I think my Canon days have come to and end

[Littlefield]

Ugly colors in LR? You shouldn't need 10 presets convering different shooting conditions just to get to a point where colors resemble what you saw before being ready for further edits... tired of having a tree I SWEAR was a cherry tree look like a pumpkin tree. (I didn't even know pumpkins grew on trees.) Al

DPP is acutally quite good, its default colors are decent out of the box (at least no color shifts) ready for further edits. And gives good results... it converts to .jpg or .tif just fine for me. Not sure of OP's problems, but several of us have stated the image appears fine to us... and that includes those of us that use other converters than DPP. Is it as powerful feature wise as LR/ACR/others? No, of course not, but it covers the basics quite well... and the lack of tools/features does not explain the problems he's having.

If I went by reasoning that all bundled software was crap, I'd have never used Elements, as it was bundled with my Wacom I bought several years back. But then I also use elements, which though made by Adobe is ridiculed by many even though never even seeing it... and I use the Gimp also which is free, so it must be akin to Picasa, or Photoshop Express. ;)
Wow your colors in LR are that bad ? I am not a pro and got LR free since I had RSP ,which the red was not as good as LR IMO .
Don

[René Damkot]

Three-hundred-and-one!!

:mrgreen:

[blinded]

But we haven't made it to the 300 mark yet! YOU CAN'T LEAVE NOW.

Camera specific profiles make everything better. That would be awesome to have. I suppose it'll be in CS4 as well.

By the way, 300th post? This got out of hand.

thanks.

[Littlefield]

Camera calibration in LR for XT. This thread got me thinking about this function.
Never really thought about this before.
I have LR and XT and have just left this function on with ACR 3.1 selected. I guess ACR 4.4 is for more real pro cameras right ? I never use the settings so should I just turn it off or does it really matter ?
Thanks
Don

[blinded]

Camera calibration in LR for XT. This thread got me thinking about this function.
Never really thought about this before.
I have LR and XT and have just left this function on with ACR 3.1 selected. I guess ACR 4.4 is for more real pro cameras right ? I never use the settings so should I just turn it off or does it really matter ?
Thanks
Don

Camera calibration is essential for all cameras IMO, though you can't really correct how ACR reads files since you don't get enough control. The 4.4 one really doesn't change anything, unless you shoot at extremely high/low color temperatures. The next version will hopefully have better profiles, such as somebody said in this forum. I've just used Bibble in the meantime since it has nice profiles already. If the new ACR/LR gets custom, CORRECT camera profiles, I might revisit it. I don't understand RAW processors not being calibrated, even with generic profiles. You set up a chain of color management, with calibrated screens, printer profiles, working spaces, but Adobe would rather break this by not being calibrated?

[Littlefield]

Camera calibration is essential for all cameras IMO, though you can't really correct how ACR reads files since you don't get enough control. The 4.4 one really doesn't change anything, unless you shoot at extremely high/low color temperatures. The next version will hopefully have better profiles, such as somebody said in this forum. I've just used Bibble in the meantime since it has nice profiles already. If the new ACR/LR gets custom, CORRECT camera profiles, I might revisit it. I don't understand RAW processors not being calibrated, even with generic profiles. You set up a chain of color management, with calibrated screens, printer profiles, working spaces, but Adobe would rather break this by not being calibrated?
Thanks but I have not seen a profile for a XT .If I get a 40D when they come down more in DEC I will try to get one for it.

[davidcrebelxt]

The good news is, that I recently was at an Adobe / LR tour, and saw the LR Beta (not public beta). I think I saw some things I wasn't supposed to see: Camera-specific profiles :mrgreen:

Lucky.....
I've heard some of the rumors... I'm looking forward to seeing them first hand.

Littlefield:
Yeah... my colors are THAT bad in LR/ACR (well I exagerrate a bit... not quite pumpkin orange, but enough to know without looking twice that it is plain off the mark, and not just the reds.) RSE and RSP (trial version, no free LR here) had execellent colors for me; though I've heard others state they had problems there as well. I've heard however, that some do get quite good color from LR with little to no fuss... all seems to depend on camera body, and how well Adobe's profile matched your particular sensor.

[I should have stated such in my mini-rant, I usually do. :) Thanks for keeping me honest Littlefield.]

[davidcrebelxt]

The good news is, that I recently was at an Adobe / LR tour, and saw the LR Beta (not public beta). I think I saw some things I wasn't supposed to see: Camera-specific profiles :mrgreen:

BTW Rene:

Do you have any insight on how exactly they might be implemented... would these profiles be packaged with LR, be user made, or 3rd party made for purchase... I'm just not really clear on the subject.

[Littlefield]

David, sorry you have trouble with LR . I have pretty good color but miss the excellent sharpening that came out of the gate with RSP :)
I see you have XT . I guess we do not have profiles for it right .?I have just left it on at 3.1 but never have adjusted with it . This thread made me think about that function .

[davidcrebelxt]

David, sorry you have trouble with LR . I have pretty good color but miss the excellent sharpening that came out of the gate with RSP :)
I see you have XT . I guess we do not have profiles for it right .?I have just left it on at 3.1 but never have adjusted with it . This thread made me think about that function .

Adobe profiles all the cameras it supports if I understand correctly. The version # of ACR shown in LR panel is just the release that first supported your camera. (or the newer one because of added range at highs and lows.)

I honestly don't know EXACTLY what the problem is, but many others here and on the Adobe boards see the same, also many others do not. Does this mean their way of profiling cameras is too limited, too rigid, or inadequate? Does each camera's sensor have characteristics (even within model line) that perhaps are tested in factory and written into the camera software and cause variation between users, while programs that use Canon's SDK display colors properly? Again, I don't know.

One of the recent additions to the ACR or LR team is Eric Chan, who has posted several years ago some calibration techniques how to match ACR to other renderings, because of how he wasn't really pleased with ACR's rendering. What he was seeing, I'm not positive, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's the reason we're seeing movement on the subject.

I use LR and like it... I've just always struggled with ACR's colors (even before LR.) Hopefully I'll be seeing some improvement soon.

[Littlefield]

http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/acr/
Yea I read this earlier . Too complicated for me and I have PSE3 and never shoot in studio settings .
I admit I know nothing about the procedure but have just left it on 3.1 and left camera calibration on instead of off.
What do you do leave it on ? Do you set it at 3.1 or 4. 4 ?
Thanks
Don

[davidcrebelxt]

http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/acr/
Yea I read this earlier . Too complicated for me and I have PSE3 .
I admit I know nothing about the procedure but have just left it on 3.1 and left camera calibration on instead of off.
What do you do leave it on and dod you set it at 3.1 or 4. 4 ?
Thanks
Don

If you haven't touched the calibration sliders, the calibration tab does nothing at all. I have some presets I have made that ajdust the calibration to get me closer to a good starting point... but never all the way there... Next time I shoot some blue flowers, I quite expect them to appear purple even with my latest preset tweak.

I don't see any difference between the two settings... as stated in the release I think, the difference in rendering wasn't expected to affect very many users as its only in extreme high or low tones. But they needed to allow option for old renderings in tact, otherwise already edited images or user presets could possibly change if a the new profile was forced upon them.

[Littlefield]

If you haven't touched the calibration sliders, the calibration tab does nothing at all. I have some presets I have made that ajdust the calibration to get me closer to a good starting point... but never all the way there... Next time I shoot some blue flowers, I quite expect them to appear purple even with my latest preset tweak.

I don't see any difference between the two settings... as stated in the release I think, the difference in rendering wasn't expected to affect very many users as its only in extreme high or low tones. But they needed to allow option for old renderings in tact, otherwise already edited images or user presets could possibly change if a the new profile was forced upon them.
Thanks , like I said I never do studio work and LR for me has pretty good color but I think it is interesting to discuss.

[blinded]

If you haven't touched the calibration sliders, the calibration tab does nothing at all.
Actually, it does. The 4.4 profiles are supposed to correct when orange or red was interpreted as pink in really cold temperatures, you can see a really slight histogram change in 4.4, and it will be more noticable if you purposely go to a really cold temperature.

[Spazzmodicus]

So use a different program like Lightroom instead of DPP? Then you can enjoy your new camera and existing lenses.

Lightroom is the bomb.....I heavily second this. I would use DPP only for utility purposes...technical camera stuff.

[Spazzmodicus]

Strange comment. It's not "free" software. It's the interface for the actual photos of the camera and you get it when you buy a Canon DSLR. Having it not work right is like buying a car with a tire missing. No one else can read Canon's RAW files very well when it comes to colors. You saw the example.

Um...wrong answer. I haven't even installed DPP on my PC. Lightroom and and CS3 is it. Surely the RAW's from a 40D isn't that much different from a 30D? Lightroom has plenty of adjustments for white balance and everything else. More than DPP ever dreamed of having.

[René Damkot]

BTW Rene:

Do you have any insight on how exactly they might be implemented... would these profiles be packaged with LR, be user made, or 3rd party made for purchase... I'm just not really clear on the subject.

Neither am I; like I said, I don't think I was supposed to see them ;)
All I saw were some profiles called after specific Nikon models (D2x and D300 IIRC). I didn't get my hands on the Mac, so I cannot even tell you the color difference it makes :(
We'll all have to await the final release (which won't be long I'd guess)

I sincerely hope that these profiles will help, and that they will be available for LR 1.4.1 as well.

There were some other things I was shown, and am not supposed to tell.
The guy's statement about LR2 vs. LR 1.4.1 was "Believe me, you'll want to upgrade!"

After seeing some of the differences compared to the Public Beta, I might believe it. Depends on the $$$ though, and whether or profiles will come available for LR 1.4.1.

Thanks but I have not seen a profile for a XT .If I get a 40D when they come down more in DEC I will try to get one for it.
I started a thread on ACR calibration values here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=453583). If you haven't seen it yet, have a look. There's at least one XT in there. Might work for you. And otherwise the thread might provide a starting point.

Lightroom has plenty of adjustments for white balance and everything else. More than DPP ever dreamed of having.
Sadly, you cannot correct the "wrong" colors mentioned with those...

The only things DPP doesn't have are:

straightening
highlight recovery (big one!)
local contrast adjustment (clarity)
HSL for specific colors
Vignetting (for all lenses)
User interface specific things, like TAT
Limited DAMI think that sums it up.

Don't get me wrong; I love the functionality of LR.
You can use it to go straight from Raw to print / web.

IMO DPP cannot be used without an additional pass through Photoshop. But if I go that route (not often), I get better results out op DPP / PS every single time.

[Littlefield]

Rene thanks for the link . I for the most part like LR and have not really had any color issues. I am not pro though and do not do studio work.Also do not have PS .
Why cannot Adobe use the algrithims (spelled ) that RSP had out of the box with sharpening though :)
I know I keep saying this but if you compare even DPP or LR without any sharpening applied RSP blows it away .
Don

[Littlefield]

If you haven't touched the calibration sliders, the calibration tab does nothing at all. I have some presets I have made that ajdust the calibration to get me closer to a good starting point... but never all the way there... Next time I shoot some blue flowers, I quite expect them to appear purple even with my latest preset tweak.

I don't see any difference between the two settings... as stated in the release I think, the difference in rendering wasn't expected to affect very many users as its only in extreme high or low tones. But they needed to allow option for old renderings in tact, otherwise already edited images or user presets could possibly change if a the new profile was forced upon them.

David ,
I saw this one and put it in a preset to mess with . This thread over 300 now got me thinking :)
Have you seen it ? I am not a pro but it seems skin color is better with LR Adobe default.
But a red cardinal is better with the preset .Complicated stuff.

http://www.lightroomforums.net/showthread.php?t=1021
the red are orange on the canon 350/digital rebel xt

Shadows: Tint: +4

Red Primary:
Hue: -22
Saturation: 28

Green Primary:
Hue: -27
Saturation: -21

Blue Primary:
Hue: -3
Saturation: 2
Don

[Mike55]

Um...wrong answer. I haven't even installed DPP on my PC. Lightroom and and CS3 is it. Surely the RAW's from a 40D isn't that much different from a 30D? Lightroom has plenty of adjustments for white balance and everything else. More than DPP ever dreamed of having.



So you speak from experience then ;)

[Mike55]

Sadly, you cannot correct the "wrong" colors mentioned with those...

The only things DPP doesn't have are:

straightening
highlight recovery (big one!)
local contrast adjustment (clarity)
HSL for specific colors
Vignetting (for all lenses)
User interface specific things, like TAT
Limited DAMI think that sums it up.

Don't get me wrong; I love the functionality of LR.
You can use it to go straight from Raw to print / web.

IMO DPP cannot be used without an additional pass through Photoshop. But if I go that route (not often), I get better results out op DPP / PS every single time.


If LR could come close to DPP's conversion I would never touch DPP again. LR has brilliant options and amazing workflow. I really want to shell out the full price for it, but the colors and detail make me close my wallet. I really think it's a dream app if they can get the conversions nailed down. I'd *much* prefer using it.

I guess this thread has turned into some sort of general RAW converter thing. That's cool.

[Spazzmodicus]

So you speak from experience then ;)

Yes I do. It was previously installed on a former computer and used it quite a bit. I've not installed it on this computer since building it. Any other questions? Not anything too technical now ....you guys are already over my head....heh heh.

[René Damkot]

LR has brilliant options and amazing workflow.
Agree... Eagerly awaiting the release of 2.0 :)
Hope they get it fixed.