Lightroom 1.1 vs Nikon punchy pictures

Question

Hey,
there are some posts on this forum about the fact that Lightroom (RAW to JPEG) could not deliver pictures as punchy as the one produced embedded by a D50 (for example) when shooting in JPEG.
Many presets are available out there, trying to match that punch, but in my own opinion, it is not equivalent.
I was really looking forward to see Nikon a little involved in Lightroom 1.1 (instead of trying to keep their secret in Capture) and I wanted to know if LR 1.1 does the job now. If yes, any advices?
Thx !

Answer 1

>So what I am being told is that if I expect the colors from a particular
camera model to be anywhere close to right when using Lightroom, I need
to go out and create my own 'Lightroom Specific' profiles for each
camera?
Essentially -- yes. Your raw data -- whatever
raw data means -- isn't baselined to ISO norms. Even the raw sensor data is pre-processed for the manufacturers technologies. It's only conjecture on my part, but reasonable conjecture, that this pre-processing is a form of marinating the raw broth in favor of the manufacturers secret recipe.
The keys to unlocking all that flavor may very well be using tools that decrypt the manufacturers private metadata. That doesn't mean one can't produce an outstanding image with other software -- you just need precision tools to get there. ACR, LR, Bibble, Capture One and others offer different toolsets and different approaches to do this with.
>How many people do you think have the time, skill and inclination to
build individual profiles specific to their camera serial number?
Hands up anyone? :~)
IMO, there is no paradox here. How many people had a color lab in their studio to process negatives and transparencies? How many farmed that out to service providers? If you love the default profiles a lab offers -- e.g. NX, Bibble, Capture One -- then save yourself from further learning and buy the convenience of their service.
Adobe could develop profiles -- my guess is at much longer release intervals -- to help you see better with, but LR and ACR already provide all you need to learn how to see on your own. They are more of a mechanics toolset than a lab service.
With raw data there can be many different ways of extracting the final product. The more knowledgeable one is about extracting the data, the more control they have over the final product. This approach, while not as convenient as having a lab paid to intervene on your behalf, is IMO, much more preferable as it doesn't tie you down to someone else's recipe.
Perhaps in the future Adobe will offer more camera-maker centric profiles as an option in addition to the default baselines they currently offer. However I'm unsure if that approach would dovetail very nicely with the ACR engine?