D7100 (Nikon) Raw Conversion Problem (magenta or green errrors)

the current raw converter in LR5, Bridge CS6 and Photoshop CS6 produces magenta or green pixel errors on grey ridges (e.g. mountain structures).
In Nikons NX View 2 does this problem not occur.
See attached screenshot from LR5
Is there a correction?

sheiligensetzer wrote:
Just setting Cromatic Abberation Correction helps. For a perfect result it needs to be adjusted manually.
LR5's 'Remove Chromatic Aberration' tool works automatically, independent of the Defringe tool. If you still have residual CA in the image the Defringe tools will usually remove it. The eyedropper tool is a good starting point, but you will need to manually adjust the settings. Holding the ALT key let's you see the areas affected (i.e. shown in color) when adjusting the Defringe controls. Lots more information here:
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/04/new-color-fringe-correction-controls.html

Similar Messages

Raw conversion problem

I have Photoshop Elements 6 (Camera Raw 4.2) and a Nikon D7000 (Camera Raw 6.3 minimum). I am using DNG converter 8.1 to create DNG files, but these still will not open in Elements. I am selecting compatibility of Camera Raw 4.1 in the conversion program. What else can I do?

Sorry it took me a long time to reply. If I send to dropbox (which I can), can I restrict the images to specific email addresses, or will it be accessible to anyone? Not that I care about the image particularly, as it was only a test.
Once I have an idea of this, I will do a final test & send the data to dropbox.
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:12:51 -0700
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Raw conversion problem
    Re: Raw conversion problem
    created by ssprengel in Photoshop Elements - View the full discussion
It seems like you're doing everything that you're supposed to be doing, and it is not working. I don't have an explanation why that is, but can you share an original NEF and its DNG via www.dropbox.com or similar and others can test with a newer version of ACR to make sure there isn't something corrupted wtih the files.
     Please note that the Adobe Forums do not accept email attachments. If you want to embed a screen image in your message please visit the thread in the forum to embed the image at http://forums.adobe.com/message/6225513#6225513
     Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/6225513#6225513
     To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/6225513#6225513. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
           Start a new discussion in Photoshop Elements at Adobe Community
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/thread/416458?tstart=0.

Panasonic LX3 raw conversion problem

In Snow Leopard I had no problem with raw conversions with my Panasonic LX3 in Aperture, after ugrading to Lion my pictures come out very very dark with a deep green tinge.
Does any one have any ideas what might be causing it. All the camera setting are normal and Aperture reads Nikon raw files perfectly.
Mike

What version of Aperture are you using?
In MacOS Lion the raw conversion has been moved into the MacOS, but Aperture does not find the raw support for some cameras innitially.
Two things to try:
Force the generation of new previews by holding down the option key while selecting "Update Preview"
If this only happened after you upgraded to 10.7.4 and worked well before, then register your camera with the lauch services database - see this post by Alan Roseman:Aperture 3 preview of raw file greenish, but read the follow up posts first (the lsregister command) as well, on how it is supposed to work and how to correct the typos.
Added: if that does not help, try to remove the raw presets from ~/Library/Application Support/Aperture/RawDecodePresets.plist, to force a rebuild.
Regards
Léonie

Nikon RAW conversions are driving me crazy.

Ever since upgrading to 10.4.8 and Aperture 1.5 all of my RAW files are displaying in a very unpleasent manner. Depending on the camera the effect is different but still way off from my previous tests in June. I do realize that Aperture ignores all of the in camera settings when processing the RAW files but the difference between in camera produced jpgs and RAWs are now crazy. The worst being from my D2Hs. Those RAWs actually look like an Adobe 1998 color space image being displayed in an sRGB context. This is now a big problem.
Apple has been working on it for over a week, does anyone out there have work arounds, presets, whatever that will give me decent default results for Nikon D2H, D2X, and D200 RAW files. D2H being the worst off right now.
Thanks
RB

Thinking more about the issue you are experiencing, I
am curious to know how your D2X (or D2H) is
configured, relative to the following settings:
* Color Space (sRGB or Adobe RGB); defaults to sRGB.
[The D2H may not have a separate setting for
this; instead it may be combined with the Color
Mode.]
Color Mode (Type I, II or III); defaults to Type I.
Tone Compensation (Auto, Normal or predefined
curve); defaults to Auto.
I ask because a photo's resultant colors -- and
perhaps the perceived white balance -- can be
considerably different depending on the
aforementioned settings. And the defaults are
definitely NOT what I would use, particularly for
RAW.
In any case, after reading (and re-reading) the D2X
manual, perusing web sites, etc., etc., I have found
the following settings to be optimal for a RAW
workflow:
* Color Space: Adobe RGB. (The default -- sRGB --
has a smaller gamut than Adobe RGB.)
* Color Mode: II. (The default -- type I -- is for
portrait shots. Type III is for landscapes. Type II
-- only available when utilizing Adobe RGB for the
colorspace -- is suited for a RAW workflow. Type I
and III both affect color saturation and/or tone,
while type II does not, AFAIK.)
* Tone Compensation: Normal. (The default -- "Auto"
-- allows the camera to make changes to the tones in
an image, and said changes can be different from
shot-to-shot...even for the same scene.)
Bottom line, Nikon's defaults -- color space sRGB,
color mode I and auto tone compensation -- can have a
significant impact on color saturation, tone/hue,
etc. And, while I would certainly like to hear
others' opinions, I definitely do not recommend
Nikon's defaults.
As for Aperture, it does properly recognize the white
balance setting for a given image. However, I do not
believe that Aperture compensates for -- or even
recognizes -- the "Color Mode" and "Tone
Compensation" settings. This would also explain why
folks sometimes see different results in Aperture vs.
Nikon's Capture NX, for a given image.
Anyone else?
MacBook Pro
17" 2.16; PowerMac G5 Dual 2.7 Mac OS X
(10.4.8) Camera: Nikon D2X
I think that I mentioned this before but here goes again:
D2H Color mode 1, Normal contrast, sRGB, preset WB with 5500K lights.
The corrections to get the RAW to where it should be based on known shooting conditions, comparison to the in camera JPG, and comparison to the way Nikon capture processes the RAW file are massive. Not just a little. It litterally is like taking an Adobe RGB color space image, removing the profile info, sticking an sRGB profile tag on it, opening it in PS and then making the corrections to how it should look with known reference points of lighting temp, camera WB, etc.
RB

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)

OS X 10.4.6 - RAW Conversion

The last I heard in the "where are RAW support fixes contained" was that because AP uses CoreImage to convert RAW, they would be contained in OS X updates, i.e. 10.4.6. Has anyone verified if the RAW conversion problems have been fixed or not (I'm particularly interested in Canon CR2)? Unless I'm missing something, we all should now be holding a fixed converter for RAW formats that were supported prior -- my guess is that new formats will require an Aperture update -- but I would think for existing formats that already were supported, we should be fixed, if the fix was to CoreImage.
At the moment, I have not tested yet, but will later tonight or tomorrow. I would love to hear (or better yet see image comparisons) from someone who has run a test already.
Cheers,
Brad

Yes, William is correct. 10.4.6 delivers support for
several new cameras, but you won't see changes in the
existing RAW decode until 1.1.
This approach was taken so that your existing images,
which you may have spent a great deal of time
adjusting, stay just as you adjusted them until you
explicitly choose to migrate them up to the newer RAW
decode (this can be done in a batch process on select
images or whole projects).
This approach is excellent and I think the only sane thing to do with RAW decoders, but one thing I wanted to confirm - if a person imports a new image into Aperture after loading 10.4.6, that image will be using the new decode, correct?

Contact Sheets / Proofing and useful Aperture RAW Conversion

All,
I wanted to appeal to all of you pro photographers out there to share about how you handle the proofing stage (contact sheets) with your clients. I'm curious about how you all make this process as efficient as possible.
Ok, say you have taken 1000 pictures for a wedding or some other event (forget the accuracy of that number, its just a round number for discussion sake). You need to present your photos to your client, but you need to present a subset of the 1000 photos for a few reasons:
1) Not all photos you are going to take are going to be great. I've heard a general quote by some pro photographers that their "keeper ratios" (the percentage of pics that are really good from a shoot) run around 10%-20%. Fair enough, I don't want to debate this percentage, but it gives us a target number of 100 photos to present to a client from a 1000 picture shoot.
2) Your client is probably not going to be happy if they have to sift through 1000 photos. I recently had a friend who paid several thousand dollars for a wedding photographer who sent them 1000 photos to choose from. They weren't particularly happy with this, and told the guy there was just too many to choose from. Personally, I felt that this was putting part of the photographer's responsibility on the client, but whatever.
Ok...so for the sake of the example here, we have to get 1000 photos down to 100 photos, so the client can choose what 50 (for example) they want to purchase and have printed, put in their photo book, slide presentation, etc.
Sorry for the long intro, but here is the issue at hand: we want to work quickly for the client, and get them their 100 photos as soon as possible. We also want to put our best foot forward, and give them high-quality photos. But at the same time, we want to work efficiently, and if possible not spend time doing final retouching on photos that the customer doesn't want, but rather focus this time directly on the photos the customer does want.
I have two questions from this which pertain to Aperture's RAW conversion and workflow:
1) Do you do any significant adjustments on photos for the contact sheets you present to clients (the 100 photos now)? Is it just a quick exposure adjustment, or are you retouching all 100?
2) Despite Aperture's RAW conversion problems and other adjustment glitches, is it sufficient quality in your opinion for a contact sheet?
My purpose in asking these questions is that perhaps the Aperture RAW conversion issue can be mitigated if we can get to the point of customer contact and review using Aperture-only conversion and adjustment tools, and then isolate photoshop use for only the final, significant edits. The problems with Aperture's RAW conversion are well-documented, but the question is, could it still be sufficient for small-scale proofs, understanding that for large-scale, high-res images, it won't be suffcient.
Your opinons are valued!
Brad
Powerbook G4-1.33GHz-17" / Powermac G4-1.4GHz Mac OS X (10.4.2) PB: 1GB RAM, Radeon 9600-64MB / PM: 1.25GB RAM, Radeon 9000Pro-128MB

">-DELETE project from Aperture because I can't use the app for the delivery
of finals:
Forgive me if I've forgotten the detail you may have posted elsewhere about this. I have seen you mention this several times, but I am really interested in the specifics behind the problems you have encountered. I have some needs in finishing that are beyond just regurgitating a photo. I'll be basically augmenting my photo with text, borders, special effects, etc. for more professional presentation, and the ability to market a photo in different ways. This is one reason I cannot discard Photoshop from my workflow. Anyway, let's assume for a moment I'm able to do all my editing in Photoshop, and those PSD files are sitting within Aperture. From there, what problems am I going to encounter? I'm tapping your brain here, as the time I have spent in Aperture has been primarily oriented toward everything prior to the finishing stage. "
Hi Brad,
If I've imported images into Aperture that have previously been worked over in Photoshop, none of the layers I may have created in those files will be available to me from within Aperture. This does not break but severely sprains the functionality of Photoshop. I'm keeping the images around because I think I or my clients will need them later, so what might I do with them?:
1) If I'd like to do more work on them I either have to abandon access to the previously created layers and their magic, or export the file from Aperture, work on it outside, import it back into Aperture. Every time I want to work with those layers I have to do the same dance.
2) If I'd like to send jpg or tif versions of those files anywhere I can choose to use the tools within Aperture or Photoshop to do so. Aperture's tools for these conversions are simply not of professional utility: no compressed tifs, no layered tif support, no quality choices for jpgs and no jpg previews. And in either case, using Aperture or Photoshop, the conversions are created OUTSIDE of Aperture and not managed by it.
3) When I decide to archive my older projects I'm faced with the incredible limitation that Aperture will not allow me any remote search of any archive that is not "live" within Aperture. Not even Spotlight will search Aperture libraries!!!!!
So moving already created projects into Aperture has absolutely no advantages and a number of problems, any one of which might be a deal-killer by itself.
If I'd like to use Aperture to manage work that I create going forward I've got those limitations already listed above, but I CAN access layers in PSD that are created from within Aperture. I cannot make layered duplicates of those files in order to work on versions of those images so once again the Photoshop workflow is hobbled.
All of this makes it a bad idea for my projects to make anything but a brief trip in and out of Aperture for sorting/proofing.
Regards,
fp

Aperture RAW conversion colour noise with Canon 1D Mark II

I'm using Aperture 2.1 and am wondering if anyone here is having this problem - basically highlights end up with false colour with this camera/RAW conversion combination. The problems appears to have been introduced with the 1.1 RAW converter as 1.0 conversions don't seem to have the problem. I'm not sure if this is camera specific, or whether there is some tuning which can be done to the RAW converter to minimise the effect - attempts have so far failed with this approach.
The best subject to produce the effect is strong reflections from water - i've attached a crop of an image which shows this problem, and I can supply a RAW with this problem.
Conversion using RAW 1.0 (less or no colour pixelation):
http://www.loftsoft.co.uk/pictures/KC7U5116%20-%20RAW%201.0.jpg
Conversion using RAW 2.0 (colour pixelation):
http://www.loftsoft.co.uk/pictures/KC7U5116%20-%20RAW%202.0.jpg
Any suggestions as to what to do? Is this simply a RAW conversion problem which can be addressed or am I using the tool wrong?
Many thanks,
Cesare

Hmm. I can see some color effects in the 1.0 conversion as well.
Those are some touch photos... you have lots of specular highlights with the sun reflecting off the water and the railing.
Aperture 2.x and 1.x handle the RAW conversion differently. I would suggest you try playing with the RAW Fine Tuning brick, specifically with the Moire and Radius sliders, and try fiddling with the Auto Noise Compensation checkbox.
I don't know whether you'll be able to make the problem go away completely or not.
With my ~30,000 1D Mark II files I've seen something similar to this (though much less extreme) on a couple of them. Always with specular highlights though -- off water or metal objects.
Still, you may wish to submit Aperture feedback and include the RAW file.

Moved from 30D to 7D but still magenta problem in RAW conversion / decoding

Hi,
I had a lot of problems with the RAW conversion in A3 with my 30D: high iso shots made red became magenta. Now I own a 7D but the problem remains. I can not believe this ! A good performing RAW decoding is essential for a 'almost' pro application like A3, isn't it?

Hey, thanks !
Please follow this link, I just shared an example on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/drongo92/5316989245/in/set-72157625731242448/
Her dress is really red, just like the first pic.
I've noticed on this forum and another forum some other people also suffer this problem. There might be a temporary 'solution': putting vignetting on and then set both sliders to zero ...and the red becomes red in preview (instead of magenta)... very strange ... but I really don't like it this way
greetings
Wouter

LIghtRoom color problem vs PhotoShop CS2 on Nikon RAW

I recently bought Adobe Lightroom and I was surprised to notice some huge color differences compared to PhotoShop CS2.
Im using Nikon D80 and shooting RAW. I have calibrated semi-pro monitor.
The same RAW file opens in LightRoom pretty well until you get the rendering preview. Once the preview is done, the picture becomes desaturated in red and blue and has a green cast especially in the shadows with much lower contrast. If I use Edit in PhotoShop option, the picture becomes even worse (even more desaturated and greenish) when opens in PhotoShop. If I open the same RAW in PhotoShop directly (using the NEF plug-in, not CameraRaw!) everything is just fine. The picture looks as opened in Nikon Picture Project or as I saw it when I took the picture.
After doing some research, I think that my problem relates to the way that Adobe Camera RAW, Bridge and LightRoom open a Nikon sRGB 4.0.0.3001 (D80) raw file. However, all the things being equal, PhotoShop CS2 (using the NEF plug-in) renders the same colors as Picture Project does (and what I saw on my camera and in reality). I also noticed that choosing sRGB in Camera Raw bring the things closer to the Picture Project colors but far from identical. Anyways, there is no way to change anything in LightRoom, outer than manually twicking all colors until I think it looks good. Which, I think Is very subjective and is different for every picture.
Right now, my Creative Suite Color Settings is North America General Purpose 2 (synchronized for all CS applications) and no application asks me anything about changing the color profile when opening the file. I shoot (with D80) in raw, Normal camera mode (no saturation / contrast, color profile change). I opened the same file in all mentionned applications (LightRoom, CameraRaw from Bridge, PhotoShop and Picture Project) and save them as .jpeg (same size, dpi, etc.) without changing anything (no camera calibration in ACR or LR; no printer profile in PhotoShop). I sent the .jpegs to my local Costco and printed them on glossy paper. All of them printed the same way that they look on the screen. LR, ACR - desaturated on red&blue, color cast on green and low contrast, while great vivid colors and contrast from PhotoShop and Picture Project. For me it looks pretty much as Adobe applications convert Nikon sRGB into a very unappealing Adobe sRGB (and way different from what I saw in reality). I know this is very subjective; some people may argue that Nikon profile is too reddish and oversaturated. But I find the whole story rather unusual. They all work in the sRGB space and there shouldn't be any differences. I've done lot of testing with color profiles and replacing the Camera Raw plugin file format (common files) with Nicon plugins and vice-versa. But still the same result.
I create a User Profile in LightRoom and I get pretty decent colors now, but when I want to edit the file in PhotoShop (from LightRoom) I get the same green and desaturated version.
What do you think?

>Regarding LR, what I'm looking here is a "factory made" solution; something that can give consistent results in the initial conversion (like Nikon plugin for PhotoShop, for e.g.)
The problem with that conversion is that you cannot change it. In lightroom you change the actual conversion parameters, which gives you far more leeway and allows for far better conversions in the end. Currently (this will change with Lightroom 2.0 apparently) the only recourse you have if you prefer Nikon's colors is to shoot jpeg, or run your NEFs through capture and create 16-bit tiffs. This is just the way it is. A hammer gives a different result than a screwdriver.
>It's hard for me to believe that Adobe has invested so much energy and resources in color profiling but it's unable to get nearly close to the Nikon raw colors.
Nikon's colors are far from colorimetrically correct which you can see in many tests. Here is an example for the D300: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D300/D300IMATEST.HTM It is off in the deep reds, the saturated blues, and the Olive-like colors. Profiling the camera does not help you get close to Nikon's colors, but it will get you closer to the ideal colors. I doubt it has been Adobe's goal to get close to the in-camera rendering with Lightroom upto 1.4. They profile all the cameras and make some value judgments on what is more important. Skin tones vs saturated colors etc just like Nikon does.
Regarding getting close to camera colors, there is a trick that you can do to get close to the camera jpeg that involves the ACR calibration scripts. You do need PS CS3 though.
>I find rather strange that apparently there is no way to get professional conversion. This is defying the main purpose of Color Profiling, I think.
Why is Nikon's conversion professional and Adobe's not? They are both just interpretations of the sensor data. Adobe's is actually colorimetrically more correct in many cases. Colorimetrically correct often means boring unfortunately. This has to do with the fact that our eyes are not color measurement devices but that we have brains interpreting the data. To get pleasing results, Color Profiling does not help as much as you'd like. My issue with the in-camera or Nikon software approach is that it locks you down creatively to the
creative choices the Nikon folks made. Now, be aware that in the Lightroom 2.0 forum the Adobe folks have hinted at major changes to the rendering engine that will bring colors closer to the vendor rendering. How they will do this is unknown right now.

Poor Nikon D70s RAW conversion

Hi,
Some RAW conversions from a Nikon D70s are very poor. A shot of pine trees and bare deciduous trees against blue sky shows 'green squares' artifacts at the tips of pine-needle clusters and in various places on the twigs of the bare trees. Also, there is a white halo around those twigs that are outlined against the sky.
It's the conversion, not the hardware, because Adobe Camera Raw doesn't show any of these artifacts.
Apple MUST get this part right if they want Aperture to succeed. I'm not even a pro photographer, but it's enough to make me hold off from using the software, at least for RAW.
(Of course, these artifacts also appear in all Apple RAW-handling products such as iPhoto and Preview.)
Gareth

Hi All,
Out of curiosity, I browsed Apple's example Tibet images to find one with nearground foliage, looked at it closely, and what do you know: same problems!
Look here and tell me you don't see it...
http://web.njit.edu/~russell/D70s.html
Apple's images are from a Nikon D2X, so perhaps it's a problem specific to Nikons/NEF, rather than the D70s (or MY D70s) in particular.
I haven't noticed any issues with other colors, so most of the images look ok -- it seems to be problem with how certain types of green highlights are being scaled. But I take a lot of landscapes, so it's definitely a problem for me.
Gareth

Aperture 3 RAW conversion and hot pixel problem

I've used every version of Aperture since release, but I'm not very happy with the RAW conversion in Aperture3.
My images from earlier versions have no hot pixel problems but if I update to the new processing I can see them.
Single red or green pixel in the 100% crop image, that didn't show up before and also don't show up in LR.
The images I'm importing are NEF files from a Nikon D2x.
Is this a bug in the new RAW conversion for this camera?
It makes all of my images now unusable through Aperture if I reprocess them?

I haven't noticed the pixel issues that you mention, but I wasn't looking for that yet. Instead, my images from my Nikon D300 have been stressing A3 out as follows....
I have been having new issues with A3 now. I bought A3 when it was 1st available and had all of the same issues that plagued some users, I worked through it and until recently have loved A3.
While editing I noticed that A3 had a large number of my photos, about 30% of 34,000 images, labeled as being processed under an earlier version (A2). I decided to go ahead and re-reprocess the images, even though this step took a couple of weeks and countless crashes when I first purchased A3. Again, just over a week later, the images are now re-reprocessed within A3. And a new problem cropped up.
My Macbook is...
[img]http://jasonksepka.smugmug.com/photos/942470326_QzaME-M.png[/img]
and when I open A3 and begin looking at my images, the program is slow to respond and when it opens an image I get a very unprocessed version of lines for up to 5 seconds before the image finally loads. The image and all edits do load, but the workflow is significantly effected and I would like to know why this is happening now, and how to fix it. Below is an example of what happens with each image.
[img]http://jasonksepka.smugmug.com/photos/942470341_Q2WUZ-M.png[/img]

Brushes not working with new RAW conversion for Nikon D7000

I have always worked with RAW files w/A2 & A3.1.1 with my Nikon (D80) And now, just got Nikon's D7000 and of course, waited for the RAW conversion that just came out.
Apple addressed the Nikon D7000 RAW situation (which was fixed this month), but now when I use "brushes" on RAW pics, very little if any changes occur.
Very little affect occurs (if any) with A3.1.1 and the "new" RAW conversion for Nikon. I shot (at the same time) both RAW and JPEG (as cameras can) and put them side by side in A3. Pulled down Dodge / Burn / Skin Smoothing & Blur from brushes and they all did a great job. But on the RAW pic that was taken at the same time..... nada, nothing (maybe a minute change, but nothing to call home about).
Bottom line, the newest RAW capability that came out a couple of weeks ago, somehow messed up brushes? I don't think I am that smart or lucky to see this issue. Am I missing something here? If so, please set me straight.
I have tried the places one pulls down brushes but no affect on RAW. Using curves from bricks and luminance, etc, works just fine. Guess I am stuck with JPEG's until this is resolved by our A3 guys, or someone realigns me.

I am able to import them, but I cannot edit them as RAW files. They behave like .jpegs. So correcting exposure for example is a horrible experience. My 5D Mark II files behave as they did in Aperture, so it is the FZ1000 RAWs in particular that are problematic.

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 :-/

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?

D7100 (Nikon) Raw Conversion Problem (magenta or green errrors)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for