Which gallery? That was a keyword link, not a gallery link. And sorry, I don't want to turn on originals for the gallery where they reside.
Is there something specific you're looking to do? If you want to play with a couple of raw images from this camera, two are available, links to two of the originals are available for download in post 21 of this thread.
--- Denise
sorry just wanted to pixel peep on one of these shots of the pond. no worries
Well, looking at LR3 beta, there is no correction for barrel distortion.
I guess your options are either to use DPP or LR and then correct the barrel distortion in Photoshop.
Thanks for the update on LR3. For now I'm using DPP. I'm hoping that Adobe will correct the problem in a (not to far in the future) new release. I suspect (I hope) that it's still too early.
Thanks for the update on LR3. For now I'm using DPP. I'm hoping that Adobe will correct the problem in a (not to far in the future) new release. I suspect (I hope) that it's still too early.
--- Denise
Not sure if it's wishful thinking or if I'm reading between the lines, but look at Andrew Rodney's post (#28). Do I detect a hint of lens correction in future releases of LR?
Over on the Luminous Landscape forum, people are moaning about what LR3 beta does not have and in response to groans about no soft-proofing or lens correction are reminded that this is not a final version. The reminders are coming from those who are probably not beta but alpha testers if not outright developers so again, maybe these are hints? One can only hope.
I've finally officially received a (non-)answer from Adobe containing the statement that the camera is not yet supported. Unfortunately no support timeframe was stated.
The colours not being correct are quite normal since the camera has not been profiled yet, that will come once full support is implemented.
More and more cameras are using post capture corrections in order to correct lens distortions. What you are seeing in Lightroom is the image as it was captured by the camera.
Please waiting until the next Adobe Camera RAW / Lightroom update for when the camera is officially supported and then try again.
No surprises there, although I'd really like to have a date. I've asked for one, but I don't expect to get a real response to that query.
I've finally officially received a (non-)answer from Adobe containing the statement that the camera is not yet supported. Unfortunately no support timeframe was stated.
Here's the text of the response from Adobe:
No surprises there, although I'd really like to have a date. I've asked for one, but I don't expect to get a real response to that query.
--- Denise
I think this is very interesting response from Adobe, Denise.
Apparently, the camera manufacturers ( at least Canon for this camera ) are incorporating soft ware image processing to correct for lens optical weaknesses. Not that surprising I guess, software is cheaper to replicate than a higher quality lens.
I wonder what other manufacturers are doing this. Is the requirement to ONLY be able to shoot RAW with the camera manufacturers RAW software, not something that a purchaser should be aware of before purchasing the camera. Not criticizing Adobe here, but the general idea of a camera manufacturer not making it very apparent that other RAW processors will not work with their camera without severe lens distortions being evident.
Dick EmeryRegistered UsersPosts: 1Beginner grinner
edited October 30, 2009
Just registered so I could let you know that if you export from DPP to TIF and import into Lightroom the lens correction sticks. I have not tried the colour distortion issue though.
Just registered so I could let you know that if you export from DPP to TIF and import into Lightroom the lens correction sticks. I have not tried the colour distortion issue though.
That's exactly what I have been doing. There is no distortion and no color issue as long as I use DPP.
Well, that stinks, to be polite. Knowing this, would you still buy this camera again at this time? Or would you go with something else.
I would still buy the camera.
I like the camera, just don't like Adobe's answer. But based on comments earlier about the Lumix, it seems like we can expect a lag in Adobe's support for these new cameras. It's very annoying, but something that I can work with for now. DPP first, then Lightroom.
I like the camera, just don't like Adobe's answer. But based on comments earlier about the Lumix, it seems like we can expect a lag in Adobe's support for these new cameras. It's very annoying, but something that I can work with for now. DPP first, then Lightroom.
--- Denise
Thanks, Denise. The camera has arrived. Very cool little camera. FYI, ACR in CS4 won't even recognize the RAW format at all.
I like the camera, just don't like Adobe's answer. But based on comments earlier about the Lumix, it seems like we can expect a lag in Adobe's support for these new cameras. It's very annoying, but something that I can work with for now. DPP first, then Lightroom.
--- Denise
On the Mac (non Adobe), I tried "RPP" or Raw Photo Processor, it opens the files OK, however they are still distorted.
I have not yet tried these images on MS Win OS software (non Adobe), however I suspect that results would be the same if the software does not offer lens corrections (many raw converters do not go that far).
EDIT: Raw Therapee on Win OS *does* have distortion correction and it does open S90 raw files (they are distorted by default), below is a quick example using a value of -1.62 in the distortion tab (all other settings at program defaults).
On the Mac (non Adobe), I tried "RPP" or Raw Photo Processor, it opens the files OK, however they are still distorted.
I have not yet tried these images on MS Win OS software (non Adobe), however I suspect that results would be the same if the software does not offer lens corrections (many raw converters do not go that far).
EDIT: Raw Therapee on Win OS *does* have distortion correction and it does open S90 raw files (they are distorted by default), below is a quick example using a value of -1.62 in the distortion tab (all other settings at program defaults).
Very interesting. I just checked the photo in your post against the Canon DPP converted image, and the colors in your post don't match the Canon colors - to my eye the Canon-conversion colors matched the actual scene better.
I didn't see it mentioned here, but this is standard modus operandi for new cameras. Canon does not share the raw format with third parties such as Adobe so third parties must reverse engineer the raw format in each new camera. Some cameras are easier to reverse engineer because they use the same if not very similar raw format as older cameras.
In Adobe's case, they reverse engineer the raw format and then add it to the current version of ACR which is used by both LR and PS (and the DNG converter)
What I'm surprised about is that ACR would actually open the raw files from these new cameras. Usually ACR will check the raw version number and if it is not one that is supported it will refuse to open the file.
Very interesting. I just checked the photo in your post against the Canon DPP converted image, and the colors in your post don't match the Canon colors - to my eye the Canon-conversion colors matched the actual scene better.
It's good to have another point of comparison.
--- Denise
Sorry Denise, I must have misunderstood and thought that the intention of my post was clear.
My contribution was to see if other non Adobe software could open the file and correct the distortion in the raw workflow, without having to render the image and then correct it for distortion outside of the raw workflow. I stated that all controls were at default except for distortion and that this was only a quick example. I would be amazed if a third party raw converter at default settings would match the proprietary rendering of the camera maker's software.
It seemed to me that distortion was more important than colour (colour being "easy" when compared to fisheye shots).
It seemed to me that distortion was more important than colour (colour being "easy" when compared to fisheye shots).
Thanks for the clarification.
You're right that the distortion was more troublesome. I thought you were trying to match the color too. Your color was much more reasonable than the Adobe conversion...
What I'm surprised about is that ACR would actually open the raw files from these new cameras. Usually ACR will check the raw version number and if it is not one that is supported it will refuse to open the file.
That hasn't changed. ACR's still checking. If you get a raw that opens and it's not on the public list, chances are you have a camera where they put in "preliminary" (and unfinished/unverified) support, meaning Adobe got one of those cameras and started putting the support into ACR. Preliminary support cameras are not in the official listing because they didn't have time to guarantee optimal results before that version of ACR had to go out. Usually that support rolls over into "official" support in the next version, the camera then ends up on the public listing, and some rendering may have changed in the final.
Where do you see the bit about distortion removal?
It stated that the camera is now supported - I'm hoping that means that they have implemented the magic to correct both the distortion and the color issues.
I will definitely try this out, probably over the weekend sometime.
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited November 19, 2009
I watched the RAW thumbs change in front of my eyes
I downloaded ACR 5.6 and selected a folder of S90 files of which there were RAW and jpeg files. As you all know the RAW file thumbs looked distorted and the jpegs were not. But, as I mentioned, the RAW files all changed to match the jpegs and I did not doo anything just watched.
Even more important, my Canon 7D now has an official camera profile and it is much better than the beta.
Comments
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Thanks Denise, I am all set, but I have to update DPP first!!
I guess your options are either to use DPP or LR and then correct the barrel distortion in Photoshop.
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Over on the Luminous Landscape forum, people are moaning about what LR3 beta does not have and in response to groans about no soft-proofing or lens correction are reminded that this is not a final version. The reminders are coming from those who are probably not beta but alpha testers if not outright developers so again, maybe these are hints? One can only hope.
My Fine Art Photography
My Infrared Photography
www.CynthiaMerzerPhotography.com
Here's the text of the response from Adobe: No surprises there, although I'd really like to have a date. I've asked for one, but I don't expect to get a real response to that query.
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Well, that stinks, to be polite. Knowing this, would you still buy this camera again at this time? Or would you go with something else.
Thanks,
-joel (who has one on pre-order, so has a vested interest in these things.
Link to my Smugmug site
I think this is very interesting response from Adobe, Denise.
Apparently, the camera manufacturers ( at least Canon for this camera ) are incorporating soft ware image processing to correct for lens optical weaknesses. Not that surprising I guess, software is cheaper to replicate than a higher quality lens.
I wonder what other manufacturers are doing this. Is the requirement to ONLY be able to shoot RAW with the camera manufacturers RAW software, not something that a purchaser should be aware of before purchasing the camera. Not criticizing Adobe here, but the general idea of a camera manufacturer not making it very apparent that other RAW processors will not work with their camera without severe lens distortions being evident.
Interesting situation.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Perhaps though a different lens to make the new form factor?
Link to my Smugmug site
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
I like the camera, just don't like Adobe's answer. But based on comments earlier about the Lumix, it seems like we can expect a lag in Adobe's support for these new cameras. It's very annoying, but something that I can work with for now. DPP first, then Lightroom.
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Thanks, Denise. The camera has arrived.
Cheers,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
On the Mac (non Adobe), I tried "RPP" or Raw Photo Processor, it opens the files OK, however they are still distorted.
I have not yet tried these images on MS Win OS software (non Adobe), however I suspect that results would be the same if the software does not offer lens corrections (many raw converters do not go that far).
EDIT: Raw Therapee on Win OS *does* have distortion correction and it does open S90 raw files (they are distorted by default), below is a quick example using a value of -1.62 in the distortion tab (all other settings at program defaults).
Stephen Marsh
members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx
prepression.blogspot.com
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
It's good to have another point of comparison.
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
In Adobe's case, they reverse engineer the raw format and then add it to the current version of ACR which is used by both LR and PS (and the DNG converter)
What I'm surprised about is that ACR would actually open the raw files from these new cameras. Usually ACR will check the raw version number and if it is not one that is supported it will refuse to open the file.
Sorry Denise, I must have misunderstood and thought that the intention of my post was clear.
My contribution was to see if other non Adobe software could open the file and correct the distortion in the raw workflow, without having to render the image and then correct it for distortion outside of the raw workflow. I stated that all controls were at default except for distortion and that this was only a quick example. I would be amazed if a third party raw converter at default settings would match the proprietary rendering of the camera maker's software.
It seemed to me that distortion was more important than colour (colour being "easy" when compared to fisheye shots).
Regards,
Stephen Marsh
members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx
prepression.blogspot.com
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
You're right that the distortion was more troublesome. I thought you were trying to match the color too. Your color was much more reasonable than the Adobe conversion...
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
That hasn't changed. ACR's still checking. If you get a raw that opens and it's not on the public list, chances are you have a camera where they put in "preliminary" (and unfinished/unverified) support, meaning Adobe got one of those cameras and started putting the support into ACR. Preliminary support cameras are not in the official listing because they didn't have time to guarantee optimal results before that version of ACR had to go out. Usually that support rolls over into "official" support in the next version, the camera then ends up on the public listing, and some rendering may have changed in the final.
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2009/11/camera_raw_56_and_lightroom_26.html
Hope this helps your problem.
Mike
Mike Mattix
Tulsa, OK
"There are always three sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth" - Unknown
Where do you see the bit about distortion removal?
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I will definitely try this out, probably over the weekend sometime.
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
I downloaded ACR 5.6 and selected a folder of S90 files of which there were RAW and jpeg files. As you all know the RAW file thumbs looked distorted and the jpegs were not. But, as I mentioned, the RAW files all changed to match the jpegs
Even more important, my Canon 7D now has an official camera profile and it is much better than the beta.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Link to my Smugmug site
Probably on the link that linked me to that link... I have lost it now. However Marc seems to believe it fixed it...
Mike
Mike Mattix
Tulsa, OK
"There are always three sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth" - Unknown