Just to see how close ACR 3.2 is when it comes to reading the correct WB in D2X nefs, I did this funky little test. ACR is real close but it does not read the exact WB as recorded by the camera. All the NC conversions are correct, or at least if your camera was set to 5000k, that's how the raw file is converted. Anyhoo, here goes, I think it's pretty much self explanatory.
side note: All ACR conversions were batched within ACR, with ALL auto features turned off. NO image adjustments have been made. All NC conversions were batched out with NO adjustments to the raw file either.
Also, the NC images are on the right, and the kelvin temps matched what the camera was set to.
Spydweb wrote:
I think the eye is draw toward the brighter image, but not nessarily the correct one.
I agree with both of you, but I gave up on technically correct the first time I put Velvia in a camera. I go for pleasing colors because unless you are doing catalog work it is what people go for, regardless of what they say they want.
There is a warmth to the greens in ACR that I like and oddly it is closer to my perception of the Nikon digital colors that I am coveting so much right now.
Mert wrote:
Thank's for the igret info
Btw: ACR still messes up my long exposure shot's.
You're welcome Mert I can't get ACR to work with my in-camera merges, it doesn't recognise in-camera NR either. I really like the high ISO output of NC, it's very good. Speaking of long exposures, you've done some of the best I've ever seen!
jacko wrote:
At least ACR is not all over the place when it comes to reading WB. It would be nice for it to be exact though.
If you want to see what Thomas Knoll (author of ACR) has to say about the reported temperature differences between ACR and NC, you can see this thread over in the Adobe Forums on the same topic.
