Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Raw Developer and camera profiles  (Read 8620 times)
Hening Bettermann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


WWW
« on: July 08, 2009, 09:49:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Many of the gurus seem to agree on that Raw Developer is the raw converter that can extract most detail, due to the Lucy-Richardson deconvolution. At the same time, I am very concerned about color accuracy and very fond of my DNG profiles created with the DNG Profile Editor.

Raw Developer can take DNGs as input, and in the Input pane, there is a choice of input profiles, amongst others #1-the camera profile, #2-DNG Style Color Rendering Default, and #3-DNG Style Color Rendering (Use file metadata). I had hoped that when I applied my DNG profile in ACR, saved with that profile as DNG and opened the image in RD with input option 3, the profile would be used. But no. I can see a difference between #1 on the one hand and #2 and #3 on the other, but not between #2 and #3. (In ACR, I can clearly see the difference between my profile and the Adobe Standard).

Now I could try to go the other way: try to learn the necessary basic Unix and create  ICC profiles with Argyll, then output TIFs from RD and use these in ACR and PS. Question: Would ACR and Photoshop recognize these profiles, or the color changes made by them?

(I would like to go on post-processing in ACR and PS.)

Thank you for your input. - Hening.
Logged

sandymc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2009, 03:47:14 PM »
ReplyReply

The is a project on Sourceforge that converts DCP profiles to ICC profiles: http://sourceforge.net/projects/dcp2icc/

Haven't tried it, so have no idea how well it works, but be aware that DCP profiles are significantly more sophisticated than ICC profiles; unless your DCP profiles are fairly simple, its unlikely that they will convert too well.

Sandy
Logged
Hening Bettermann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2009, 06:32:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for the hint, Sandy.
Logged

Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2009, 08:10:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I made my own ICC profiles for my cameras using ColorEyes Camera and it provides me with excellent results, but I've not tried using my Adobe DCP profiles within the program (I'll give it a try, though).

When using the ICC profiles, the files processed from Raw Developer are tagged with that profile and can easily be read & viewed in Photoshop. A typical workflow is to convert to an appropriate workspace (e.g., ProPhoto, Adobe 98, etc.) within Photoshop.
Logged

~ CB
Hening Bettermann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2009, 03:43:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for the tip, Chris. There is, however, a detail I don't like much about ColorEyes Camera: "Starting at $ 499"...     Hening
Logged

MarkIV
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2009, 04:58:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Hening
Many of the gurus seem to agree on that Raw Developer is the raw converter that can extract most detail, due to the Lucy-Richardson deconvolution.

I was just thinking about this issue!  I am a huge ACR fan and make mural sized prints and was wondering if another raw converter had the ability to produce more detail.  Do you think there is a real world difference when trying to push print sizes?  Any other threads you know of about the issue.  It is hard for me to think of using another converter but would be interesting to see if it makes a dif.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7975



WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2009, 02:35:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkIV
I was just thinking about this issue!  I am a huge ACR fan and make mural sized prints and was wondering if another raw converter had the ability to produce more detail.  Do you think there is a real world difference when trying to push print sizes?  Any other threads you know of about the issue.  It is hard for me to think of using another converter but would be interesting to see if it makes a dif.

Yes, there is a very significant difference in fine details rendition that can give life to a large print.

The new demoisaicing/sharpening engine of LR3.0 beta does appear to reduce the gap considerably though.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Mark Muse
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2009, 12:47:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Hening
Thank you for the tip, Chris. There is, however, a detail I don't like much about ColorEyes Camera: "Starting at $ 499"...     Hening

I am faced with the same issue, using Raw Developer and custom camera profiles from ColorChecker Passport. I sent an email to Brian, the developer of RD, to ask if there was a practical way to use these profiles in RD. He said there currently is not, but that a future release would include that option. He also said that he just got a ColorChecker Passport.

This along with his past performance getting features and new camera profiles done in a timely way lead me to believe that unless it represents a major overhaul it will show up before too long.

BUT you should note that "before too long" is strictly my personal opinion and was NOT even suggested by Brian, I do not speak for Iridient Digital, and I have no connection whatever with Iridient Digital other than as a happy long-time user of RD.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad