Pentax Raw Conversion is too orange.

I'm doing the Aperture trial and have been frustrated by the raw conversions for Pentax. I know Lightroom has a similar issue.
The reds come out orange.
Does anyone have Aperture settings to offset this? What's especially frustrating is things look "good" in the preview as Aperture is loading a raw image; then, once it applies it's conversion it's back to orange.
Then, in comparison to the Pentax Lab or Browser conversions (or SilkyPix which it is based upon) they look REALLY orange.
Anyone else have the same issue and a solution?
Kind regards

Worked....many thanks...I still am frustrated that the PEFs aren't recognized. Switching to DNG...

Similar Messages

ORA-22835: Buffer too small for CLOB to CHAR or BLOB to RAW conversion

Hi all,
the following query select to_char(nvl(round(pc.target_cost*xx_primavera.geteurtolvrate,2),amount),'FM999G999G999G999G990D00') detail_amount,
nvl(ct.cost_type, description) detail_description,
tm_desc.memo_id,
primavera_prj_name detail_prj_name,
hp.party_number detail_party_number,
xpid.interface_line_attribute1,
utl_i18n.unescape_reference(replace(regexp_replace(utl_raw.cast_to_varchar2(tm_desc.task_memo), '<[^>]*>'), chr(13)||chr(10))) document_description,
REPLACE(regexp_replace(utl_raw.cast_to_varchar2(tm_id.task_memo), '<[^>]*>'), chr(13)||chr(10)) prim_memo_client_id
from XX_PRIMAVERA_INVOICES_DETAIL xpid
join admuser.xx_ar_hz_parties xahp on xahp.orig_system_bill_customer_id = xpid.orig_system_bill_customer_id
join hz_parties hp on hp.party_id = xahp.party_id
left join admuser.projcost pc on pc.proj_id = xpid.primavera_prj_id and pc.cost_type_id != 29 and xpid.service_code = 8 and pc.task_id = xx_primavera.getTaskId(xpid.primavera_prj_id,'A1020', 'Изготвяне на оферта') and delete_session_id is null
left join admuser.costtype ct on ct.cost_type_id = pc.cost_type_id
left join admuser.taskmemo tm_id on tm_id.proj_id = xpid.primavera_prj_id and tm_id.memo_type_id = 53 and tm_id.task_id = xx_primavera.getTaskId(xpid.primavera_prj_id,'A1020', 'Изготвяне на оферта')
left join admuser.taskmemo tm_desc on tm_desc.proj_id = xpid.primavera_prj_id and tm_desc.memo_type_id = 55 and tm_desc.task_id = xx_primavera.getTaskId(xpid.primavera_prj_id,'A1020', 'Изготвяне на оферта')
where amount != 0
and xpid.interface_line_attribute1 = :ra_ctp_attribute1
ORDER BY xpid.primavera_prj_name, xpid.description;returns error:
ORA-22835: Buffer too small for CLOB to CHAR or BLOB to RAW conversion (actual: 2371, maximum: 2000) I found that the error occurs in the row : utl_i18n.unescape_reference(replace(regexp_replace(utl_raw.cast_to_varchar2(tm_desc.task_memo), '<[^>]*>'), chr(13)||chr(10))) document_description,and tried to change it to: utl_i18n.unescape_reference(replace(regexp_replace(utl_raw.cast_to_varchar2(dbms_lob.substr(tm_desc.task_memo,1,2000)), '<[^>]*>'), chr(13)||chr(10))) document_description,....but it returns not value for that field... am i using dbms_lob.substr at the wrong place? The column 'tm_desc.task_memo' is BLOB type.
Any ideas how to cheat it ?
Version: Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.1.0.7.0 - Production
PL/SQL Release 11.1.0.7.0 - Production
"CORE     11.1.0.7.0     Production"
TNS for Linux: Version 11.1.0.7.0 - Production
NLSRTL Version 11.1.0.7.0 - ProductionThanks in advance,
Bahchevanov.

Your second example has the parameters reversed. The amount (length) comes first and then the offset:
DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR (
   lob_loc     IN    BLOB,
   amount      IN    INTEGER := 32767,
   offset      IN    INTEGER := 1)
RETURN RAW;
DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR (
   lob_loc     IN    CLOB   CHARACTER SET ANY_CS,
   amount      IN    INTEGER := 32767,
   offset      IN    INTEGER := 1)
RETURN VARCHAR2 CHARACTER SET lob_loc%CHARSET;
DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR (
   file_loc     IN    BFILE,
   amount      IN    INTEGER := 32767,
   offset      IN    INTEGER := 1)
RETURN RAW;Also, remember that # of bytes is not necessarily the same as the # of characters depending on your character set. So 2000 bytes might become 4000 characters. And you have to make sure the BLOB is actually character data and not arbitrary binary data.
Post the results of reversing the parameters and using a smaller chunk size.

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 :-/

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.

RAW conversion bug with Noise Reduction

Hello,
I have found a serious bug in the RAW conversion when noise reduction is applied. When converting from two types of Canon RAW files (a CRW from a Powershot G6 and a CR2 from a 20d) I found that if you apply Noise Reduction to a RAW file on very low settings (the default setting in the NR function will produce this reliably) single-pixel lines appear at regular intervals throughout the image. Here is an example:
You can see several lines in this image:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/140/3821480263171e76604b.jpg
A 100% detail of which is here:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/382148021af6586d27eo.jpg
Has anyone else had this problem? Can someone from the Aperture dev team fix this?
-Steve G

Well I find this filter is quite good in 'masking' block artifact that codec like xvid, or other low compression codec have. I only apply it if I find the block artifact is too much and I find this filter is less offending to my eyes than the block artifact.
In manual it said that if you have noisy video and want to lower the size then you can use this filter. It also blur the video a bit. But I suspect it is more than blur as I try gaussian blur in time line and the result is not as good. You can see the result as well. There is the tab between source and target and you can compare the result by togling between source and target tab.
BTW, anyone with 1 core, dual, or quad core, can you tried to encode with it? Just cancel it after few minutes as I want to see what is your processor utilization with this filter on. Also you can see how long does it take to process this video from the 'estimation time left'.

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?

ORA-06502: PL/SQL: numeric or value error: raw variable length too long

Hi All,
Oracle 9.2.0.1.0 and Oracle 10g.
I the following procedure:
CREATE OR REPLACE TYPE Resource_TT AS TABLE OF RAW(16)
CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE GET_ROLEMAPPING_Temp
RoleIds IN NVARCHAR2 DEFAULT NULL ,
Application IN NVARCHAR2 DEFAULT NULL ,
MappingExixts OUT NVARCHAR2
AS
     v_Application NVARCHAR2(150) := Application;
     resource_list CONSTANT Resource_TT := Resource_TT(RoleIds);
     v_temp NUMBER(1, 0) := 0;
BEGIN
     SELECT 1 INTO v_temp
FROM DUAL
WHERE EXISTS ( SELECT SecurityGroupId
FROM SKESGResourceMapping
WHERE APPLICATION = v_Application
AND RoleId IN
                                                  select column_value
                                                  from table(resource_list)
EXCEPTION
WHEN NO_DATA_FOUND THEN
MappingExixts := 'NO';
END;
IF v_temp = 1 THEN
MappingExixts := 'YES';
     END IF;
END;
while calling the procedure from sql*plus, the calling block is :
variable MappingExixts nvarchar2(100);
execute Get_RoleMapping_Temp('2f90e7969e0a9045aeb5b5ed7b3da9d6,363aef470e10094281e5040627e3b6f8', 'repo1', :MappingExixts);
print MappingExixts;
It is throwing an error saying:
ORA-06502: PL/SQL: numeric or value error: raw variable length too long
ORA-06512: at "ORACLE1.GET_ROLEMAPPING_TEMP", line 8
Thanks for your valuable time and suggestions

Hi Binoy,
Thanks for your quick response, I increased its size to 200, but I am getting the following error
ORA-06502: PL/SQL: numeric or value error: hex to raw conversion error
ORA-06512: at "ORACLE1.GET_ROLEMAPPING_TEMP", line 8

Fuji X-trans raw conversion

I have both the Fuji X-E1 and the X100s. The conversions of the raw files in ligtroom, while much better than they were, still have a way to go to match raw conversion from programs like Photo ninja and Iridient. I'm wondering if Adobe is working on improving the raw conversion of X-Trans files in lightroom. Love lightroom, but the raw conversion of fuji files is still problematic in areas of fine detail, like tree branches and leaves. The effect is something like an halo around these features, and is worse once the files is sharpened.

I'm very interested in this topic, too. Actually, I'm sure there are tenth of thousands of photographers interested, including professionals. I just purchased Lightroom, but this is a great chance for Adobe's competitors to get clients. Let's see if Adobe answers to this thread, and if they will do something to fix the poor X-Trans (but also micro 4/3 like Olympus OM-D E-M1) support. They have the experience to do something in very short times, let's see...

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

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

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

How to open PEF (pentax raw) in Bridge CS4

Cannot open Pentax RAW files (PEF) in Bridge CS4. Any help is appreciated. Canon RAW does open.

I don't see that listed, is it really new? http://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html
CS4 will only support camera raw in the 5.x series. You either have to upgrade or convert images to DNG format. THis is a free program from Adobe.

Lightroom vs. Photoshop Raw conversion

I have noticed that the Lightroom RAW conversion looks about 1/3 to 1/2 stop brighter compared to Photoshop on the same image with the same settings (I'm using LR 2.4 and Photoshop CS4). Anybody else notice this or have any thoughts? I'm assuming they use the same RAW conversion engine.

Thanks for the response. Well, when I export from LR to a JPEG and do the same from Photoshop (viewing them in photoshop), I get two slightly different toned images (I mistakenly said the LR images are brighter...they're actually darker). Viewing them this way should remove any monitor discrepencies (I'm working on a calibrated Lacie 724 monitor with 120% Adobe 1998 gamut so that should not be an issue).

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)

Pentax Raw Conversion is too orange.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for