Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 518650" data-attributes="member: 9240">Danno, here's the thing I want you to understand (and no, you're not asking too much), the crux of the point here is starting point that Adobe gives you for your RAW processing and how accurate that is with regard to what you captured in-camera.  The crux of the problem is whether or not what you see here is causing you to either throw out an image or do more work than you really should.  Any decision that needs to be made depends on whether or not the "problem" is really a problem for you.  I suspect that for most people if you've never noticed a problem then you're probably not experiencing one.  There are folks who have gotten a new camera and immediately complained that their darks were much darker than on their old camera or what they're seeing when they bring in two identical photos taken with the same lens and settings by two different bodies was exposed differently and they can't understand why.  In the past I would attribute it to camera differences and not to the software because, frankly, I never would have thought that there could be this kind of a difference, and particularly that if there was this kind of a difference that it would eventually be corrected by the s/w manufacturer and it's not.  I am a huge fan of Lightroom as a post-processing tool and will continue to use it.  I am less of a fan, after reading the article, and much more skeptical of Adobe and what they put in front of me with regard to my own images.  I have always simply worked my image as best I can from the ground up and never thought much about the foundation the tool was giving me to build on.  I can wish that the starting point was purer, but I do not find anything in here that has caused me to produce something lesser from my photographs.  I posted this primarily for who may have noticed something about that initial foundation and may want to better understand why things are different from what they see in other cameras, or perhaps what they see if they open something in LR for the first time after using something else.  What I'm learning is that for RAW shooters there is nothing that will be better for initial image review and matching to the camera preview than what the manufacturer provides.  Whether that's ultimately a better tool for everything you need after that point is another question entirely.  Ultimately, unless you're willing to hunt down, pay for, and incorporate every "best" tool for your camera/photography into your workflow then there will always be a compromise, however small it might be.  I'm happy compromising by taking a slightly "off" view of a RAW image from the beginning provided that the resulting image derived from the file is universally the same (i.e. WYSIWYG on TIFF and JPEG) once I'm done editing.</blockquote>

Verification