certainly looks so from the brief videos on their site.

Other than that, it's raw therapee..not exactly polished interface wise, but pretty good on details, must be said

[msbc]

I'm toying with ingesting with PhotoMechanic, work the files with CO, batch from CO to another file as tif's, and then ingest with LR2.  God, I hate the idea, but no single program does it all.  NX2 and CO are very slow ingesting.  I will try it a time or two and then decide.

James, I hadn't realised this about CO until today but it can output directly to DNG. So wouldn't this be the ideal workflow, using CO as RAW converter to DNG then continuing in LR?

Any other converters output directly to DNG?

[jjj]

I agree, PM is the fastest way to cull through hundreds or thousands of images.

The reason for that is that it uses the embedded JPEG inside the RAW shot for previews. But both Aperture and Bridge CS4 also do the same now, so you can cull whilst rendering happens behind the scenes.

[James R]

James, I hadn't realised this about CO until today but it can output directly to DNG. So wouldn't this be the ideal workflow, using CO as RAW converter to DNG then continuing in LR?

Any other converters output directly to DNG?

That would great if these programs could interpret the adjustments made to a DNG file by another programs.  DNG is basically an alternative to RAW.  LR2 produces a DNG that CO can't read, other than as a pure RAW file.  Same with CO1's DNG files, LR2 can't read the adjustments.

[msbc]

That would great if these programs could interpret the adjustments made to a DNG file by another programs.  DNG is basically an alternative to RAW.  LR2 produces a DNG that CO can't read, other than as a pure RAW file.  Same with CO1's DNG files, LR2 can't read the adjustments.

I don't think that is such an issue in this case. Using C1 to 'develop' the RAW and LR2 for adjustments - mainly localised. If C1 truly does provide a better RAW conversion then use it for this purpose. Leave local adjustments to the tools that can do them i.e LR2. C1's ability to output directly to DNG makes the integration of C1 and LR2 in a workflow easier than a tool with only TIFF based output options.

[James R]

I don't think that is such an issue in this case. Using C1 to 'develop' the RAW and LR2 for adjustments - mainly localised. If C1 truly does provide a better RAW conversion then use it for this purpose. Leave local adjustments to the tools that can do them i.e LR2. C1's ability to output directly to DNG makes the integration of C1 and LR2 in a workflow easier than a tool with only TIFF based output options.

C1 does output directly to DNG, but, when LR2 ingests the DNG, it only bring in the RAW file.  I have tried it several times.  I have also exported an LR2 file as a  DNG and CO1 only sees the RAW file.  Unless somebody can directly me to a different why of exporting the CO1 DNG that will work, I'm stuck with a tiff workflow.  

BTW, CO1 is much better than LR2 as a raw converter; so, I do pretty much everything in CO1 and then go to LR2 to add ITPC, keywording, tweak files, and organizing.  Also, LR2 will adjust an image that has been processed by CS4, CO1 will not--it is strictly a raw converted program.

[Panopeeper]

Unless somebody can directly me to a different why of exporting the CO1 DNG that will work, I'm stuck with a tiff workflow.

Do you mind uploading a DNG created by C1 after some adjustments? Use yousendit.com if you don't have web space.

[msbc]

C1 does output directly to DNG, but, when LR2 ingests the DNG, it only bring in the RAW file.  I have tried it several times.  I have also exported an LR2 file as a  DNG and CO1 only sees the RAW file.  Unless somebody can directly me to a different why of exporting the CO1 DNG that will work, I'm stuck with a tiff workflow.  

BTW, CO1 is much better than LR2 as a raw converter; so, I do pretty much everything in CO1 and then go to LR2 to add ITPC, keywording, tweak files, and organizing.  Also, LR2 will adjust an image that has been processed by CS4, CO1 will not--it is strictly a raw converted program.

James, I don't quite understand what you mean about LR2 'only bring in the RAW file'?? I output a DNG from C1 and then import the DNG into LR2.

[James R]

James, I don't quite understand what you mean about LR2 'only bring in the RAW file'?? I output a DNG from C1 and then import the DNG into LR2.

Let me explain it a little better.  

1. Ingested with PhotoMechanic to a folder
2. Brought images into CO1 and made all adjustments
3. Process images and exported them as DNGs
4. Ingested the DNG images in LR2
5. The ingested files did not contain the CO1 edits.  Each image appeared as the original raw file did when ingested into CO1.

Then...
I ingested a file in LR2, made adjustments, exported it as a DNG, brought into CO1 and DNG did not contain the LR adjustment.  Again it looked like the original raw file.

Each program treats the files as raw.  

Can you actually export a CO1 file as a DNG and have LR2 read the edits?  I don't think it is possible.

Just tried CS4 to see if it could see the CO1 edits in a DNG file--it can't.  It opens in ACR when brought into CS4, the same as a raw file.

[James R]

Do you mind uploading a DNG created by C1 after some adjustments? Use yousendit.com if you don't have web space.

I don't see the need of making a DNG available.  Nobody I know has had any luck bringing edits to another program using DNG format.  See my response above for my process.

[msbc]

Let me explain it a little better.  

1. Ingested with PhotoMechanic to a folder
2. Brought images into CO1 and made all adjustments
3. Process images and exported them as DNGs
4. Ingested the DNG images in LR2
5. The ingested files did not contain the CO1 edits.  Each image appeared as the original raw file did when ingested into CO1.

James, you are absolutely right. I didn't realize this, having only found the feature yesterday. I assumed when you Process to DNG it would be the same as Processing to TIFF/JPEG. How wrong I was. I just went through the COne User Guide and shure enough it states:
"Outputting to DNG format in Capture One 4 in essence creates a new RAW file. There are no options for size or compression with this format. All changes made to the image will be discarded when creating the DNG file."

Thats just plain idiotic - what purpose does it serve?

Oh well. So back to the option of using COne but having a TIFF based workflow - the pros and cons ....