Adobe RAW Update 4.6

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php?title=Camera_Raw_4.6

Newly supported cameras include:

• Fuji Finepix IS Pro

• Nikon D700

• Nikon D90

• Nikon Coolpix P6000

Apparently unoffical support for the following based on varioous reports:

• Canon Rebel XS

• Canon 50D

• Olympus SP-565 UZ

• Sony A900

• Sigma DP1

And yet, ACR still don't cut it over Capture NX. So sad.

And yet, ACR still don't cut it over Capture NX. So sad.

I'm diggin' ACR inside Lightroom, but I haven't tried Capture NX. What do you think is ACR's biggest shortcoming relative to Capture NX?

The Marquis de Sade factor. ACR is far too easy to use.

The Marquis de Sade factor. ACR is far too easy to use.

Haha ... that could be it.

Matthew's no dummy, so I won't lump him into this generalization ... but I have found that a lot of people who complain about ACR are not actually complaing about what they CAN get out of ACR, but what images processed with the default settings look like.

I believe that to be true as well. Most compaining I see and most comparisons I see, regardless of converter, involve no effort to make adjustments or match conversions. Most are done with converter defaults. ACR looks uncompetitive using defaults.

NX is known for good conversions for Nikon but it's Canon support is weak It's slow and hard to use and that makes it inferior to other tools strictly from a workflow ease-of-use standpoint. It's not what our software produces with minimum effort that matters, it's what our software is capable of when we use it that does. Using different converters with substantially different human factors, then comparing them using defaults, is intellectually dishonest as well as totally uninteresting yet that's all you ever see. If someone is willing to go to the extra effort of using NX then why aren't they willing to learn how to use ACR?

If the figure of merit were how good a conversion you get for the amount of effort you invested, then Aperture/Lightroom would win consistently at least until you got into the higher levels of effort. If an individual wants to work that much harder then I think that's great, but that's the reason that ACR/Lightroom is more popular than NX. As long as people keep making their arguments with converter defaults, they will never get the point.

I just wish it were easier to get a converter to produce a baseline result with no "look" of any kind. This should be a basic capability of every converter yet it's remarkably hard. I don't see how anyone can judge converters without the ability to achieve some objectively comparable starting point. If you can't shoot a grayscale chart and get an honest, accurate conversion of it then the converter is trash. There are a lot of products with that problem.

Unfortunately much of this is very complex, and even the experts don't agree. Furthermore many of the 'experts' who write books and lecture have a product to sell - most visibly the latest version of Lightroom and Photoshop. Much of this is like driving a car without always understanding what's under the hood, far less how the engine works.

I'd love to find a good text that's truly product independent.

The workflow issue is a problem using NX, particularly as we have become so comfortable with the Lightroom / Aperture concept. I am even more irritated now that I have become aware of the changes that may be made to my images when stored as TIFFS after they have been imported into Aperture and maybe Lightroom as well. Up till now I was sure that at least as a storage tool Aperture was benign, now I'm not so sure.

For now I plan to continue importing into Aperture as before, but making a second copy of all NEF files on the card, so that I can come back and convert important images in NX. I hope as I explore this a little more, and with some help from the gurus who understand this like Craig and Matthew, I'll come back to a simple workflow management system again.

I bought my D700 the day before the Lightroom and ACR update that included the camera specific profiles.

That first night as I was comparing the colors between the camera jpegs and what I was getting out of ACR/Lightroom 1.4 I was starting to become convinced that where color was critical, I would be either using Capture NX or even possibly always shooting JPEG + RAW.

With the release of LR 2.0, I am in a happy place shooting RAW and using LR 2.0 exclusively.

At first, I was exclusively using the Nikon specific profiles, but have begun to include the two Adobe profiles in a new "pick the calibration" step in my workflow. I actually do it twice ... choosing and confirming the calibration is now the first and the last things I do.

There can be no doubt that the RAW converter can make a lot of difference to the images you get from a specific camera. I started with a Fuji S2 Pro and CS and now can tell you that RAW files from that old camera converted today with CS3 look to have a distinctly better dynamic range (plus all the extra levels of control possible.) For this reason I seem condemned to buy CS4 when it is available!!!

now can tell you that RAW files from that old camera converted today with CS3 look to have a distinctly better dynamic range (plus all the extra levels of control possible.)

Perfect reason folks who shoot RAW should keep them around ... converters keep getting better.

Perfect reason folks who shoot RAW should keep them around ... converters keep getting better.

No doubt, with storage so inexpensive right now, the first part of my workflow is making two copies of the CF card, one for local back-up, one which winds up offsite and then another with the working files/library.

Unfortunately much of this is very complex, and even the experts don't agree. Furthermore many of the 'experts' who write books and lecture have a product to sell - most visibly the latest version of Lightroom and Photoshop. Much of this is like driving a car without always understanding what's under the hood, far less how the engine works.

I'd love to find a good text that's truly product independent.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes!

There aren't many, if any, "experts" talking objectively about converter differences. That, combined with how difficult it is to make comparable conversions, makes evaluation difficult or impossible. I continue to feel that converter choice is largely religious. The eye is a terrible test instrument and existing test software is surprisingly bad.

My basic rules for evaluating a converter are that I must be able to easily convert a step chart correctly and accurately, then I must be able to generate an acceptable conversion of a ColorChecker. I can eliminate a lot of converters with those criteria alone and I find that depressing.

I'd love to see a review of converters based solely on accuracy of a ColorChecker conversion. I'd look forward to seeing Bibble and Aperture at the bottom of the ratings.

DNG Converter 4.6 Final Posted

Mac Convertor

PC Convertor

Now all the following offically supported

# Canon 1000D (Digital Rebel XS/EOS Kiss F)

# Canon 50D

# Fuji FinePix IS Pro

# Kodak EasyShare Kodak Z1015 IS

# Leaf AFi II 6

# Leaf AFi II 7

# Leaf Aptus II 6

# Leaf Aptus II 7

# Nikon D700

# Nikon D90

# Nikon Coolpix P6000

# Olympus SP-565 UZ

# Pentax K2000 (K-m)

# Sigma DP1

# Sony A900