Phase One and LR

[BradleyGibson]

Neither does C1, the raw remains the raw with a sidecar file for the adjustments, just like LR/ACR. What it puts out is a full new image file though, if that's what you mean, but the raw remains untouched.

Yes, this is true assuming you don't need any tools beyond what C1 offers. But if you have need for further local retouches, more sophisticated noise reduction, composite blending, etc., you'll likely need to go to Photoshop, which is where the C1 workflow breaks down for me--it forces a destructive develop (.tiff) or you'll have to re-develop in ACR (discarding all your hard work in C1).

Like in everything else, I agree with you that every tool has its use. I only spoke up to weigh in on the notion that an ACR/LR conversion is always inferior to a C1 conversion.

Best regards,
Brad

 

[Jack]

Yes, this is true assuming you don't need any tools beyond what C1 offers. But if you have need for further local retouches, more sophisticated noise reduction, composite blending, etc., you'll likely need to go to Photoshop, which is where the C1 workflow breaks down for me--it forces a destructive develop (.tiff) or you'll have to re-develop in ACR (discarding all your hard work in C1).

Bradley, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if I process a raw in C1 and output it to say a 16-bit .tiff for work in CS, how is anything I do to that .tiff destructive to the original raw? Moreover, I use a layered workflow in CS to avoid destructive edits there. In fact, this is a large part of what we teach on the workshops...

Granted, there are still a few things in CS that we might need to do that will require direct alteration of the .tiff pixels, so this would be considered destructive to the .tiff. But all that occurs inside CS and the raw remains un-touched -- it's still a raw with just a sidecar file showing a set of adjustments. Also, if we take the same file and output it from LR or ACR, it would likely require a similar destructive edit in CS to get to the same point, so we're back to it being caused by a limitation of CS, not something caused by either (or any) raw converter.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

This would also be the case for Aperture. All of the Raw processors that i know of are non destructive to the original raw. After the raw processor it becomes a PS issue for further adjustments or manipulation. I am pretty sure leaf Capture and the Sinar programs work in the same fashion. Maybe I am misunderstanding this also.

 

[BradleyGibson]

Ah, I think I see the misunderstanding...

Demosaicing to a tiff is the destructive operation. (By destructive, I don't mean that you're damaging the original file, I mean that the data you are now working with has been permanently altered, and often even clipped.)

Specifically, once you've developed to a .tiff, you have forever locked the image to today's demosaicing algorithm as well as clipped any highlights beyond whatever is 'white' in your developed tiff. Further tonal adjustments in PS may require discarding the current file, returning to C1 and re-developing for optimal quality.

If you haven't tried it already, try holding down the alt key in Adobe Camera Raw. One of the options at the bottom of the screen should read "Open Object". This will develop as a Photoshop Smart Object, and you can double-click this layer to go back and forth into the raw domain, even after you've applied edits on other layers.

For many folks, granted, this wouldn't be enough of a benefit to switch raw converters, but for some, it's compelling enough to wade through the hassle of optimizing a develop in ACR/LR.

Best regards,
-Brad

Bradley, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if I process a raw in C1 and output it to say a 16-bit .tiff for work in CS, how is anything I do to that .tiff destructive to the original raw? Moreover, I use a layered workflow in CS to avoid destructive edits there. In fact, this is a large part of what we teach on the workshops...

Granted, there are still a few things in CS that we might need to do that will require direct alteration of the .tiff pixels, so this would be considered destructive to the .tiff. But all that occurs inside CS and the raw remains un-touched -- it's still a raw with just a sidecar file showing a set of adjustments. Also, if we take the same file and output it from LR or ACR, it would likely require a similar destructive edit in CS to get to the same point, so we're back to it being caused by a limitation of CS, not something caused by either (or any) raw converter.

 

[thsinar]

Exactly, Billy.

No RAW processor will have the right settings (default) when throwing files in. Create your own settings, with the type of files you have, save them and use them as default thereafter. In other words, LR/ACR can produce identical images without having more work or correction to do.

Simply create the correct starting point (pre-set) and use it as a default.

Thierry

This is what my esteemed colleague James Russell says about Lightroom:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25646&st=0&p=198555&#entry198555

The P30 and all the phase process fine in lightroom, though you will have to make your own presets for color as adobe reads the files differently than the manufactuers software and that holds true for all camera makes, including the dslrs, not just a phase file.

We shot last week tethered to 3.78 and ran a hot folder to lightroom with specific presets for each session and though the previews come up slower, it gave the AD a much closer look as to where the final photograpph will go in post, as lightroom has the most control of any raw conversion program I've used.



James also uses Iridient's Raw Developer for the 50% of his hero files:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26016&st=20&p=202318&#entry202318

I process at least half my single files to finish in Brian's Raw Developer because it just has the best look for every camera I use.
It's a little clunky, not that great for batching but for a single file, man it's the digital answer to make your own beautiful film.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Guy's my point being is it is so far off as a default to start with that it needs attention from Adobe. I said the same thing in post 14 about creating presets for it. But the issue here is it is not even in the same ball park and it should not be like that. This is NOT a couple points either way this is major major adjustments to get something even close.

Theirry if a Sinar back was this far off in any program you would be screaming about it. This needs Adobes support and attention. Now I love James but he has a whole team to solve some of these kinds of issues. Please i am not the village idiot here and know my way around the block remember i actually teach this stuff, this is a Adobe issue not a user issue. Nothing should be this far off the mark with software.

 

[Mammy645]

Guy, there is an easy fix to your problem. Save the file as DNG in C1 4.1, open in LR and voilà, no difference in exposure. And if you calibrate your back in both programs the color will be close to identical. Enjoy :thumbup:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Actually rather not even bother with LR besides everything else it has way to much red in the images and this has been a ongoing issue with the M8, D300, ZD and Phase images. Also adds contrast to everyone of these camera's more so than C1. Not that i am a C1 freak at all but LR is a little easier workflow wise to get a lot of files done fast. Also why bother with two raw converters . If I have to open it in C1 just process there to save time

 

[Mammy645]

Actually rather not even bother with LR besides everything else it has way to much red in the images and this has been a ongoing issue with the M8, D300, ZD and Phase images. Also adds contrast to everyone of these camera's more so than C1. Not that i am a C1 freak at all but LR is a little easier workflow wise to get a lot of files done fast. Also why bother with two raw converters . If I have to open it in C1 just process there to save time

First of all, the calibration fixes the color problems you are referring to (C1 needs calibration too, mine was way off on the greens and blues) Second, I use LR because it has certain unique features C1 doesn't have (like the clarity slider), and overall manipulation is much more effective and easy in LR. But I guess if you don't do much post on your photos C1 will do the trick for you.

 

[David K]

James also uses Iridient's Raw Developer for the 50% of his hero files:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26016&st=20&p=202318&#entry202318

I process at least half my single files to finish in Brian's Raw Developer because it just has the best look for every camera I use.
It's a little clunky, not that great for batching but for a single file, man it's the digital answer to make your own beautiful film.

Billy,
Not sure I have anything that qualifies as a hero file but I've been a big fan of RAW Developer for years. Just discovered that it handles the DNG's from Sinar which is nice if you have the time and inclination to work with multiple programs.

 

[Jack]

Ah, I think I see the misunderstanding...

Demosaicing to a tiff is the destructive operation. (By destructive, I don't mean that you're damaging the original file, I mean that the data you are now working with has been permanently altered, and often even clipped.)

Ah, I understand your meaning now, and we differ in our workflow strategy... I agree that by your definition, demosaicing is -- or at least can be -- destructive. BUT if done PROPERLY it won't necessarily clip or lose anything. (It can even gain, but that would be considered destructive by many too )

Several different approaches, and again, this is something we cover at length on our raw processing and CS workshops. Usually one plans on either outputting as close to perfect file from the raw converter as possible, or making a conscious decision to optimize said file with the goal of later processing in CS. If your goal is the first, then you may (or may not) process even to include minor clips in shadows and highlights to get the file's appearance to your liking and be done. If the latter is your goal, then you definitely want to process the raw so nothing gets lost during the demosaicing, giving you the maximum file data to work with in CS.

I often use smart objects inside CS for certain adjustments, but do not feel there is great need (for my workflow) to treat a raw conversion as one. In the worst case, if I screw it up in CS post I can start over, and in using workflow option 2 above I have not had to do that for a long time -- probably since after CS2 was released...

Finally, what is most important to me is the technical quality of the finished product, and speaking only for my Phase files C1 does a FAR superior job on conversion than LR/ACR from a technical standpoint. To be really clear, I am not suggesting C1 is the best raw converter for everybody and every camera, and I am not suggesting it is perfect (it isn't), I'm only stating that it does a superior job with my Phase files.

Cheers,

 

[Jamie Roberts]

It's worth acknowledging that from what I've heard in the industry, Adobe is changing the colour model in the next version of Lightroom, which pretty much acknowledges that even with "calibration" there are issues (easy to see, btw, try getting rid of IR artifacts from an M8 in LR. Good luck!).

Anyway, according to folks who work with Adobe, they are using a form of profiling next time out--not ICC profiling, they still think those are rendering-limited--but profiles nonetheless. Beyond that their NDA kicked in and they couldn't say any more.

So Adobe is working on this, and while they would never come out and say "we have colour problems" it's pretty obvious they need to make some out-of-the-box (and customized) improvements.

 

[BJNY]

Billy,
Not sure I have anything that qualifies as a hero file but I've been a big fan of RAW Developer for years. Just discovered that it handles the DNG's from Sinar which is nice if you have the time and inclination to work with multiple programs.

I know several MFDB owners (all different brands) who swear by Raw Developer.
Amazing what Brian achieves by his lonesome.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I need to download it again. I used it with my M8's for awhile there and it did a really nice job. Also did a nice job with B&W which was a lot of fun playing around with his controls for different effects. I agree he does do a great job by his lonesome

 

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped} Usually one plans on either outputting as close to perfect file from the raw converter as possible, or making a conscious decision to optimize said file with the goal of later processing in CS. If your goal is the first, then you may (or may not) process even to include minor clips in shadows and highlights to get the file's appearance to your liking and be done. If the latter is your goal, then you definitely want to process the raw so nothing gets lost during the demosaicing, giving you the maximum file data to work with in CS.
{snipped}

Completely agreed Jack. I'd even go so far as to say to get a great print, by definition you are losing (or radically changing) RAW data.

Even applying gamma 'changes' the RAW file output (non-destructively to the RAW file, of course) but you couldn't see anything if that didn't happen. Personally, I've never seen a case where demosaicing "differences" from the same raw converter would make any difference to a final print, so I don't see the need for a smart object here (and ACR's currently odd colour doesn't help). It *is* true that basic RAW development gets better over time, though, and that different programs are better than others in different ways, so archiving the RAW is essential.

But beyond simple processing, you are always "losing information" to make a better print, in some ways. Setting a black point, for example, or a white point, for a print necessitates making decisions that have started with the RAW process. Are you "losing" data? Well, you're certainly shoving it around a lot, but that's a choice you make given the (relatively) limited DR of your (printed) output.

So my own workflow is to create a TIFF that's a "perfect neg" from the RAW converter; lower contrast with conservative WP and BP (so no visually significant clipping at all), wb and basic CC and to check on overall midtone density.

Then it's into PS for skin tones, print oriented contrast and colour output, no way to avoid that yet in my work. But the better the RAW converter is the less manual work I need to do in PS.

Right now, LR/ACR doesn't get me as far as C1 does.

 

[Jack]

Jamie, ditto everything you just said. I can only add emphasis to a few of your points as I think they are significant:

1) If you are outputting for print, then for the best result it is almost essential to output an image for final processing in CS (or other fully color-managed image editor that allows for local adjustments).

2) That my "perfect neg" for later processing in CS would almost never look right for anybody's definition of a final, generally being visually "flat" too, containing no full black and no fully-blown white.

3) That raw converters do keep improving, so keeping the base raw file in-tact should be an essential component of everybody's workflow.

Cheers,

 

[BradleyGibson]

Yes, Jack, that makes more sense now.

There are many ways to solve the same problem, and a 'flat' intermediate TIFF is a great way to go as well.

I was unable to find a difference in final quality between C1 and recent versions of LR/C1 files when developing my Phase files, but we're definitely on the same page in that C1 makes it much easier to get great results.

Take care,
Brad

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The thing that is interesting is Adobe is regarded as the gold standard or more the universal application for photographers. Let's face it we all have it, so we normally look to it first. Just a little disappointed it is so far off but glad to hear Jamie speak of them working on it and at the end of the day I think that is all we all ever want is for companies to make things better for us the end user and frankly I personally drive these companies nuts . I think being the one of the first to have a M8 i drove leica absolutely nuts to get things working correctly. Not sure they love me or hate me but i busted my butt to get things better. In the end hopefully when folks get involved with trying to make things better it actually does something positive.

 

[irakly]

guy, are you talking about some specific phase back?
i have no problem with lightroom whatsoever. after comparing results from lightroom and c1 i just erased c1 from my computer.

 

[Jack]

Irakly, try this: Take a shot with your P25 in a very high contrast situation with lots of specular highlights like sun reflecting off a wet street or a car lot with sun reflecting off shiny new cars. LR/ACR will usually show some purple fringing around speculars along with sometimes weird patterns in brighter, non-blown areas. C1 4.1 OTOH, will show almost no purple fringing or odd patterns on the same image, and then what little purple fringing that does show can be totally eliminated with the "purple fringe" tool (C1 ver 4.1 only)...

Guy and I noticed this issue with the P25, P30+ and P45+ backs we tested in Puerto Rico and Guy has since noted the purple fringe issue on specular highlights with his P25+ back using LR/ACR where C1 4.1 doesn't show it at all.

Cheers,