exdeejjjaaaa
Veteran Member
according to reports from people who seen LR4/ACR7 (scheduled for release soon) - they do feature "separate R, G, and B tone-curves" (albeit not in "parametric" tab, but for "point" tab)
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
GH2 and lightroom
- Thread starter Louis_Dobson
- Start date
Actually Louis, they don't need to buy Studio any more - it has morphed into Viewer 2, and is now free. The only thing that's been lost is remote camera control. Oh, and Viewer 2 is faster than Studio as well (it's more optimised for modern computers).
exdeejjjaaaa
Veteran Member
right, it was a great program in terms of local adjustments and its zone system... unfortunately it was a small shop and the man behind it had to go work (for Apple - so may be it is a gain for Aperture ?) - unlike Bibble who were able to sell themselves to Corel
here is the current status of LightZone = http://www.lightzombie.org/
rare wolf
Leading Member
herebefore
Senior Member
I also found Silkypix to be glacially Slow (even slower than Olympus software, and I didnt think that was possible).
The latest iteration of Lightroom does do the "lens correction" if the lens and camera are Panasonic or Olympus, on a Panasonic or Olympus camera, with one Caveat... Panasonic camera with Olympus Lens or Panasonic lens, corrections seem to be done... Olympus camera with Olympus lens, corrections done, Olympus camera with Panasonic lens, corrections NOT done.. Caveat part two, Olympus camera/lens do not provide correction for CA, only for distortion.
However, the CA corection in Lightroom does an Excellent job with a couple of clicks.
--
Larry Lynch
Olympus Aficionado
Mystic, Connecticut
In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.
Oscar Wilde
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
OK, gradient tool and other selective development stuff now working. Crude and nasty, but good enough for 99% of shots and blasting stuff into PhotoShop is still possible.
Thanks for the push!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Thanks for the push!
--Pretty much except that it does the masking in the background. I find it very useful for raising shadows or dropping exposure in skies on landscape shots. It's quite straightforward once you get the hang of it.
--When I played with LR3 without the book I could not get selective development to work at all. Then i read the book and thought "Aha!". Unfortunately that was months ago, I was too busy to put it into practice, and now the blasted book has gone walkies.
--No, it does not have local adjustments. The problem with DXO is that the controls are actually harder to understand than Lightroom's and that their result is more difficult to predict. With the defaults shadows are too much blocked - and it is hard to get rid of it - and details are generally smeared. The output looks often plasticky.
The often criticized "pattern" in LR is generally not visible in print, so people should not get taken away by what they see in 100% view on screen.
LR has good local adjustment tools, the gradient is a really unique thing, and the sharpening tools - especially the masking - are one of the best in class.
--MORE money! Does DXO allow selective development? Does it know about LR libraries, or talk to LR in any way? Clearly this is your field... should I buy it?
--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)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Thomas
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Bobo Hodls
Forum Pro
I don't buy Detailman's input on converters (been following his thoughts on the matter longer than he's been visiting this forum). Well, I buy it technically, and believe he knows what he's talking about (even though he can't succinctly convey what he's talking about) - but I haven't seen anything he's done with all that which shows his workflow is better than any other on a practical level (or, at least, what I do to reach a final product). No offense intended, Detailman.
I'd suggest pursuing LR w/o profiles in mind at the moment. Proflies are useful for particular situations and demands, but your issue with LR is broader than that. You suggested you had a LR book - I've had a few through it's development, all helpful, but I want to nudge once more that Martin Evening's book is a compilation of all that and more, with helpful behind the scenes insight that I think you'd appreciate. Of course, if you can't stand the interface, all that might be moot. We can't help some of our prejudices, and for some as subjective as this, it may not be worth fighting in the long run if one tends to groan when contemplating turning to it.
--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.
You know, Louis, it's supposed to do that (for all cameras). It gives you a flat version from which to start work. If you don't like the flat defaults, you can set your own, and even set them by-camera and by-ISO if you like. You can also apply default presets on import, if you like.
So you can make it behave the way you want it to. And note that the latest versions have noise reduction set to exactly zero by default (this means it's turned off). If you don't like that, you can change it too.
Personally, I've set my defaults to:
Clarity 20
Vibrance 5
Sharpening 40
Masking 40
LNR 40
LNR Detail 80 (or 90)
CNR 25
This is all with Adobe Standard Profile.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
No, it's not. The OOC JPEG is just the processing settings made by some engineer in Japan. Nothing special about it.
That's a contradiction in terms.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Detail Man
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 17,489
- Solutions
- 11
- Reaction score
- 2,745
Perhaps I should have re-phrased my comment (quoted above) to say:
"(which I personally think blows LR/CR Sharpening tools away)"
... thus reminding us that all human visual perception is by nature subjective, and there exists no unitary Objective Truth (spelled with capital letters, and transferable and imposable upon others).
I have no particular interest in shaping the outlooks or the purchasing decisions of other persons. However, some may be interested in having a look at the comparisons images linked-to below, and forming their own impressions, perhaps coming to their own conclusions, and (hopefully, for the sake of all) transcending the tendency for individuals to imagine that their own personal world-view is the only possible or the only valid world-view. Nothing relating to human perception is so simple.
.
Note : All JPGs linked-to below are "loss-less" - converted from 16-bit TIFs by XnView using no Chroma Sub-sampling, using no Quantization data-compression (Quality Factor = 100%), with "Optimize Huffman Table" selected. Thus, the only deviations from the TIFs exist in low-level quantization-errors from loss-less data compression components of the JPEG encoding process.
.
DxO Optics Pro 6.x at full (cropped) processed pixel-size (without) "Lens Softness":
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4464732135/photos/1474686/p1030729_dmc-lx3-rw2_dxo_3272x2454-loss-less
DxO Optics Pro 6.x at full (cropped) processed pixel-size (with) "Lens Softness":
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4464732135/photos/1474688/p1030729_dmc-lx3-rw2_dxo-lens-softness_3272x2454-loss-less
.
DxO Optics Pro 6.x at (16-bit lanczos-3 downwardly re-sampled) 1600x1200 pixel-size (without) "Lens Softness":
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4464732135/photos/1474709/p1030729_dmc-lx3-rw2_dxo_1600x1200-loss-less
DxO Optics Pro 6.x at (16-bit lanczos-3 downwardly re-sampled) 1600x1200 pixel-size (with) "Lens Softness":
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4464732135/photos/1474710/p1030729_dmc-lx3-rw2_dxo-lens-softness_1600x1200-loss-less
.
DxO Optics Pro 6.x at full (cropped) processed pixel-size (without) "Lens Softness", followed by Lightroom 3.5's Sharpening (Radius=0.5, Strength=100%, Masking=3, Detail=50%, using their deconvolution-deblurring):
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4464732135/photos/1476868/p1030729_dxo_lr-3-50_sharp-radius-0-5-strength-100-detail-50-masking-3
DxO Optics Pro 6.x at full (cropped) processed pixel-size (with) "Lens Softness", followed by mild 16-bit USM (Radius=0.5, Strength=100%, Threshold=10) using Sagelight 3.1:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4464732135/photos/1476869/p1030729_dxo-lens-softness_sagelight-usm-radius-0-5-strength-100-threshold-10
.
DxO Optics Pro 6.x at full (cropped) processed pixel-size, followed by Lightroom 3.5's Sharpening (Radius=0.5, Strength=100%, Masking=3, Detail=50%, using their deconvolution-deblurring), followed by 16-bit Lanczos-3 downwardly re-sampled to 1600x1200 pixel-size:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4464732135/photos/1476933/p1030729_dxo_lr-3-50_sharp-radius-0-5-strength-100-detail-50-masking-3_1600x1200
DxO Optics Pro 6.x at full (cropped) processed pixel-size with "Lens Softness", followed by 16-bit Lanczos-3 downwards re-sampling to 1600x1200 pixel-size, followed by mild 16-bit USM (Radius=0.5, Strength=100%, Threshold=10) using Sagelight 3.1:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4464732135/photos/1476934/p1030729_dxo-lens-softness_sagelight-usm-radius-1-0-strength-100-threshold-10_1600x1200
.
Notes : The Original image-files can be downloaded from each of the web-pages linked to above.
In cases where the viewer does not have a 1200 pixel-height monitor display-screen on which to view the images linked to above, downloading all of the Original image-files is highly recommended - as the DPR system will (otherwise) downwardly re-sample the images (using an unknown re-sampling algorithm) prior to their being displayed on such monitor display-screens.
In cases where the viewer does have a 1200 pixel-height monitor display-screen on which to view the images linked to above, downloading all of the (3272 x 2454 pixel-size) Original image-files is highly recommended - as the DPR system will (otherwise) downwardly re-sample the images (using an unknown re-sampling algorithm) prior to their being displayed on 1200 pixel-height monitor display-screens.
.
Relevant commentary (from those persons who have actually taken the time to download the Originals, and compare them using an image-viewer) as to personal perceptual preferences are welcomed. However, all assertions that quite illusory concepts such as "Objective Perceptual Truth" are legislate-able by "committees" (of any number) will be ignored as the folly that they are.
DM ...
cameron2
Senior Member
I don't understand.
1) Are you shooting RAW? JPEG? or both? (Don't do both. For some reason, that seems to confuse LR.)
2) What are you comparing those pale, lifeless versions to? The picture you see on the little LCD screen on the camera?
LR3 can do just about whatever is necessary with your GH2 RAW files, so either you're not processing RAW files or you're doing something weird with LR.
Detail Man
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 17,489
- Solutions
- 11
- Reaction score
- 2,745
I would be interested to know how recording a JPG along with a RW2 using the GH2 results in any differences in the (image, or meta-data) content of the recorded RW2 image-file (or the JPG file).
Or did you mean something else (other than what I have interpreted from your words quoted above) by what you said ? Please explain what it is that you mean to say a little further, if possible.
jalywol
Forum Pro
I think if you tell LR not to piggyback the RAW and JPG photos, you avoid this problem. There is a setting somewhere in the preferences that you can select to tell the program to treat them as separate photos. However, default ACR settings seem to keep them together in the file system, I think including previewing the photo with the JPG settings. if I recall. I may be wrong about this, but I seem to recall it being a problem when I first set up the program, and having to reimport everything to unhook the jpgs from the raws in the files to work with them the way I wanted.
-J
-J
If you choose to shoot raw + jpeg you should set in preferences that the jpeg is situated next to the raw file. I wonder if the OP is saying that LR "changes" the embedded jpeg in the raw to the default Adobe GH2 profile? It does it very quickly but if you sit and stare at the uploading files you will notice that switch as they are copied from the SD card and loaded into LR. The additional side by side jpeg will be as the camera processed.
Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38647240@N00/
Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38647240@N00/
micksh6
Senior Member
It's not about being creative. I doubt anyone would argue that it's better to be creative than not.
Fixing wrong white balance or making skin tones look natural isn't creative work. It is a dirty and tedious work - cleaning after camera manufacturer.
I think this is what OP is talking about, but I'm not quite sure, I also would like to see how files become "pale and lifeless".
But looking at DPReview GH2 samples I could guess what "pale and lifeless" means. See this lady, for example - skin color is greenish and cold. One could fix it, of course, but there are cameras that don't do such things.
http://forums.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/997807/p1010269?inalbum=panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh2-review-samples
Good-looking OOC JPEGS are fully replicated from RAW files in LR now and they just provide better starting point to be creative. It's a myth that good OOC JPEG engine doesn't matter if you shoot RAW. It saves a lot of time.
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
Yes, I know, and I do have E3 and D3 profiles for it (or for earlier versions). The trouble is that they don't ever match the quality of the OOC JPG. I'm hoping for better with the GH2, but not holding my breath.
Thank you, I hadn't noticed that!
Given how large Adobe are, I don't really understand why they can't do better. The OOC JPG is stored as a preview in the RAW is it not? So why can it not "learn" how to provide a default that matches the OOC JPG f? With my computer techie's hat on, that's what I would write. Menu option: Develop, Match JPG. Then store a profile.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Yes, it is, and FYI, the Camera Raw team is about four people.
The DNG profile editor has a function for doing that from test shots of calibration charts.
It's also not particularly useful, most of the time, since there's nothing special about the out-of-camera-JPEGs. It's just another interpretation of the raw data. Most them aren't very good. I think Nikon's are pretty good, Canon Standard is just horrible (a guy on DPReview called it "retina peel" which cracked me up), Canon Faithful is pretty good, Oly's are middle of the road, and Panasonic and Sony are just horrible. But like I said, it's just an interpretation and the point of a raw converter is allowing the photographer to interpret that data the way he or she wants it to be interpreted. If you just want the OOC JPEG, shoot JPEG.
Incidentally, ACR/LR have Camera-Matching profiles for Canon, Nikon, some Pentax and some Leica. They get pretty close.
Doing that without creating a profile from a reference target is much harder than it sounds. Imagine tasting a dish with 50 ingredients and from that trying to develop the recipe, having no idea of the ingredients, the methods or the tools used to create the dish.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
This is your problem to begin with. Oly colors are nothing remotely like real. They're overly saturated, and tweaked towards an image that "pops" far more than most natural scenes do. LR colors are much more neutral and balanced, and more realistic.
sallygohl
Senior Member
All presets imported into Lightroom , thanks very much indeed 
There are loads hehe .
Regards
Sally
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sallyghl/
There are loads hehe .
Regards
Sally
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sallyghl/
cameron2
Senior Member
As explained by a couple of other posters, LR automatically overlays the RAW and JPG pictures, but you can set an option to have them treated as two separate pictures.
Why does this matter? Because the RAW is pretty decent, but a half second or so after the RAW gets imported, it looks like it gets "muted" or "greyed out" because the JPG (with Pany's conservative JPG creation algorithms) is imported and displayed over the RAW picture. So it looks like LR is "scrubbing the colors off" the photos as they are imported.
(At least this is what I have personally observed.)
Good luck
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum