I have determined that RAW files come out better with DPP (vs Lightroom)

[danpass]

The same RAW file in Lightroom has a certain flatness to it while the same file in DPP has 'pop' to it.


I spent about 45min last night creating a "Landscape" preset in LR to give the same effect as the Landscape picture style in DPP and I still only got "very, very, very close".

Now I have to do the other ones :confused: . And that's just to get the pic up to the proper baseline in Lightroom.


The thing is you can see the proper picture, as shot, for a brief moment when you click on it, then LR flattens it, neutralizing it basically (no need to create a preset to duplicate the neutral picture style at least :rolleyes: )

eg: If you shoot a B&W RAW it will show up B&W for just a moment, then BAM, neutral color picture.




.

[hannaxt]

I have determined that RAW files come out better with DPP (vs Lightroom).


I agree entirely. Something I've figured since LR beta even.
DPP is a very under rated application. When in fact only one other RAW converter handles Canon files as good and "possibly" better than DPP is C1 pro.

Other wise DPP is best to convert RAW files and then do you more elaborate tweaks in Photoshop.

[NOsquid]

Personal preference I'm sure...

[Anke]

I agree too, although I just really love the LR workflow and usability. I've recently decided to keep LR as my everyday weapon, I feel I have to stick with it after investing in it, and using DPP for the special images that I may want to print.

[hannaxt]

Personal preference I'm sure...



I think the personal preference is in consideration to ones workflow and usage , but in terms of the "tech" side of channel per channel conversion and quality of the RAW file is factual not preference.

I mean I prefer LR or Aperture or C1 as workflow but under the hood with algorithms for the CR2 files is DPP.

But that only makes sense since Canon ought to know it's files better than any other developer.

[hannaxt]

I agree too, although I just really love the LR workflow and usability. I've recently decided to keep LR as my everyday weapon, I feel I have to stick with it after investing in it, and using DPP for the special images that I may want to print.

And that makes sense.

[Nortelbert]

The thing is you can see the proper picture, as shot, for a brief moment when you click on it, then LR flattens it, neutralizing it basically (no need to create a preset to duplicate the neutral picture style at least :rolleyes: )
.

I believe LR applies a preset default to every picture that comes through... like +50 for brightness, +5 for black, +25 for contrast. It says in the manual about resetting:

• Click the Reset button to revert back to the Lightroom default settings.
• Click the Zero’d preset in the Presets panel to remove all settings completely

So, maybe if you tried the "zero'd" preset, you'd get back to the original picture that you see briefly.

[In2Photos]

I believe LR applies a preset default to every picture that comes through... like +50 for brightness, +5 for black, +25 for contrast. It says in the manual about resetting:

• Click the Reset button to revert back to the Lightroom default settings.
• Click the Zero’d preset in the Presets panel to remove all settings completely

So, maybe if you tried the "zero'd" preset, you'd get back to the original picture that you see briefly.
The original image is the embedded jpeg used for previews on the camera. As soon as Lightroom renders the "actual" image your embedded preview image is no longer used. Since LR can not decode Canon's presets for picture styles you always start with a RAW (how about that) file.

As far as DPP being better than LR I have no clue. I don't use DPP. I get great results using LR though. I have my own preset that gives me the look I like and I start from that.

[cosworth]

I have determined the exact opposite. Two POTN memebrs were watching my screen at the same time and said "Dayum."

DPP will remain dormant on my machine. Maybe I'll post up some examples later.

[In2Photos]

I have determined the exact opposite. Two POTN memebrs were watching my screen at the same time and said "Dayum."

DPP will remain dormant on my machine. Maybe I'll post up some examples later.
Jason, are you using a custom color profile for your camera(s)?

[NOsquid]

Look at that, differing opinions on image quality :)

[cosworth]

When I compared the two programs, no.

But when I use Lightroom or ACR I use a calibration specific to my camera.

When I did my high ISO test I opened images in both DPP and ACR with zero'd settings. the difference was scary. No recipe, zero'd etc. Just plain "opened" in Lightroom and zero'd.

Enough that I tried a couple times to find a wrong setting in the import between the two. Triple checked. Granted I'm not a Lightroom "whiz" (as we saw yesterday with empty fields) but I'm fairly certain I can import a file with no changes applied.

[danpass]

I have determined the exact opposite. Two POTN memebrs were watching my screen at the same time and said "Dayum."

DPP will remain dormant on my machine. Maybe I'll post up some examples later.


Please tell me your process as I would prefer to use Lightroom (I'm a one package deal kinda guy)


If I can get them displayed with absolute zero changes applied that would be great!




.

[danpass]

.............

So, maybe if you tried the "zero'd" preset, you'd get back to the original picture that you see briefly.

I'll try it when I get to my home computer!


.

[Nortelbert]

The original image is the embedded jpeg used for previews on the camera. As soon as Lightroom renders the "actual" image your embedded preview image is no longer used. Since LR can not decode Canon's presets for picture styles you always start with a RAW (how about that) file.
.

Maybe it's the JPEG that's flashed up, but there is a difference between the zero'd preset and the default. I prefer the default myself.

See below... Before is the default, "After" is the zero preset

[tzalman]

... but I'm fairly certain I can import a file with no changes applied.

If I can get them displayed with absolute zero changes applied that would be great!
.

There is no such thing as "no changes". The essence of conversion is change and every converter will do it differently. First there is demosaicing. For every single pixel two out of the three color values are invented by the software. This affects not only color rendition but also smoothness and noise suppression vs. sharpness and detail retention and local contrast. Then there is white balance. Even though the numbers are unambiguously written in the Exif, (and this is an Exif entry that every converter reads) there are differences in the implementation of "as shot" WB, to say nothing of presets. There are differences in WB probe (eyedropper) results also, even if the probe sample covers exactly the same pixels. Then there is the gamma conversion. The exact shape of the curve is critical, affecting overall contrast, black point and shadow detail, white point and highlight clipping as well as the smoothness of highlight tonal transitions on the shoulder of the curve. If it is applied in RGB space, there will be color shifts as well. Finally there is the camera profile that seeks to describe the color capture gamut of the sensor array in order to serve as a basis for conversion to a working color space. All this is the product of thousands of decisions made by the designer, even in determining his defaults or "neutral" settings. The color image does not exist in the RAW file and cannot be "displayed without changes". It is created by the converter from clues provided by the RAW and every converter will understand (or not understand) them differently.

[cdifoto]

Lightroom (happy snappy):

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/2008-01-23-003.jpg

Lightroom:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/2007-01-14-046.jpg

Lightroom:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/2007-01-20-040.jpg

Lightroom:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/2007-11-15-072.jpg

Do they pop? I think so, considering they're ISO1250 and ISO3200 files. If your images don't pop, there's something wrong with you*, not LR.




*Catchall term. Could be your exposure, lighting, choice of lens, failure to calibrate monitor, etc.

[In2Photos]

Maybe it's the JPEG that's flashed up, but there is a difference between the zero'd preset and the default. I prefer the default myself.

See below... Before is the default, "After" is the zero preset
I never said there wasn't a difference between zero and default. You implied that zeroing the numbers would maybe get you back to the embedded jpeg preview which is simply NOT the case.

[cosworth]

There is no such thing as "no changes". The essence of conversion is change and every converter will do it differently. First there is demosaicing.

Well duh they're different. That's the point of the thread bud. I'm saying I applied no changes and made sure no presets were applied.

You read my post right?

[René Damkot]

The same RAW file in Lightroom has a certain flatness to it while the same file in DPP has 'pop' to it.

I spent about 45min last night creating a "Landscape" preset in LR to give the same effect as the Landscape picture style in DPP and I still only got "very, very, very close".

Now I have to do the other ones :confused: . And that's just to get the pic up to the proper baseline in Lightroom.

For one thing: The "Landscape" picture style surely isn't what I'd call a "baseline". It has quite a bit of 'adjusting' away from the default ;)

The thing is you can see the proper picture, as shot, for a brief moment when you click on it, then LR flattens it, neutralizing it basically (no need to create a preset to duplicate the neutral picture style at least :rolleyes: )

eg: If you shoot a B&W RAW it will show up B&W for just a moment, then BAM, neutral color picture..

As said: The initial preview is the built in jpg. With all camera settings (parameters and all) applied.
Then you see the LR 'Default" for your camera. You could try and make a "new default" to get LR as close as possible to what you want.

But when I use Lightroom or ACR I use a calibration specific to my camera.
And that's quite important IMO. If your calibration tab is all zeroes, LR gives about unusable results IMO.

When I did my high ISO test I opened images in both DPP and ACR with zero'd settings. the difference was scary. No recipe, zero'd etc. Just plain "opened" in Lightroom and zero'd.
"All zero" is not the 'base line' for Canon camera's in LR.
At least brightness = 50, contrast = 25 and blacks = 5 is applied by default. Not "0"
So, maybe if you tried the "zero'd" preset, you'd get back to the original picture that you see briefly.
No. You have a better chance with the 'default preset'. But that might only compare with DPP's rendering with 'neutral' picture style. Certainly not with a picture style like 'Landscape' or "black and white' ;)

I use both LR and DPP.
I've tried quite a bit of fiddling with the calibration tab before I found LR was actually *usable* in my circumstances.
I am going to buy a profile for LR shortly, to see if that helps matters further, since there are still some images I cannot get LR to convert in a usable way, while DPP will.

[cosworth]

"All zero" is not the 'base line' for Canon camera's in LR.
At least brightness = 50, contrast = 25 and blacks = 5 is applied by default. Not "0"


I tried both.

Again, I'll make a note to post my examples tonight and maybe some of you will realize DPP isn't that hot. Canon is not a software company.

[In2Photos]

And that's quite important IMO. If your calibration tab is all zeroes, LR gives about unusable results IMO.

I am going to buy a profile for LR shortly, to see if that helps matters further, since there are still some images I cannot get LR to convert in a usable way, while DPP will.
When I got my 40D I decided to pay for a profile and man did it make a difference. I didn't think it would change the image as much as it does. Best $15 I spent this year!

[René Damkot]

Lightroom (happy snappy):

Do they pop? I think so, considering they're ISO1250 and ISO3200 files. If your images don't pop, there's something wrong with you*, not LR.

Sure they 'pop'. IMO it's not about 'pop' or not. I could get these image look about the same with DPP / PS.
The point of this thread (IMO) is, that LR renders images different from DPP, and quite a bit different from DPP with a picture style used.

YMMV, but IMO most picture styles are useless, so I tend not to use them. But like I said, there are some images that I can get out of DPP easily that take quite a bit of work in LR because of the differences in conversion.
Sometimes it's the other way around as well, mainly BC of the added controls in LR (highlight recovery for one). However I still prefer DPPs colors. Then again, it all comes down to a preference thing mostly: I also preferred Fuji over Kodak slide film ;)

[danpass]

When I got my 40D I decided to pay for a profile and man did it make a difference. I didn't think it would change the image as much as it does. Best $15 I spent this year!


Please elaborate.

links?



.

[lennythelens]

I have a Canon 5d. I don't know about the other cameras but Lightroom defaults for this camera are rubbish. the defaults using DPP IMO are excellent. I have spent many hours trying to see if I can get the same output in lightroom as the DPP default, and it is possible. The problem I have found is the way lightroom deals with the raw data colours, especially Red from the 5D, which comes out orange in Lightroom, and also the white balance, which if set for Daylight on the camers produces a cooler temp in Lightroom. Get the colours correct and everything else starts to look good.

I understand the lightroom has to cater for lots of camera's raw data. But what can't is supply a better starting ground, and supply calibration setting suggesting for each camera based on the manufactures settings rather than everyone use ACR's generic catchall. After all you have to pay for lightroom.

I can also get a better starting image 'default' in Picassa then lightroom so I can't see when Adobe can't do better.

[In2Photos]

Please elaborate.

links?



.
I got my profile from here:

http://www.ejphoto.com/acr_order_page.htm
I have a Canon 5d. I don't know about the other cameras but Lightroom defaults for this camera are rubbish. the defaults using DPP IMO are excellent. I have spent many hours trying to see if I can get the same output in lightroom as the DPP default, and it is possible. The problem I have found is the way lightroom deals with the raw data colours, especially Red from the 5D, which comes out orange in Lightroom, and also the white balance, which if set for Daylight on the camers produces a cooler temp in Lightroom. Get the colours correct and everything else starts to look good.

I understand the lightroom has to cater for lots of camera's raw data. But what can't is supply a better starting ground, and supply calibration setting suggesting for each camera based on the manufactures settings rather than everyone use ACR's generic catchall. After all you have to pay for lightroom.

I can also get a better starting image 'default' in Picassa then lightroom so I can't see when Adobe can't do better.
Maybe check out the link I just posted. For $15 a profile for your camera may be the ticket.

[lennythelens]

I got my profile from here:

http://www.ejphoto.com/acr_order_page.htm

Maybe check out the link I just posted. For $15 a profile for your camera may be the ticket.

Thanks. I think a good profile is the way to go, but I think Adobe shoud pay ;-)

[davidcrebelxt]

I tried both.

Again, I'll make a note to post my examples tonight and maybe some of you will realize DPP isn't that hot.

I doubt seriously you'll convince me of that.

From what I hear he and at Adobe's site, some people get good results out-of-box with LR, others don't.

Part of the problem, I think, is the way Adobe profiles the camera bodies (one model taken from early in production).... some seem to do awesome with no calibration tab tweaks... others of the same camera body (later in manufacturing) may shift colors wildly from how Adobe initially profiled. Two people with same exact camera body will get different results.

I don't know how, but apparently Canon's DPP (since they know their sensors better?) can display those same RAW files unadjusted with little difference between the two (Reds stay red, not orange. Skins not going pale green.) Canon offers an SDK, but Adobe says that using it would limit their ability to make other adjustments.

So yes... for some LR/ACR does great job, because Adobe's profile of their camera closely matches your camera. For others (many, apparently) the Adobe camera profile does not match the specific camera we own... and since Adobe's not about to start using Canon's SDK to help decode RAW files we're stuck with using the calibration tab... which, by the way, MAY work to get us to a starting point for 'some' images, but one calibration will NOT work for all.

IMO (based on my camera, mind you) DPP beats LR in color rendering hands down. I've had shifts so bad on some colors, I've had to go back on site to see whether a flower should have been crimson red or deep violet. You can't tell me that this should be normal practice. You also can't convince me that it should be NEEDED to buy and shoot a color-checker card, then use CS (which some of us don't own) to create a calibration.

Other areas, such as tools, highlight recovery, etc... LR wins. That's why even with this problem, I still use LR; and hope Adobe can find some way to address this... but in the end, some won't have a problem with LR colors, and belive the rest of us to be idiots... while others find it hard to believe everyone DOESN'T see the the color shifts. In the end, both of us may be right... answer is it all seems to depend on how well adobe's profile matches your camera, to what extent and expense you go to get a calibration, and what we're shooting and lighting conditions.

[cosworth]

Ok in that context I'll post my results with colour profiling and without. We'll see what goes down.

The noise handling in DPP is abysmal.

[davidcrebelxt]

I got my profile from here:

http://www.ejphoto.com/acr_order_page.htm

Maybe check out the link I just posted. For $15 a profile for your camera may be the ticket.

None for my camera... bummer. I'd give it a go if they had it. But if they really work, why can't ADOBE provide better profiles?

[davidcrebelxt]

Ok in that context I'll post my results with colour profiling and without. We'll see what goes down.

The noise handling in DPP is abysmal.

RE: noise.... Can't argue with you there!
Not to mention there are some other flaws/limitations with DPP not even relating to picture quality.

[davidcrebelxt]

Hey, Mike,

How does that profile you downloaded do for your Rebel XT raws? And which did you download, the 40d or 30d?

[cosworth]

Well I must admit most of my hatred for DPP is the noise control. I was patently scared off using it for my high ISO tests. If the Nikon guys had seen the DPP shots.... dear god.

[NOsquid]

Is there more detail though? Some people don't mind noise as much as others.

[cosworth]

Less details from the noise jumble. The noise was just INSANE.

[René Damkot]

Less details from the noise jumble.

I'd like to see that as well then... Because it's not what I've seen.

[cdifoto]

The same RAW file in Lightroom has a certain flatness to it while the same file in DPP has 'pop' to it.

...

Sure they 'pop'. IMO it's not about 'pop' or not.

[BoySpot]

You can't tell me that this should be normal practice. You also can't convince me that it should be NEEDED to buy and shoot a color-checker card, then use CS (which some of us don't own) to create a calibration.


Given that we all accept having to calibrate our monitors on a regular basis, why is it so unusual to think about calibrating our bodies? I got the card and shot it and was really pleased with the results on both of my bodies, although one of them had a far more signficant change than the other. It seemed to me to be a worthwhile solution given the trouble gone to on other elements of the workflow being calibrated.

Rob

[cosworth]

Don't forget ACR (CS3 and Lightroom's RAw engine) maps hot pixels. I have never heard of DPP's ability to do as such.

[René Damkot]

...

Did you just ignore the IMO, or didn't you see it? :rolleyes:

IMO it's not about 'pop' or not. [...] The point of this thread (IMO) is, that LR renders images different from DPP, and quite a bit different from DPP with a picture style used.

Don't forget ACR (CS3 and Lightroom's RAw engine) maps hot pixels. I have never heard of DPP's ability to do as such.

True. Silly that DPP doesn't IMO.

[In2Photos]

None for my camera... bummer. I'd give it a go if they had it. But if they really work, why can't ADOBE provide better profiles?
Yeah, nothing for an XT. Although if you were to contact him he might be willing to set one up. I don't know why Adobe can't give us better profiles.
Hey, Mike,

How does that profile you downloaded do for your Rebel XT raws? And which did you download, the 40d or 30d?
It does rather well but honestly since I got the 40D (and the 40D profile) the XT doesn't get used much (which is why it is for sale). If you want I can go back to an older shot and compare results with and without a profile for you. Perhpas a screen shot of the before/after view with only the calibration set?

[PixelMagic]

There are a number of free Ca,era Raw/Lightroom Calibration presets for various camera models at Inside Lightroom:
Can't say how they work though since I've never tried any of them.


http://inside-lightroom.com/cal.php

[cdifoto]

Did you just ignore the IMO, or didn't you see it? :rolleyes:

I ignored it because I was answering the OP for what the OP asked, not what the thread had evolved into. OP asked about "pop" so I answered with images that I think "pop" - you really never had to quote me and tell me I was off topic in the first place.


And to the OP: I did notice a subtle but very real difference after buying and applying EJ Peiker's profiles. Also make sure you get the white balance spot on. I've noticed that LR doesn't seem to read in-camera custom white balances properly, assuming you do those. I've taken to (sometimes) setting a CWB but also keeping the picture of my grey card on the memory card then sampling it when I get into LR.

[cosworth]

There are a number of free Ca,era Raw/Lightroom Calibration presets for various camera models at Inside Lightroom:
Can't say how they work though since I've never tried any of them.


http://inside-lightroom.com/cal.php

Unfortunately most of those Canon links are dead. I've emailed them about it long ago with no response.

[cdifoto]

Unfortunately most of those Canon links are dead. I've emailed them about it long ago with no response.

Same here. I got the 10D profile which showed me the potential but I ended up buying from Peiker. I don't have the means or patience to set up profiles myself.

[René Damkot]

OP asked about "pop" so I answered with images that I think "pop" -


Hahaha. I think you and I were referring to different bits of the OPs question:

I spent about 45min last night creating a "Landscape" preset in LR to give the same effect as the Landscape picture style in DPP and I still only got "very, very, very close".

I was talking about this bit, you about the first bit of the post obviously ;)


OP: As to the difference before / after profiling: Here (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/acr/) is a page with an example.

[cdifoto]

Hahaha. I think you and I were referring to different bits of the OPs question:

Seems so. :lol:

[PixelMagic]

Ahhh... I just checked and four links are dead - two each for the Canon 1D MkII and the 1Ds MkII - the rest are available.


Unfortunately most of those Canon links are dead. I've emailed them about it long ago with no response.

[davidcrebelxt]

Given that we all accept having to calibrate our monitors on a regular basis, why is it so unusual to think about calibrating our bodies? I got the card and shot it and was really pleased with the results on both of my bodies, although one of them had a far more signficant change than the other. It seemed to me to be a worthwhile solution given the trouble gone to on other elements of the workflow being calibrated.

Rob


My point is that Canon's programs don't show that shift, ever, in my experience. Even other RAW converters don't show those types of shifts.

Plus, they ship ACR "as is" with Photoshop Elements and LR. Neither of which have the ability to run the scripts used in CS2/3 to aid with calibration. Remember, many don't have/need CS2/3... and I'm certainly not buying it just for doing this.

According to some close to Adobe, we need to remember that Camera RAW hasn't been around for THAT long. Improvements are to be expected over time. I'm holding out hope that Adobe will deliver... eventually.

[danpass]

Ok. We've got two sets of pictures here from the ONE same exact RAW file.

Neutral setting for the first pic of each pair then second pic processed with a preset/picture style (and no other settings at all). This applies to the two pairs.

The first pair with one program the second pair with the other program.

You can cheat if you want and dig up the exif ...........




http://www.danpassaro.com/img/v3/p825168551.jpg

http://www.danpassaro.com/img/v3/p1005992933.jpg



http://www.danpassaro.com/img/v3/p585492969.jpg

http://www.danpassaro.com/img/v3/p724346436.jpg

[René Damkot]

It might be easier to process the same image twice... :p
Then also post a (small) 100% crop.
Then I'll see if I guess right again ;)

[danpass]

I still haven't wrapped my head around the whole "100% crop" thing

lol

[In2Photos]

Ok. We've got two sets of pictures here from the ONE same exact RAW file.

Neutral setting for the first pic of each pair then second pic processed with a preset/picture style (and no other settings at all). This applies to the two pairs.

The first pair with one program the second pair with the other program.

You can cheat if you want and dig up the exif ...........




http://www.danpassaro.com/img/v3/p825168551.jpg


I brought the very first image into Lr and spent about 1 minute playing with a few sliders. Here are the results.

http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/92083454.jpg

[rooeey]

Now i am glad i stuck with my free DPP

[danpass]

I brought the very first image into Lr and spent about 1 minute playing with a few sliders. ........


Looks great. Post the settings http://www.danpassaro.com/img/v3/p19079605.gif



.

[In2Photos]

Looks great. Post the settings http://www.danpassaro.com/img/v3/p19079605.gif



.
Since it was a jpeg everything came in zero'd. I then applied my 40D starting point preset and adjusted from there. The final settings were:

Blacks: +5
Brightness: +36
Contrast: +25
Clarity: +31
Vibrance: +21

Tone Curve settings:
Highlights: +14
Lights: -5
Darks: +46
Shadows: -8
Medium Contrast for Point Curve

Detail Tab:
Color Noise: 25
Sharpening (from my preset)
Amount: 19
Radius: .9
Detail: 54
Masking: 60

I also have some settings in the calibration tab but since I bought these from EJ Peiker I don't feel it would be right to share them.

[fire34fighter]

i'm still pretty new to the photography side of image editing, so maybe somebody can explain...What can lightroom do that photoshop CS3 can't?

[In2Photos]

i'm still pretty new to the photography side of image editing, so maybe somebody can explain...What can lightroom do that photoshop CS3 can't?
On the editing side, nothing. But LR can do cataloging and much quicker batch editing. You can also create web galleries and slideshows.

[fire34fighter]

On the editing side, nothing. But LR can do cataloging and much quicker batch editing. You can also create web galleries and slideshows.ahh thats what I thought. Thanks!

[Anke]

On the editing side, nothing. But LR can do cataloging and much quicker batch editing. You can also create web galleries and slideshows.

Although remember that Lightroom cannot do anything that requires layers or pixel specific editing.

EDIT: Ignore me here, its 02:54 and I got the wrong end of the stick.

[In2Photos]

Although remember that Lightroom cannot do anything that requires layers or pixel specific editing.
Right. I said that Lr could not do anything MORE (editing wise) than what CS3 can do. CS3 can do a WHOLE LOT more than LR in regard to editing.

[Anke]

Right. I said that Lr could not do anything MORE (editing wise) than what CS3 can do. CS3 can do a WHOLE LOT more than LR in regard to editing.

Ooops, I retract my comment. It is 02:54am.;)

[In2Photos]

Ooops, I retract my comment. It is 02:54am.;)
Nah uh. It is only 9:55 PM. ;):lol:

[danpass]

Ooops, I retract my comment. It is 02:54am.;)

Nah uh. It is only 9:55 PM. ;):lol:


Yep ..... you're waaaaay off!


Like a different time zone or something .......








;):p:D





.

[cosworth]

Posting in here today spurred me to do this:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=442325

[madferrit]

I got my profile from here:

http://www.ejphoto.com/acr_order_page.htm

Maybe check out the link I just posted. For $15 a profile for your camera may be the ticket.

Thanks for the link. I order last night and paid via paypal, and got the profile within 2 mins!

Will try it out tonight.

[In2Photos]

Thanks for the link. I order last night and paid via paypal, and got the profile within 2 mins!

Will try it out tonight.
Yup, he is either very quick or has an automated system. :)

[bacchanal]

I got my profile from here:

http://www.ejphoto.com/acr_order_page.htm

Maybe check out the link I just posted. For $15 a profile for your camera may be the ticket.

I don't claim to know what I'm doing, but I used his profile for the 30D and fought it for a few months before I finally gave up. It just didn't produce good results for me, and I was always compensating for it...it seemed to take LRs tendency to create a green cast and exaggerate it.

[Merlin Driver]

Mike, if you would please answer a few newbie questions to this stuff. What do you use the profiles for? For the camera or in the CS3 & LR? Also, if I understand right, you can use LR to file and refit to send over the internet as well?

TIA,

Lynn

[René Damkot]

The profiles are used to set the 'calibrate' tab in LR and ACR, to get them to render colors better.

A question for bacchanal and/or In2Photos: Do you use the ACR4.x or 3.x settings for LR?

As far as I read it, I should be using the ACR3 settings in PSCS2, and the ACR4 settings in LR.

However, the ACR4 settings are *way* off the mark in LR.
Setting ACR3.x settings gave better (not good) results in LR. Identical settings give the same results in LR and PSCS2 ACR.

I might be daft, but am I missing something, or is PSCS2 using the same Raw engine nowadays (even if it still has the same UI)?

[René Damkot]

None for my camera... bummer. I'd give it a go if they had it. But if they really work, why can't ADOBE provide better profiles?

Here (http://www.photoactivity.com/Pagine/Articoli/023%20Calibratori%20al%20sole/Calibratori%20al%20sole_en.asp)is a site I came across while searching about ACR calibration.
Some XT values in screenshots. You could maybe use them as a starting point?

[gcogger]

I don't claim to know what I'm doing, but I used his profile for the 30D and fought it for a few months before I finally gave up. It just didn't produce good results for me, and I was always compensating for it...it seemed to take LRs tendency to create a green cast and exaggerate it.

I have to agree with the 400D profile from the same place. See my post here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=4786336#post4786336).

[In2Photos]

Mike, if you would please answer a few newbie questions to this stuff. What do you use the profiles for? For the camera or in the CS3 & LR? Also, if I understand right, you can use LR to file and refit to send over the internet as well?

TIA,

Lynn
Lynn, I believe Rene answered your question in the post below. But yes you can use LR to resize images for web/email and actually send the images directly from LR via the export tab.
The profiles are used to set the 'calibrate' tab in LR and ACR, to get them to render colors better.

A question for bacchanal and/or In2Photos: Do you use the ACR4.x or 3.x settings for LR?

As far as I read it, I should be using the ACR3 settings in PSCS2, and the ACR4 settings in LR.

However, the ACR4 settings are *way* off the mark in LR.
Setting ACR3.x settings gave better (not good) results in LR. Identical settings give the same results in LR and PSCS2 ACR.

I might be daft, but am I missing something, or is PSCS2 using the same Raw engine nowadays (even if it still has the same UI)?
For LR I used the ACR 4.x settings. I didn;t try the 3.x settings at all in either LR or in CS2 (I don't really use ACR in CS2 anymore).

[PhilN]

Is it just me? It was obvious to me which of Jasons images were DPP and Lightroom....DPP had more noise (which is easy to reduce with NNinja) whilst LR recovered the highlights..........but the thing that drives me crazy about LR is the color...look at the green cast in LR, compared to the warmth of DPP, its miles apart! I love LR for the flexibility and extra tools, but so far I hate the colors it gives compared to DPP.

[Glenn NK]

I'm a bit baffled by LR on my machine - on the Camera Calibration tab (top right corner) it reads "embedded".

So, what is embedded?

Under the "Help" tab, it reads Version 1.3.1 and Camera Raw 4.3.1.

Maybe I've answered my own question.

How much do the EJ Peiker values vary from 4.3.1 for the 30D?

How much variation is there from 30D to 30D? I ask because some people swear BY the EJP profiles, while others swear AT them.

[René Damkot]

Here's (http://objectmix.com/adobe-photoshop/231764-canon-30d-acr-camera-profile-what-does-yours-look-like.html) a setting found by Google ;)

[PhilN]

I'm a bit baffled by LR on my machine - on the Camera Calibration tab (top right corner) it reads "embedded".

So, what is embedded?

Under the "Help" tab, it reads Version 1.3.1 and Camera Raw 4.3.1.

Maybe I've answered my own question.

How much do the EJ Peiker values vary from 4.3.1 for the 30D?

How much variation is there from 30D to 30D? I ask because some people swear BY the EJP profiles, while others swear AT them.

Im pretty sure Embedded is refering to a jpeg image?

[Merlin Driver]

Rene and Mike, thank you both for your answers and time........

Lynn

[René Damkot]

I'm a bit baffled by LR on my machine - on the Camera Calibration tab (top right corner) it reads "embedded".
Mine says: "ACR 2.4", and I don't have another option to choose from.

[Glenn NK]

Mine says: "ACR 2.4", and I don't have another option to choose from.

I can't choose either, but it gets even better - last night I opened up LR to check the "Camera Calibration Profile":

I opened up several folders (I use the 2008-01-25 folder system installed by the Canon software), and here's what I found:

2006-08-23: Embedded
2006-09-24: Embedded

Skipping to the next year (these are consective folders - some days no photography):

2007-11-18: Embedded
2007-11-21: ACR 3.4
2007-11-22: Embedded
2007-11-24: ACR 3.4
2007-11-26: ACR 3.4

And current year:

2008-01-23: ACR 3.4
2008-01-24: ACR 3.4

Good grief Charlie Brown - what's up?

[Keith R]

Mine says "ACR 4.2" - no other options.

[danpass]

The ACR 'level' depends on the camera used. I have different ones pop up when looking at 5D, 30D, Nikon D50, and JPEGs (which simply says embedded for all of them)



.

[rfreschner]

The ACR 'level' depends on the camera used.

Yes, it's the ACR version in which support was initially provided for that particular camera; for the 20D it shows 2.4.

[PixelMagic]

The version of ACR shown on the Calibration tab refers to when support for your camera was first added in Camera Raw. For a 30D, it was first supported in ACR 3.4 so what you're seeing is correct. Unless Adobe updates the camera's profile (unlikely) it will always read ACR 3.4 even though you're using the most current version (Lightroom 1.3.1 0r ACR 4.3).

You can look at this page and verify when each camera model was first supported in ACR:http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?platform=windows&product=39

[davidcrebelxt]

Here (http://www.photoactivity.com/Pagine/Articoli/023%20Calibratori%20al%20sole/Calibratori%20al%20sole_en.asp)is a site I came across while searching about ACR calibration.
Some XT values in screenshots. You could maybe use them as a starting point?


Thanks for the link Rene. I'd given up searching for anything months ago... the ones I'd found were of little use. One of them in this link actually seems to do pretty well on my 350d in testing on a couple known problem images.

Question still is why can't ADOBE provide profiles like that? With so many people having these problems, they should at least host a board with known profile variations for us to use. But I guess that would mean they have to admit that their method is flawed.

[Glenn NK]

Thanks to: Rene, Keith R, Dan, Rick, Fedka, and David for the clarifications - much appreciated.

I think I have solved the situation with sometimes "Embedded" and sometimes ACR 3.4. Embedded shows up with TIF files created in LR for export to other software, ACR 3.4 shows up with CR2 RAW files.

So, I guess I'm up to date.

[dfindr]

See the thread below. Lightroom uses ACR so comparison is valid!

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=444138

[tzalman]

David - By chance I read the following quote in another forum yesterday and I thought of you. It is from Jeff Schewe, PS guru, Canon Explorer of Light, worked with Thomas Knoll on ACR, High Pooh-Ba, etc., etc. The remark was made nearly two years ago (April, '06) and undoubtably ACR has improved since then, but I think it is interesting and very amusing.

"The way I do it is open the image in DPP running in the background and open the image in Camera Raw in the foreground and then adjust the Camera Raw renderings to match (more or less) the DPP renderings. Yes it involves adjusting the Calibrate sliders after careful WB and tone settings that may include curves...if you find a setting you like or matches the DPP rendering, save it out as a saved setting or subsetting."

[expatdude]

...snip...

"The way I do it is open the image in DPP running in the background and open the image in Camera Raw in the foreground and then adjust the Camera Raw renderings to match (more or less) the DPP renderings. Yes it involves adjusting the Calibrate sliders after careful WB and tone settings that may include curves...if you find a setting you like or matches the DPP rendering, save it out as a saved setting or subsetting."

I had thought of that already, but I'm afraid I don't have the skill to figure out what settings in Lightroom will match the output of DPP. For example, there's a picture where the Lightroom rendering looks too orange, but playing around with saturation and hue has so many possibilities I can't quite figure out which end is up.

[davidcrebelxt]

Tzalman,

That is a funny looking at that, considering recent responses from him I've read/recieved I would have assumed he would have shunned DPP's rendering completely. It's not as easy to do by eye as he makes it sound... and brings us back to the larger question I've been asking... Should we be expected to have to do that anyway to get best "starting point" for ACR? {remember, we're talking about starting points for further adjustments} And if we are, why isn't that mentioned by Adobe? Why do they not provide more help in doing so? Even many of the LR/PS books seem to gloss over the fact that this is a real difficulty.

[danpass]

Here is a thread I posted in recently. Forum seems to have actual Adobe LR people participating (and the forum is easier to read than Adobe forums)

http://www.lightroomforums.net/showthread.php?t=541


.

[rfreschner]

Forum seems to have actual Adobe LR people participating (and the forum is easier to read than Adobe forums)

Most of the main participants are not Adobe folks, but are from the group of beta testers that have been working with LR since the beginning. While I haven't seen any posts with the heavy hitters from Adobe that you'll find on their LR forum, it seems like it might be a good alternate resource to get basic questions answered.

I definitely agree with your point about ease of use though! :D

[In2Photos]

Tzalman,

That is a funny looking at that, considering recent responses from him I've read/recieved I would have assumed he would have shunned DPP's rendering completely. It's not as easy to do by eye as he makes it sound... and brings us back to the larger question I've been asking... Should we be expected to have to do that anyway to get best "starting point" for ACR? {remember, we're talking about starting points for further adjustments} And if we are, why isn't that mentioned by Adobe? Why do they not provide more help in doing so? Even many of the LR/PS books seem to gloss over the fact that this is a real difficulty.
Why should Adobe either a) provide you with a starting point that resembles DPP or b) tell you how to get similar results to DPP?

Adobe makes their products for various cameras and users. Does this mean they should create profiles to make Nikon cameras resemble results from Nikon software? What about Sony? Olympus? Pentax? Sigma? Why stop there? What about Leica? Hasselblad? etc.

At some point Adobe just has to be Adobe and provide a blanket profile that works "OK". If you want better then do what you need to do to make it better.

[davidcrebelxt]

At some point Adobe just has to be Adobe and provide a blanket profile that works "OK". If you want better then do what you need to do to make it better.


That's the problem... their starting point is NOT ok if it is clearly (and not easily remidied) shifting my reds to orange, my blues and yellows to green, etc. What I'm saying they need to do is:

a) warn users that their colors may shift (unlikely, since this will be admiting a flaw... not exactly a great selling point.)
b) provide the means to correct that shift (be it software that can run calibrator script (ie: lightroom and Elements cannot run those scripts, yet they depend on ACR); and/or include GMB color-checker and include instructions on how to perform that calibration. [Either one of these would clue people in that a calibration may need to be run.] Personally I would rather they include software that can perform the scripts, or something like it and let me buy a color-checker... color checker is cheaper than buying CS.
c) fix ACR so it doesn't do this.

I don't expect ACR to duplicate DPP's conversion... just get the colors close to "right" without fiddling around. DPP's default conversion isn't to my liking either, but at least the reds stay red, etc. I may need to adjust the saturation, contrast, tone-curve, etc... but never need to mix and match hue's just to get a red cherry to be cherry red in DPP.

A company like Adobe, positioned at the top of its market needs to do better than "OK" IMO. How much of the frustration people have from RAW (and then getting unmercifully flamed for preferring jpeg) is from only using ACR... not understanding need, method, how to calibrate... and having these types of color problems?

[In2Photos]

A company like Adobe, positioned at the top of its market needs to do better than "OK" IMO. How much of the frustration people have from RAW (and then getting unmercifully flamed for preferring jpeg) is from only using ACR... not understanding need, method, how to calibrate... and having these types of color problems?
So these people (new RAW users) now need the addition of a GMB color checker and instructions on how to calibrate? They likely are NOT using montior calibration, have no idea about color managment, and have no idea what a GMB color checker is. I don't think it would be wise for Adobe to include any of the things you mention as that is too overwhelming for the average consumer. Can you imagine the number of phone calls to tech support on why the script isn't working? And why provide this for a product as new as LR? Why provide it for an entry level product like Elements, clearly not designed for professionals which will require this type of calibration. While Elements may be a capable product for serious hobbiests like you David, you are not the target audience for Elements.

[danpass]

Someone made a statement (not sure if it was this thread) that Picassa does NOT shift the colors.

True? If so, why can't Adobe "do" the same thing?


.

[davidcrebelxt]

Well, why provide ACR at all, then, if its colors are going to be shifting all over the place?

I'm using RAW, LR, ACR, I calibrate my monitor, I know what a GMB color-checker is. But I STILL have major problems with color shifts, and can easily see and understand the frustration people are having. They've been told that Adobe is the be all and and all in digital post processing... they've been told to avoid bundled software becasue its crap. They expect ACR to just work without having to handhold it to just get the initial color hues right. To be sure, its not widely known that calibrating ACR is necesscary. Elements users are not warned of it along the way, yet ACR is touted as a feature of Elements. (And ACR doesn't even include a calibration panel in Elements!! (unless its been added in 6.0)) LR depends on ACR, yet only passing mention is given, and no help given, so you must judge by eye. Excuse, me, but if I do a day of shooting at a botanical garden, I'd prefer not to have to take clippings of every flower I take a picture of, just so I can remember its hue. Other option is shoot RAW+Jpeg... but that opens a whole other can of worms on the forums. :eek: An underlying problem for me is that color-checker is of no use for running the scripts suggested by many adobe insiders unless you have CS2 or 3.

Some very kind individuals have offered to run the scripts for me if I send them pics of a color-checker, but should that be necesscary? Plus, the way I understand it, I may need to shoot it multiple times, under varying lighting conditions, not to mention possible user error. I'd prefer not to waste other's people time with that, and do it myself... yet Adobe does not provide the tools to do this (and NO, I'm not spending $500+ on CS3 just to be able to do this.)

I think I understand what you're saying Mike... (but I wasn't acutually serious about the GMB being included :o ... users CAN get that for themselves.) I'm just trying to point out that these new users who get flamed and lambasted are often made to think that THEY are doing something wrong (and many times are) or are complete idiots (less often.) But when ACR has this known shift for many users, can you blame them for being frustrated and giving up and being vocal about it when all anyone touts is the merits of RAW, yet fails to mention a troublesome - yet basic- step of getting colors NOT to shift in ACR?

WHen I first got LR, I'd planned on getting monitor calibration anyway. Definately did so when everyone told me the colorshifts I was seeing in ACR were the result of uncalibrated montor. Some on the another forum pretty much said I was in idiot for even saying ACR had a color shift without first calibrating my monitor. I'm glad I calibrated, to be sure... but guess what. That color-shift is still there.

Mostly, a program or tool usable outside of CS2/3 is what would be needed. And yes, if they include a small program like that, instructions on how to best use it properly would be helpful.

But honestly, I think the BEST option (although perhaps naive, or easier said than done) was my third option: Adobe fix/address this color-shift so these problems go bye bye. The idea that if we ignore it, it will go away, just doesn't work.

[davidcrebelxt]

Someone made a statement (not sure if it was this thread) that Picassa does NOT shift the colors.

True? If so, why can't Adobe "do" the same thing?


.

Its [possible] that they (and other converters that don't show the shift) are using Canon's SDK for their RAW file format.

Adobe refuses to use it, as they say it handcuffs them into using Canon's interpretation of how image should look. (I argue however, that Adobe's interpretation is all wrong if its shifting my colors to ugly.)

Yes, part of this problem lays at the feet of Canon too. If they would allow open access to information about colors, etc, without being locked in under a restrictive SDK license... then yes, perhaps Adobe could better address this.

[In2Photos]

Well, why provide ACR at all, then, if its colors are going to be shifting all over the place?

About a month ago I would have said "What color shift?" as I saw nothing shifting. After buying my 40D profile and seeing what a calibration profile can do to my 40D RAW files I still don't know if I can say that there is a color shift. How can I be certain that it is LR doing the shift and NOT my lens/camera combination. We all know that each lens can provide different colors. Sure not drastic changes, but changes none the less. It has been well documented that Sigma lenses tend to be slightly warmer than Canon lenses (or was it cooler?). Anyway, my point is that I don't see a shift because I (probably don't pay that much attention to what the actual color was when I took the shot anyway. ;)) don't compare my image between applications. I am not saying that there is not a shift, just that I don't "see" one.


I'm using RAW, LR, ACR, I calibrate my monitor, I know what a GMB color-checker is. But I STILL have major problems with color shifts, and can easily see and understand the frustration people are having. They've been told that Adobe is the be all and and all in digital post processing... they've been told to avoid bundled software becasue its crap. They expect ACR to just work without having to handhold it to just get the initial color hues right. To be sure, its not widely known that calibrating ACR is necesscary. Elements users are not warned of it along the way, yet ACR is touted as a feature of Elements. (And ACR doesn't even include a calibration panel in Elements!! (unless its been added in 6.0)) LR depends on ACR, yet only passing mention is given, and no help given, so you must judge by eye. Excuse, me, but if I do a day of shooting at a botanical garden, I'd prefer not to have to take clippings of every flower I take a picture of, just so I can remember its hue. Other option is shoot RAW+Jpeg... but that opens a whole other can of worms on the forums. :eek: An underlying problem for me is that color-checker is of no use for running the scripts suggested by many adobe insiders unless you have CS2 or 3.


What is wrong with shooting RAW + jpeg? And you prove my point about who Elements is designed for. It is not intended for users critical of color. It is designed for hobbiests, enthusaists, and soccer moms. For those that venture to the upper end of hobbiest, like you and I as well as many others here, Elements simply does not provide the options we need.

Some very kind individuals have offered to run the scripts for me if I send them pics of a color-checker, but should that be necesscary? Plus, the way I understand it, I may need to shoot it multiple times, under varying lighting conditions, not to mention possible user error. I'd prefer not to waste other's people time with that, and do it myself... yet Adobe does not provide the tools to do this (and NO, I'm not spending $500+ on CS3 just to be able to do this.)

Should it be necessary? I don't know. Shouldn't your $500 monitor on your $1000 computer render color correctly? Why should you have to calibrate it? And why should you have to buy a $100-$1500 device and software to do it?

I think I understand what you're saying Mike... (but I wasn't acutually serious about the GMB being included :o ... users CAN get that for themselves.) I'm just trying to point out that these new users who get flamed and lambasted are often made to think that THEY are doing something wrong (and many times are) or are complete idiots (less often.) But when ACR has this known shift for many users, can you blame them for being frustrated and giving up and being vocal about it when all anyone touts is the merits of RAW, yet fails to mention a troublesome - yet basic- step of getting colors NOT to shift in ACR?
I know you weren't serious. ;) I hate that newbies get treated with disrespect soemtimes. It can be quite frustrating for even the advanced users, much less someone just beginning.

WHen I first got LR, I'd planned on getting monitor calibration anyway. Definately did so when everyone told me the colorshifts I was seeing in ACR were the result of uncalibrated montor. Some on the another forum pretty much said I was in idiot for even saying ACR had a color shift without first calibrating my monitor. I'm glad I calibrated, to be sure... but guess what. That color-shift is still there.

Mostly, a program or tool usable outside of CS2/3 is what would be needed. And yes, if they include a small program like that, instructions on how to best use it properly would be helpful.

But honestly, I think the BEST option (although perhaps naive, or easier said than done) was my third option: Adobe fix/address this color-shift so these problems go bye bye. The idea that if we ignore it, it will go away, just doesn't work.
I wish Adobe would address a lot of things honestly, but bog companies often overlook the little guy. If Adobe only offered software products for photographers we might get our wishes addressed, but with all the other stuff they do we might as well pound sand. Sad to say it but I doubt they will be fixing any of these issues we keep asking about.

[danpass]

................

I wish Adobe would address a lot of things honestly, but bog companies often overlook the little guy. If Adobe only offered software products for photographers we might get our wishes addressed, but with all the other stuff they do we might as well pound sand. Sad to say it but I doubt they will be fixing any of these issues we keep asking about.


But LR was addressed for photographers ;)



.

[In2Photos]

But LR was addressed for photographers ;)



.
True, but it is one product of hundreds that they sell. If it were the only one they sold they might listen to us a little more. That was my point.

[davidcrebelxt]

As far as Elements goes... it IS a colormanaged app, it's not doing anything wonky with the colors... its ACR's camera profiles which is causing the problem.

But I agree with sentiment above, that if LR is designed for the (I hate this word) "serious" photographer, then IT at least should have a tool to help automate the calibration using a GMB.



I wish Adobe would address a lot of things honestly, but b[i]g companies often overlook the little guy. If Adobe only offered software products for photographers we might get our wishes addressed, but with all the other stuff they do we might as well pound sand. Sad to say it but I doubt they will be fixing any of these issues we keep asking about.

I'm afraid you're 100% right on this regard... with that, I think I'm going to give this thread a rest. ;)

[In2Photos]

As far as Elements goes... it IS a colormanaged app, it's not doing anything wonky with the colors... its ACR's camera profiles which is causing the problem.

But I agree with sentiment above, that if LR is designed for the (I hate this word) "serious" photographer, then IT at least should have a tool to help automate the calibration using a GMB.



I'm afraid you're 100% right on this regard... with that, I think I'm going to give this thread a rest. ;)
Wus! :p Me too!

[PhilN]

I agree with you both Mike and Dave, ACR is far from what its cracked p to be and people shouldnt be fooled into thinking it is the holy grail of PP, and yes its a nightmare to sort out....Im havin a hell of a time trying to sort it out...I really want to be able to match the results DPP can give, becase sometimes it is spot on the money........but its almost impossible to do............but then again Adobe are adobe and why should they try to emulate camera manufacturers, when some people dont even like them? I find LR is superb for most things, but when it comes to landscapes when blue green and natural tones are critical its incredibly hard.
Its amusing one of the adobe gurus was (is?) using DPP as his benchmark ;-) That sureley has gotta say something??
What puzzles me is why Canon dont provide more info on settings...what are they trying to protect? Surely if they would allow us to actally see all the detail and numbers to punch into LR so we get better processing its not going to make us think "damn that softwares good" its gonna make us think even more "damn that lens/sensor/body(canon)" is good. More power to them!

[davidcrebelxt]

What puzzles me is why Canon dont provide more info on settings...what are they trying to protect? Surely if they would allow us to actally see all the detail and numbers to punch into LR so we get better processing its not going to make us think "damn that softwares good" its gonna make us think even more "damn that lens/sensor/body(canon)" is good. More power to them!

Good question. I've thought the same too, that it would only endear MORE people to canon. Why DON'T they want us to get the best results out of our cameras? Its not like they're selling DPP, like Nikon does with their RAW converter.

All I can say is flood canon support with requests they do so... I do so everytime this topic pops up (think I did so about 4 times last year)... again its like beating the sand, and not likely to get results, but at least we'd be letting them know how we feel.

[gooble]

Man, I've stumbled across something here.

I've used DPP for the past year and a half, partly becuase that was all I had for RAW conversion when I started. When I got PS CS2 and ACR I tried using ACR but it was so slow and cumbersome compared to DPP that I just quit using it.

Recently I tried the LR demo and while I love the cataloging ability with regards to keywords, metadata and ratings I don't really like the way the images look compared to DPP and it is still nearly as slow as ACR. BTW I have a PC with a 3 GHz P4, 2 GB of memory and 1+ TB of storage, so my system is not slow, before anyone asks.

I've wondered why such a difference in the look from LR to DPP. Well it seems I may have discovered why.

[Ockie]

are the color profiles both the same?
Perhaps one is in RGB and one in adobe RGB...

Just an idea I had, not sure if its even possible.. but someone will surely correct / verify me soon :)

[In2Photos]

are the color profiles both the same?
Perhaps one is in RGB and one in adobe RGB...

Just an idea I had, not sure if its even possible.. but someone will surely correct / verify me soon :)
Both applications are color managed so it shouldn't matter, as long as your color management is setup properly.

[René Damkot]

are the color profiles both the same?
Perhaps one is in RGB and one in adobe RGB...

Just an idea I had, not sure if its even possible.. but someone will surely correct / verify me soon :)

Are you sure you read the entire thread? :p

[Ockie]

Are you sure you read the entire thread? :p
erm... my bad. I had to Tabs open in Firefox... on thread with 2 pages and this one.. .thought this one only had 2 when clicking the "Reply" button :o:o
* goes back to studying in shame * :o

[dlcx]

Well I'm now off lightroom after an endless battle of frustration.
DPP is much better colour wise.
Only wish the workflow was a little nicer!

[René Damkot]

Setting up the "Calibration" tab in LR helps quite a bit... Makes the program quite usable ;)