Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR update? & workaround ideas please.  (Read 2031 times)
W.T. Jones
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



WWW
« on: March 06, 2014, 06:00:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Adobe has seen fit to update ACR & the DNG converter to include the new Fuji X-T1 and I assume something is in the works for Lightroom. I have seen little if any speculation or discussion on a Lightroom update. Seems kind of early for LR6, but then again LR5 came along rather quickly too.

In any event, what would be considered a good workaround for batch processing XT-1 raws until LR supports them? While the Jpegs are OK & for most things and actually usable as is. I prefer to work from a raw file. Right now I am saving all my RAW's to a folder on the desktop & extracting the ones I want to work on for print with PS and ACR then export a Tif file. It is a pain in the ass and totally defeats the idea of the LR streamlined work flow.

I do not want to clog up my catalog with a bunch of jpegs I'll never use. I simply use them now to view the shots. Storage is not too big an issue, so Tif's do not bother met too much. I am not sold on the DNG thing quite yet.

Any ideas? Or just stop whining, shut the F--- up & wait for LR updates?  Grin
Logged

Warren
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2829



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2014, 06:51:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes. Wink  Make sure you complain to Fuji for causing the pain in the ass. They should be offering the DNG format as an option.

My suggestion would be to go with DNG for now. You can always sync the edits back to the raw files once the camera is supported.

John
Logged

Robert55
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73


« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2014, 04:19:46 PM »
ReplyReply

The DNG converter and ACR are only Release Canidates for now. Release was two weeks ago, so you'll have to wait.
I've read of people digging into exif with Exiftool and replacing the name string. This could work as all xtrans sensors are the same
Logged
elied
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2014, 05:11:01 PM »
ReplyReply

It seems very strange to me that the ACR 8.4 RC was released but a parallel LR 5.4 RC was not. I wonder what the reason could be. Nevertheless, a few minutes more for DNG conversion seems like a relatively painless workaround.
Logged

Roll over Ed Weston,
Tell Ansel Adams the news
Denis de Gannes
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58



« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2014, 05:30:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I think if you are going to use a Release Candidate for conversion to DNG it would be wise to retain your original raw file for future use if the "release candidate" profile for your camera is updated.
Logged

Equip: Win 7, Core 2 Duo 2,600 Mhz, 4GB Ram, HDD internal 500GB;320GB & 1TB, Ext 1 TB Seagate; Canon InkJet Pro9000; Dimage Scan Elite 5400.
Imaging Software: LR 5.6; PS CS6; Capture One 7; Qimage.
Cameras: Olympus OMD E-M1; E300;E510; Panasonic G3.
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9188



WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2014, 06:21:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I am not sold on the DNG thing quite yet.
You should be because it will solve the problem you have with LR, the files will likely be smaller and as John stated, the big issue is the camera manufacturer's who feel it's only in their best interest to create a new raw file for every camera system. Not necessary.

Also, with Photoshop CC subscription, the release of ACR and LR are now out of sync. The DNG converter however will do the job in allowing you to work in LR. You don't have to stop whining, shut the F--- up & wait for LR updates!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
W.T. Jones
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2014, 06:23:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I think if you are going to use a Release Candidate for conversion to DNG it would be wise to retain your original raw file for future use if the "release candidate" profile for your camera is updated.

Roger that Denis. Safe & sound on a file on my HD & back up.

Thanks guys, I downloaded the DNG Converter RC and now I have the files in LR to work on.
Logged

Warren
W.T. Jones
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2014, 06:27:36 PM »
ReplyReply

You should be because it will solve the problem you have with LR, the files will likely be smaller and as John stated, the big issue is the camera manufacturer's who feel it's only in their best interest to create a new raw file for every camera system. Not necessary.

Andrew, I would very much like to see DNG adopted by all as a standard raw file system. It would make life much easier for all. Somehow I do not see it happening any time soon.

Until today I never considered using DNG. Now I have it & will see how it all goes.
Logged

Warren
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9188



WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2014, 07:01:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Until today I never considered using DNG.
Here are some advantages:

http://thedambook.com/dng-verification-in-lightroom-5/
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57371809-1/adobe-offering-new-reasons-to-get-dng-religion/
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
W.T. Jones
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2014, 03:18:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the links Andrew. interesting stuff.
Logged

Warren
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2014, 11:41:49 PM »
ReplyReply

the big issue is the camera manufacturer's who feel it's only in their best interest to create a new raw file for every camera system.
the big issue that some people knowingly and intentionally lie that manufactureres create a "new" raw file for every camera system.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9188



WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2014, 08:43:45 AM »
ReplyReply

the big issue that some people knowingly and intentionally lie that manufactureres create a "new" raw file for every camera system.
That they are identical explains why every 3rd party manufacturer had to update their converters to use said "identical" file.
OK, not new? Different and unsupported by virtue of what? Give us a break.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3533



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2014, 07:59:02 PM »
ReplyReply

the big issue that some people knowingly and intentionally lie that manufactureres create a "new" raw file for every camera system.
Camera manufacturers constantly introduce new cameras whose files do not work with current software. So as far as processing software is concerned, they are new kind of raw file, even though usually they are often the same old file type. Albeit one with a slight naming change, which pointlessly breaks compatibilty.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
W.T. Jones
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2014, 05:09:42 AM »
ReplyReply

It does not matter to me if it is the same old file with a different name or something completely new. The fact remains that LR5.3 cannot read my X-T1 raws & it is a pain in the ass…Period. All I wanted was a workaround, DNG seems to be it at the moment, even that is a bit of a time consuming pain.

No point in arguing about what is what. I am going to lock this topic before it goes awry.

I do however want to thank everyone for their thoughts on this as well as their help.
Logged

Warren
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad