Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Computers and Software
Adobe RAW image processing (LR & ACR)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 518567" data-attributes="member: 9240"><p>Danno, they're all good questions and the answer may sound flippant as well, but all I can say is, "It depends". </p><p></p><p>There are 2 problematic factors as I see them. The first is recognizing that the software isn't interpreting your RAW image correctly in the first place. This is where being linked into a good set of bloggers who care about this stuff, and particularly investigate new bodies talk about it with no specific agenda is key - or being tied into a place like this where others are tied in and willing to point you at the articles. This is important so that you are both aware of the issue when it exists, and as importantly whether or not it's been corrected and if so fully or partially. The second is understanding what is wrong when there is something and being able to properly adjust your workflow to compensate. This involves a certain degree of technical adeptness so that you can either create a custom profile to compensate for the shortcomings of Adobe's, or at least being aware of what can and cannot be fixed in post so that shortcomings are ignored as a part of the culling process.</p><p></p><p>Personally? I do initial culling based purely on composition. I've recovered enough "great" images from "horrible" lighting that I know I can make a picture out of something provided I've captured something. It pains me when I realize I've done more work than I needed to in order to get there (the basis for my posting this), but in the end I only care that I get there.</p><p></p><p>Given my potential foray into the other major camera brand I had a long conversation with my brother about processing Canon RAW files and while he shoots mainly JPEG, he told me that he has found Canon's Digital Photo Professional software to be head and shoulders about ACR in getting a starting image, particularly with regard to the way in which lens profiles are applied. His recommendation was to do the initial edits in that, save the TIFF and then go to Photoshop. Not sure how easy this is to integrate into a LR/PS based workflow, but if nothing else I take away from it that while Adobe may have been the only great player in this market for a while they may either be stretched too thin or simply resting on their laurels and counting on folks not wanting to adapt to a new product when they've invested so much time and money here? </p><p></p><p>Regardless, it's a tool and I can still swing this hammer and likely will because I'm very comfortable with it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 518567, member: 9240"] Danno, they're all good questions and the answer may sound flippant as well, but all I can say is, "It depends". There are 2 problematic factors as I see them. The first is recognizing that the software isn't interpreting your RAW image correctly in the first place. This is where being linked into a good set of bloggers who care about this stuff, and particularly investigate new bodies talk about it with no specific agenda is key - or being tied into a place like this where others are tied in and willing to point you at the articles. This is important so that you are both aware of the issue when it exists, and as importantly whether or not it's been corrected and if so fully or partially. The second is understanding what is wrong when there is something and being able to properly adjust your workflow to compensate. This involves a certain degree of technical adeptness so that you can either create a custom profile to compensate for the shortcomings of Adobe's, or at least being aware of what can and cannot be fixed in post so that shortcomings are ignored as a part of the culling process. Personally? I do initial culling based purely on composition. I've recovered enough "great" images from "horrible" lighting that I know I can make a picture out of something provided I've captured something. It pains me when I realize I've done more work than I needed to in order to get there (the basis for my posting this), but in the end I only care that I get there. Given my potential foray into the other major camera brand I had a long conversation with my brother about processing Canon RAW files and while he shoots mainly JPEG, he told me that he has found Canon's Digital Photo Professional software to be head and shoulders about ACR in getting a starting image, particularly with regard to the way in which lens profiles are applied. His recommendation was to do the initial edits in that, save the TIFF and then go to Photoshop. Not sure how easy this is to integrate into a LR/PS based workflow, but if nothing else I take away from it that while Adobe may have been the only great player in this market for a while they may either be stretched too thin or simply resting on their laurels and counting on folks not wanting to adapt to a new product when they've invested so much time and money here? Regardless, it's a tool and I can still swing this hammer and likely will because I'm very comfortable with it. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Computers and Software
Adobe RAW image processing (LR & ACR)
Top
