Reading mode: Light Dark

GH2 and lightroom

Go to last post
Louis_Dobson

Louis_Dobson

Forum Pro
Messages
27,582
Solutions
1
Reaction score
1,349
Location
Faro, PT
I've been using LR for years as a library system, but for development, no. It made all my E3 pictures green and sucked all the colour out of my D3 files.

It is equally lousy with GH2 files. It as an interesting experience, watching it go through the files and turn them into pale, lifeless versions.

So, how do I stop it doing that? Profiles? Anyone got one?

I have a nasty feeling I threw the SilkyPix disk away unopened - the one that came with my G1 was the worst piece of software I have ever tried (and failed) to use ever, even worse than Olympus Studio, which is dire. Has it got any better? If so I'll go rooting...

What are other people doing?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
 
It sounds like you have set a "Develop Settings" filter set in "Apply during Import".
 
Louis_Dobson said:
What are other people doing?
Click to expand...
Make up a nice generic profile that gives images back the pop you want, then in the import dialogue, just tell it to apply that automatically. If you don't change anything it, it won't go away and all your images will always get that profile added each time you import.

I find LR does this as well to all my cameras, and while in reality, it probably is a far more accurate and neutral look, I don't like it for a default import, so everything gets a generic tweak.
 
Hmm. While I like the idea, I find it quite hard to get ANY settings in LR that don't look awful.

In the meantime I've just bunged on the current SilkyPix. Perfectly usable. No selective development tools as far as I can see though, which is a pest. That would make the workflow: choose in LR, develop three versions in SilkyPix, open in Photoshop and quick mask. Grrr. Come back CaptureNX, all is forgiven.

Am I correct in thinking only SilkyPix can do the fancy autocorrection stuff for the lenses?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
 
I use LR 3 with the GH2 and it works just fine for me, no extra profiles or anything. I recommend downloading some presets. There are thousands of free ones all over the net and some of them are great. It saves me a lot of time, I often hover over the presets by scrolling down and pick one that works and then tweak to taste. Most of my PP is done like this these days. I couldn't imagine not using LR to be honest.
--
It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
 
Louis_Dobson said:
Hmm. While I like the idea, I find it quite hard to get ANY settings in LR that don't look awful.

In the meantime I've just bunged on the current SilkyPix. Perfectly usable. No selective development tools as far as I can see though, which is a pest. That would make the workflow: choose in LR, develop three versions in SilkyPix, open in Photoshop and quick mask. Grrr. Come back CaptureNX, all is forgiven.

Am I correct in thinking only SilkyPix can do the fancy autocorrection stuff for the lenses?
Click to expand...
Strange, for me LR is the raw editor, from which I get pleasing result from my GH2 most efficiently, with some standard developing adjustment bound to the camera and due to the very good user interface of LR. I also profiled my GH2 with color checker passport, but the difference to the standard LR camera profiles are rather subtle than dramatic.

The autocorrection stuff is applied automatically since versions 2.6 or 2.7. Since everything is automatic and LR interprets the parameters encoded in the raw image files, there are no m4/3 lens profiles listed in the lens correction panel.

The quality of the lens corrections is not quite as good as the corrections DXO usually provides, on the other hand DXO currently supports only a few m4/3 lenses.

To analyze your dull color problem better, perhaps, you can post some screenshots to see what you are talking about.

Recently I also used the NIK software plugins, although they defeat the philosophy of Lightroom to stay in a parametric editing workflow as much as possible.

In general, I would say that with raw files, image editing and tweaking is the very nature of shooting raw. Otherwise, we could just shoot OOC JPEGs.
Louis_Dobson said:
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
--
Thomas
 
Tony where did you get your presets from, as you say there are loads around but Im dubious about downloading some .... Id rather have tried and tested and we have the same camera :)
Much obliged
Sally

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sallyghl/
 
It might be worth calibrating your monitor? That could explain strange colour casts. That said, if you can get good colours in another editor then that might not be necessary.

I have a Dell monitor which is very bright by default. My calibrated profile reduces the brightness making whites less blue (to my eyes at least).

I use LR for editing RAWs from both my D700 and GH2. I get very pleasing results with a minimum of effort. Previously I used Capture NX2 - I don't think I even have it installed any more.

I always apply a preset which sets everything to zero, including the tone curve, leaving just brightness and contrast at their default settings. The same preset also applies an auto white-balance. I based this preset off the LR General Zeroed one.

Then I gradually process the image to taste. I always use the 2010 Adobe Standard profile, it seems to get me where I want quickly enough.

I based this work-flow off the David duChemin book "Vision and Voice" which is well worth a punt. I've been using LR since version 1.
 
It was suggested to check your monitor calibration, but I presume that's a given for you, Louis.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Sure, RAW will be flat when imported (all settings at their defaults), and it's our job to polish them.

I've used PS since 2002 or so. The past 2-3 years I've been using LR exclusively with great satisfaction. In lieu of PS for what PS is good for after the conversion I've been turning to Nik plug-ins (IF at all necessary), but that's not the point. . .

I recently picked up Martin Evening's Book on LR, and there are many things (advanced nuances) I've picked up in the process, and I highly recommend it. It's like any of his books on PS - chock full of useful beginner and advanced insights. Using the same engine for RAWs as PS, there should be no reason one can't get similar results that ACR can provide for one's RAWs. I can't imagine you wouldn't find the book the resource (LR bible, maybe is more appropriate) I find it to be.

The only profile I've set up for any camera is infrared, FWIW.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.
 
+1 on using LR (I sometimes do round trip to PS but mostly LR and a plugin or two) and I've used for many cams and since the original beta and used PS since maybe 2000-2001. Also +1 on Martin Evening's LR book. Over the years I've used a lot of raw processors and find Lightroom to be outstanding. The default profile is just their version of the data, meant to be optimized.
Diane

Bob Tullis wrote:

It was suggested to check your monitor calibration, but I presume that's a given for you, Louis.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Sure, RAW will be flat when imported (all settings at their defaults), and it's our job to polish them.

I've used PS since 2002 or so. The past 2-3 years I've been using LR exclusively with great satisfaction. In lieu of PS for what PS is good for after the conversion I've been turning to Nik plug-ins (IF at all necessary), but that's not the point. . .

I recently picked up Martin Evening's Book on LR, and there are many things (advanced nuances) I've picked up in the process, and I highly recommend it. It's like any of his books on PS - chock full of useful beginner and advanced insights. Using the same engine for RAWs as PS, there should be no reason one can't get similar results that ACR can provide for one's RAWs. I can't imagine you wouldn't find the book the resource (LR bible, maybe is more appropriate) I find it to be.
The only profile I've set up for any camera is infrared, FWIW.
-- hide signature --
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.
-- hide signature --
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38647240@N00/
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38647240@N00/
 
Louis_Dobson said:
I've been using LR for years as a library system, but for development, no. It made all my E3 pictures green and sucked all the colour out of my D3 files.
Click to expand...
Easy solution for the D3 - use the included profiles in Lightroom - Camera Standard is a good start. For the E-3, you have to roll your own, or find a set that somebody else has built.
Louis_Dobson said:
It is equally lousy with GH2 files. It as an interesting experience, watching it go through the files and turn them into pale, lifeless versions.
Click to expand...
The defaults are neutral for a reason. Different people have different preferences.
Louis_Dobson said:
So, how do I stop it doing that? Profiles? Anyone got one?
Click to expand...
Yes. Best approach is to just make your own preset. If the problem is simply a flat tone curve and lack of saturated colors, it's not hard to deal with. If the color balance is off (as I found with the Olys), then it's a bit more work. For whatever reason, I always found it hardest to get realistic looking blue skies.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey
 
Big Ga said:
Make up a nice generic profile that gives images back the pop you want, then in the import dialogue, just tell it to apply that automatically. If you don't change anything it, it won't go away and all your images will always get that profile added each time you import.
Click to expand...
Agreed - that's exactly what I do for my GH2 pictures. IMO it seems to work quite well. Not sure I understand what your problem is - perhaps you could post some pictures.
 
As others have said, there must be a profile setting that is altering what you are seeing...

My only beef with the GH2 is the baseline color balance that Panasonic chose for the system. I finally gave up trying to adjust the profile manually, and bought the Xrite passport color checker. Interestingly enough, the adjusted color profiles from it are not screamingly different than baseline when you compare the color swatch thing before and after, but the changes, when applied to photos, make them look like the source. I have more experimenting to do with it, but the profiles so generated seem to remove that odd greenish cast to some of the photos, and also the blueish cast that AWB tends to render when you use that vs fixed WB.

You might want to get one of these...the color palette thingie is small and in a nice, solid plastic shell, and you can take it with you when you do shoots to make sure you have a consistent color profile throughout.....

-J
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Grimeshotta
Changing from Olympus OMD EM5 MARK II to Panasonic Lumix DMC-G80
2
Replies
36
Views
997
davidedric
D
J
Ease of Use: Olympus Pen e-p3 vs Panasonic Lumix gh2
Replies
9
Views
150
Pho3NiX
P
P
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 body and lens durability?
Replies
5
Views
977
SterlingBjorndahl
S
Sgt Friday
Lumix DMC-G1/G2 VS Olympus E-620
2
Replies
20
Views
74
CoasterTim
CoasterTim
P
STRANGE: Olympus pen E-P1 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS5(TZ8)
Replies
8
Views
191
Nell27
Nell27

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top