GH2 and lightroom

[Detail Man]

Note: To the moron who keeps telling me how long my posts should be - get yourself a frickin' life!
.

Louis_Dobson wrote:
MORE money! Clearly this is your field... should I buy it?

Groan, sigh ... . I am a straight-shooter (not a salesman or a shill, which is just not in my nature). I will tell you what I do know without reservation, though ... this is about the consumer (not DxO)

Yes, ... money (that awful subject). DxO is selling their new Version 7.x at a discounted price through January 31, 2012. $99 USD ($169 USD normally) for the Standard version. However (if you have certain pricey dSLRs around with compatible add-on lenses), you may want/need the "Elite" version ($199 USD, $299 USD normally) instead (they call it "value-added" - this means charging you more because your dSLR cost you more ). You only need the Standard version for M43 camera models, though. To see what cam bodies/lenses are (or will be soon) supported, see:

http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/for_your_equipment

While DxO RAW processing does support camera bodies (in terms of Color Rendering and NR), you will want to see if your existing/planned lenses are or will be supported (as all of the automatic optical corrections depend on the existence of a DxO Optical Corrections Module for the specific body/lens combination). Here is where the angst begins/ends for many prospective customers ...

I purchased the Versions 6.x Standard edition license around 2 years ago. They added RAW support for my LX3 at that time - but stupidly caused a Panasonic-related bug that caused all other Panasonic (compacts, anyway) to be un-processable (in any form). I identified the bug, supplied them with information, and waited nearly 4 months for them to release Version 6.2 (which, unlike the patches released for Version 6.1, finally addressing the bug). They floundered around for a while, then changed many processing control-parameters at Version 6.5, angering nearly all users. Then the "flopped" back, and (finally) settled into (Version 6.x) "maturity" (and only a small handful of still irritating, but not major bugs), with Version 6.60 released around June of 2011.

Just when all was (nearly) well in the valley, they decided to earn some more cash for themselves (by forcing users to purchase or upgrade to Version 7.x for all bodies/lenses newly supported after November 29, 2011). They seemed to have scrambled the user-interface (in the name of "progress", of course), claim processing-speed improvements (highly dependent on PC system hardware and graphics-card features), but which appear to actually be true (from reading the DxO Forum) on the more recent Mac OSs. (Of course), for humble 2 GB RAM PCs running WinXP Pro SP3 (like mine), it looks like a resource-hungry rat's-nest of uncertainty ...

So, I hammered on DxO Rep "Axle" in the comments section of this DPR page:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/11/23/DxoOpticsPro7

and started a thread on the DxO Forum:

http://forum.dxo.com/showthread.php?t=5897

... as to whether this "profiteering pig" (Version 7.x) actually improved image-quality one whit. It surely looks like it likely does not (save for one new "Bokeh" control in the "Lens Softness" tool that allegedly allows the user to reduce the amount of deconvolution-deblurring artifacts in out-of-focus areas). I probably will not be upgrading (as Version 6.60 already supports my LX3 RW2s, may likely never support my G 14-45mm lens on my GH2, anyway, and does already support the G 14-140mm already - if I ever muster the cash and the courage to "go Pinocchio", and have to tote my mono-pod along every outing just to physically support it).

Does DXO allow selective development?

I take that you mean the marketing joke in Adobe Photoshop that few can even make work ? No.

Does it know about LR libraries, or talk to LR in any way ?

Well ... once again, a somewhat complicated and frustrating subject. Where it comes to Versions 6.x, they got some limited (and in my mind not very useful) things going, documented here:

http://www.dxo.com/var/dxo/storage/fckeditor/File/learning/tutorials/Working_with_Lightroom_and_DxOOpticsPro6.pdf

... but, from all that I read about Versions 7.x ... they have "yet to get that working". Given your profession, if you get the idea that the (pre-mature, and yet unpolished) release of Version 7.x (the only version that you can now download from DxO, BTW) is little but an un-impressive profit-grab (all about them , and not really about the customers ) that have (mandatorily) dumped on the market with lot of loose-ends, and claims of "coming soon, we promise" to their customers, you would be absolutely correct. 1/2 French myself, I can perhaps better understand their insanity

If I (as a first-time customer) were to buy a Version 7.x license (which is good on 2 systems, BTW) at the discounted price right now, I would probably give it a couple months until they have patched and glued this pig into better working order (and will by then be supporting more possibly relevant to you lenses, as well) before doing more than playing with the (fully functional Standard/Elite 30-day trial version). BTW, they use PACE Anti-Piracy hardware ID stuff that makes Microsoft's protection look lax (and DxO seem ultra-paranoid), which embeds in your OS, and never leaves. Woe have been some who dared to try to selectively delete those folder/files. If you are the type who is wise enough to be able to fully backup/restore the hard-disk MBR and primary partition - this would be the only sensible way to "completely" uninstall that and other such things.

Maybe not the world's "prettiest picture" - but exactly what I know and think about "what it is".

... I owe you a mail and a file by the way - sorry, flu, followed by food poisoning, has kept me largely in bed ...

Will email you about that. Your illness sound daunting - hope that you are well on the mend soon !

 

[exdeejjjaaaa]

Does DXO allow selective development?

I take that you mean the marketing joke in Adobe Photoshop that few can even make work ? No.

that feature is available not only in ACR/LR, but in C1, Bibble (=Corel AfterShot), Nikon's OEM raw converter... and probably in some others.

 

[exdeejjjaaaa]

LR doesn't use in-camera settings, just the lens corrections.

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.
You don't have this setting with Panasonic?

every camera w/ bayer CFA will write WB information, because raw converters need to know per channel multipliers... hence "as shot" is always available.

 

[exdeejjjaaaa]

I do hope so. Trying SilkyPix for ten minutes this morning, it, like Studio and CaptureNX, gave me what I wanted with a few clicks. But it is glacially slow. Very possibly unusably so.

current version is SP5, whatever is shipped w/ cameras is (1) 2 generations old and (2) trimmed down featurewise.

 

[tgutgu]

Does DXO allow selective development?

I take that you mean the marketing joke in Adobe Photoshop that few can even make work ? No.

that feature is available not only in ACR/LR, but in C1, Bibble (=Corel AfterShot), Nikon's OEM raw converter... and probably in some others.

And it works very well in my case.

--
Thomas

 

[Detail Man]

Does DXO allow selective development?

I take that you mean the marketing joke in Adobe Photoshop that few can even make work ? No.

that feature is available not only in ACR/LR, but in C1, Bibble (=Corel AfterShot), Nikon's OEM raw converter... and probably in some others.

And it works very well in my case.

Alright ! I'm all for working functionality (especially when people pay good money for such things). On what particular software application do you have that functionality, and use it successfully ???

 

[Louis_Dobson]

It amazes me how mean these people are with software.

Panasonic have a sort of excuse, since SilkyPix is a commercial program, and the MFT cameras are fairly cheap. But Oly shipping their pro cameras without Studio and Nikon without CaptureNX is unbelievable. In Nikon's case it is outrageous penny-pinching on a 3K+ camera, in Oly's case they need all the help they can get to show what the camera is capable of.... How many people actually BUY Studio? So what money do they lose by not providing it?

Anyone know is SilkyPix 5 has selective development and does it respect the camera settings from the GH2?

I do hope so. Trying SilkyPix for ten minutes this morning, it, like Studio and CaptureNX, gave me what I wanted with a few clicks. But it is glacially slow. Very possibly unusably so.

current version is SP5, whatever is shipped w/ cameras is (1) 2 generations old and (2) trimmed down featurewise.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

 

[Louis_Dobson]

And LightZone. If that still exists (I hope so, my other half uses it, and she's due a new camera soon).

Selective development is the deal breaker for me. Without it, I might as well use SilkyPix, which, on the basis of a ten minute play, does what I want.

Actually what DO we want from a RAW processor?

In the perfect world I want something that, in one program, sorts all the files into a sensible, accessible library structure and lets me rate, tag and browse them (LR does this perfectly, nothing else I have found comes close), respects all the camera settings and lets me start the process with a picture that is exactly the same as the OOC JPG (CaptureNX and Studio do this, in fact it is Studio's one saving grace), allows me to change the tone curves and colours to give me the neutrality or (in my case more often "pop") I want (they can all do this in theory, but I don't like LR's results rather too often), allows me to apply different settings to different parts of the photo (CaptureNX does this very well, LR is supposed to do it, but I have not learned it yet), allows me to export direct to Photoshop (LR only), and has a rational interface (LR is messy and space consuming, Studio is simply rubbish, CaptureNX appears to be have be designed by aliens on a three day trip - and I use the word "trip" advisedly - to Earth, but if you paint your face green and put a couple of TV antennas on your head for a week it ends up making a weird sort of sense, SilkyPix looks OK but is very, very slow).

My workflow ends up as being:

Import files to LR and browse therein. If I have a lot to do I develop in there and hope no one complains. Normally though, spot the ones I want and open them in a RAW processor that supports the camera properly. If I am using the D3, selectively develop in CaputureNX, bosh, job done. Anything else, develop separately for sky, ground, and probabaly something else, open all three in Phostoshop, use QuickMask to apply the different parts.

Maybe I'd better master the selective development in LR before I do anything else. if it is as rubbish as DetailMan implies, then it isn't worth sorting the profiles anyway. Might as well use SilkyPix.

Does DXO allow selective development?

I take that you mean the marketing joke in Adobe Photoshop that few can even make work ? No.

that feature is available not only in ACR/LR, but in C1, Bibble (=Corel AfterShot), Nikon's OEM raw converter... and probably in some others.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

 

[lester11]

Good to hear of another G3 / K-5 combo, cheers (smile)! Ran a G1 before moving to the G3, and the GH2 before moving to the K-5 (weatherproofing, no other reason to switch).

We use LR 3 out the box (no profiles) and find it works great with our snaps, both past and present. (NB we shoot JPG almost exclusively, finding the in-camera development quite adequate for our tastes, and only tweak tonality and sharpening in LR, our output is usually for down-ressed Web display.) Curiously, the GH2 and G3 white balance was/is almost always spot-on, while I accept the LR 'auto' suggestions to improve the K-5 WB around 80% of the time...

We have "Huey" profiled monitors, but it doesn't sound like the lack of a profiled monitor would lead to the OP's cries of pain (grin).

--
Lester

 

[Detail Man]

Louis_Dobson wrote:

Maybe I'd better master the selective development in LR before I do anything else. if it is as rubbish as DetailMan implies, then it isn't worth sorting the profiles anyway. Might as well use SilkyPix.

Louis ,

I'm not anything of an authority about "selective development". Having read up a bit, I see that I was referring to a PS feature (that I have not direct experience with) that I read a few places did not work well. I have never used layers and masks in my post-processing (other than when a USM operation does that for me). So in that case I am not at all a good person to opine. Please note !

One thing that is true is that LR/CR does not feature separate R, G, and B tone-curves (for those who may wish to make them different) in the LR/CR Tone Curve tool - whereas (all, I believe) versions of Silkypix as well as DxO Optics Pro do have this feature in their own tone-curve tools ...

Regards,

DM
.

Does DXO allow selective development?

I take that you mean the marketing joke in Adobe Photoshop that few can even make work ? No.

that feature is available not only in ACR/LR, but in C1, Bibble (=Corel AfterShot), Nikon's OEM raw converter... and probably in some others.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

 

[Detail Man]

Detail Man wrote:

One thing that is true is that LR/CR does not feature separate R, G, and B tone-curves (for those who may wish to make them different) in the LR/CR Tone Curve tool - whereas (all, I believe) versions of Silkypix as well as DxO Optics Pro do have this feature in their own tone-curve tools ...

One irony (for me) about the Tone Curve tool bit is that LR/CR has the "parametric control-option" that I like a lot (having four separate slider-controls for various ranges of tone-levels). I like that because I can easily numerically scale, and easily remember settings in the first place (which oftem means that I don't have to save-off the tone-curve for later use - as each different image is likely going to need a different tone-curve modification, anyway).

On the other hand Silkypix (at least the free SE 3.x version) and DxO Optics (which have the separate R, G, and B tome-curve adjustments curves) are the more usual type where one has to "grab a dot" with the cursor, and naually fashion a tone-curves using designated "control-points" movable by the user. These types of interfaces are really "tweaky" when trying to get a suitable lower-level "downward expansion" curve (and drive me nuts to try to use). It's "always something"

You know, I just fired up the high-quality, free, and non-invasive RAW Therapee 4.064 (which reports as Version 4.063 in the Win 32-bit version, anyway). If you have yet to try RAW Therapee 4.x, check it out. It is one bad-motorscooter in a lot of ways. The user-interface is (IMO) the best. It (also), like LR/CR, has a (non-RGB) Tone-curve tool that has "parametric" controls.

Now, here's a vicious rub (for you and me both). I want to use the excellent Color NR in LR 3.x following RT 4.x processing - but (so far, for every single release of RT 3.x and 4.x) ... Lightroom absolutely refuses to recognize and open any (at least 16-bit, what I want to use) TIF file exported from RAW Therapee. (I may be wrong, but), I am of the opinion that Adobe (in all their monopolistic greed) have intentionally "locked out" files that it sees have been generated by RAW Therapee. Talk about cruel. (I think) that (the free) RAW Therapee threatens Adobe's business !!

DM ...

 

[tgutgu]

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?

micksh6 wrote:

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.

Further enhancements, like recovering shadows, removing noise and applying special effects - this is our job. But basics should come out of the camera.

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

 

[Louis_Dobson]

We are currently taking the house apart trying to find my LR3 book, which someone has "tidied away" or eaten.

Is the gradient tool the same as in PhotoShop?

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?

micksh6 wrote:

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.

Further enhancements, like recovering shadows, removing noise and applying special effects - this is our job. But basics should come out of the camera.

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

 

[Detail Man]

Louis_Dobson wrote:

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?

tgutgu wrote:

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.

Interesting (and completely valid) that different people may well have different outlooks on that. It certainly is a personal judgment, understandably different (no set absolutes in that sense).

With the defaults shadows are too much blocked - and it is hard to get rid of it

It is true that DxO will clip the shadows more readily - and it can be hard to try to overcome in lower-exposure images (as it may impose a fairly high Black Point even when the "Black-Point" user-control is set to Zero). I agree that LR/CR seems less prone to that (yet still has the capacity to increase the "Black Point"). DxO can also have a fairly high color-saturation level - I almost always use the Color Rendering control-slider to reduce the application of the JPG "factory-default" RGB tone-curves to less than 100% (between 100% and around 80%).

... - and details are generally smeared. The output looks often plasticky.

This is indeed a characteristic look when the automatically set NR levels are used. Agreed. I always attempt to reduce the DxO automatic presets of the Chrominance and Luminance NR control settings - which usually works out for moderate levels of image-noise. However, particularly when there exists a lot of color-noise in an image, DxO NR will overdo it (and look "plasticky") - and I do in those cases export a 16-bit TIF to LR after DxO processing to perform NR (prior to re-sampling, and prior to mild USM to follow).

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.

Well, maybe if one can count on printing as a noise-reduction filtering system ... My eyes can see the "gritty artifacts" at a 50% view on a 24" 1200 pixel-height monitor (.27mm pixel-pitch) LCD monitor - even with fairly moderate settings of the LR/CR Sharpening tool "Detail" control-slider. 100% view nears the intolerable (for me), whereas the use of DxO "Lens Softness" (which also integrates deconvolution-deblurring in it's own processes) to my eyes results in better appearance at 50% and 100% views. Different people may well have different perceptions of the same thing.

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.

 

[papillon_65]

We are currently taking the house apart trying to find my LR3 book, which someone has "tidied away" or eaten.

Is the gradient tool the same as in PhotoShop?

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?

micksh6 wrote:

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.

Further enhancements, like recovering shadows, removing noise and applying special effects - this is our job. But basics should come out of the camera.

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/

 

[Sigurdur Stefan Jonsson]

I haven't used Lightroom for a long time but I use ACR which is basically the same software as far as color handling is concerned.

I recommend using the free Adobe DNG Profile Editor software to create your own camera profile. It's easy. You just need the standard Color Checker Chart to photograph. Once you've created your own custom tailored profile you can change the color recepie to your heart's content and export custom profiles with names like say "GH2 standard", "GH2 warm skin tones", "GH2 Saturation boost", "GH2 my fave", etc.

These will all be accessible from within both Lightroom and ACR.
--
Ziggie

 

[tinternaut]

Every raw package has a default look it gives to images (usually on a camera by camera basis) and every user either likes or not the default. Of those who don't, you can further subdivide them into those who have the inclination to do something about it and those who do not.

I fall into the latter, but fortunately found a raw developer that gives me default look I like (i.e. a good starting point for me). Fortunately, those who do have the inclination to do something about it often produce presets which they give away (as you've seen above - gotta love the internet ).

Incidentally, Olympus Studio has been replaced by the free Olympus Viewer which does everything Studio did sans the tethering.

--
Regards
J

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasonhindleuk
Blog: http://jasonhindle.wordpress.com



Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle

Gear in profile

 

[rare wolf]

... if LR is taking the camera settings, it is making a right mess of them).

...
Oh well. I've got an LR3 book, but someone seems to have eaten it...

... which might explain your problems ...... I too haven't had any problems with Lr with my Olympus, and I do suppose I need wait to apply Lr's standard profile to my new G3, ... but in any case, understanding color management, and how your system works with your camera does require RFM knowledge.

--
cheerios from the Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland
http://www.michael.shaffer.net/albums.html

 

[exdeejjjaaaa]

Well, maybe if one can count on printing as a noise-reduction filtering system ... My eyes can see the "gritty artifacts" at a 50% view on a 24" 1200 pixel-height monitor (.27mm pixel-pitch) LCD monitor - even with fairly moderate settings of the LR/CR Sharpening tool "Detail" control-slider.

@ 50% ??? may be you can post an unresized screenshot of your LR/ACR window w/ sharpening settings visible... what is moderate for you something like 100/3/100 ? or is it a raw file from LX3 @ ISO400 and underxposed ?

 

[rare wolf]

...
Getting natural, attractive colors out of camera should not be our job.

I'd agree ... but only if you're perfectly happy with OOC JPEGs ... and have absolutely no inclination to be creative! Developing a craft does require some work, and all the excuses I've seen in this thread only imply some of you are being lazy about understanding color management. It's as if there are 2 types of photographers, "Brownies + your local drug store" (small gamut sRGB & OOC JPEGs)) and "darkroom enthusiasts, who don't mind stinking" (larger gamut color spaces, CM & Lr profiling for raw development)

I too would recommend Martin Evening's book ... and even possibly Bruce Fraser's "Real World CM for Ps" or "Real World ACR". Pardon me for being flippant, but no one is going into depth of CM or Lr development here ... you're going to have to spend some time and/or $$ on researching and learning the topic.
--
cheerios from the Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland
http://www.michael.shaffer.net/albums.html