Camera raw conversion Sony Camera

I have recently heard that camera raw can now convert   pictures taken in  raw on a Sony camera, is this correct and is this a recent update in camera raw

Firstly there is a Camera Raw Forum:
http://forums.adobe.com/community/cameraraw
Secondly you may have to check out the list of supported cameras yoursekf as you don’t mention which camera you are using:
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.html#camerasupport
Thirdly you don’t even mention your version of Photoshop – so there is no way of telling which version of Camera Raw you actually use or if you might have to use the free DNG-Converter:
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Macintosh&promoid= HTENC

Similar Messages

  • Camera raw for Sony A7

    I havw Adobe Photoshop Elements 10 and need update camera raw for Sony A7? Where can I find it?

    Support for the A7 was added in the latest version of Camera Raw 8.3 back in December.  Adobe only updates shipping products so you’d need to upgrade to PSE12:
    http://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html
    An alternative is to use the free Adobe DNG Converter to create DNGs from your ARWs, one folder at a time.  The DNGs will have the added information that older versions of the ACR plug-in need to open the files.
    You can find the DNG Converter on the general Adobe updates page:
    http://www.adobe.com/downloads/updates

  • Camera raw conversion from sonny alpha35

    Hi everyone I need some help, I am buying the Sony alpha 35 camera, I have been told that if I take pictures in  Raw format Sony's Raw format cannot be converted by CS5 adobe camera Raw. Is this correct or is there an adobe raw update that will allow this to work. I have CS5 extended, and CR version 5.6.
    M kramer

    The correct model number for your camera is SLT-A35 and is supported by ACR 6.6 (the most recent, ACR 5.6 is for CS4 not CS5). You can get it here.

  • Need a link for PS6 raw conversion for 5dIII & 7dII cameras?

    Can any one give me a link to the raw conversion software for bridge and PS6 for 5dIII & 7dII cameras?  New computer and need to install to get my raws.  Using Windows 8.1 version.
    many thanks,
    Noella

    many thanks.
    In a message dated 11/18/2014 4:01:26 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
    [email protected] writes:
    need  a link for PS6 raw conversion for 5dIII & 7dII cameras?
    Arpit  Kapoor
    (https://forums.adobe.com/people/Arpit+Kapoor?et=watches.email.outcome)  marked ssprengel
    (https://forums.adobe.com/people/ssprengel?et=watches.email.outcome) 's  reply on _need  a link for PS6 raw conversion
    for 5dIII & 7dII cameras?_
    (https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1636778?et=watches.email.outcome)  as  helpful. View  the full reply
    (https://forums.adobe.com/message/6939148?et=watches.email.outcome#6939148)

  • 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.

  • I have an A77 and see that DxO RAW conversions look different

    Several RAW conversion comparisons on the web amongst A77 users are pointing to markedly better conversions and noise handling currently within new DxO 7 eg. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=39970661
    I know that Sony's RAW have historically taken a while to arrive at optimal conversions from previous experinece with my A350. When Lightroom 3 came along it was like getting new cameras for most Sony Alpha users with from RAW performance at last matching Nikon from effectively the same sensors.
    Can you let me know the likely time lag till ACR and Lightroom will have an update to this initial default to really match the DxO performance. Otherwise, to be honest, despite being a Lightroom user since the original Beta stages and a passionate supporter and advocate, I may have to consider jumping ship. Working exclusively in RAW I do need to be using the very best conversions possible to make the best out of my investment in my camera equipment.
    I don't know if this lag with ARW conversions is because Sony don't co-operate with Adobe early enough or whether because Sony is only number three in DSLR share it gets less priority within Adobe than Canon and Nikon, but some timeline on a revised version of Lightroom to address this for the new Sony Alphas would be great.
    Many thanks from a long time advocate who really hopes I can stick with Lightroom,
    Cheers,
    Paul

    Hi Hal,
    Many thanks...I’ll give it a try. Not trying to cause trouble as I genuinely am a fan of LR, but if they always lag on getting to grips with Sony RAWs it’s a major drawback for Sony users.
    Cheers,
    Paul

  • Do you change the default RAW conversion settings?

    I have used Sony (and formerly used Panasonic MFT) cameras (a900, a850) for two or three years and never had any reason to change the default RAW conversion settings.  Five weeks ago I started using Sony's new a77, and for the first time am not satisfied with Aperture's default RAW conversion.  (I recalibrated all my monitors -- twice -- thinking that something in my color workflow had got busted.)  The default a77 RAW file conversion results in an overly-saturated, "Disneyfied" picture.  I have found that by sliding "Boost" almost to zero, and cutting "Hue Boost" by half, I end up with a much more life-like, atmospheric, picture -- and one that closely matches the default rendering of RAW files from the a850 and a900.
    1.  Do you change the default RAW conversions settings?  Why?
    2.  To what units, specifically, do the scales of these controls refer?
    3.  It seems that Hue Boost provides a range of settings that corresponds to the print settings "Perceptual" (= zero hue boost) to "Relative Colorimetric" (= full hue boost); does that make sense?
    The User Manual, as usual, provides a solid concise explanation of the RAW Fine Tuning Brick.
    Any experience you can share is appreciated.  Thanks.
    (Added:
    (It seems conceptually wrong to me to have these controls be part of the RAW converter.  Are there other adjustments in Aperture that do the same thing?)
    --Kirby.
    Message was edited by: Kirby Krieger

    William -- many thanks for your help.  I will almost certainly change the default for my a77 (as well as for the Nex-7 I used for a week).
    Are there is any other adjustments mathematically similar to the "Boost" or "Hue Boost" sliders in the RAW Fine Tuning Brick?  I ask for two reasons:
    - Mostly I'm just trying to figure out what they do, and strengthen with knowledge my quiver of Aperture effects.  According the the User Manual, they change the overall contrast, and the amount to which the hue is changed as the overall contrast is increased. 
    - In practice, it makes sense to me to have the RAW conversion produce the "flattest", least "effected" image possible -- to leave _aesthetic_ adjustments to me.  I don't want to use the RAW Fine Tuning controls as part of my workflow; I want to know how to get the same increase in contrast and control of hues using other adjustments (that, specifically, don't require de-mosaic'ing).  Apple seems to indicate that the use of the RAW Fine Tuning controls may be the best approach:
    For images that consist of saturated primary and secondary colors, such as an image of flowers in a lush garden, shifting the hues to their true values has a desirable visual effect. However, this is not visually desirable for images containing skin tones.
    The implication is spelled out in the sentencesthat follow: use the max setting for flowers, and the minimum setting for portraits.  Isn't it odd that this recommendation is left to the RAW converter, and is buried deep in the User Manual?

  • Panasonic Lumex DMC-LX1 raw conversion for Aperture doesn't work.

    I've seen many people having raw conversion problems. Direct import of Lumex raw files to Aperture does not work.
    Adobe DNG conversion of raw to dng does not work.
    I'm running on Photoshop CS.
    Perhaps my DNG conversion settings aren't right? Tell me what they should be.
    Do I have to go as far as changing the raw.plist or whatever it's called.
    Would CS2 with the Raw conversion Plug-in work instead?
    Remember that..."If all the woman lived across the sea, what a great swimmer Yellowman would be"!
    2.0 Duelly G5 4gigs ram. 23" Flat Cinema   Mac OS X (10.4.6)  

    Joe,
    good to see that you are reading these posts. I am sure that many users whose cameras' raw files are currently not supported by Aperture would love to help out in any way they can.
    However, as we are living in a converging world, why doesn't Apple talk with Adobe and share some of the information used for RAW conversion? I'm thinking dcraw which (according to a note in its source code*) is using data provided by Adobe... and that same data is also contained in the Raw.plist.
    Thus, if Adobe knows something and shares it with dcraw, and Apple uses some of the dcraw code (at least the m2 matrices found in Raw.plist are equal to the dcraw ones), why can't you guys all share the same information, and thus speed up RAW support for all cameras?
    Just a thought.
    Kindest regards,
    Karl
    * This is the bit:
    Thanks to Adobe for providing these excellent CAM -> XYZ matrices!
    void CLASS adobe_coeff (char *make, char *model)
    powerbook G4 17 1.33 GHz   Mac OS X (10.4.6)  

  • 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

  • RAW conversion in 2 then update to 3 and its RAW conversion

    I noticed that when I upgraded from 2 to 3 then 3.1, Aperture notified me that the RAW conversion it did in 2 is not the same as 3 and, would I like the 3 conversion done? When I said yes to one test image, it came out considerably darker.
    What have people been doing with that change and, is it happening generally to all RAW conversions to 3 with most camera brands and models?
    My preference is to leave them as version 2 as I always like the way Aperture handled RAW. There was a test comparison of RAW converters a year or so ago (I think it was a French site) and Aperture 2 held its own and was my preference.
    So now I am wondering, how will new previews be when I import them into version 3? (Have not shot anything lately.) Since I prefer the Aperture 2 RAW to JPEG converter, can I set Aperture 3 to convert more like that?

    I don't really want to reimport.
    By processor do you mean RAW processor?
    It's not that the new RAW in v.3 is bad, it is just darker.
    I read up more in Aperture Help. Apple seems to indicate that one might like to keep the earlier RAW processed images and you can. Although, from the sounds of it, they make the v.3 RAW converter sound much better than v.2.
    So, still, I just don't know how to "process" this issue myself.
    How have others upgrading from 2 to 3 dealt with it and, did you notice the darker image after the conversion? Did anyone keep the v.2 processed images?

  • Aperture 2 vs Aperture 3 RAW conversion

    I am new to Aperture and have been reading up on it. One point I thought was interesting was that v3 RAW conversion was considered improved over v2. I could understand that there could be a variance during the initial release of v3, but at some point v2 conversion would have been updated.
    Is there a difference between v2 and v3 RAW conversion?
    If so, how big of a difference? Would it be better to use Canon RAW converter instead?
    Thanks,
    Kenn

    You need to eyeball the various conversions using your own typical photos. Each different camera model is a different RAW conversion, and each individual's brain/eyes see them differently. With the Nikon D2x I prefer Nikon's conversion over Aperture's and Aperture's over Adobe's - but Aperture's workflow is superior by a lot so I use Aperture.
    If I was selling a thousand dollar large landscape print (I wish) shot on a D2x I would do the RAW conversion using Nikon Capture NX 2 rather than using Aperture, but that is just my personal preference with that particular camera model. And I see the difference as tiny, small enough that for most photography the workflow is more important.
    HTH
    -Allen

  • RAW conversion in 16 Bit?

    Hi to all!
    I'm using Aperture for quiet some time now, and i like the way i can select and organize all my files, and doing and adjusting my projects and albums.
    But since I'm starting shooting Nef files I seem to be more and more in a dilemma. I also like the way I'm working with CS4 now, and all the options I have in Camera Raw, and I'm still trying to figure out, whether there is a way in working with both apps inter-active.
    My library is now a referenced, external one. So all editing of my Raw files is stored in the Aperture library internally. My 14 Bit Nef files are converted into 16 Bit in the moment Aperture is opening or converting it? As soon I open them with External Editor they are a 16 Bit (if I want so) but they are no more Raw.
    Most of my files are not getting extensively edited, so it's fine with me doing my conversion and a few tweaks, and leave them so. Now I tried to open the same Nef files in Adobe Camera Raw, and as long I let Adobe store the edit files separate from the Raw files, it seems Aperture is not disturbed, and I can even open and adjust them again. So far it seems to be no problems.
    But I noticed now 2 problems.
    The first is that all given keywords and description are only inside Aperture library (and they would only accompanied if I export the files as Tif)
    And secondly that Adobe Raw seems NOT to convert my Nef files into 16 Bit.
    If someone sees somehow a workaround pls give me ideas. Also how important is this 16 Bit question at all during this RAW conversion? Would it make sense to Raw-convert a 8 Bit file, and open it after to 16 Bit to make than more layer-work or clean-up?
    I'm sorry if my questions sound a bit confusing.

    mogli365 wrote:
    I also like the way I'm working with CS4 now, and all the options I have in Camera Raw, and I'm still trying to figure out, whether there is a way in working with both apps inter-active.
    You can use both but not interactively, and it's probably not a good idea unless you really know what you're doing because you could lose track of some images that way. Many will say that there's no reason to do this, but there are some things I do starting in Bridge/ACR. I keep these images in a folder called "NOTinA2", and I browse that folder with Bridge.
    My library is now a referenced, external one. So all editing of my Raw files is stored in the Aperture library internally. My 14 Bit Nef files are converted into 16 Bit in the moment Aperture is opening or converting it? As soon I open them with External Editor they are a 16 Bit (if I want so) but they are no more Raw.
    Neither program is affecting the actual RAW file: Bridge/ACR are storing instructions in a sidecar file, and Aperture is storing instructions in the Library. When you export or open in Photoshop, a new file is created. There's no need to open either in Photoshop unless you need to do Photoshop work.
    Most of my files are not getting extensively edited, so it's fine with me doing my conversion and a few tweaks, and leave them so. Now I tried to open the same Nef files in Adobe Camera Raw, and as long I let Adobe store the edit files separate from the Raw files, it seems Aperture is not disturbed, and I can even open and adjust them again. So far it seems to be no problems.
    The two programs are both referencing the same files, and one doesn't even know the other is there. If you open a file in Photoshop from either program a new file will be created. However, if you open it from ACR, Aperture will not know it's there.
    The first is that all given keywords and description are only inside Aperture library (and they would only accompanied if I export the files as Tif)
    You can not share Keywords from Aperture with Bridge.
    And secondly that Adobe Raw seems NOT to convert my Nef files into 16 Bit.
    At the bottom of the Adobe Camera RAW window, you'll see what looks like a web link. Click it to open the workflow options dialog box. There you can change it from 8bit to 16bit, set your print resolution and tell it if you want to open them in Photoshop as Smart Objects. (that last option will "embed" a copy of the RAW file in your Photoshop document and allow you to revisit you RAW conversion settings.)
    DLS

  • Aperture RAW conversion and noise

    I've been using Aperture for many years and have recently learned something useful about how to tweak the RAW conversion settings.  Until recently I just left them at the default settings for my camera, a Panasonic GH2.
    Anyhow I've not been entirely happy with shadow noise (otherwise I reckon it's a great camera).  Many web sites say that a degree of shadow noise is normal for this camera, so I didn't figure mine was any different.  I tried a variety of noise reduction approaches but none really made a worthwhile improvement.
    Until a few days ago when I tried tweaking the 'Raw Fine Tuning' settings - and I found a way to make things *much* better.
    Please note that the following comments may only be relevant to Panasonic RAW files, and maybe only for the GH2.  I don't know if they apply to other cameras (though I think they may.
    It turns out that for the GH2, the default 'Raw Fine Tuning' setting includes 'Sharpening' of 0.78 and 'Edges' of 0.79.  This is fairly aggressive sharpening, but I didn't really realise what it was doing to noise until I  discovered that was significantly increasing shadow noise -even at base ISO!
    If I set these both the sharpening sliders in the Raw Fine Tuning section to '0', the 'grain' in the shadows is much smoother - a massive improvement.
    But, of course, the image is a bit less 'sharp'.  Well, this isn't much of a problem with 16+ megapixel cameras.  Unless you are making huge enlargements from originals, and really look closely at the finest details at 100%, it makes very little difference if you give up this 'sharpness'.  But the reduction in noise is actually very obvious indeed.  It's much better! 
    Most of the sharpness I need on these less noisy images can easily be added by including the 'Edge Sharpen' adjustment, either at the defailt settings, or marginally toned down a bit.  I'm currently using Intensity 0.7, Edges 0.3 and Falloff 0.4.  This leaves most smooth areas untouched, so the 'noise' or 'grain' in smooth areas is as it comes from the sensor.  By toggling the Edge Sharpen on and off, I can easily confirm no change in 100% or 200% loupe views. 
    That level of edge sharpening is a bit subtle, but actually achieves most of what I got from the Raw Fine Tuning sharpening sliders.  It will be applied only to in-focus contrasty things like eyelashes or hairs or other defined edges, and very nicely.
    So I'm sharing this in case other people also find it helpful.  I strongly suggest removing the default sharpening entirely, and only using the Edge Sharpening slider in a cautious manner if you want to enhance sharpness.
    Some related web pages:
    http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/2011/01/aperture-3-too-sharp-tweak-the-default/
    http://www.twin-pixels.com/raw-processors-review-aperture-bibble-capture-one-dxo -lightroom/
    PS - there is a different issue with the default Raw Fine Tuning 'Boost' and 'Hue Boost' sliders, both of which are set to 1' by default.  It turns out that these introduce a very large amount of contrast and exposure gain - turn them down to zero and the image goes quite dark and flat!  The Aperture user guide says something about Hue Boost changing colours when Boost is set to '1' and this is the case.  So I've experimented with turning them both to zero, and instead using a custom curves adjustment to achieve a similar level of exposure and contrast to the default conversion and the camera's default JPG image.  By fine-tweaking the curves one can get better control of blown highlights and the overall contrast.  I'm not sure if the colours are 'better', but I think so.  I am fairly sure that I get smoother transitions in the mid-tonal ranges with this approach rather than just using Apple's default settings.  Maybe they are a but strong for my liking.  Certainly I can make curves that rarely require the 'Recovery' slider to fix over-boosted highlights.  Anyhow, you may also find that this tweak helps a bit.  Interestingly on a Canon RAW file the effect is not nearly as great in exposure terms, but there is also a definite colour change.
    PSS - the end result is that I have set my camera preset for RAW fine tuning to zero settings for boost, hue boost, sharpening and edges.  I then add contrast as needed using curves, and sharpen only with a little edge sharpening.  I've then saved a few Presets with slightly different contrast curves and all with a little edge sharpening.  I can very quickly select the level of contrast needed, and I am very confident that my results are quite a bit better, with better tonal gradations and much less noise.
    Hope this helps
    Chris.

    Nice observations, Chris.  I think the RAW Fine Tuning is often overlooked, even though it's a vital first step in RAW processing, and really the whole point of shooting RAW in the first place.  Too much boost yields horrible skin tones in my experience.  I have a default of .50 Boost and Hue Boost, Sharpening and Edges at .25, Moire .50, Radius 12.0 and Denoise .25.  I've found these are "mid range" settings for the Canon 5Dii, and first make small adjustments to the Fine Tuning brick before moving on to exposure adjustments. 

  • Nikon D3 Raw Conversion difference between ACR4.4 and CaptureNX

    Digital Photography Review has just published an in depth review of the D3. In it they compare raw conversions by ACR 4.4, ViewNX 1.0.3 (Capture NX), and Capture One 4.0.1. The ViewNX conversion mirrors the camera's jpg standard; but there are significant differences - to my eye at least - between that and the colours in the GretagMacbeth chart of the ACR result.
    Is this sort of thing common knowledge among the LR community?
    I would have thought this a rather fundamental issue; but would welcome any thoughts from those more familiar with this level of colour expertise.
    Anyone interested can see the dpr result on page 17 of the review at
    www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3/page17.asp

    It's not unique to a D3. Check out http://www.damianharty.com/Purple.html for my take on it all - including a step-by-step guide to the calibration process Michael mentions.
    Others get very uptight about the fact that this isn't a "proper" calibration and I'm sure that technically they're right, but life is short and this route works well for me. It also ends up as an LR preset and is super-fast to apply.
    If "accuracy" was the only consideration, the camera wouldn't have "vivid" and "portrait" and all those other settings in it. We also wouldn't have had, in days gone by, the choice between Fuji Velvia and Kodak Portra - see http://www.damianharty.com/Film.html for my take on all that, too.
    Both my articles are typically short-attention span things that appear on the net. Try "Real World Color Management" for a genuine guide through it all.
    Or else don't worry about it.
    Damian
    PS I'm sure I used to be able to format links more nicely than that. Where did that go?

Maybe you are looking for