Lindolfi Posted March 25, 2013 Share #41 Posted March 25, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Does Lightroom create a record of the changes applied to the DNG, or specifics regarding presets? It might be helpful to see just what is being done in processing. Yes, and those settings can be exported as a template, opened with a text editor, since it's just a text file, and imported in LightRoom again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Hi Lindolfi, Take a look here In camera jpeg Vs DNG. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
brusby Posted March 25, 2013 Share #42 Posted March 25, 2013 you could have reached a different result with different settings. Brilliant, thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted March 26, 2013 Share #43 Posted March 26, 2013 For example, you had no idea what any of the settings were for things like sharpness, contrast, or saturation, in the photos I posted, yet you were fully ready to lay the blame on the program. I'd prefer to be around people with sharper analytical skills. And you provided no details on how you processed the images, but were ready to proclaim LR vastly inferior to photoninja based solely on the samples you provided. No one here saw it that way. You got your feelings hurt and are now lashing out. And who in their right mind would want to stay where the prevailing attitude is to concentrate on the negative rather than looking for something positive. I'd have to go back and count but what was it, a half dozen or a dozen negative comments and yet not a single positive remark. Well, considering the amount of talent and experience on this forum, I would think someone with less ego and a greater desire to learn might take the negative comments in a constructive manner and wonder whether maybe their comparison was a poor way of demonstrating the point they were trying to make. As has been pointed out, you were quite quick to condemn LR's ability to handle highlights based upon a rather quick and poorly executed comparison. Such unsubstantiated pronouncements have a tendency to generate criticism in any circle of photographers. Also, you interpret disagreement with you on which photo looks better as "negative" comment. There is nothing inherently negative about seeing things differently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted March 26, 2013 Share #44 Posted March 26, 2013 So many things just never seemed right about Lightroom. Colors were off, hightlights usually blocked up very early, and yes in camera JPGs were often better than some of the results I'd get from Lightroom. And yet, LR/ACR is the photo editing software used by the overwhelming majority of pro photographers. And you really didn't think a critical statement like this condemning LR might garner a bit of a negative response from a group of professional and serious amateur photographers? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 26, 2013 Share #45 Posted March 26, 2013 brusby noted earlier (paraphrased) that the default outcome from his DNG interpreter should provide output better than in-camera JPG. Given that he did not provide adequately diverse examples of his efforts, and for the moment taking them at face-value and at the same time we do not know what processing was applied by default, then maybe the default output is not particularly good. In other words, using the software without thought does not produce Auto-Magic great outcomes. So, what does one expect: perhaps out-of-the-box software certified as 'good 'by Leica? That strikes me as Leica having a mail-in package for film, when they were largely a film oriented maker. Of course, that would be insanely risky. Let this thread die. It is so obviously easy to find fault with the expectations of the OP. He messed up. His expectations are different from yours. Maybe he thinks that spending a lot of money means great results. We know that is not true, not in the digital age, not in the film age. Let it die! . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brusby Posted March 26, 2013 Share #46 Posted March 26, 2013 brusby noted earlier (paraphrased) that the default outcome from his DNG interpreter should provide output better than in-camera JPG. No I never made any such claim. Please check your facts first. It's really not that difficult. This is just getting ridiculous. I'd be happy for this to go away. But as long as I keep getting emails notifying me of new posts with false information attributed to me I'll continue to correct the record. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brusby Posted March 26, 2013 Share #47 Posted March 26, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) And you . . . were ready to proclaim LR vastly inferior to photoninja based solely on the samples you provided. Another exaggeration. It really doesn't help your credibility to embellish the facts. People will eventually realize they can't rely on what you tell 'em. How long would you like to keep beating this dead horse Dirk? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 26, 2013 Share #48 Posted March 26, 2013 No I never made any such claim. Please check your facts first. It's really not that difficult. You decline to tell us what parameters, adjustments you use, so I have to conclude that you used NONE! That means you want out-of-the-box outcomes. Welcome to my ignore file. This is a worthless exchange . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brusby Posted March 26, 2013 Share #49 Posted March 26, 2013 You decline to tell us what parameters, adjustments you use, so I have to conclude that you used NONE! That means you want out-of-the-box outcomes. Welcome to my ignore file. This is a worthless exchange . First you said I made the claim. Now you're saying it was your assumption. Which is it? It can't be both. But we do agree this is a worthless exchange. And I'll be grateful to you if you do as you say and ignore it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted March 26, 2013 Share #50 Posted March 26, 2013 Wow, Wow, Wow! I have read this with less and less interest the further down this thread I get. Horses for courses. I do see one problem in that any software is a package and once you start to unwrap the package it is best to open the package up all the way to see what's inside. Thus, IMHO, just looking at one area or one slider really only partially opens up the package. It seems that going through the entire optimization process in the best way you know how, helps give credence to any argument. Hey, I am no expert, but as far as LR in concerned I have heard many times mentioned that LR was designed to have you go down through the Basic area slider by slider top to bottom where ever you deem changes necessary before continuing on to other areas. Why not try that approach to see if you can extract any more from the image in either software program you are using? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sspector15 Posted November 7, 2014 Share #51 Posted November 7, 2014 Back to the original issue - why my M9 jpegs look great and the DNGs look "off," in my case kind of dingy, in need of a combination of exposure, contrast, and black being tweaked. Plus, I don't remember it being so before LR 4.3 (I've got Adobe Creative Cloud, so things get updated all the time--just downloading 4.4). Is there a setting in LR to use or an adjustment in the camera? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted November 7, 2014 Share #52 Posted November 7, 2014 I'm very surprised about the M9. The jpegs from mine were not very good, and worse they were inconsistent. The M240 is a whole nother story. I haven't had to shoot DNG yet, the in-camera jpegs are great. If I encounter a shot where I think I might need to push exposure, make radical changes to WB etc I would shoot DNG, otherwise I love the jpgs (standard default settings). I wish that had been the case with my M9. Unusable jpgs were one of 3 reasons I was happy to see it go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblutter Posted November 8, 2014 Share #53 Posted November 8, 2014 To my eyes, in this ambient light, on this monitor - neither cat pics are 'right', which is entirely subjective anyway - an opinion. There are no absolute rights or wrongs in creative visual work. In reproduction with an original to compare to, sure. Its not about the camera or the software. If your final online or print output communicates your intent, you've been successful. PS: If you really want control, Capture One's latest version has a dizzying arsenal of tools. Warning: steep learning curve! PSS: The violin is out of focus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted November 9, 2014 Share #54 Posted November 9, 2014 Looking at the original pics, I see they were taken with the M (Typ 240), so shouldn't this thread be in the M forum? As I understand it, there is quite a difference between the M9 and M in color rendition -- with some photographers preferring the M9. Whether this is because of a CCD sensor is another matter. All this shows to me is that it is possible to manipulate the color, and there is no "right" or "wrong". It does show that jpegs can be surprisingly good, and simply opting to post-process a raw (DNG) image with whatever program will not necessarily yield a better result! It requires some effort! I have found DNG images definitely always have more shadow detail, but that may or may not be a concern. Exposure is still important, and you can't just hope to fix everything in PP. One thing I have been puzzled with with LR is why exported pictures seem to shrink in file size. It's probably just me and I am clicking on the wrong button. The LR interface is not the best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted November 10, 2014 Share #55 Posted November 10, 2014 This week I did some comparison between in-camera JPEG and DNG processed in Lightroom 4 and Aperture. First of all, I must say that Lightroom 4 and Aperture give very similar results: both wrong. So when you miss the nail then you'll blame the hammer? No comment. In-camera JPEG wins. That's because you're unwilling or unable to use Lightroom and Aperture properly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 10, 2014 Share #56 Posted November 10, 2014 He guys! This discussion is more than 1 1/2 years old.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted December 1, 2014 Share #57 Posted December 1, 2014 One needs to develop his own profile from Adobe Labs Profile editor. Or just make a pleasing to you profile using the color sliders and save it as a preset. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblutter Posted December 1, 2014 Share #58 Posted December 1, 2014 Who cares about jpg's? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted December 6, 2014 Share #59 Posted December 6, 2014 He guys! This discussion is more than 1 1/2 years old.... Yup, and I had missed it ! Subscribing and getting popcorns Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.