Help with Lightroom and Adobe profiles for R-D1

Yes you can but that defeats the purpose of RAW files. once you convert to jpg u start to loose quality and if you then edit the file in LR or PS you degrade it even more.

I had no problems using PhotoRaw on Mac. Software itself is pretty crappy and not very user friendly but it does work. That's why I'm trying to figure out how I can make it look decent.

Back Alley - can you do me a favor and try to open the erf file in Elements and let me know if it looks like LR or PhotoRaw. if you can please post a screen shot of what it looks like on your computer.


Raw file:
http://www.gololed.net/epson/quebec-124.ERF
Thanks

Alex
 
Or convert to Tiff then edit in PS before converting to Jpeg for printing or web. I tried to open in elements but the files are already in .jpg.
 
Interesting. why doesn't it open? This is getting weirder :)

File is not corrupt. i just downloaded it and it opened fine in OSX preview. what version of elements do you have?
 
The idea behind DNG is to have a file format that is open standard and, hopefully, future proof. When Epson no longer support ERF, then you'll be stuck with files that can't be opened. Converting them to DNG allows all of the original data to be extracted at any time in the future. And because Adobe is behind this standard, there should be good support (but nothing digital can be guaranteed, can it?). Also, as the software gets better, you'll be able to extract more subtlety from your images.
The best thing I've come across to explain (or extol) the virtues of Camera Raw and DNG is Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe's Real World Camera Raw.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss...&field-keywords=real+world+camera+raw&x=0&y=0

Just choose the correct book for your version of ACR.

I've also used Thomas Fors' ACR Cailbrator to create a single profile for my RD-1 using more modern lenses, such as my early 1970s 50mm Summicron, and another one for the 1938 28mm f6.3 Hektor. There's quite a marked difference for this lens! And together with the colour fringing correction and the removal of vignetting, it does make the marked yellow cast almost disappear.

http://fors.net/chromoholics/support/?w=GettingStarted

And you'll need an X-Rite Colour Checker colour scale to make it work.

Nick
 
To further muddy the waters... I'm using Lightroom v1.4.1 with Adobe Camera Raw v4.4.
Attached is a screen shot of "quebec-124.erf" with 'none' checked on the import preset.

--michael
 

Attachments

  • via-lightroom-1-4-1.jpg
    via-lightroom-1-4-1.jpg
    115.2 KB · Views: 0
gilpen123 - looks like pse6 doesn't support erf.

nickdando - thanks for the tips about DNG. can you post your profile that u created?

mwooten - looks like 1.4 version of lightroom creates yet another view of the same picture :). do you have adobe beta profiles loaded?
 
kalex said:
kermaier - if you click on basic and choose as shot that should give you same file as the file you see on your camera LCD
Click to expand...

Ah, but it doesn't. In fact, even the in-camera JPEG (from RAW+JPEG mode) doesn't look like what I see on the camera LCD. For some reason it seems as if the preview JPEG embedded in the RAW file uses different, nicer settings than either the full-size JPEG engine or the EPR conversion. Very frustrating.

::Ari
 
i use pse6 for mac and i open my rd1 raw files with it. but i think i added a acr plug in somewhere along the way.
i quite often fly in the dark with this stuff.
 
kalex said:
...

mwooten - looks like 1.4 version of lightroom creates yet another view of the same picture :). do you have adobe beta profiles loaded?
Click to expand...
I've not downloaded it. My powerbook is a G4 and the LR3 specs call for an intel machine. The version of LR that I do have, while lacking many of the cool new features of v2 and beta v3, works right well for me and my needs. It boils down to the fact that I don't want to buy a new computer right now to meet the requirements of updated software.

--michael
 
kalex said:
RAW has been a very hard topic for me to grasp and I'm still working on it. From what I understand and please correct me if I'm wrong but each manufacturer creates their own raw format. If you open a file in Epson RAW (i have it working without any problems on my Mac Pro with Leopard) version 1.30, files look same way as they do on my camera's LCD because Epson can read camera settings. When I was shooting with Nikon DSLR Capture NX did the samething. Basically Capture NX and Epson RAW can fully decode raw files and that's why Pictures look pretty much as they do on the camera LCD. Problem with all after market raw converters is that they can't fully decode the raw file and thats why files look like crap when I open them in lightroom.
Thats why Adobe released custom profiles where they try to match those files as close as possible.
Click to expand...
This is mostly true. The 1st party converters (DPP, Capture NX, Epson's, etc.) can decode certain settings that will allow you to essentially use JPEG output as your starting point for raw conversion. However, the difference in starting appearance is not only down to this. RAW data isn't really even viewable without demosaicing and applying a tone curve, and every program uses different methods and different default curves.

kalex said:
Sam - what is the advantage of converting to DNG? as oppose to keeping it in ERF format?
Click to expand...
As I said, the .DNG files are only 6 megs vs 10 megs for the ERF files. Another advantage is that you can embed previews into the DNG files which makes it easier to browse / edit your images. The only downside is that you can no longer use Epson's software, but IMO Epson's software (like most manufacturer-made converters) is nearly unusable.

Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) is a jack of all trades. It won't necessarily give you the "best" out of the box conversions, but it works for pretty much every camera and the usability is miles ahead of anything else (except maybe for C1 or Aperture, neither of which I've used much).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom