Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Independent raw developers and Lightroom..New

  1. #1
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Independent raw developers and Lightroom..New

    See this link for DxO s approach to an integrated workflow with LR.

    http://www.dxo.com/uk/photo/dxo_opti...obe_lightroom2


    Some ground rules to keep this on point (should anybody care to)....

    1. its a given that some of us believe that using C1,NX2,DxO or other raw developers may in some or all instances provide superior conversions to what can be obtained in LR.(This may not be supportable but thats not relevant).

    2. LR provides a decent tool set for DAM and is likely to get better overtime(not better but a good alternative for most on this forum...your situation maybe different ).

    So with those two givens ....I think DxO has done a great job of laying out the thee basic approaches to the workflow.

    A few things to consider:

    1. Raw conversions are done on raw formats only. If its raw the convertor will convert it....if its a TIFF its been converted and the process is baked into the file.

    2. No matter which way you do this you will have a raw file and a TIFF for every file that goes thru the external(read not LR) editor.


    3. Thinking through the DAM considerations is as important as getting the conversion optimized. What happens to the selection flags,ratings,key wording and meta data needs to be considerated.


    If LR will not convert you raw file ....you have one option....you have to convert and send a TIFF to LR. You can do as much or as little in the other Raw Processor as you like. (there is some discussion about whether you can use the raw convertor to create a .DNG which then makes the raw file standard enough for LR to process....this appears to make the most sense if you believe that LR will eventually be able to handle your raw format. I am ignoring this alternative ...as I want the proprietary conversions).


    Beware that in LR there are several places to export a file .

    1. In the Library module you can output your selected files and specify original and you will get just the original file (and in some instances a sidecar with metadata).

    2. In the Develop module you can specify an external editor and pass a converted file and then reimport the result.

    DxO has added some functionality to support all three alternatives. For example LR could export a TIFF and DxO would use the TIFF to go back and get the raw file.

    I have gotten quite a lot out of looking into this because it really gets at the heart of what happens when you marry an independent product (like the NIK software) with LR. To change the image ..you have to store the conversion someplace. It looks like the conversion has to be either "baked in " (as in create a TIFF) or it has to end up in the .lrcat .

    I apologize to all that have contributed great insights and debate over workflow. There are good arguments to be made . Using an integrated workflow has great benefits ..but you change to match the workflow..on the other hand you can get into big problems overtime trying to manage a set of independent products.

    Roger

  2. #2
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Independent raw developers and Lightroom..New

    I will avoid any direct product comments in this thread, but I think we live in a time where a dedicated workflow isn't likely to get solidified any time soon --- IOW with the changes and improvements to tools, our workflow processes will likely remain somewhat fluid for a while...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  3. #3
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Independent raw developers and Lightroom..New

    Thanks for the interesting link.

    However, there is no support for Olympus DSLRs that I could find. Is there any special reason for this?
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Independent raw developers and Lightroom..New

    HI Roger
    Interesting stuff - I guess option 2 is the best way. It effectively makes it the same as a plugin like the Nik options

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    If LR will not convert you raw file ....you have one option....you have to convert and send a TIFF to LR. You can do as much or as little in the other Raw Processor as you like. (there is some discussion about whether you can use the raw convertor to create a .DNG which then makes the raw file standard enough for LR to process....this appears to make the most sense if you believe that LR will eventually be able to handle your raw format. I am ignoring this alternative ...as I want the proprietary conversions).
    I rather like this option - As long as you are creating an 'embedded' .DNG file, which has the original RAW file embedded in it. (I don't think it's a good idea with linear RAW files like those converted using the Adobe DNG converter from the Panasonic LX3 and other cameras with lens information - because the demosaicing is already done).

    I've used it quite a bit with Aperture - When (if) they actually support the camera, you can decide whether to use the DNG 2 profile or the camera profile for older DNG files. I've found no discernible difference in DNG files using the camera profile from the original RAW (as stated, with the exception of linear files).

    I'm not sure how useful it is with Lightroom, as, of course, anything which will convert to DNG using the Adobe DNG converter will also convert in Lightroom. But I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.

    I promise I will be very good and not get into dam/not dam discussions on this thread

    Just this guy you know

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Independent raw developers and Lightroom..New

    The current DxO product supports the Nikon D3 and D3X with many Nikon lenses but no support for the Zeiss lenses made for these bodies. Sad but true. As such the DxO product is no help for me.

    I recently tried the trial version and it thought shots taken with the 70-300 were shot with the 24-70!

    Just my experiences

    Woody

  6. #6
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Independent raw developers and Lightroom..New

    Jack

    I agree with you we are in a state of transition. I went thru this with business software like SAP and Oracle . The major players generally tend to keep trying to wipe out the smaller niche providers either by competing or just buying them (like adobe did with raw developer ). What is a little different is that the hardware guys are using proprietary software to deliver a better final product. This isn t new but they seem to be taking it to a new level. Last year I would have predicted that LR and Aperture would hold 90% of the market and we would be discussing the Nik plug ins or the custom calibrations possible. Now I think you have to assume one or more proprietary raw developers and an attention to DAM.

    I am not endorsing DxO in any way..just pointing out that they summed up the alternatives well. They get it that increasingly their market will include LR and Aperture users. They have outlined the options and pointed out whats required.

    Plus for most of us this isn t "mission critical stuff" trying out some new software is enjoyed by some. Although the cost,time and overall commitment is pretty darn high to achieve the best results.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    I will avoid any direct product comments in this thread, but I think we live in a time where a dedicated workflow isn't likely to get solidified any time soon --- IOW with the changes and improvements to tools, our workflow processes will likely remain somewhat fluid for a while...

  7. #7
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Independent raw developers and Lightroom..New

    Jono I wasn t referring to you ? I just thought that the DxO IT guys had done a pretty good job of thinking how they could work with a tightly integrated product. You could replace DxO with C1 and Lr with Aperture and probably have the same generic alternatives. The DxO guys are smart in that they are taking it a step further by automating some of the functions.

    What was enlightening to me was ....thinking thru how a non destructive tool set has to work. I would really love to get every bit of the conversion into the LR .ircat (thats the catalog of instructions) ...with no intermediate derivative files . But that would only happen if Adobe or Apple supported an open architecture.

    So any software outside the Lr suite is going to alter (destructive) editing the file in the final workflow.

    I need to do more work on the DNG format this looks to be an improvement over passing TIFFs . But its still ..the original Raw file and the processed output that have to be saved.

    Roger

    Sorry if I ve lost most people with my ramblings ...this is what the next generation of DAM books should address.


    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI Roger
    Interesting stuff - I guess option 2 is the best way. It effectively makes it the same as a plugin like the Nik options



    I rather like this option - As long as you are creating an 'embedded' .DNG file, which has the original RAW file embedded in it. (I don't think it's a good idea with linear RAW files like those converted using the Adobe DNG converter from the Panasonic LX3 and other cameras with lens information - because the demosaicing is already done).

    I've used it quite a bit with Aperture - When (if) they actually support the camera, you can decide whether to use the DNG 2 profile or the camera profile for older DNG files. I've found no discernible difference in DNG files using the camera profile from the original RAW (as stated, with the exception of linear files).

    I'm not sure how useful it is with Lightroom, as, of course, anything which will convert to DNG using the Adobe DNG converter will also convert in Lightroom. But I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.

    I promise I will be very good and not get into dam/not dam discussions on this thread

  8. #8
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,866
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Independent raw developers and Lightroom..New

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    I will avoid any direct product comments in this thread, but I think we live in a time where a dedicated workflow isn't likely to get solidified any time soon --- IOW with the changes and improvements to tools, our workflow processes will likely remain somewhat fluid for a while...
    Jack,

    I could not say this better!

    I have been through many workflows, starting with C1Pro years ago, then LR, then Aperture 2, then PSCS3 plus Aperture, now back again to C1Pro and PSCS3 which seems to be currently my best workflow.

    As releases change over the future these combinations will change. There is unfortunately nothing like "the one and best workflow". Currently for me it is a combination of C1Pro and PSCS3, but it may change in a few weeks. Important is that you store and archive your photos in a consistent way then the SW using for your workflow is pretty much open.

    At least what is my experience with that field over the past 7 years or so

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    332
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Re: Independent raw developers and Lightroom..New

    IMHO, work flow also changes if you keep updating your hardware. These days, I give about 50% weightage to pp software when purchasing new hardware.

  10. #10
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Independent raw developers and Lightroom..New

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Goh View Post
    IMHO, work flow also changes if you keep updating your hardware. These days, I give about 50% weightage to pp software when purchasing new hardware.
    Excellent point. I "survived" with ACR/LR>CSx until I got my P45+ and saw the light. Now that I am somewhat married to my C1>CS4 workflow, I would certainly prefer any new hardware fitting into that.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Independent raw developers and Lightroom..New

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    Jono I wasn t referring to you ?
    Ah well, if the cap fits
    I was possibly being a little strident in the other thread!
    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post

    So any software outside the Lr suite is going to alter (destructive) editing the file in the final workflow.

    I need to do more work on the DNG format this looks to be an improvement over passing TIFFs . But its still ..the original Raw file and the processed output that have to be saved.

    Roger

    Sorry if I ve lost most people with my ramblings ...this is what the next generation of DAM books should address.
    I quite agree - I really like the idea of only having one file and a set of instructions, but I suspect it ain't going to happen in the near future.

    Just this guy you know

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •