Would you be able to recommend the main LR3 adjustments to try first in creating a generic GH2 profile.
I just emailed them to you, the zip file wasn't that large and it's easier, enjoy
On One has a bunch of free stuff (not trials), I've got several volumes of LR presets, some I like althought I tend to create my own presets. http://www.ononesoftware.com/free/
The latest Silkypix SE 3.191 (though it has some good things about it's user-interface that I like) is still for the most part a POS. The paid 4.x (regular and Pro) had the same "engine", and (save for a couple of "frills") was no better. Have not tried out SP 5.x (and don't plan to). Sorry, deejjjaaaa ...
Getting natural, attractive colors out of camera should not be our job. It should be the job of camera and software makers. It shouldn't be harder than in film days when you bring film to studio and get good-looking printed photos back.
DxO fully characterizes the in-camera JPG RGB tone-curves of all (RAW processing supported) camera bodies, and allows the user to very easily (via a continuously-variable slider-control in the Color Rendering tools) adjust the application of those RGB tone-curves (relative to DxO characterized RAW factory defaults at less than 100% settings, and providing a higher level of application those RGB tone-curves at greater than 100% settings). This is very useful functionality.
In the case of Photography Blog's GH1 review sample-image of the London Bridge, I found that LR 3.x appeared to (in the case of the GH1, anyway) de-mosaic more detail than DxO 6.x in the very far-field details of the high-rise buildings appearing in the distance in that shot - though it (almost) looked to me as if a kind of "digital-grain" existed (this was without the Sharpening tools, or their deconvolution-deblurring enabled by any non-zero setting of the "Detail" control, which causes that very type of "quantized-looking" artifacting). (IMO) better less "silent" NR than more, however
It seems that Adobe purposely makes the controls in LR 3.x very gradual in their effects (so that users will perhaps think that they are making significant adjustments, when in reality they are not ).
--
--DxO fully characterizes the in-camera JPG RGB tone-curves of all (RAW processing supported) camera bodies, and allows the user to very easily (via a continuously-variable slider-control in the Color Rendering tools) adjust the application of those RGB tone-curves (relative to DxO characterized RAW factory defaults at less than 100% settings, and providing a higher level of application those RGB tone-curves at greater than 100% settings). This is very useful functionality.
Further, and number of different options are provided relating to the camera-body itself, as well the ability to apply to apply the characterized in-camera RGB tone-curves of a number of different various dSLRs, as well as a few film-types (all with that same continuous adjust-ability of the control-slider). For big-time "film-look-buffs" (not I), they also have the DxO Film Pack plug-in which they state has a veritable pile of film-types, etc. I have not myself tried out the "Film-Pack" plug-in.
"Vibrancy" (as they call it), Saturation, and a 6-color H/S/L variable color-controller are also available.
I find these controls to be a lot more straightforward that the slew of LR/CR color controls, and quite effective in many cases. I usually just use Vibrancy, Color Rendering and sometimes the H/S/L variable color-controller (usually just Saturation, sometimes Saturation as well as some Lightness)
--The latest Silkypix SE 3.191 (though it has some good things about it's user-interface that I like) is still for the most part a POS. The paid 4.x (regular and Pro) had the same "engine", and (save for a couple of "frills") was no better. Have not tried out SP 5.x (and don't plan to). Sorry, deejjjaaaa ...
DPR's poll a while back found that 75% of all post-processing respondents used Lightroom. LR 3.x does have the best Color NR around, indeed. However, I do not find it very useful where it comes to modifying the shadow and lower mid-tones. I do not like the "Fill Light" at all. Always end up diddling with parametric controls of the "Tone Curve" tool, but there is no direct ability to adjust Gamma correction.The "Highlight Preservation" is pretty good (although it does not do much, maybe that's why). Color-rendering is just OK. The sharpening tools (and the deconvolution-deblurring that gets mixed-in along with USM when the "Detail" control-slider is at any setting other than Zero) is (IMO) truly wretched. A truly gritty, ugly mess at 100% (at nearly any level).
(If DxO supports the lenses that one has for RAW processing), DxO Optics Pro (6.x and 7.x) has fully automatic Rectilinear (far better than Panasonic's correction data silently sent along to LR/CR and Silkypix), the extremely useful "Lens Softness" correction (which blows LR/CR Sharpening tools away), as well as Chromatic Aberration and Vignetting optical corrections. DxO characterizes the camera body/lens combos at a large number of different Focal Length and F-Number settings in creating their DxO Optical Corrections Modules (for JPG and RAW though the RAW is much better) DxO's NR is not as good as LR/CR's, but adequate in cases where image-noise (particulalry chroma-noise) is not high-level. DxO's color-rendering is excellent. The "DxO Lighting" tools are very helpful for raising the lower-level tones (with the direct ability to adjust the Gamma correction applied).
Have been using the free RAW Therapee 4.x lately. It quite impressive, and (IMO) has the best user-interface of all of the above-mentioned applications. The NR seems a bit limited (not as good as LR/CR or DxO). The R-L Deconvolution Sharpening tool is helpful in moderation. While it falls pretty far short of DxO's utilization of deconvolution-deblurring (among other things) in implementing their "Lens Softness" corrections, it is preferable to the Sharpening tools in LR/CR.
My "dream machine" would have the excellent user-interface of RAW Therapee 4.x, the optical corrections, color-rendering and Gamma adjustment of DxO, and the fine Color NR of LR/CR ...
DxO and RT (like LR/CR) have "Vibrance" tools. RT allows useful LAB color-space adjustments, too.
LR doesn't use in-camera settings, just the lens corrections. I've been used to starting out with all settings flat in the RAW converter, to assess the content before pushing it around - just said to suggest we might be looking at this from different angles. If I have a series that needs consistency I'll develop one RAW and stamp the rest, but usually my approach is to develop one image at a time. Where OOC JPG exposures are close to the end product, they can be utilized instead. I don't expect my interpretation of the RAW exposure to be what the camera would do - hopefully it's better, but certainly it's different than everyone's default output, which is what I aim for.
Yea, I adopted Aperture over LR initially because of the interface, but due to impatience with Apple with new RAW format support I started using them side by side. I've come to appreciate LR more and more over time, and got over the distaste for the modular approach (there's a good reason for it, but that's an unrelated sidebar). I do recall, that when I wanted to work with it, it worked much better than when I gave it a try just to see what it was all about (I was happy with Aperture already, stepping up to that from ACR/PS/Bridge as the DAM and primary developing software).
Then why is there White Balance setting "As shot"? This is the most important setting because it makes sure colors are the same as in OOC JPEGs, which in case of Olympus is always the best.
