santi-u
Established
Hi all,
i'm another happy user of a new RD1s. I'm enjoying it a lot, a great camera with many nice features and small "issues" that are not so important to make me think i made wrong adquisition.
There are all satisfactions and i'm not missing my recently sold 5D at all.
I'm trying to make familiar with the camera features, like film settings and with the Epson Raw developer.
When i bought it my thoughts were shooting mostly color so i would leave my M6 for b&w film.
Now, after two weeks i find that i'm using mostly b&w, in raw mode and monocrome for having all my workflow without color.
I like very much the espon colours, more filmlike than the Canon ones, but my moment and inspiration is now for b&w.
I also like very much the Epson raw developer for black and white, but i find is caotic for color. I don't like the interfaz design, the slowest workflow and how shows the white balance and tint even if the camera setting is "as shot". The Canon DPP was much better.
In any case, i think for b&w is good enough and perfect to view all the process in monochrome with all the film setting options created to emulate a filmy look.
It was till yesterday that i discovered the filter settings on the camera. I was trying it on the developer but now i think i would use raw+jpg in monochrome mode and set directly some filter from the camera menu. That's perfect for me. I'm seeing good results from the direct jpgs but i don't want to forgive the raw files, never know the utility i would give them.
As i said, i did not have any idea i could set the filters on the camera, so i made my own experiment and tried jpg with a yellow medium filter on the lens. That's a bit strange cause it is not film, we have a sensor with color captors and i'm putting an extra color on it (many work for the sensor
, and also i think i'm reducing a bit of light also. Not a good idea but the results were'nt so bad.
Now my little worries are for finding a better developer for color. I've tried adobe camera raw but i don't like it very much either, maybe i'm not very comfortable with it. I was thinking in Lightroom or Capture One.
Another thing i will ask all of you is what kind of shutter release i will need for cleaning the sensor. Or maybe there's another solution, but there is some dust on it and would like to blow or clean if needed.
Thank you all and trying to learn from all of you.
Santi
i'm another happy user of a new RD1s. I'm enjoying it a lot, a great camera with many nice features and small "issues" that are not so important to make me think i made wrong adquisition.
There are all satisfactions and i'm not missing my recently sold 5D at all.
I'm trying to make familiar with the camera features, like film settings and with the Epson Raw developer.
When i bought it my thoughts were shooting mostly color so i would leave my M6 for b&w film.
Now, after two weeks i find that i'm using mostly b&w, in raw mode and monocrome for having all my workflow without color.
I like very much the espon colours, more filmlike than the Canon ones, but my moment and inspiration is now for b&w.
I also like very much the Epson raw developer for black and white, but i find is caotic for color. I don't like the interfaz design, the slowest workflow and how shows the white balance and tint even if the camera setting is "as shot". The Canon DPP was much better.
In any case, i think for b&w is good enough and perfect to view all the process in monochrome with all the film setting options created to emulate a filmy look.
It was till yesterday that i discovered the filter settings on the camera. I was trying it on the developer but now i think i would use raw+jpg in monochrome mode and set directly some filter from the camera menu. That's perfect for me. I'm seeing good results from the direct jpgs but i don't want to forgive the raw files, never know the utility i would give them.
As i said, i did not have any idea i could set the filters on the camera, so i made my own experiment and tried jpg with a yellow medium filter on the lens. That's a bit strange cause it is not film, we have a sensor with color captors and i'm putting an extra color on it (many work for the sensor
, and also i think i'm reducing a bit of light also. Not a good idea but the results were'nt so bad.
Now my little worries are for finding a better developer for color. I've tried adobe camera raw but i don't like it very much either, maybe i'm not very comfortable with it. I was thinking in Lightroom or Capture One.
Another thing i will ask all of you is what kind of shutter release i will need for cleaning the sensor. Or maybe there's another solution, but there is some dust on it and would like to blow or clean if needed.
Thank you all and trying to learn from all of you.
Santi
mani
Well-known
Nice images! Glad you're enjoying it!
I agree the Epson Raw developer isn't the most advanced or intuitive - I was really irritated by it at first, especially things like the way it doesn't automatically keep a record of changes to an image the way Lightroom does. But after trying it for a while (and also getting a new MacBook Pro - it was reaaaaaaally slow on the old one), I really like it now.
For one thing, the colors are totally muddied-down in Lightroom in comparison, and also an ENORMOUS amount of fine texture is lost in LR. Maybe the final result is possibly more 'natural', but I feel the Epson result is more like film - say the way that Portra or Kodachrome isn't totally realistic either, and with all the sensor's lovely uneven grainy noise intact. Even setting ALL noise reduction to zero in LR didn't maintain as much detail as the Epson converter.
Then the fact that settings aren't recorded doesn't bother me anymore - I see it as a plus now. It's just like film again! I have my negatives (the RAW files) and each time I want to 'print' them (for the web or actual prints), then I have to process them all over again! Each time is unique. This means that maybe I discover a better way the next time. But in any case, no two times will be identical - how un-digital can you get?
PS: incidentally I tried a quick comparison of some different developers when I first got the camera and posted some results here
What I thought was the biggest problem with Lightroom is in this post.
I agree the Epson Raw developer isn't the most advanced or intuitive - I was really irritated by it at first, especially things like the way it doesn't automatically keep a record of changes to an image the way Lightroom does. But after trying it for a while (and also getting a new MacBook Pro - it was reaaaaaaally slow on the old one), I really like it now.
For one thing, the colors are totally muddied-down in Lightroom in comparison, and also an ENORMOUS amount of fine texture is lost in LR. Maybe the final result is possibly more 'natural', but I feel the Epson result is more like film - say the way that Portra or Kodachrome isn't totally realistic either, and with all the sensor's lovely uneven grainy noise intact. Even setting ALL noise reduction to zero in LR didn't maintain as much detail as the Epson converter.
Then the fact that settings aren't recorded doesn't bother me anymore - I see it as a plus now. It's just like film again! I have my negatives (the RAW files) and each time I want to 'print' them (for the web or actual prints), then I have to process them all over again! Each time is unique. This means that maybe I discover a better way the next time. But in any case, no two times will be identical - how un-digital can you get?
PS: incidentally I tried a quick comparison of some different developers when I first got the camera and posted some results here
What I thought was the biggest problem with Lightroom is in this post.
Last edited:
santi-u
Established
Thanks Mani, maybe its a good philosophy what you say about the non-recording adjustments so that every time you go for the raw you have to restart again. That's one of the reasons i found it caotic and too slow if you have to work with a big batch of files.
The other thing is how it renders the raw "as shot" colours the first time you open them without tweaking anything. i normally see the small files well coloured, but when you open them the color changes i don't know why. Normally they appear greeny, or maybe too much cyan or yellow. Perhaps its the filmy character and i was looking for something more neutral.
I don't know if i have some setting preferences i can change.
But i think i would give it a chance. i will read carefully your comparisons anyway.
The other thing is how it renders the raw "as shot" colours the first time you open them without tweaking anything. i normally see the small files well coloured, but when you open them the color changes i don't know why. Normally they appear greeny, or maybe too much cyan or yellow. Perhaps its the filmy character and i was looking for something more neutral.
I don't know if i have some setting preferences i can change.
But i think i would give it a chance. i will read carefully your comparisons anyway.
LCT
ex-newbie
Still stuck to the Epson raw converter for B&W but i'm using more and more Capture One 4 for color. Less noisy than Epson's which is very usefull with vignetting lenses. As noise is low with C1 one may adjust light fall-offs without getting ugly results in the corners.
--
Well-known
Congrats on your great buy!
Why do you find Epson's PhotoRAW's workflow slow?
I find it quite fast (and it is my favourite photo-program of any I have tried [many]) - in particular if you want to make many different versions of your picture - whether it be different degrees of vignetting, filter or white balance.
It does take a little getting used to but after a while (and still) I found it second nature. I cannot help feeling it is centered around the individual photograph and not like other programs (none named, none forgotten) a conveyor belt picture factory
My only real gripe with the PhotoRAW is that it does not open tiff files :bang: That would ease the burden on other programs on my PC!
I wish some 12 year old kid (m/f) would make a decent converter - .tif to .erf
Great pictures you have posted btw,
cheers,
karspoul
Why do you find Epson's PhotoRAW's workflow slow?
I find it quite fast (and it is my favourite photo-program of any I have tried [many]) - in particular if you want to make many different versions of your picture - whether it be different degrees of vignetting, filter or white balance.
It does take a little getting used to but after a while (and still) I found it second nature. I cannot help feeling it is centered around the individual photograph and not like other programs (none named, none forgotten) a conveyor belt picture factory
My only real gripe with the PhotoRAW is that it does not open tiff files :bang: That would ease the burden on other programs on my PC!
I wish some 12 year old kid (m/f) would make a decent converter - .tif to .erf
Great pictures you have posted btw,
cheers,
karspoul
FranZ
Established
Where to download Epson RAW?
Where to download Epson RAW?
I've searched through the R-D1 threads to find a link to a down loadable copy of the Epson Raw stand-alone converter.
The only links I could find point to an upgrade, not to the whole thing.
I would like to use the converter since I started experimenting with IR.
Could somebody please point me to the right direction?
help is very much appreciated.
Where to download Epson RAW?
I've searched through the R-D1 threads to find a link to a down loadable copy of the Epson Raw stand-alone converter.
The only links I could find point to an upgrade, not to the whole thing.
I would like to use the converter since I started experimenting with IR.
Could somebody please point me to the right direction?
help is very much appreciated.
zetablues
Established
The "upgrade" IS the whole (upgraded) thing IMO.
Regards
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I also thought it was slow, when I was using it on either my old Mac G4 box with OSX 2.8 or my 12" powerbook. However, since I got my Power Book Pro, with Leopard, it is incredibly faster.
LCT
ex-newbie
Tuolumne
Veteran
I use the Epson SW on a dual core Intel system with 4 GB of memory running Windows XP. It is slow as molasses which keeps me from using it more. I find the RD-1 jpgs quite good and sufficient for almost all of my needs.
/T
/T
--
Well-known
Just out of curiosity - what is "molastic" in terms of speed?
I used to run it on XP with one Gig single core with no complaints as to speed (and I am not exactly patient).
And on Vista (sigh) on a 4 gig dual core laptop it is also quite fast (although the plug-in does not work at all) apart from the actual tiff conversion. But since the tiff conversion can work easily in the background and I have yet to experience PhotoRAW to crash, then (to me) it is not such a big burden.
In comparison to Adobe Photoshop Elements 6 [glacial] and the even slower Nikon Capture NX2 [local town hall employee speed] I find it quite useful. Or maybe I just have a good sample
cheers,
karspoul
Tuolumne
Veteran
"molastic" = "as slow as molasses running up hill in winter"
/T
/T
mani
Well-known
I'm wondering what part of the process is slow on Windows? On my old Apple PowerBook (with a 1Ghz G4 processor), it was slow to load each image, but usable in operation. On the new MacBook Pro it just screams along.