rsmphoto Posted November 14, 2009 Share #1 Posted November 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm having a problem setting up any custom profile set with a color space of AdobeRGB. Try as I might, although initially set to AdobeRGB, my saved profiles come up with all my custom settings except that the color space reverts back to sRGB and locks on sRGB. Also, every time I power up my M9 I find I'm in Snapshot Profile, thus sRGB. Honestly, I don't need Snapshot Profile and would just as soon get rid of it. Am I missing something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 14, 2009 Posted November 14, 2009 Hi rsmphoto, Take a look here Deleting Snapshot Profile. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
brill64 Posted November 16, 2009 Share #2 Posted November 16, 2009 i think it's there for good using up valuable ram:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 16, 2009 Share #3 Posted November 16, 2009 The colourspace is adjustable ONLY in Jpg. Which is logical, as the DNG file has no colourspace, which is only assigned in RAW conversion. Thus, if you set your camera to DNG only, it will grey out the colourspace field, leaving sRGB faintly legible. The Snapshot mode is JPG only,but uses the simplest settings, thus sRGB. If you want to set the colourspace in-camera, you must activate DNG+JPG. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsmphoto Posted November 16, 2009 Author Share #4 Posted November 16, 2009 Ok, thanks. I'm coming from years of shooting exclusively Hasselblad 3fr/fff, having rejected DNG from the onset because I didn't like the way it rendered reds. Never paid much attention to DNG since then. Now I'm forced to take notice. Life is full of compromises. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted November 16, 2009 Share #5 Posted November 16, 2009 rsmphoto, Like you, I really kind of completely ignored DNG for a long time, however lately I have really gotten to like it. I use the compressed version as I can't tell the difference, but when comparing to fine JPG, the difference is HUGE in fine details... . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 16, 2009 Share #6 Posted November 16, 2009 Ok, thanks. I'm coming from years of shooting exclusively Hasselblad 3fr/fff, having rejected DNG from the onset because I didn't like the way it rendered reds. Never paid much attention to DNG since then. Now I'm forced to take notice. Life is full of compromises. DNG doesn't render - it is your RAW converter - and you There are profiles emerging already for all tastes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsmphoto Posted November 16, 2009 Author Share #7 Posted November 16, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Bo, Interesting. I just don't go to jpegs - ever. I guess that's why I store my annual image production on 1TB HD's! But that's an interesting testament to DNG. Certainly useful if pressed for SD space in some remote location. Looks like I'll do a wee bit of testing.... As a note, I'm re-equipping with Leica after a 30 year hiatus (used M2's), in the meantime having been shooting professionally predominantly with view cameras, Canon 1Ds's, and Hasselblad H3D's. Like many here I've returned to Leica for the optics, the compactness and full-frame of the M9, and the rejection of the AA filter. Cheers, Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsmphoto Posted November 16, 2009 Author Share #8 Posted November 16, 2009 DNG doesn't render - it is your RAW converter - and you There are profiles emerging already for all tastes. Well, I apologize. I should be more specific. My initial issue with DNG and red rendering stemmed from converting 3fr/fff files to DNG with Flexcolor. That was the real issue, my proprietary RAW converter. No other RAW converter existed for quite some time. So DNG remains blameless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted November 17, 2009 Share #9 Posted November 17, 2009 ... So DNG remains blameless. Maybe in this case blameless, and certainly in the terms you and Jaap are referring to. But there seem to be additional problems with DNG and Lightroom (at least) that a lot of us hadn't anticipated. See for example http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-post-processing-forum/104239-does-lr-alter-your-referenced-raw.html. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 17, 2009 Share #10 Posted November 17, 2009 Well, yes, but that is an effect that was widely misunderstood in that thread. The original RAW data as stored in DNG remain unaltered, but there is an embedded file in the DNG that regulates the readout settings of those RAW data. That can-and will- be altered by your RAW converter. As this is just a readout settings file, the changes stored are non-destructive, i.e. you can always revert to your original file by using the reset facility of your RAW converter. If you want to avoid this just mark all your RAW files as "read only"files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted November 17, 2009 Share #11 Posted November 17, 2009 Okay, my fault. That means I still misunderstand. Thanks, Jaap, for correcting me. I know there's a "Reset" button in Lightroom to clear all changes for any image. So the only permanent DNG modification Lightroom makes is that it can write a compressed DNG (if requested) which other DNG converters may not accept since they expect uncompressed DNGs from M8/M9? Is my understanding wrong there? That would not be a fault of Lightroom, but a fault of the other DNG converter for not accepting the Adobe compression, and my fault for working with the Adobe-compressed file and then expecting it to open in another converter. Am I still off-base here? Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 17, 2009 Share #12 Posted November 17, 2009 Whether or not it oher converters can read Lightroom-written DNGs I cannot say. I would think Adobe, as the author of DNG knows their own format best.If you want even the sidecar file in your DNG to remain untouched you can always store them as read-only files. I can only say that C1 for instance has no problem in reading either compressed or uncompressed M9 files. Afaik M8 DNG are always compressed out-of-camera. I hope somebody like Tom or Sandy will chime in. Their knowledge is far deeper than mine, so they can explain far better (and correct any misconceptions I may have:() Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted November 18, 2009 Share #13 Posted November 18, 2009 I know about the M8's compression. Even though it was part of the original DNG definition, the M8 was the first camera to implement it, and Adobe had to introduce a new version of ACR to read it. Only C1 worked for the first week or so of the M8 IIRC. But I think that at one time, if someone started with an M8 DNG and then produced a DNG via Adobe's lossless compression, that file was no longer recognizable by Capture One. That disagreement may have passed (if it ever existed in the first place). It's looking to me more and more as if DNG isn't becoming the universal standard Adobe hoped, but is becoming just another RAW format for companies who don't want to design their own From Adobe's viewpoint, if everyone had adopted the DNG standard, Adobe wouldn't have to keep issuing ACR updates to work with new cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.