DMG profile for s2

[Grummz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Which does a better job interpreting s2 DNG files? Lightroom or aperture?

 

Being new to raw I am not sure I understand why there is even a difference. Is this when the software interprets the file or when it gets converted to jpeg?

 

I also heard about custom profiles that users can create for interpreting DNG files? Does anyone have a good one for s2 files?

 

Thanks!

[c6gowin]

Hi Grummz,

 

I have never tried Aperture so I can't make a comparison to Lightroom. I am using LR 3.0 beta 2. Currently, LR does not have an S2 specific profile so I use a profile I created using an X-Rite Color Checker Passport. I am hoping S2 specific profile will be available soon (e.g., final release of version 3.0)

[Grummz]

Sorry, I meant DNG. I also just found the software thread. Sounds like Aperture users are pretty happy, but most use light room.

 

Any Aperture users out there care tom comment?

[jaapv]

You have me a bit confused. You appear to have bought an S2, yet are clearly at the very start of the digital learning slope. In that case, if you ever want to get anything near the real potential out of such a camera, I would adivise you to enroll in a series of professional classes on postprocessing.

[c6gowin]

You make a good point Jaap. I have been shooting and processing raw files since 2002 and I'm sure I would benefit from a class or two on postprocessing.

[jaapv]

I was not talking about you, but may I join you?

[Grummz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You have me a bit confused. You appear to have bought an S2, yet are clearly at the very start of the digital learning slope. In that case, if you ever want to get anything near the real potential out of such a camera, I would adivise you to enroll in a series of professional classes on postprocessing.

 

 

Wow, what a snide and condescending post. Thanks for all the help.

 

No thanks to such luminous experts as jaapv who seem to prefer smug comments rather than actual sharing of information or knowledge (which he perhaps lacks himself? Or lacks the means to purchase an S2 and is somehow miffed?), I thought I would share some useful links I found on the topic:

 

A great article on custom DNG profiles:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/dng-profiles.shtml

 

Adobe's software and information on their custom DNG profile editor:

 

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles

 

As for Lightroom vs Aperture for DNG processing of S2 files, I will be happy to try both and post a comparison for other to comment upon.

 

There, now that wasn't so hard, was it? Some people....

[pop]

....

Being new to raw I am not sure I understand why there is even a difference. Is this when the software interprets the file ....

 

... yet are clearly at the very start of the digital learning slope. In that case, if you ever want to get anything near the real potential out of such a camera, I would adivise you to enroll in a series of professional classes on postprocessing.

 

You - Grummz - open a thread and declare at the very beginning that you have no experience working with raw files. By your very question you document that you are at the beginning of a learning experience.

 

Yet you object to an experienced member pointing out that learning how to work with the raw files from your splendid camera might take more time and effort than you are expecting and suggesting to enroll in some classes.

 

What's your problem, and why do you ask if you're not prepared to accept answers in the spirit they are given?

[Grummz]

You - Grummz - open a thread and declare at the very beginning that you have no experience working with raw files. By your very question you document that you are at the beginning of a learning experience.

 

Yet you object to an experienced member pointing out that learning how to work with the raw files from your splendid camera might take more time and effort than you are expecting and suggesting to enroll in some classes.

 

What's your problem, and why do you ask if you're not prepared to accept answers in the spirit they are given?

 

He spent more time being smug than trying to post anything meaningful like class links, or an actual answer to my question about which produces the better DNG output (A vs LR) or how to create a custom DNG profile. Really, what useful content was in his reply other than a condescending smear?

 

The answer to my question does not need semesters of classes. His answer was more self edifying to his ego and my newbie status than it was actually productive or helpful. The tone was dreadful too.

 

How about a forum that helps new users instead of berates them for not knowing enough to post or ask questions without going to classes first?

 

Here's some more *useful* information that he (or you) could have spent his expert time answering in a couple seconds:

 

Aperture does not accept custom DNG profiles, but Lightroom does. You can either use products like X-rite's colorchecker passport to create profiles for LR:

 

X-Rite: Get exactly the color you need, every time, anywhere in the world.

 

Or you can tweak existing profiles with Adobe's editor, which people say is a good starting point.

 

The DNG interpretation in Aperture on a Mac takes place at the OS level, so is not generally tweakable except by Apple, unless you use LR.

 

What you see displayed in both Aperture and LR is the interpretation of the DNG profile of the RAW data, and so is the exported image in whatever file format you choose.

[el.nino]

The point is: One cannot take Aperture serious in a professional level.

It's a prosumer-software and nothing more. So, why even think about it?

btw: there is a new version of hasselblads raw-software PHOCUS 2.5.

It's free and will allow all file-format.

you might want to consider this as well.

[Grummz]

The point is: One cannot take Aperture serious in a professional level.

It's a prosumer-software and nothing more. So, why even think about it?

btw: there is a new version of hasselblads raw-software PHOCUS 2.5.

It's free and will allow all file-format.

you might want to consider this as well.

 

Thanks! I've already downloaded LR from the Leica site and will check out PHOCUS. I agree that its time to move on from Aperture. I'm still interesting in comparing the three outputs in regards to the S2 though. I'll try to do this later.

[Grummz]

Edit: Just checked and according to the Hasselblad PHOCUS readme, the conversion and support of other camera RAW formats, as well as DNG is done through OSX's native OS conversion. In other words, just like Aperture.

 

Remains to be seen if Phocus does any further processing to enhance IQ. Will check it out later.

[Constable]

Calm down folks!

 

The OP had a perfectly good question.

 

The responses were OK and now we seem to be in a flaming war!

 

The question from the OP is good. There is a whole slew of RAW converters out there, some of which work for S2 DNGs, some of which don't. You are not meant to know by osmosis which do and which don't work. The point of forums like this is for those of us who have wasted time finding out what does and doesn't work to pass that info on.

 

OK - RANT over.

 

IMHO

 

Lightroom 3 actually works rather well if a little slowly.

Bibble 5.1 is still a no-no

Aperture is prosumer but gives little useful control.

Phocus is actually not bad but is also slow and to get a really good result you end up investing as much time as with Lightroom.

 

I'm currently using CS5/Lightroom but will move to Bibble 5.x as soon as there is support for the dng files

 

Hope this helps

 

Ed

[el.nino]

Edit: Just checked and according to the Hasselblad PHOCUS readme, the conversion and support of other camera RAW formats, as well as DNG is done through OSX's native OS conversion. In other words, just like Aperture.

 

sorry, my fault.

just read the announcement.

[jaapv]

He spent more time being smug than trying to post anything meaningful like class links, or an actual answer to my question about which produces the better DNG output (A vs LR) or how to create a custom DNG profile. Really, what useful content was in his reply other than a condescending smear?

 

The answer to my question does not need semesters of classes. His answer was more self edifying to his ego and my newbie status than it was actually productive or helpful. The tone was dreadful too.

 

How about a forum that helps new users instead of berates them for not knowing enough to post or ask questions without going to classes first?

 

Here's some more *useful* information that he (or you) could have spent his expert time answering in a couple seconds:

 

Aperture does not accept custom DNG profiles, but Lightroom does. You can either use products like X-rite's colorchecker passport to create profiles for LR:

 

X-Rite: Get exactly the color you need, every time, anywhere in the world.

 

Or you can tweak existing profiles with Adobe's editor, which people say is a good starting point.

 

The DNG interpretation in Aperture on a Mac takes place at the OS level, so is not generally tweakable except by Apple, unless you use LR.

 

What you see displayed in both Aperture and LR is the interpretation of the DNG profile of the RAW data, and so is the exported image in whatever file format you choose.

A friendly-meant answer. Like somebody buying a Ferrari, asking how the gearshift works and somebody suggesting it might be a good to take a few driving lessons to get the most from the car.

[GMB]

A friendly-meant answer. Like somebody buying a Ferrari, asking how the gearshift works and somebody suggesting it might be a good to take a few driving lessons to get the most from the car.

 

Could not agree more!

[Grummz]

Could not agree more!

 

What does asking which software produces the best DNG results has anything to do the poster requiring lessons to use an S2? Does being new to RAW mean that I won't be able to use an S2 effectively? It is know that several professional photographers are also new to RAW.

 

My question was more like asking which brand of tire was best for my Ferrari, and it implies nothing about the skill of the owner.

 

Again, you're flapping lips and offering no expertise. I challenge you to post your knowledge of DNG files here, as I have done, or just go away so the forums can be a friendlier and more open tool for helping others.

[GMB]

Jaap did not suggest you should take a lesson to use the S2 but a lesson on raw. Why? May be because of that:

 

Being new to raw I am not sure I understand why there is even a difference. Is this when the software interprets the file or when it gets converted to jpeg?

 

Thanks!

 

I do not pretend to be an expert in raw conversion but I do it since 3 years and used two different programs. Anyway, would certainly not be offended if someone suggest to take a lesson if I asked a question which shows that I am a beginner.

 

End of story.

[stunsworth]

No thanks to such luminous experts as jaapv who seem to prefer smug comments rather than actual sharing of information or knowledge (which he perhaps lacks himself?

 

You could write books on post processing of digital files - indeed people have - so it's a little optimistic to expect a thorough run down of what's involved in a single message in an internet forum.

 

As a matter of fact I think Jaap's advice is sound. If you know so little that you don't know what a RAW processor does, or why you might want to use a profile, then after spending a shed load of money on an S2 you owe it to yourself to take a course of some kind. Either face to face or using a self study book.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Simple comment on digital. You now are the lab.

 

Digital is a combination of many factors and software is one big factor that folks simply don't realize how important it really is. I have folks that come to our workshops that are very good shooters but in the end know very little on how to raw process to really show there talents. It's not a one time deal either it takes time to understand all the nuances that are involved in processing to gain as much what that sensor is really capturing.