Bad D3 RAW Conversion - Clipped color in shadows...

...and other issues.
Well. My thread was deleted last time and I didn't get any reasons as to why. What is up with this place? Good thing I always copy my message before posting. Never know when the internet is going to go kaboom... (or somebody is going to delete your thread.)
I just shelled out $200 for this product and the moderators are deleting my threads?!
I think I smell fish.
- Issue 1.
Aperture's raw conversion for the Nikon D3 is clipping the color from shadows.... generally. (About 99% of the time.) It is possible that the couple of images I haven't seen the problem occur in have color detail just above the clipping threshold.
This really makes for some ugly images.
Aperture team: How about we get an update to fix this?
I just spent 5 hours importing and organizing ~3k images into my existing library now that Aperture finally supports the D3 but now I can't use it. Unfortunately I have been forced to use Bridge for the last couple of months due to no D3 support. Through this, I have become accustomed to its (Bridge's) speed and ACR's RAW conversion. Now Aperture flies and it is MUCH appreciated but the raw conversions are a little noisy and the colorless shadows is a BIG problem.
In the samples below, watch the shadow on the brown wall behind her as well as the shadow areas on the neck in the close up. Note that the red strap in the file with the color clipped has almost no red left.
I have another image I took that I was playing with to see how far I could pull the file and still retain shadow detail. The image is in color and looks alright when opened with ACR but when I open it in Aperture, there is almost no color at all in the image. This leads me to believe that Aperture's D3 raw conversion is throwing away color information at a specific level.
I have a couple of sample images side by side here:
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclipfull.png
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclipcrop.png
- FYI, I don't have any of these issues with D200 NEF's.
- Issue 2.
The RAW sharpening has absolutely no affect on any of my D3 images. I bring up the camera model because it could be a specific camera issue. I haven't heard of anybody else having this problem.
- Issue 3.
Where are the CA removal tools?
I don't mean this in any sort of rude way. My intention was to bring up some issues that I have come across and see if I could get some feedback.
-Josh

The email I received was strictly regarding my post being deleted. I have not heard anything in reference to the RAW 2.0 problem.
Here is a comparison of the same image. One exported from Aperture and the other opened in ACR and saved as a JPG.
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclipAP-ACR.jpg
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclip_AP-ACRzoom.jpg
Another thing I noticed is that Aperture preview generator does not clip the color data like the raw converter does. Previews created after image adjustments retain their color in the shadows while the full composite view displays in monochrome. This is an image I took in the studio where the PW died and the flash didn't pop so it was very dark. The original image was nearly all black with no discernible details until I pulled the exposure back up. The ACR conversion looks nearly identical (discarding small differences in brand interpretation) to the "Preview" in AP2.0.
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclipraw.jpg
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclippreview.jpg

Similar Messages

  • RAW conversion to color ?

    So I imported a shoot from a Canon 5D II, using RAW/JPG into Aperture. I large portion of the shoot was set to Monochrome under Picture Style.
    They import fine, but as soon as I click on one in the Aperture browser - it changes into a color profile.
    Anyone ?

    RAW files are always color. Are you setting the RAWs as the master? You can always apply B/W in Aperture.

  • Exported Raw Conversion Image Resolution and Assigning a Color Profile, etc

    In Aperture 1.1, although I set the exported Raw conversion image resolution to 300 dpi in the preferences, it continues to come out at 72 dpi which is something of an inconvenience. Also, is it possible to assign a color profile to the "exported version" so that it is congruent to my PS CS2 color workspace (if that is what its called). Is this program capable of carrying out a conversion as a background operation? Finally, can the layout windows be configured so that they remember how they have been used in the past? Thanks.

    Iatrogenic huh! Cool!
    Anyway, I'm not real clear on what it is you are trying to accomplish. Despite your obvious vocabulary skills, there seems to be some disconnect relative to what you are trying to accomplish. You are right that "exporting a version" in Aperture is roughly equivalent to what happens in ACR when you "Open" a RAW image into Photoshop. In both cases you have, hopefully, already done the adjusting of parameters you want prior to "exporting", or "opening". When you "open" or "export" you wind up with an "image" composed of pixels, whereas in the RAW adjustment phase you are just working with a temporary thumbnail and a set of mathematical instructions. Big difference, I suppose is that when you "open" and image from ACR into CS2, the resulting image is truly just pixels and has not had a "file type" applied to the file yet, until you "save" it, while in Aperture, if you "export" a file to CS2, or to the desktop, you end up with the file type already applied. Presuming you "export" a 16 bit TIFF or PSD, there is no operational difference.
    I could be wrong, but with the new Bayer Demosaicing algorithms in Aperture 1.1, and the Camera RAW adjustments, you should be able to come up with an adjusted image that is VERY close if not identical to one done in ACR, with the possible exception of lens abberation adjustment. I was very critical of the RAW adjustments in 1.0.1, but I am very happy with the capabilites in 1.1. That said, I think there is still some room for improvement in user friendliness of some of the adjustments such as Levels.

  • Raw Conversion: Colors not accurate. Correction with profile?

    Hi,
    When I create JPGs from my Raw files, the results don't look natural. Some colors have more saturation, some less. For example, the colors of the KoMi A series look somehow dirty; the reds of the Maxxum 5D seem to be oversaturated (dark reds are to bright, brown faces look rather pinkish).
    This is in comparison to the orignal objects, to the JPGs generated from the KoMi Raw converter and to the in-camera JPGs.
    Since Lightroom has tremendous color tuning options (under HSL and Color), I wonder whether a camera-specific profile can make the colors more natural. Has anybody tried for the KoMi cameras? Can anybody share a profile?
    I don't have a color checker, so this would be a tough one for me. I tried a bit, but whenever one color seemed right, another color had become worse.
    Here is my equipment:
    Cameras: Konica Minolta A2, Minolta A1, Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D.
    Other: My room has fluorescent tubes of type 950 (5000K, highest quality, Philips Graphica Pro) or of course daylight from outside. My screen is calibrated using ColorPlus hardware. I used a grey card for most of my photos. JPGs viewed with IMatch (color-profile aware).
    Regards,
    Martin

    Hallo Uli,
    there are two aspects of the color deviation:
    1. Displaying colors in LR
    This is what you are addressing in the other thread. I can confirm this behavior, but let's not touch this matter here.
    2. Raw conversion
    This is what I am talking about in this post. The effect is actually larger than the display deviation.
    Regards,
    Martin

  • Aperture 2 raw conversion very bad with some subjects (like sunsets)

    Please take a look at this composite:
    http://amrosario.com/rawsun.jpg
    These conversions were done in Aperture 2 using only the three different raw conversion engines and no other adjustments. As you can see, the 1.1 version is more yellow than the other two. What, in fact, the scene actually looked like is closer to the 1.1 conversion. The other two are way off. Not to mention the extreme banding visible. What the heck is going on?
    The only way I was able to get something close to the 1.1 version using the 2.0 converter was to whack out some saturation to an extreme with not so goo results. I also processed the pic in ACR 4.1 and, even though I got a little banding around the sun, the initial color was correct. Also, the white balance is the same setting for all three images (including the one I processed in ACR).
    I mean, what's with all the red/pink in these conversions. I know Aperture 2 does away with some yellow in pix, but this is crazy. And the banding is quite unacceptable.
    Any thoughts?
    Antonio

    Yeah, thanks for that tip. I boosted and it helped, but I think it could be better. The color still runs a bit on the pink/magenta side. I'll keep trying and see what happens. Still, the change can be a little jarring if not expected.
    Antonio

  • Aperture 3 Raw conversion from Nikon D700 - Bad results - Anyone?

    I recently upgraded to a Nikon D700 and have noticed I am getting some really bad conversion results from my raw files which involve my having to do a lot of work to get decent images. Most images are too dark and with strong orange cast... Any ideas? I thought it might be the camera, so I tried another computer with photoshop raw converter and images are fine. I have noticed the original import settings are strange on Aperture but cannot seem to change them, they always revert back to maximum hue boost and max boost ect... Any help would be great! thanx!

    I have a Nikon D700 and have just tried the Aperture demo- same results as you guys, disappointing RAW conversion. Contrast and sharpness quite poor and blues are 'off'
    I currently use Capture NX and was looking for something a little less 'clunky'. Though it may not be as slick as Aperture, its RAW conversion is spot on (as you would expect from a Nikon sponsored app)
    It's easy to compare the differences- open an unedited RAW file in Capture NX and save as an uncompressed, 16 bit TIFF. Import this and the original RAW file into Aperture. Prepare for disappointment :-/

  • Raw conversion color differences

    Yes, I know that Adobe had to guess at how raw files are encoded (I shoot Nikon)a and that perfect color conversion should not be expected but...
    I started with Capture NX2 and while I loved the quality of pictures I could get from it, it was very slow and cumbersome, and publishing photos was not possible.
    I switched to LR3 and found the photo management (publishing, collections, etc) to be marvelous (maybe other products have it as well, but I found my happy place.  However, I noticed that even with a calibrated monitor the colors were not right.  Below are two pictures labeled cnx2 and LR3.  The CNX2 version was processed to include "bluing" the sky.  Not much else was done.  The LR3 version (done as a training aid until this was found) is unprocessed except for an X-rite color checker profile applied (more on this later). Notice how the CNX2 red has turned pink or magenta in the LR3 version.  To try and fix the pink, I bought an X-Rite color checker and installed their plugin for creating profiles.  Made no significant difference.  This is really bothering me.  Sure with some skills I haven't yet acquired I may be able to target the red and fix it, but to do it correctly I'd need to know what It's supposed to look like, and I had hoped to no longer require the use of CNX2 so that wouldn't be the case.  I'm considering going back to CNX2 for raw conversions and maybe capture sharpening (I'm more comfortable with CNX2 capture sharpening numbers than I am with LR3).
    CNX2
    LR3/ACR 6.x
    Thoughts?  Suggestions?

    function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
    Jeff Schewe wrote:
    Really, people tend to give Nikon and Canon far too much credit...in fact, they just barely got this stuff to work. I will say the cameras and sensors are pretty darn impressive...their image processing knowledge, not so much.
    Canon does seem to know how to make pleasing images and get the most out of their data.
    Some examples:  Canon does a better job, in some ways, at rescuing partial overexposure (compare sunset images).  And they know how to put a raw converter in a piece of silicon that runs in a tiny fraction of a second.
    But these things aren't really important...  The real issue is even simpler:
    If all you did was make the default profile for each camera produce the same colors the cameras themselves produce, while still providing all the same configurability and features, you'd cease to get complaints about colors being "off".
    Whether you think the cameras produce "good" color or the camera company engineers know anything about color is irrelevant.
    No one would be harmed by this, but you'd stop confusing customers who expect one thing and see another.
    -Noel

  • Awful canon raw conversion for photos with dramatic (i.e. underwater) non-standard white balance

    I'm shooting underwater (and white balancing as I shoot using a white disc) with a canon s90, and have noticed that the raw conversions done by aperture are way worse than those from jpegs when I shoot in raw+jpeg and those done by raw processing using the canon digital photo professional software. In particular, reds are pretty much lost. It may be a false lead, but I notice that in aperture, the rgb histogram shows a dramatic spike of the red channel on the far right (possibly clipping?) that doesn't show up in the rgb histogram in the canon software.
    I'm not sure whether this is related to the plethora of threads about canon raw processing and overly green output. Has anyone else experienced this or have any ideas? I could batch convert to tiff in the canon software but I'd really rather not do that... For one thing the 16bit tiff files are so much bigger than the raws and it is an annoying extra step. Also, note that I can't just batch fix the white balance because (a) I'm having a hard time getting aperture to do it properly (possibly b/c the red channel is clipped as far as the aperture UI is concerned?) and (b) The white-balance changes from picture to picture as I change depth, which is the whole reason I white-balance as I'm shooting in the first place..
    I've attached two versions of a picture, one of which I processed the raw in aperture and one of which I processed the raw (and converted to TIFF to give to aperture) in the canon software. I then exported both as small jpegs from aperture.
    Canon Digital Photo Professional (correct):
    Aperture RAW processing (very wrong):

    >Is MS Picture Viewer a colour managed application? I don't know, but don't think so. Lightroom is however which might be the cause of your problems.
    Not in XP. In vista it is color managed. From the sound of it, the problem is a bad monitor profile but you might also have a corrupt Lightroom database. You need to recalibrate the monitor and NEVER use canned profiles from the monitor manufacturer. They are almost always corrupt. As a very last resort, you can use sRGB as the monitor profile (delete any profile found in the windows display properties) but only to hold you over until you can really calibrate it. The other problems with weird errors are pretty worrisome though. Do you also get them when you start a fresh catalog?

  • RAW conversion with Aperture

    Has anyone compared the quality of RAW conversion of Aperture vs. Nikon Capture as well as other converters?
    I really like the quality of nikon capture and would not want to purchase aperture unless the conversion was at least equivalent.
    Thanks for any input.
    mark
    G4 17" Laptop   Mac OS X (10.4.3)  

    I've compared Aperture's conversion side by side with Adobe Camera Raw's. My method was to do some conversions with Camera Raw and save the result along with the RAW file. Then, in the Apple Store, I performed the conversions using Aperture.
    The results from Aperture are not good. They look okay at reduced size, but if you look more closely, the de-mosaicing Aperture performs is quite bad. On some images it is only "somewhat" worse than Camera Raw; on others it is so bad as to be unusable. Shadow detail suffers the most, but highlights are not immune. Some images showed color fringing that was not present in the Camera Raw conversion, even with all chromatic aberration adjustments set to zero in Camera Raw.
    I ignored differences in color and tonal rendering because I did not have enough time with Aperture to learn to get the best results out of it in terms of color. It takes a while to figure out how to get good color out of a RAW converter.
    In no case was Aperture as good as Adobe Camera Raw in terms of image quality. The difference was immediately obvious at 100% magnification.
    I would not use Aperture for RAW conversion.
    EDIT: I forgot to mention, in case it matters, my camera is a Nikon D2X.

  • RAW conversion comments

    I respect a photographers personal opinions regarding their perceptions of differing quality levels in RAW conversions but in the commercial world these perceived differences between Aperture and say ACR are so minimal they certainly do not qualify as a deal breaker.
    In the real world of commercial photography, design and printing, photo images are ultimately used as 8 bit CMYK files or when used for Giclee printing as 8 bit RGB files. These files go through so much retouching and manipulation after the RAW conversion that the esoteric quality differences talked about in these posts are irrelevant.
    The proper use of any Camera RAW converter is to balance the image before outputting it as a 16 bit TIFF or PSD for refined manipulation in Photoshop. This would include refined levels adjustments sometimes with layer masks and appropriate sharpening at the final output size.
    We typically use the RAW converter to:
    1- Pull back highlights that appeared to be blown
    2- Open shadow detail that appeared to be plugged
    3- Correct color casts and saturation
    4- In some cases add special effects such as conversion to rich B&W
    Very few serious professionals in either the commercial or fine arts world are going to use the RAW conversion as their final image.
    We can argue forever about the pros and cons of this or that RAW conversion quality, but in the real world Aperture's solution, while not absolutely perfect, does an excellent job within a program that enhances real world productivity.
    Dual 2ghz G5   Mac OS X (10.4.3)  

    Tom...
    With respect, your logic is hard to accept. You state that in the commercial world, images are typically so heavily manipulated that initially quality of RAW conversion is non-issue.
    I am surprised that no one has bothered to challenge this idea. So I'll step up.
    If my RAW conversion out of ANY program is going to introduce banding artifacts, 'parquet flooring' patterns, or other noisy type data into solidly colored areas, that will need to be fixed in this manipulation of which you speak. Who could justify having to do this sort of thing when there are perfectly good RAW converters out there that don't add this particular headache to the workflow?
    Your message states that "Apertures solution, while not absolutely perfect, does an excellent job within a program that enhances real world productivity."
    That statement stands as a contradiction when you consider that extra 'fixing' may need to be done to some images coming straight out of Apertures RAW conversion.
    I suspect that you (and others) are not seeing problems because evidence is mounting to support the idea that Apertures RAW conversion works better for some flavors of RAW than others. So, perhaps some people are seeing consisten image trashing, and some not. If this is the case, one could easily understand why some are 'satisfied' and some are positively livid.
    However, I digress. I still don't agree at all with the idea that in the commercial world a substandard RAW conversion would make an acceptable starting point for any commercial image, regardless of how much manipulation down the track its going to go through. I can't see any art director being satisfied knowing this was going on in their shop.
    "Aperture - sure it mangles your images, but it does a heck of a job keeping track of them!"
    Jim

  • Poor raw conversion from Fujifilm X100 .raf format in Lightroom 3 and 4

    I'm seeing very poor results when doing raw conversion from Fujifilm X100 .raf format. Who can I contact about this? Is there anything I can do?
    See below for what is supposed to be a white curtain, lit by stage lighting. It results in a blown out blue channel, serious loss of detail, and very ugly gradient.
    (Lightroom 4.2, Camera Raw 7.2 on LEFT  --- Fujifilm X100 in-camera jpg on RIGHT)
    And for more detail:
    (Lightroom 4.2, Camera Raw 7.2 on TOP  --- Fujifilm X100 in-camera jpg on BOTTOM)
    (Lightroom 4.2, Camera Raw 7.2 on LEFT --- Fujifilm X100 in-camera jpg on RIGHT)

    The blue light is so intense that it is, or almost is, saturating the sensor.
    The camera’s built-in raw conversion handles this by shifting the color to cyan—clipping the blue and allowing the green to contribute more.  I doubt there was cyan lighting in the scene, only blue.
    Adobe does not shift the hue, but this makes the blue seem over saturated.  Adobe’s conversion may be more colorimetrically correct, but less pleasing in this case of intense lighting that the sensor cannot accurately record.
    It is a difference in camera profile used between the camera and Adobe.  Since Adobe does not supply camera-match profiles for much more than Nikon and Canon cameras, you’re not going to be able to fix things other than managing the over-saturation using HSL or WB or other things like lower-vibrance, higher saturation. 
    You could try making your own camera profile using an X-Rite Color-Checker Passport or the color-checker and the Adobe DNG Profile Editor:
    http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1257

  • A lightroom preset to produce a RAW conversion that always looks like the camera-processed JPG?

    Hi,
    Any tips on how to make a Lightroom preset that will render the RAW file in a manner that looks remotely the same as the picture displayed when shot?
    I'm not talking about camera calibration > camera standed, portrait etc.
    With Lightrooms clunky default adjustments the histogram looks correct; i.e. the way it did when it was shot. The image also looks horrible; clipped blacks, too contrasty etc. because it arbitrarily boosts Brightness +50, Contrast +25
    When I zero the settings the histogram shifts completely away from the way it was shot, as if it was underexposed, which is not correct. I've tested this with perfect exposures using a GMB colour chart.
    I guess the camera is showing me a histogram of the JPEG after it has been processed.
    Is there a quantifiable way to replicate this other than playing with the sliders until the RAW roughly matches the JPG and then saving the preset?
    Thanks.
    Update - I'm using a Canon 5DMkII and a 1DsMkII

    Good grief. When I photograph a color chart, under controlled lighting conditions, exposed perfectly, that is what I want to see as the default RAW conversion, with acurate values. In fact with camera calibrations that is pretty much how it works. It's not open to interpretation. Blacks have a certain value, neutral 8, neutral 6.8 etc.
    If not, then give me the tools to accomplish this quickly. In Photoshop I can shoot a scene under controlled lighting, shoot a color chart in the first frame, create a custom curve and apply this to every subsequent shot. There is a rough way to do this in LR but it's quite a backward step.
    THEN I can have a filed day, changing whatever I want, but I do not like randomly dragging sliders until it "looks ok". I stopped doing that my first year of Photoshop when I learned how to use the color sampler correctly.
    "If you shoot raw (as opposed to JPEG) then YOU have the power and capability to decide what stuff is supposed to look like. "
    I understand I have the power to decide what stuff looks like. Nothing I have said so far argues against this. I'm asking for an accurate baseline, from which I can let my creativity run wild.
    " I encourage people to ignore the LCD and go with your guts", "If you are lazy and don't want to be bothered rendering the scene, yes, I can understand why you would want somebody else to control the interpretation of the scene"
    The LCD and the histogram are a quick way of evaluating correct exposure for a shot, so that blacks are not clipped and highlights are not blown out and lost forever. They are standard TOOLs of modern photography. To not use them is illogical. It would be like instructing people not to use the camera's inbuilt light meter, because it's "more creative" without it.
    It does not have to be one extreme or the other. People seem to be saying "reject the jpg - it means nothing. Let the artist in you decide" and yet they blithely accept the default settings Lightroom gives. My point is, the camera rendering is a good REFERENCE POINT, far more accurate to what you saw on the day, and far more relevant, than LR's adjustments.
    Once I have an accurate rendering, quickly, THEN I can be creative and enjoy the power and flexibility of RAW. If nothing else, it's a much faster way to work.

  • Raw conversion to JPG better with DPP than ARC 5.X

    I started testing conversion from raw to jpg with Canon's Digital Photo Professional and ARC 5.x (CS4) and noticed a much better conversion with DPP. At low ISOs does I don't see much difference, however at 800+ it is very noticeable. I hate to give up the work flow of Bridge and ACR and go back to using DPP. Is there anything that can be done to improve this?

    Quoting from an old post of mine, with apologies to all who have read it before:
    This has been covered ad nauseam here. Please do a forum search for more details.
    Camera manufacturers, Canon and Nikon in particular, perform in-camera RAW to JPEG conversions designed to generate the over-saturated, over-contrasty and over-sharpened images that appeal to most amateurs.
    Their stand-alone RAW conversion software also performs the same conversion to your RAW images.
    Noise is also hidden by compressing the shadows so you don't see much of the noise inherent in the image.
    Adobe Camera Raw, ACR, on the other hand, comes with default settings designed to give you the most detail possible
    (even if this sometimes means revealing some of the noise hidden by the camera manufacturers in their RAW conversion software), as well as the most natural images.
    That being said, you can calibrate your camera to ACR and come up with your own settings to produce exactly what you want, including the JPEG-look of the camera manufacturer, and save that as your profile.
    The key is to learn how to use ACR properly and to calibrate your camera to ACR.
    The camera calibration refines the settings by letting you adjust for the exact sensor response of your individual camera unit rather than the average of a sampling of such unites provided by Adobe.
    The ACR defaults are nothing more than a suggested starting point.
    The color temperature won't necessarily match either.

  • 1D Mark IV RAW conversion

    I recently got the 1D Mark IV. I have been disappointed by the RAW converter. RAW for the 1Ds Mark III is awesome. But the 1D Mark IV files have significant noise and squiggly artifacts in the shadows and bokeh. I think it is actually worse at low iso than at high iso. These artifacts are even worse with the color red. There is even some banding in the reds at iso 100 in an unprocessed image (master). I check the files in DDP, the artifacts are not there. So it seems that the problem is with OS X/Aperture RAW conversion. Has anyone else experienced experienced disappointing results with the 1D Mark IV?

    It doesn't look like the Edge Sharpening panel is part of the RAW conversion, it can easily be turned on or off.  However, the RAW Fine Tuning panel, at the very TOP of the the Adjustments pane, is available only for RAW files. 
    I noticed those Apple default settings are exactly the same for my 1DM4, 1DM3, and 40D.  For my 1DM4 files, I need to pull the Sharpening to 0, and push the De-Noise to maximum.
    I've also been playing with the in camera sharpening and noise reduction in the Custom Functions within the camera.  If you shoot in JPG mode, the files look great in Aperture, because the Canon profiles are processed right in the camera.  RAW files look great in DPP (Canon's RAW converter, Digital Photo Professional), also because of the native Canon profiles in that program.
    A friend of mine said Canon upped the native sharpening in camera on the 1DM4, so she dropped it to 0 in the Standard shooting mode.  I'm going to try that and see what happens.
    Anyway, I need to shoot in RAW, much of my work is indoors in poor lighting, and Aperture is a huge part of my workflow for large numbers of images.
    I'm still playing with it, and I've sent feedback to Apple about it.

  • Lightroom VS Camera Raw 5.5 (color correction)

    Hi, does somebody know if discarding the advantage of making layers of Photoshop, is the Adobe Lightroom color correction controls superiors to the CameraRaw PS Interface correction controls ??? I mean for color correction purposes is Adobe Lightroom  better tan PS's  camera raw interface ???? because for me both controls seem to be pretty much the same thing,  does anyone know something about it ??
    Thank you in advance !

    They seem the same because they are the same thing. Lightroom is basically an interface built around the camera raw processing core so you will get exactly the same results. The only thing really that you can do in Camera RAW that you can't in Lightroom is point curves (the interface simply doesn't expose them at the moment), which are almost never needed in raw conversion, except if you do special effects. I almost never use Photoshop anymore as Lightroom basically does all I need.
    P.S. the latest version of camera RAW is 5.6! Lightroom is at 2.6. The last number corresponds not by accident.

Maybe you are looking for