RAW Converters For R-D1

Joe Mondello

Joe Mondello

Resu Deretsiger
Local time
6:00 PM
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
566
Well I noticed right off the bat that while Lightroom sees the R-D1's RAWs, Aperture doesn't.

Any ideas? Aperture is certainly my workflow tool of choice.
 
Joe Mondello said:
Well I noticed right off the bat that while Lightroom sees the R-D1's RAWs, Aperture doesn't.

Any ideas? Aperture is certainly my workflow tool of choice.
Click to expand...

It would be mine, too, if there were any way to get it to see R-D 1 raw files. But several people have investigated this and concluded that there isn't.

Even if you convert your R-D 1 files to DNG, Aperture won't recognize them. It only recognizes DNG files that originated on a supported camera type.

This seems to be caused by the fact that Aperture has its own highly optimized raw-conversion code base, and the R-D 1 wasn't included in the camera models for which they included support.

I'm told you can get R-D 1 files into Aperture by converting them to 16-bit TIFFs, but this does seem to lose many of the benefits of a raw-based file management system.

Several of us have emailed Apple asking to have the R-D 1 supported, but now that it's a lame-duck model I don't have a lot of hope.
 
Thanks, all.

I should have mentioned that Aperture is APPLE Aperture. Can't believe I left that out!

I'll go check that Support site Aaron, thanks for the tip.
 
For the record, I gave up on Aperture for this reason. I've since learned to love Lightroom. Lightroom's had a few recent updates that I feel make it superior (in some respects) than Aperture anyway.

For one thing (and this is a biggie in my mind), Aperture's library management is absurdly opaque, whereas Lightroom allows you to dynamically link the library to existing folders and do other useful stuff to make it easy to store, backup and migrate your images. Aperture just seems to lock everything inside an incomprehensible invisible structured folder.
 
sirvine said:
For one thing (and this is a biggie in my mind), Aperture's library management is absurdly opaque, whereas Lightroom allows you to dynamically link the library to existing folders and do other useful stuff to make it easy to store, backup and migrate your images. Aperture just seems to lock everything inside an incomprehensible invisible structured folder.
Click to expand...

That's no longer true in version 1.5. You have a choice of using the Aperture Library (which is easily opened by the way) or referencing image files anywhere you like.

For me the huge downfall of Lightroom is it's inability to be used with dual displays -- a huge error on the part of the interface designers IMO.
 
Currently I am using Adobe lightroom Beta and I am quite impressed

it opens NEF files faster than any other program I have used

yes it does not have some of the tools that photoshop has (like masking)... but its still impressive

especially since the current version is free (for now)
 
Lightroom

Lightroom

I used to have a Canon 5D and Aperture became indespensible but since buying a R-D1S I hardly use Aperture so I'm looking at changing to Lightroom. How does Lightroom's RAW conversion compare to PhotoRAW or Capture One (or any other converter)? and does anybody know if I sell my copy of Aperture, can the new owner register it and get updates etc. Thanks.
 
IGMeanwell said:
Currently I am using Adobe lightroom Beta and I am quite impressed

it opens NEF files faster than any other program I have used

yes it does not have some of the tools that photoshop has (like masking)... but its still impressive

especially since the current version is free (for now)
Click to expand...

Lightroom will be a fine product and beta 4.1 is light-years ahead of beta 1.0

I don't find it any faster opening NEFs than Aperture though. Both have really seen speed improvements this year.
 
It just bothers me that Aperture 1.5 (a production release) can't open ERFs, but the Lightroom beta release can. I know this is a result of Adobe's much longer history vis a vis RAW support in Photoshop, but Apple has a looooong way to go in this area. If you look at the supported camera in Aperture, they've covered the main consumer SLR lines, but little else. If this is really a 'pro' product, you'd think they'd throw in support for at least one of the two digital rangefinders on the market (even if Epson no longer makes or supports it).

I normally think competition is a good thing, but after having migrated (sooo painfully) my library of RAW files at least five or six times between various releases of Aperture and Lightroom, I am starting to lose patience with this particular 'arms race'.

At the end of the day, if Aperture would open ERF files, I would buy it and never look back. I really prefer the interface over Adobe's rather gimmicky look and feel.
 
Currently I am using Adobe lightroom Beta and I am quite impressed. It opens NEF files faster than any other program I have used
Click to expand...

Once you get more than about 7,000 images in your library, it becomes very sluggish.

especially since the current version is free (for now)
Click to expand...

Yeah, Adobe is pulling the old Microsoft trick. Cook up a beta, distribute it very widely, don't publish any formal documentation but instead hype it with podcasts and testimonials and even "adventure tours"... then, once lots of people have invested a lot of time learning it and putting their content into it and adding metadata to that content (keywords, cropping, develop settings etc.) they can announce whatever price they want for the final product -- and people will either have to cough up what they demand, or walk away from their investment in time and effort.

Yes, I'm using the Lightroom beta, and yes, it's okay (bearing in mind the sluggishness issue) but I'm treading very warily in terms of committing to it.
 
I previously voted for SilkyPix. In the past several days I've been working with Raw Developer, Mac only, and it really impresses. It is very smartly inacted, allowing choice of camera profile, tone curve, and then usual modifications. For instance, they have tone curves that simulate how C1 tones, thus allowing use of JFI profiles (C1 based 3rd party B&W) which work fine in Raw Developer. It allows M8 profiles developed for C1 to minimize magenta IR to be loaded well.
Beyond this, it has superb detail, very sophisticated sharpening and noise reduction options, and it's own excellent B&W conversion options. Under $100. best....Peter
 
Adobe purchased pixmantec's Rawshooter essentials and premium. Those of us who owned the rawshooter premium version will be grandfathered into Lightroom V1.
 
Innerimager said:
I previously voted for SilkyPix. In the past several days I've been working with Raw Developer, Mac only, and it really impresses. It is very smartly inacted, allowing choice of camera profile, tone curve, and then usual modifications. For instance, they have tone curves that simulate how C1 tones, thus allowing use of JFI profiles (C1 based 3rd party B&W) which work fine in Raw Developer. It allows M8 profiles developed for C1 to minimize magenta IR to be loaded well.
Beyond this, it has superb detail, very sophisticated sharpening and noise reduction options, and it's own excellent B&W conversion options. Under $100. best....Peter
Click to expand...
I just started using Raw Developer (1.6). Where do you find the C1 tone curves?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom