1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Lightroom 3.4 and Camera Raw 6.4 Available

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by john1027, Mar 10, 2011.

  1. john1027

    john1027 Mu-43 Veteran

    305
    Mar 5, 2010
    Alexandria, VA USA
    • Like Like x 5
  2. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010
    I know this doesn't seem to bother many others, but it strikes me that this whole RAW thing is a marketing ploy on the part of Adobe whereby each new camera model requires the latest RAW converter and you can't update your older Photoshop or Lightroom with the latest converter unless your main program is less than a couple versions old. This means that if you buy a new camera body every two or three years, you will need to buy a new Photoshop or Lightroom as well.

    By going back to JPEGs and dumping RAW, I am free to operate in my trusty old Adobe Photoshop 7, which is about 5 or so versions old, and am getting great results. The camera is fully capable of converting its own RAW files at my direction and saving as a JPEG, which is then universally readable by any program of any age or version.

    Wait until the latest Photoshop/Lightroom starts dropping old RAW converters to make room for the new ones. I would suggest that you batch convert your RAW files over to JPEGs while you can. SilkyPix does a nice job of that, by the way. I converted all my RAW files to high quality JPEGs and then tossed the RAW files.
     
  3. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    Umm... Is it really Adobe's fault that Olympus change the raw specification slightly with every new model? Is it Adobes fault that Olympus, like most camera manufacturers, use proprietary information rather than adopting the open standard (DNG) that Adobe developed and gave to the world for free? I think you've got the wrong culprit here.

    You have options. You can use the free software that Olympus supply. You can throw away huge quantities of information and bake a lossy file (jpegs). You can use the free Adobe DNG converter to convert your proprietary files to DNG raws and continue to use the same version of Lightroom as you have. Or you can choose to use a product like Lightroom. Abobe is a business. They do it to make money. And to make a profit they have to make a good product. For some reason, thousands of people think they do a good enough job that they pay for it. And each year, knowing that Adobe is not a charity you have the option to pay for an update or not. It's certainly not Adobes fault you purchased a new camera. And it still works with all your old ones.

    If you want your new camera to work with old software then get Olympus to adopt the DNG format for raw files.

    And I for one was very happy to pay for the v2 to v3 upgrades considering the improvements in image quality. Much like I do with the purchase of a new camera.

    Gordon
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    Gordon is absolutely correct. DNG should be native to every camera.
    Adobe has to do a lot of work for each camera introduced to get it compatible with the software.
    LR and other PP software provides many options to let you make the jpeg the way you desire. You loose many of those options doing it in camera.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010
    Well you are probably right that Adobe is not the culprit, but it does strike me as a poorly thought out - or not at all thought out - system. My views are also colored by the fact that the Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop Elements 8 did such a terrible job with Panasonic G1/GF1 RAW files, adding a lot of noise visable when you blow the image up to 100%, even after getting the latest version of ACR. When I finally batch converted these flies using SilkyPix, none of this was apparent and the images were crisp and clear. I concluded that Adobe in fact was not that good at converting RW2 files. My guess is that they do a better job with some file formats than others. The whole thing made me uneasy, and I find I get much better images with in-camera processing than with at least the ACR in Photoshop Elements.
     
  6. LisaO

    LisaO Mu-43 Top Veteran

    798
    Mar 18, 2010
    New York Metro Area
    Lisa
    Yeah!
     
  7. aericj

    aericj Mu-43 Rookie

    21
    Mar 17, 2011
    Maybe slightly off topic, but I just converted a batch of e-pl2 RAW files to DNG using the latest converter (6.4) from Adobe. Aperture 3 does not seem to read the files. I thought this was an interim solution to the problem of Apple taking so long to update their camera profiles. Am I missing something? Are others doing this successfully?

    I have researched this and have come across mention of turning off a linear file option in the converter, but think it must relate to previous versions as I see no such option in 6.4.

    Maybe I should have gone with Lightroom afterall...

    Or switch to JPEG :wink:
     
  8. soundimageplus

    soundimageplus Mu-43 Top Veteran

    782
    Feb 2, 2010
    Worcestershire
    Absolutely right. We have jpgs. tiffs. etc. but every company and every camera, bar the very few that use .dng. is different. Its tiresome and frustrating. I'm with Leica on this, we make the cameras and lenses, let someone else do the conversion software because they are better at it.

    Plus Adobe do get these updates out reasonably quickly, Apple take months, and in some cases don't actually bother to support some cameras.
     
  9. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    I use LR so I'm not an authority on Aperture or Apple policies but.

    Unfortunately apple don't yet support the DNG standard. The free DNG tool from Adobe is to support older versions of their software with new cameras.

    Why not batch process them in whatever comes with the camera until Aplenty get their act together?
     
  10. WJW59

    WJW59 Mu-43 Veteran

    235
    Feb 20, 2011
    Aperture and OS 10.6 both support DNG. That what I use on my K10D to open and process with Aperture 3. I wish Oly had DNG as a file option on my E-PL2.
     
  11. mach330

    mach330 Mu-43 Veteran

    240
    Mar 19, 2011
    The OC
    sorry for the stupid question.

    is there a diff between having your camera convert to jpg as compared with using the olympus viewer for example or lightroom?
     
  12. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    Pete... you sure don't miss an opportunity to crow about how you dislike RAW and how great you think JPG capture is, even when it isn't the topic being discussed. Why even bother to check into this thread? You don't use RAW, Lightroom, nor ACR? And, sorry, but I find your continual harping on this, in various threads, to be a bit irritating.

    For the record, the majority of these updates are FREE. And for the vast majority of professional and very serious amateur photographers, not only is RAW the MUCH preferred capture format, but Lightroom (and to some degree Aperture as well) are the MOST preferred image processing applications. They are fantastic applications, frequently updated to handle the latest, new, and different camera file formats for FREE, and these amazing applications provide a mind boggling degree of power in maximizing a creative photographer's image development potential.

    As mentioned, it is the camera manufacturers who are continually coming up with new file formats, not Adobe. But it's no big deal, really. Though you make it out to be the end of the world for photographers.

    As a JPG only shooter who doesn't even use RAW capture, LR nor ACR... why are you compelled to take this opportunity, where other people are very interested in the LR3.4 update, to crap on RAW? I just wonder why you would want to jump into this thread after all we've been through in other threads over this.

    As for needing to pay for software upgrades (beyond the numerous free updates) for amazing applications every once in a while, do you expect to get improved and revised models of cameras and lenses for free every few years? Of course not. You recognize incremental improvements in cameras, sensors, software, lenses and upgrade to them when you wish to take advantage of what benefits they will bring to you... and for that, there is a well deserved price.

    Nonetheless, Adobe doesn't charge money to provide regular updates which allow LR to read brand new file formats that the camera makers devise... unless you haven't seen fit to at least update to major upgrades in the software. If you've ever run a company of any size, you know that the costs of running a business, ANY business and especially a very high tech, cutting edge tech business with tens of thousands of employees costs a LOT of money... corporations rely on that revenue stream to provide jobs for thousands of employees and to provide incredible products for us. The sales of new and upgrades products funds all of the incredible new technologies and products that we benefit from.

    Good and improved new products continually come down the pike to benefit us because the companies who provide them can earn a living for their employees and returns for their public stockholders through sales. That's what keeps all of these wonderful innovations coming to us. Since you don't even participate in RAW capture, nor use ACR, nor Lightroom, why are you so bothered by those of us who do and who love to do so?

    This thread is a heads up to those interested in updating their software. Does it need to turn into a slam on RAW capture and Adobe?
     
    • Like Like x 5
  13. Howi

    Howi Mu-43 Veteran

    208
    Feb 23, 2011
    Sheffield
    Howard
    Yes! there is, despite what you may hear on this and other forums.
    With Lightroom YOU have control over ALL aspects of conversion, on every raw picture taken.
    I have resisted the temptation to spell out the benefits of raw as it has been done to death.
    There is plenty of information on this and other forums regarding the raw v jpg debate.
    Just remember, there is NO RIGHT OR WRONG in shooting raw or jpg (despite what some 'jpeg only' advocates would have you believe), YOU shoot what you want to, it's your choice.
    Just make sure you have ALL the facts at hand so you can make an educated decision, otherwise it could come back to bite you in the ass.
    My take on the debate gleaned from lots of articles is this :-
    if you shoot THOUSANDS of photos in a session, or need to get the images to a client QUICKLY, then JPG would seem to be the way to go. (I would think this scenario would apply more to a pro shooter than amateur)
    If you want FULL control over what your final image looks like (using software such as Lightroom and/or Photoshop) shoot raw.
     
  14. soundimageplus

    soundimageplus Mu-43 Top Veteran

    782
    Feb 2, 2010
    Worcestershire
    Where to start!!

    As has been previously mentioned this is not the case. By using the free Adobe Raw Converter you can make .dng files that will open in any version of Photoshop or Lightroom that uses the Adobe Camera Raw converter.

    To me thats like throwing away your negatives and keeping the machine prints from the local lab! Are you seriously recommending that as an option? You are of course free to do what you like with the pictures you take, but I tend to place more value on getting the best I can from the images I take.


    I really can't believe you wrote that and I had to read it twice. Are you seriously suggesting that we all trash our raw files after converting them to jpgs? My worry is that someone who is at the beginning of their photographic experience might take this seriously and think that there is nothing to be gained by keeping raw files and using available software to turn them into something other than just a snapshot. I hesitate to use the oft-repeated quote from Ansel Adams - "The negative is the score, and the print is the performance." but its appropriate here. In digital terms the raw file is capable of many different performances and interpretations. Have you never looked at one of your jpgs and thought "I wish I'd done that differently"? Of course to a limited extent its perfectly possible to work with a jpg. but with a significant drop in quality.

    Also do you never think about the parameters that manufacturers add to their raw processing software as it evolves? Better noise reduction, better colour correction, better chromatic aberration removal etc. Adobe don't just add more cameras to ACR, from time to time they add new features, better ways of doing things, and processing options that improve the quality of the final image. As indeed do all manufacturers of raw conversion software. Also by keeping the raw files I'm able to take advantage of improvements in hardware, faster processors, better screens etc. The difference between what I see in front of me now and what I saw in 2003 when I started working with raw files is immense, and allows me to produce vastly improved versions of the images I took then.

    You talk in a different post about the problems Adobe had with the initial G1 files. They did at the time put out a version that had some problems, but over time this was fixed. This is not an isolated example, as improvements evolve over time in software for many cameras.

    To anyone reading this thread I would make my own suggestion. Even if you have no particular interest in working with raw files at the moment, keep them anyway. Things change, attitudes change. Something you thought was certain one day may seem less so in the future. Give yourself the option to change your mind, to develop (sorry!) your interest, to become aware of more alternatives. By throwing away raw files you throw away more than just binary code, you throw away possibilities.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  15. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    David,
    You could not be more correct if you tried.
    This is a very important post especially to those new shooters not understanding what to do with RAW files.
    Thanks for your firm stand on the Raw/Jpeg issue.
    I also feel the same way, as I'm sure many others do also.
    Don
     
    • Like Like x 3
  16. Pan Korop

    Pan Korop Mu-43 Veteran

    479
    Mar 31, 2011
    Phare Ouest
    Capital thread : Jpg convenience vs Raw control.

    Points to a culture gap: some of us learnt photo with silver halides, Kodak soup and enlarger. The younger ones went direct through phi-shop.

    Even old school, some would give away their negs and printing to a shop, some would come back tired and weary from the assignment, yet went to the lab and spent two extra hours doing their second part of a photographer's job.

    Saving both Jpg and Raw gives me best of both worlds, plus more :
    - Raw is my backup, esp. on pro cameras storing both on two separate cards
    - Jpg gives me speed, and what may be called Consumer Convenience. Adequate for a vast majority of (my) shots.
    - Raw is better than souping my own films : I could never get back to my old negs with a better developer or processing know-how.

    And now the key issue: most of the pictures I stay proud of, i. e. that tiny fraction among the professionnally-adequate-run-of-the-roll were shot under tricky light, weather, stability conditions. The unusable jpg kind, the research ones, not the snapshots. With film, you knew that you had to do something in the lab... then keep your fingers crossed.

    Later I kept the Raw brackets, too! They were already helpful to save a sky (or shadow) way before some came up with automatic "hi-res" software. Same for B&W conversions when the blue channel used to be grainy as hell. Same when the GH-1 swapped the G1 sharp grain for heavy make-up mud.

    Raw gives back to the photog the control of the lab, lost when we all had to give up that part to some E-6 technician or C-41 robotized oven. To me this is the great advance DP brought, and renewed my passion for my trade.

    Now, whether it means to pay for the latest upgrade or faddy add-on is up to everyone's choice. And please excuse my geezer's rant: some DO tend to :-\
     
    • Like Like x 5
  17. LisaO

    LisaO Mu-43 Top Veteran

    798
    Mar 18, 2010
    New York Metro Area
    Lisa
    Isn't it about time for Adobe to release the proper update already? It's been close to a month since the RC.
     
  18. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    For those who might not have seen my thread on JPG settings for Panasonic cameras,

    https://www.mu-43.com/f43/those-shooting-lumix-cameras-jpg-your-favorite-custom-settings-10266/

    Pete and I had a multipage debate on RAW capture vs JPG where he steadfastly insisted that using his camera to capture in JPG provided great benefits. He literally reveled in the concept of discarding the data rich RAW capture the moment he clicked the shutter button. He refused to believe that the benefits of RAW were important to an image maker and that he might wish to reprocess a capture with a different concept in mind. And he repeatedly insisted that the data thrown away by the in camera conversion to JPG was unneeded, unwanted data. I too was concerned that a beginning photographer might read his words and discard RAW capture in favor of JPG... throwing away their data-rich RAW files at the moment of capture, or later. The argument went on for pages. It is a mind boggling read to say the least. I'm a bit stunned to see such comments resurfacing here again.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  19. Howi

    Howi Mu-43 Veteran

    208
    Feb 23, 2011
    Sheffield
    Howard
    You can say that again, I don't mind someone having his/her point of view (and the right to express it), but Pete's diatribe borders on obsession.
     
  20. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    I shake my head in dismay. But certainly to each his or her own, as long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else.
     
    • Like Like x 2