Reading mode: Light Dark

What is the best RAW?

Go to last post
You can process one image through ACR while working on another. You do that by launching ACR for one of the images through Bridge, do your work, process it then open the other image in Photoshop's ACR.
gium said:
gium said:
Ben_Egbert wrote:
A few in this thread suggest ACR/PS2. But it is clear most prefer
some third party, especially Capture One.

If I understand correctly, the most often mentioned reasons seem to
be for large batch job convenience and the ability to use camera
profiles.
Click to expand...
Not for large batch job convenience lol. C1 is slower than ACR, and
ACR is just as easy to do batch jobs with as C1. So it's another
reason why people prefer C1 over ACR. The use of better camera
profiles for beter color rendition is one. Other things that people
like are the better noise reduction and the ability to process one
picture while working on the next one. (btw.. ACR/Photoshop is just
as third party as Capture One when it comes to processing Canon RAW
files).
Click to expand...
 
sixgun said:
I have started toying with Lightroom as well.. the more I use it
the more I like it... the interface is real clean too ...
So far I have only used it to batch generate proofs but in time, I
can see other benefits as well...
Click to expand...
I downloaded the Beta trial of Lightroom a couple of weeks ago. I'm very impressed and have not turned to anything else since.

I've owned, used and tried them all at one time or another. I find Lightroom to be the most exacting of any. It does a very accurate conversion and then provides all of the tools necessary for high-end tweaking, including Highlight Recovery, Luminance, Fill Light, Shadow Adjustment, etc.

Once I'm finished in Lightroom, I open the adjusted file in Photoshop and go on to perform only the most minor tweaking from there...things that Lightroom isn't designed to do, ie: layers, masking, lasso, etc.

Right now I have more than 2,600 files loaded into Lightroom (the originals are in their usual folders; Lightroom does not actually contain the original photo file) and have so far processed about 160. I initially did a comparison between using Canon's Digital Photo Professional, Photoshop and Lightroom. The Lightroom conversions were superior. DPP came in a close second (I think DPP is terrific). The shots are from a Canon 1D, Canon 5D, Canon 1Ds Mark II, Kodak SLR/c, Sigma SD10 and Canon 10D. All are converted with equal accuracy and no glitches or hiccups.

Now...please understand where I'm coming from when I say I've "owned, used and tried them all at one time or another." I started with Photoshop Version 1.0 (released about 1990 I think). I've been on a Mac since 1986. I've gone from adjusting scanned files of film originals to working with RAW for the past 4 or 5 years and have used everything from the manufacturer-supplied converters to Phase One/Capture One to Bibble to RAW Developer to Photoshop Elements (all versions) and on and on....and now Lightroom.

Lightroom, in my opinion, is what all of the others try to be but can't quite manage without sacrificing speed or accuracy or simplicity or often all three. Bibble was the buggiest of them all. I deleted the trial version from my hard drive within two days. Capture One is good, but it gave me nothing I couldn't do before and was much slower at that. RAW Developer is ok. I still use it once in a while. It has some very good qualities and tools, but it's got some bugs and speed problems.

Lightroom is a workflow/processing tool that lets me manage everything I need to manage in a simple, intuitive and orderly way. It's great. As soon as the Beta version expires, I'm buying it. It has already saved me hours and hours of work, and my pics have never looked better. Great product. Indeed, projects I had been reluctant to begin or complete due to complex workflow and filing issues have finally gotten underway. Lightroom is a like a desktop photography factory and assembly line. Once you turn the thing on, your photo "products" just seem to get "manufactured" all day long without much effort.

No...I am not at all affiliated with Adobe, Lightroom or any other entity connected with this software. I just think it's the greatest thing since the Kodak DSC 520 (one of the world's first serious pro digital cameras).

--
SteveG
http://www.pbase.com/smgarey
 
RJ Harris said:
Lightroom is shaping up to be a great converter now. I didn't like
Beta 3 at all, but the latest Beta 4 is excellent, both in terms of
workflow and in terms of conversions. They've already incorporated
some of RSP's features, and hopefully there will be more to come in
the final release.
Click to expand...
I downloaded the Beta trial of Lightroom a couple of weeks ago. I'm very impressed and have not turned to anything else since.

I've owned, used and tried them all at one time or another. I find Lightroom to be the most exacting of any. It does a very accurate conversion and then provides all of the tools necessary for high-end tweaking, including Highlight Recovery, Luminance, Fill Light, Shadow Adjustment, etc.

Once I'm finished in Lightroom, I open the adjusted file in Photoshop and go on to perform only the most minor tweaking from there...things that Lightroom isn't designed to do, ie: layers, masking, lasso, etc.

Right now I have more than 2,600 files loaded into Lightroom (the originals are in their usual folders; Lightroom does not actually contain the original photo file) and have so far processed about 160. I initially did a comparison between using Canon's Digital Photo Professional, Photoshop and Lightroom. The Lightroom conversions were superior. DPP came in a close second (I think DPP is terrific). The shots are from a Canon 1D, Canon 5D, Canon 1Ds Mark II, Kodak SLR/c, Sigma SD10 and Canon 10D. All are converted with equal accuracy and no glitches or hiccups.

Now...please understand where I'm coming from when I say I've "owned, used and tried them all at one time or another." I started with Photoshop Version 1.0 (released about 1990 I think). I've been on a Mac since 1986. I've gone from adjusting scanned files of film originals to working with RAW for the past 4 or 5 years and have used everything from the manufacturer-supplied converters to Phase One/Capture One to Bibble to RAW Developer to Photoshop Elements (all versions) and on and on....and now Lightroom.

Lightroom, in my opinion, is what all of the others try to be but can't quite manage without sacrificing speed or accuracy or simplicity or often all three. Bibble was the buggiest of them all. I deleted the trial version from my hard drive within two days. Capture One is good, but it gave me nothing I couldn't do before and was much slower at that. RAW Developer is ok. I still use it once in a while. It has some very good qualities and tools, but it's got some bugs and speed problems.

Lightroom is a workflow/processing tool that lets me manage everything I need to manage in a simple, intuitive and orderly way. It's great. As soon as the Beta version expires, I'm buying it. It has already saved me hours and hours of work, and my pics have never looked better. Great product. Indeed, projects I had been reluctant to begin or complete due to complex workflow and filing issues have finally gotten underway. Lightroom is a like a desktop photography factory and assembly line. Once you turn the thing on, your photo "products" just seem to get "manufactured" all day long without much effort.

No...I am not at all affiliated with Adobe, Lightroom or any other entity connected with this software. I just think it's the greatest thing since the Kodak DSC 520 (one of the world's first serious pro digital cameras).

--
SteveG
http://www.pbase.com/smgarey
 
veroman said:
RJ Harris said:
Lightroom is shaping up to be a great converter now. I didn't like
Beta 3 at all, but the latest Beta 4 is excellent, both in terms of
workflow and in terms of conversions. They've already incorporated
some of RSP's features, and hopefully there will be more to come in
the final release.
Click to expand...
I downloaded the Beta trial of Lightroom a couple of weeks ago. I'm
very impressed and have not turned to anything else since.

I've owned, used and tried them all at one time or another. I find
Lightroom to be the most exacting of any. It does a very accurate
conversion and then provides all of the tools necessary for
high-end tweaking, including Highlight Recovery, Luminance, Fill
Light, Shadow Adjustment, etc.

Once I'm finished in Lightroom, I open the adjusted file in
Photoshop and go on to perform only the most minor tweaking from
there...things that Lightroom isn't designed to do, ie: layers,
masking, lasso, etc.

Right now I have more than 2,600 files loaded into Lightroom (the
originals are in their usual folders; Lightroom does not actually
contain the original photo file) and have so far processed about
160. I initially did a comparison between using Canon's Digital
Photo Professional, Photoshop and Lightroom. The Lightroom
conversions were superior. DPP came in a close second (I think DPP
is terrific). The shots are from a Canon 1D, Canon 5D, Canon 1Ds
Mark II, Kodak SLR/c, Sigma SD10 and Canon 10D. All are converted
with equal accuracy and no glitches or hiccups.

Now...please understand where I'm coming from when I say I've
"owned, used and tried them all at one time or another." I started
with Photoshop Version 1.0 (released about 1990 I think). I've been
on a Mac since 1986. I've gone from adjusting scanned files of film
originals to working with RAW for the past 4 or 5 years and have
used everything from the manufacturer-supplied converters to Phase
One/Capture One to Bibble to RAW Developer to Photoshop Elements
(all versions) and on and on....and now Lightroom.

Lightroom, in my opinion, is what all of the others try to be but
can't quite manage without sacrificing speed or accuracy or
simplicity or often all three. Bibble was the buggiest of them all.
I deleted the trial version from my hard drive within two days.
Capture One is good, but it gave me nothing I couldn't do before
and was much slower at that. RAW Developer is ok. I still use it
once in a while. It has some very good qualities and tools, but
it's got some bugs and speed problems.

Lightroom is a workflow/processing tool that lets me manage
everything I need to manage in a simple, intuitive and orderly way.
It's great. As soon as the Beta version expires, I'm buying it. It
has already saved me hours and hours of work, and my pics have
never looked better. Great product. Indeed, projects I had been
reluctant to begin or complete due to complex workflow and filing
issues have finally gotten underway. Lightroom is a like a desktop
photography factory and assembly line. Once you turn the thing on,
your photo "products" just seem to get "manufactured" all day long
without much effort.

No...I am not at all affiliated with Adobe, Lightroom or any other
entity connected with this software. I just think it's the greatest
thing since the Kodak DSC 520 (one of the world's first serious pro
digital cameras).

--
SteveG
http://www.pbase.com/smgarey
Click to expand...
So is Lightroom a replacement for Bridge? Is it expensive? What I am getting from your description is that you use it for the front end process. I use Bridge for conversion, exposure adjustment, vignetting and am learning a few other adjustments. Everything else I do in CS2, but the final uprez and sharpening is Qiamge.

--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
 
I would suggest getting the Magne Nilsen profile for it. Just installed it last night and it makes for much better reds.

--
---
****************************************

'Giving a camera to Diane Arbus is like putting a live grenade in the hands of a child.'
Norman Mailer (b. 1923), U.S. author. Newsweek (New York, 22 Oct. 1984)
 
Ben_Egbert said:
So is Lightroom a replacement for Bridge? Is it expensive? What I
am getting from your description is that you use it for the front
end process. I use Bridge for conversion, exposure adjustment,
vignetting and am learning a few other adjustments. Everything else
I do in CS2, but the final uprez and sharpening is Qiamge.
Click to expand...
Lightroom is both a workflow and post-processing application. For workflow, it's similar in concept to Apple's Aperture. You first have a "library" in which to import, view and sort your files in any way you wish...simple drag and drop process. Beyond that, you can "develop" (post-process) your files and then develop them further for individual usages such as print, web, slideshows, etc.

But it's not a complete or total post-processing tool the way PhotoShop is. For some, it may embody all of the post-processing they need. But I almost always find myself opening a "developed" file in Photoshop and tweaking it a little further. From that viewpoint, I guess you could say I use it as a "front end" tool. I don't use anything else right now except Lightroom and Photoshop. I don't NEED anything else.

You can download the free trial version of Lightroom at adobe.com. It's worth looking into....

--
SteveG
http://www.pbase.com/smgarey
 
Ben_Egbert said:
Gary Jean said:
But you may find that the "best" converter for color (which is
really a matter of personal taste) is not the best converter for
your workflow.

If you need post processing beyond what the RAW converter provides,
integrated metadata and keyword control, etc., then it is hard to
beat the ACR and PS CS2 combination.
Click to expand...
Wow, can't believe CS2 took this long to get a comment. What am I
missing? Never used DPP.
Click to expand...
The colors in ACR are extremely inaccurate, especially the reds tend
toward orange. If you go to the trouble to calibrate it with a
colorchecker chart and Rags Gardner's calibration script
http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/ColorCalibration/
then the colors are decent (though I still prefer what I get from C1 LE
with the Magne profile for my 20D).

--
emil
--



http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/
 
I did the free download and tried one. My very first attempt (hope not a fluke) is an image I had to blend in Photoshop. I have 15 versions of it and my first attempt in Lightroom beat them all.

Going to take some getting used to the folder naming, but so far it looks promising. Off now to try another image.
--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
 
Ben_Egbert said:
I did the free download and tried one. My very first attempt (hope
not a fluke) is an image I had to blend in Photoshop. I have 15
versions of it and my first attempt in Lightroom beat them all.

Going to take some getting used to the folder naming, but so far it
looks promising. Off now to try another image.
Click to expand...
You're quite welcome. You'll discover more and more of its capabilities the more you work with it. Adobe.com also has some very helpful Lightroom video tutorials online that you can download. These videos were a very big help to me in the beginning. Enjoy....

--
SteveG
http://www.pbase.com/smgarey
 
veroman said:
Ben_Egbert said:
I did the free download and tried one. My very first attempt (hope
not a fluke) is an image I had to blend in Photoshop. I have 15
versions of it and my first attempt in Lightroom beat them all.

Going to take some getting used to the folder naming, but so far it
looks promising. Off now to try another image.
Click to expand...
You're quite welcome. You'll discover more and more of its
capabilities the more you work with it. Adobe.com also has some
very helpful Lightroom video tutorials online that you can
download. These videos were a very big help to me in the beginning.
Enjoy....
Click to expand...
My sound card is broke, can't hear anything, so I did not download the video.
veroman said:
--
SteveG
http://www.pbase.com/smgarey
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
 
Gary Jean said:
...for you, right? You have no way of knowing the accuracy for the
rest of us. Or, for that matter, what "accurate" means to the rest
of us.
Click to expand...
No, I mean inaccurate, period. That is what color management and
calibration is all about. I have calibrated my monitor, and to the
extent that the colorchecker chart in controlled lighting provides
a standard, I have calibrated ACR to the extent that is possible
given its limited color management capability (C1 is much, much
more flexible in this respect).

It is true that I have no way of knowing how the colors look
to others who are not calibrating their monitor, nor using
a color managed browser like Safari (IE and Firefox do not
avail themselves of color management as yet). However
those who are careful about color management should
see the same colors that I see.

--
emil
--



http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/
 
gium said:
It depends on which version of C1. C1 Pro pretty much has all the
functions you need built in (sharpening, arbitrary rotating,
cropping, exposure, curves, levels, saturation, hues, noise
reduction, etc) and I usually don't need to use CS2 to 'finish' the
job. Only if you've installed some CS2 specific plugins (like
ptlens), then I load the post processed picture to use the plugin,
resize use HDR, etc.
C1 LE doesn't have all the functions though, so I can understand
the use of CS2 to finish the job if you don't have the Pro version.
Click to expand...
The only one of the functions you mention that LE doesn't do is arbitrary rotation - easily done in CS2.

CS2 is needed for all sorts of other functions like dust removal, spot healing, various creative tasks, masking etc.etc.
It depends on what sort of work you do, but no RC is a one-stop-shop in my view.
 
After doing about 5 images in Lightroom, I am really impressed. All of them are better than my best effort with CS2. Many of them required blending two images to get DR, none of the ones I did in Lightroom did. I did see more noise howver, and even after running Neat Image, the results are sharper and morer detailed than the CS2 images without noise reduction.

I suspect I could do this in CS2 if I were more experienced, but I am eally impressed. I wonder what the final version will cost, anyone hear?

--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
 
Stovall said:
I would suggest getting the Magne Nilsen profile for it. Just
installed it last night and it makes for much better reds.
Click to expand...
Hey Stovall,

where do you get that profile. I've had a number of people send me C1 images and the reds are always plugged.

Thanks
Larry
 
If you use QImage Pro at all, you may want to know that they (Mike Chaney at didisoft) sell a set of profiles for the 5D specifically for C1. They have more info on the QImage Pro site.
--
'You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in
the first place.' -Jonathan Swift
 
LarryK said:
Stovall said:
I would suggest getting the Magne Nilsen profile for it. Just
installed it last night and it makes for much better reds.
Click to expand...
Hey Stovall,
where do you get that profile. I've had a number of people send me
C1 images and the reds are always plugged.

Thanks
Larry
Click to expand...
Right here..

http://etcetera.cc/pub/index.php/article/frontpage/1

--
---
****************************************

'Giving a camera to Diane Arbus is like putting a live grenade in the hands of a child.'
Norman Mailer (b. 1923), U.S. author. Newsweek (New York, 22 Oct. 1984)
 
I agree! C1Pro does give very nice and natural looking skin tones but the interface is FAR FROM being refined and is actually very clunky and slow compared to DPP.

I'd say that DPP has the quickest, easiest to use workflow, while LightRoom is slower but has many more features, like the ability to copy "1 ingredient" from your "recipe" and apply it to all selected images. DPP is an "all or none" option.

Canon software engineers, are you listening??

C1Pro is definitely the slowest. If I'm doing a major digital touchup job, I'll re-process the image in C1Pro and then go from there.
Gary Jean said:
But you may find that the "best" converter for color (which is
really a matter of personal taste) is not the best converter for
your workflow.

If you need post processing beyond what the RAW converter provides,
integrated metadata and keyword control, etc., then it is hard to
beat the ACR and PS CS2 combination.
--
Gary
http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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