Phase One and LR

[Guy Mancuso]

I just wanted to show you folks how bad LR really is with the Phase files. Adobe is not even reasonable close with there files. We all seen this image in C1 but LR is a complete disaster. First the image is coming in at 2650 Kelvin temp with a MINUS 71 tint and underexposed by a stop. Now I know different programs have different color temps but this is so far off it is completely unusable. This is how it came in. Now frankly my friends if I had to process like this everyday this far off i would rather deliver newspapers instead. Obviously there is absolutely no support for Phase with Adobe. At least from my seat this is not supporting there files . This sucks to put it bluntly. Now this clearly is not a Phase issue let me say that right up front because C1 is almost right on the money with these files. Small tweaks and your home this is like the caveman days.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Just for the record C1 is about 5200 Kelvin and plus 2 color temp , give or take a little. That would be normal for this time in the morning around 8:30 am

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Okay just to get even reasonable close . i WB off the webbing underneath the gurney . Came up with 3000 kelvin and minus 68 color tint and ONE full stop of exposure to get reasonable close. Plus i used -5 saturation. Now i won't even try to fine tune this to get it perfect waste of time because this program will never see my Phase files again until Adobe does something here. Now am i being hard on Adobe , well yes i am . If they want to be a player in raw processing than they need to support everything they can in all the camera and backs. Now i do love Adobe so don't get me wrong but this is unusable program for me and my Phase back.

Let me add something as a photographer for many years we are taught kelvin temp. With film and with digital and these numbers mean something to us and WB or being at a neutral state . We all know tungsten is 3200 and daylight is 5500 kelvin. So if you are shooting daylight that 3000 kelvin just throws all that you learned into the trash. Sorry this is just not right for us shooters. Okay bitch moment off but hopefully you see my point. Yes i had 2 espresso's already. LOL

 

[Guy Mancuso]

What is really bad is the 1 stop off or more coming in. So when folks are running tests using ACR and Phase files than those tests are off right out of the gate.

 

[stephengilbert]

Guy,

What color were the belts holding the patient? The color here reminds me of the colors we were seeing when the M8 first came out.

Steve

 

[Dale Allyn]

Guy, your observations and thoughts are consistent with mine.

I don't have time right now, but I think that it would be good to profile the backs and load the profile when using ACR. I don't use LR, so I'm not sure how the app. handles them, but I think there's a mechanism to use a custom profile like in ACR 4.x.

I think it was Stuart (sorry if I'm not remembering and crediting the wrong person) who said that he used this script for profiling his back: http://21stcenturyshoebox.com/tools/ACRcalibrator.html

 

[BJNY]

At least use the Lightroom file to layer mask back some detail in the blown out white sleeve and arm.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Guy,

What color were the belts holding the patient? The color here reminds me of the colors we were seeing when the M8 first came out.

Steve

I think they are burgundy if I remember correctly.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

At least use the Lightroom file to layer mask back some detail in the blown out white sleeve and arm.

Well I could just use some recovery to save it also . This was just straight conversion just to show how far off it really is. This program is just not tuned to the Phase files and Adobe needs to support it better . I'm not going to try and make it better just to far off for me to work with this program when C1 does a much better job at it. The only real major difference is the library for me which I did not use much anyway.

 

[BJNY]

OR
a simple curve to the Lightroom file yields arm and sleeve not so blown out:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Exactly Billy but still needs a lot of color adjustment which who wants to work that hard at it. LOL

I'm lazy . LOL

But I do hope we will see more support from Adobe on this. For a lot of folks LR is there standard processor and with other camera's. Lot's of folks with Canons, Nikons and leica's etc like to use one program to do it all. For Phase owners this needs some help

 

[BJNY]

Well I could just use some recovery to save it also . This was just straight conversion just to show how far off it really is. This program is just not tuned to the Phase files and Adobe needs to support it better . I'm not going to try and make it better just to far off for me to work with this program when C1 does a much better job at it.

Yes, of course you have to fiddle with all the controls.
I don't expect the default settings of any raw converter to give the ideal results.
When I use C1, practically every slider and each channel of the curves is tweaked.

 

[LJL]

Ah, but there is a bit of difference between slightly tweaking the sliders for adjustment, and having to do significantly more work just to get to a more "normal" looking image, or one that was actually captured by the camera/back. With a RAW file, one can pretty much do almost anything to get things where they want. In the case of ACR/LR, as I have commented on many times, and as Guy is pointing out, the default conversion for some (many?) files is not all that good. The yellows and reds are usually oversaturated, and off tone. That may be adjusted back, but not without a fair amount of work. In other words, ACR/LR tend to introduce things in the conversion that require more work just to get things closer to what one thinks they have captured. I find this to be true for Leica and Canon 1DsMkII files. The Canon 1DMkII files are not as bad, but there are always some odd artifacts, and the yellows and reds are still not right. Not as objectionable as some other files, but still not quite correct without a lot of tweaking. While RAW Developer, Aperture, C1, DPP and other apps get things a lot closer right from the start, and usually only require very minor adjustments.

Perhaps creating specific camera profiles for ACR/LR will help, but the default is not pretty. Makes everything tend to look like overdone postcards or something. Some may like that, but it does make other things look ugly, especially where contrast and saturation may be high to start, as in Guy's shots.

Not bashing here. As a RAW converter that is so widely used, it really should have better conversions than it offers. If others can get there, not sure why Adobe has such a hard time with so many files.

LJ

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Thanks LJ and yes that was sort of my point . Sure you can get the file to look great but the big shifts in adjustments is not easy to do and for folks that may not have great raw processing know how, this could be a very tough task. No convertor will be spot on and there will always adjustments to be made. What you want is to make as little as needed. Otherwise you are just fighting a tough battle. I think for Phase folks that want to use LR than start thinking or making some presets so when you import it makes some of the big adjustments for you . One right off the bat is plus 1 stop. Hopefully when threads like his come up than it get's noticed and folks at Adobe can get some better defaults going. This is not to bash Adobe far from it but more intended to say hey folks can you get us something to start with out of the gate that is more user friendly. Push Push and Push harder to get support is always a good thing in the whole industry for us end users, this is just one example.

 

[Jack]

After using both LR and C1 on my Phase files, I can concur there is no contest -- by comparison to C1, LR/ACR sucks on Phase files for color, gamma and exposure. Yes you can "get there" with LR/ACR, but it requires significantly more effort and even the best result is clearly inferior to a quickly-processed C1 conversion. FTR, I have been a huge LR/ACR user with all my previous cameras including the M8 which I knew also generated slightly better files from C1. So to be really clear, my comments here are not a bash on LR/ACR, just a note that for Phase files, C1 is the clear leader.

My .02,

 

[BradleyGibson]

Yes you can "get there" with LR/ACR, but it requires significantly more effort and even the best result is clearly inferior to a quickly-processed C1 conversion.

Can't say I'm with you on this one 100%, Jack. Significantly more effort? Yes. Even the best result clearly inferior to... a C1 conversion? Not in my experience.

I do not deny that the ACR/LR default rendering is very poor, and requires extra work and time to get it right. I can understand anyone not wishing to spend the time to do this, when C1 can get you there just about right away.

But with just a few exceptions, if I spend the time in ACR/LR, I can develop the same image in ACR/LR and C1 and cannot tell which did which afterward.

So why do I even bother with ACR/LR if the C1 capture gives a great result out of the box?

ACR/LR integrates into Adobe's non-destructive workflow. This means that I can process my images from start to finish without ever touching the pixels. Improvements in demosaicing technology will show in images I've already processed in the past. A non-destructive workflow allows me to take a look and feel, or even aspects of a look and feel from one image and apply it to others, to create a thematically consistent project, for example.

Those advantages (as well as others) are worth something to me, and it's why I put up with the hassle of having to dial in the color (and details) with ACR/LR. I thought it was worth pointing out to folks that you almost always "can get there from here" (in terms of rivalling C1 quality) when using ACR/LR for assuming you can afford/want to put in the extra time and effort.

-Brad

 

[Jack]

So why do I even bother with ACR/LR if the C1 capture gives a great result out of the box?

ACR/LR integrates into Adobe's non-destructive workflow. This means that I can process my images from start to finish without ever touching the pixels.

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.

What many folks don't like is C1 puts the sidecar files in a C1 folder inside the same directory where the raw image was processed from, regardless of where it is. This is why LR demands you import files to your library (even if you leave them in another location) before you process them, so it can keep the sidecar files all in one place. Personally, I *hated* having to import in LR (and dedicating a special drive to that frigging library :angry, but have no issues with C1 folders inside my image directories. But that's me and I respect other folks preferences vary :toocool:

Cheers,

 

[Guy Mancuso]

You can delete those folders also , so if you bring them back in the adjustments are not there and back to pure raw. I think there are other ways to do this also and need to ask Doug

 

[BJNY]

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.

 

[Panopeeper]

I just wanted to show you folks how bad LR really is with the Phase files. Adobe is not even reasonable close with there files. We all seen this image in C1 but LR is a complete disaster

ACR sucks with cameras, which are sold in the tens and hundreds of thousands. I guess the MFDBs are supported only so that they can claim to support all modern cameras.

Particularly the color is an issue. The person calibrating ACR for the cameras must have a strange taste.

First the image is coming in at 2650 Kelvin temp with a MINUS 71 tint

Totally irrelevant.

and underexposed by a stop

This shot is at ISO 200; ACR somehow regards this one as the "base" (for the P25+), i.e. it does not get adjusted automatically. Were it ISO 100, ACR woud adjust the intensity by *minus one EV*.

This is a particularly strange issue with ACR: Adobe decided to "unify" the ISOs among all cameras. Thus, many raw images get plus or minus adjustments (which are not shown on the exposure slider!), in order to "rectify" their ISO characteristics. Olus, methink one Phase One camera has been looked at for years ago by Adobe and all further models are treated based on that result.

Now, to the image in question: here is the exposure.

This is 2/3 EV lower than the right edge. "Logically" it is overexposed, because ISO 200 is meant to be increased by 1 EV in raw processing, but ACR does that with ISO 400.

Btw, the sleeve is not blown, as is nothing else. Here is a capture showing the sleeve, only to demonstrate, that every detail has been captured:

When understanding some of ACR's tricks, the image can be processed quite well, except for the colors:

Screen capture from ACR

I picked WB on the white sleeve of the lady.