I have Lightroom 5.7; if I get a Leica SL3, would it work in my version of Lightroom?

[Anbaric]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, thebarnman said:

I only bought once and it still works today.  At the same time I don't know what I'm missing.  I just tested a RAW file from a SL3 yesterday and it opened up in my CS6 version of Photoshop.  Of course I'm guessing it's very likely that a current version of Photoshop and Lightroom will work better with today's RAW files, but I don't know enough about that to know what the differences are.      

Because Leica uses DNG as their raw format, which is designed to be universal, you can open the files even in old raw converters. What you won't get is the profiling Adobe has done for the new camera. In the Camera Raw 'Camera Calibration' tab, the only camera profile available is 'Embedded'. If the file were supported, you'd see a set of options here (to see how this works, you could try an old Nikon D300 file from here, which should be supported by the version of ACR in CS6 and by LR 5.x).

I would take a look at the sample SL3 DNG file from the dpreview page above, converted with the embedded profile, and compare it with the in-camera jpeg from the same page. I think the jpeg looks better in this case, so there's room for improvement in the raw conversion. You could experiment with different ACR settings and save and load them from the 'Presets' tab. Or you could try a demo version of PS or LR to see how they deal with SL3 files today with the benefit of Adobe's current camera profiles (but make sure you have the means to re-install CS6 and LR5 before you try this in case CC messes up your existing installation, or do it on a different computer). Or you could create your own camera profiles. The old DNG Profile Editor is still available here, which you could use with a ColorChecker chart.

 

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[SrMi]

7 hours ago, thebarnman said:

Hi SrMi, 

I finally found the time to open one of your RAW files in my copy of Lightroom 5.7; it opened right up.  I'm guessing it would be easy to edit the image as easily as any other images I've edited in Lightroom 5.7?  Maybe not?  Is it possible it's not handling the file correctly?    

Here's what it looks like....

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

In that screenshot you are seeing the embedded JPEG. Can you import and process the image?

P.S.: The image that you downloaded is not mine, it belongs to dpreview.com.

[Jeff S]

8 hours ago, thebarnman said:

Interesting.  What do you mean that LR Classic eliminates the need for Photoshop in many cases?  

 

 

The editing controls, both global and local, have improved immensely in LR, allowing one to make certain adjustments that formerly could only be done, or done well, in Photoshop. 
 

If you don’t understand how your software works, and how to take advantage of it to improve your output, then indeed there’s probably little reason to ever upgrade.  If you never benefited from camera upgrades, because you never understood the features and controls in the first place, then it would be silly to spend more on the latest and greatest camera. The cool thing about the LR and Photoshop plan is that you get all the latest and greatest features and controls (not just camera and lens support) for the same $120 per year.

Jeff

[Jeff S]

4 hours ago, Anbaric said:

Because Leica uses DNG as their raw format, which is designed to be universal, you can open the files even in old raw converters. What you won't get is the profiling Adobe has done for the new camera. In the Camera Raw 'Camera Calibration' tab, the only camera profile available is 'Embedded'. If the file were supported, you'd see a set of options here (to see how this works, you could try an old Nikon D300 file from here, which should be supported by the version of ACR in CS6 and by LR 5.x).

I would take a look at the sample SL3 DNG file from the dpreview page above, converted with the embedded profile, and compare it with the in-camera jpeg from the same page. I think the jpeg looks better in this case, so there's room for improvement in the raw conversion. You could experiment with different ACR settings and save and load them from the 'Presets' tab. Or you could try a demo version of PS or LR to see how they deal with SL3 files today with the benefit of Adobe's current camera profiles (but make sure you have the means to re-install CS6 and LR5 before you try this in case CC messes up your existing installation, or do it on a different computer). Or you could create your own camera profiles. The old DNG Profile Editor is still available here, which you could use with a ColorChecker chart.

 

 

There is of course far more to these upgrades than just camera/lens profiling and support. Just as in darkroom days, even if one has a ‘better’ negative, that doesn’t ensure that the user would ever produce a better print from it. Producing a quality picture, or print, has never been a ‘ plug and play’ approach,’ requiring user understanding of tools and techniques, and more importantly, the judgment and decision making to use those improved tools to enhance the end product.  
 

The OP doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.  Camera support in the latest software is the least of it when it comes to digital editing, controls and final output quality.
 

Jeff

Edited April 27, 2024 by Jeff S

[dpitt]

51 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

The editing controls, both global and local, have improved immensely in LR, allowing one to make certain adjustments that formerly could only be done, or done well, in Photoshop. 
 

If you don’t understand how your software works, and how to take advantage of it to improve your output, then indeed there’s probably little reason to ever upgrade.  If you never benefited from camera upgrades, because you never understood the features and controls in the first place, then it would be silly to spend more on the latest and greatest camera. The cool thing about the LR and Photoshop plan is that you get all the latest and greatest features and controls (not just camera and lens support) for the same $120 per year.

Jeff

I agree with you up to a point. But OTOH with the current tools LR and C1P offer very good automatic adjustments. So in a sense a novice user would also benefit, and maybe even more from an upgrade. If I see what my C1P delivers with the auto function alone, that is not only saving time, but it is always a very good start to get a final image with a few minor tweaks. I am sure that the latest version of LR has also immensely approved in this area..

My LR 5.7 could achieve similar results but required more knowledge and more time, and in some cases a trip to PS and back to do the same. I say similar, because some features did not even exist in LR 5.7. Anyway, the cost of upgrading seems irrelevant after investing that much in the SL3 and lens(es).

I am not a fan of the latest and greatest, but that is partly because I do not have hardware that is recent enough to fully benefit. My youngest camera is a TL2 and my youngest Mac is from 2019... In this case, I think that an upgrade of LR will deliver a good ROI to make the most of your wonderful SL3

Edited April 27, 2024 by dpitt

[Jeff S]

1 minute ago, dpitt said:

I agree with you up to a point. But OTOH with the current tools LR and C1P offer very good automatic adjustments. So in a sense a novice user would also benefit, and maybe even more from an upgrade. If I see what my C1P delivers with the auto function alone, that is not only saving time, but it is always a very good start to get a final image with a few minor tweaks. I am sure that the latest version has also immensely approved in this area..

My LR 5.7 could achieve similar results but required more knowledge and more time, and in some cases a trip to PS and back to do the same. I say similar, because some features did not even exist in LR 5.7. Anyway, the cost of upgrading seems irrelevant after investing that much in the SL3 and lens(es).

I am not a fan of the latest and greatest, but that is partly because I do not have hardware that is recent enough to fully benefit. My youngest camera is a TL2 and my youngest Mac is from 2019...

Tools and techniques are easy to learn.  The harder, and more important, part is the judgment and decision making to use them to best effect.  As always, the best photographers and printers can produce superb work with minimal tools, while others produce mediocre results with the latest and greatest. For most, it can help if the tools don’t get in the way and are flexible enough to cooperate with the user’s vision and intention. If the forum is any indication, modern software tools are largely wasted.
 

Personally, I’ve gotten a far bigger bang for the buck from software updates than from camera upgrades.  Prints from when I used my M8.2 still hold their own against ones using my M10 Monochrom or SL2, when I’ve done my part well.  But the latest software has made the road to that result much easier and more flexible.

Jeff

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

37 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

...But the latest software has made the road to that result much easier and more flexible...

That is exactly what I wanted to say. The results from my Digilux2 processed in PS 15 years ago still hold against my Leica SL and TL2. It works both ways. Experts can get even farther now, and what was a good shot then is still good now. Though it took more skill tweaking the best from a Digilux 2 or M8 than it takes now with my SL. e.g. the auto white balance is much better on the SL today than it was on both of these oldies.

It will always take skill and knowledge to get top quality (I hope) but with a good eye for composition and beauty, it is amazing what one can achieve nowadays out of the box without much knowledge.

[Anbaric]

Everyone should use what works for them. There are demo versions and tutorials that will help you figure out what is actually useful. But nobody should assume that everyone else needs what they need, and that the output can't possibly be any good unless you use the full palette of the latest tools. Many photos don't benefit from extensive editing, and if you work in some fields editing of the kind that is used to create an idealised landscape or a flattering portrait is not only undesirable, but prohibited. A photojournalist (or a scientist) would generally be limited to cropping and global adjustment of colour and contrast and brightness (within limits). Many of the tools that have been developed over the the last decade for things like seamless local editing are largely irrelevant for purposes like this, and the temptations of the new AI tools are potentially harmful to the integrity of their work. Raw processing may have improved, but for my money (rather literally) Adobe has never been the class leader here.

[Jeff S]

Exactly; it’s far more about the user than the tools. Same with all of photography. But this is about spending a mere 120 bucks a year for some pretty darn effective tools.  That was my point going back to earlier posts.

Jeff

[marchyman]

15 hours ago, thebarnman said:

What do you mean that LR Classic eliminates the need for Photoshop in many cases?

I only use PS for content aware fill and that is quite rare.  Until recently I hadn't bothered to download PS to may machine. I can do everything else I need to do in LrC.   It's been that way since LrC introduced masking.

I realize that my needs are not universal and that others may need PS for their workflow. 

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, marchyman said:

I only use PS for content aware fill and that is quite rare.  Until recently I hadn't bothered to download PS to may machine. I can do everything else I need to do in LrC.   It's been that way since LrC introduced masking.

I realize that my needs are not universal and that others may need PS for their workflow. 

Panoramic and HDR merge are still better with PS. PS is also needed for frame averaging. AI masking seems to work better in PS, but LrC is often good enough.

Edited April 27, 2024 by SrMi

[thebarnman]

19 hours ago, Anbaric said:

Because Leica uses DNG as their raw format, which is designed to be universal, you can open the files even in old raw converters. What you won't get is the profiling Adobe has done for the new camera. In the Camera Raw 'Camera Calibration' tab, the only camera profile available is 'Embedded'. If the file were supported, you'd see a set of options here (to see how this works, you could try an old Nikon D300 file from here, which should be supported by the version of ACR in CS6 and by LR 5.x).

I would take a look at the sample SL3 DNG file from the dpreview page above, converted with the embedded profile, and compare it with the in-camera jpeg from the same page. I think the jpeg looks better in this case, so there's room for improvement in the raw conversion. You could experiment with different ACR settings and save and load them from the 'Presets' tab. Or you could try a demo version of PS or LR to see how they deal with SL3 files today with the benefit of Adobe's current camera profiles (but make sure you have the means to re-install CS6 and LR5 before you try this in case CC messes up your existing installation, or do it on a different computer). Or you could create your own camera profiles. The old DNG Profile Editor is still available here, which you could use with a ColorChecker chart.

 

 

Yes, you are correct sir!  The Nikon D300 file does have options under the Raw "Camera Calibration" tab...the SL3 file like you say shows only "Embedded."  Also under Lens Corrections, I can see the lens that was used.  With the SL3 file the Lens Profile says none.  Of course I can pick a Leica one but the only choice is Leica R or Leica S.  

Thanks for the info and the word of caution.  I wouldn't want to mess up my original installation. 

Thanks!  

[thebarnman]

15 hours ago, Jeff S said:

The editing controls, both global and local, have improved immensely in LR, allowing one to make certain adjustments that formerly could only be done, or done well, in Photoshop. 
 

If you don’t understand how your software works, and how to take advantage of it to improve your output, then indeed there’s probably little reason to ever upgrade.  If you never benefited from camera upgrades, because you never understood the features and controls in the first place, then it would be silly to spend more on the latest and greatest camera. The cool thing about the LR and Photoshop plan is that you get all the latest and greatest features and controls (not just camera and lens support) for the same $120 per year.

Jeff

You and a few others are starting to talk me into this.  It's been years since I've used Lightroom and Photoshop today only now and then.  What I remember most about doing real detailed editing is a feature while in Lightroom if something needed more precise editing, I clicked a button and the image would open automatically in Photoshop.  I would work on it in ways I wasn't able to do in Lightroom (or as easily) and when done, I would send it back to Lightroom.  What your saying is it sounds like many of the tools available in Photoshop are now available in Lightroom.  I didn't know that of course.    

I never benefited from digital camera upgrades because I've never bought a digital camera.  I understand my R system quite well and I have hours of work in both Photoshop and Lightroom working on scanned negatives but nothing with any digital cameras and certainly not with the latest software.  Things like lens profiles for example, I've never used but I understand how the software would correct for different brands and models of lenses.  The thing about some Leica lens, it would seem there would be no need for corrections...so yea, that part seems odd to me.    

[thebarnman]

16 hours ago, SrMi said:

In that screenshot you are seeing the embedded JPEG. Can you import and process the image?

P.S.: The image that you downloaded is not mine, it belongs to dpreview.com.

Yes it can be imported and edited, but I was only there to see if the profiles were there for the SL3 vs the older Nikon D300 file.  And thanks for the correction! 

 

15 hours ago, Jeff S said:

There is of course far more to these upgrades than just camera/lens profiling and support. Just as in darkroom days, even if one has a ‘better’ negative, that doesn’t ensure that the user would ever produce a better print from it. Producing a quality picture, or print, has never been a ‘ plug and play’ approach,’ requiring user understanding of tools and techniques, and more importantly, the judgment and decision making to use those improved tools to enhance the end product.  
 

The OP doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.  Camera support in the latest software is the least of it when it comes to digital editing, controls and final output quality.
 

Jeff

Correct, that's why I asked to see if I could get a rundown of what differences or major advantages there might be or miss out on if I upgraded or not.  I personally don't like spending all that time working on a print as I've done in the past (including hours and hours in a wet darkroom during a five year period) but if I'm going from showing slides on a big screen (no computer screen time) to printing digital files then it looks like I'm going to have to spend some time in front of the computer again.

At least with slides, all I had to do was edit out the ones I didn't like and project them.  However, if there's an image that's worth spending time on I can show off as a print, then I'll do it.  Both to me have their advantages and disadvantages.  

    

Edited April 28, 2024 by thebarnman

[M11 for me]

I still use my little Nokia phone. Its still great. Much smaller that an iPhone and once its battery is charged it works for 3 over days. 15 years ago it worked for 5 days once fully charged. 

But I must say that I never looked at an iPhone and I do not know how it works. But I believe that I do not need that functionality. The Nokia works perfectly well. 

🤣

[thebarnman]

New question.  Is there a way to add a new lens profiles to Lightroom 5.7?  Currently there are lens profiles for older lenses.  

Example, for the SL APO lenses?  

 

[Jeff S]

FWIW, Google found this…

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4559520

Of course LR Classic would save you research time. 😉

Jeff

[thebarnman]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

FWIW, Google found this…

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4559520

Of course LR Classic would save you research time. 😉

Jeff

Thanks, I'll be sure to look into this.  It's a little bit confusing however.  If this is correct, it looks like what I need to do is download Adobe DNG Converter.  However one page describes Adobe DNG Converter as a way to "convert files from your cameras to Digital Negative (DNG)" so I'm not so sure if that's what I need. 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[thebarnman]

From a different source, it looks like what I can do is download the profile (possibly from a Leica site?) and put it into the correct folder for it to work with Lightroom.  For example like what this video shows...

 

 

[Jeff S]

Or pay for LR Classic and never worry about lacking profiles or features.

Jeff