I see what you mean, but I'm not sure how serious is the case on your screen. On mine it is very mild. It is due mostly to my way of doing PP, or lack of.
I use IDC (Sony's own converter) to convert raws. In this series, I used landscape style and daylight WB. This combination tends to emphasize yellows and greens, and I actually like it because it reminds me of Fujichrome Velvia 50.
With similar settings, my Canon cameras used to give me a bluish magenta cast instead. Each manufacturer has a different idea of what should the canned profiles look like.
Ed; ahh, Velvia. I never really liked it but hey - to each his/her own.
The color casts I don't particularly like are yellow and green and cyan - I like my shots with a bit of warmth to them. But magenta can be quite nasty too.
Garth & Edward: Very nice photos! It's nasty weather here now, so kinda hard to shoot. Just picked up a Samyang 85mm 1.4 for the A850. Not sure how it will work out on this sensor, but I'll soon find out.
Adobe's converters, pre-LR3, wreck Sony files with blotchiness, especially at high ISO. RPP, RT, C1, Aperture, Raw Developer, DxO, and LR3 are all much better. I've had tech guys explain to me why, but I'm not really qualified to go into detail. A lot of it is because of how ACR deals with WB, from what I understand.
Philber, the A900 is known for color seperation. Rendition is more about converter and user development, I believe.
Is the converter in LR3 consistent with the converter (Camera Raw) in the latest version/update of PS CS4? Why would Adobe design or maintain 2 different converters? Wouldn't they just adopt the better of the 2 for both products? They serve the same purpose/function in both products. It doesn't make economic sense to maintain 2 different converters, or to maintain an inferior one.
LR 3 Is in beta. Generally, ACR and LR do use the same raw engine but I doubt that the case with LR 3 at the moment considering it's beta status.
As a side note, I tested a few of my Sony a900 raws using LR 3 to see how much of an improvement, if any, there might be. I did not test noise reduction or high iso examples. Just low iso examples for resolution/detail. LR 3 still does not pull as much detail out of a Sony a900 raw file as Raw Developer does.
Philber, the A900 is known for color seperation. Rendition is more about converter and user development, I believe.
Douglas,
As I quoted from the Kodak document about CFA a while ago, both color separation and converter demosaicing algorithms are responsible for color rendition. So you are partially right
kosmoskatten wrote:
Ed; ahh, Velvia. I never really liked it but hey - to each his/her own.
The color casts I don't particularly like are yellow and green and cyan - I like my shots with a bit of warmth to them. But magenta can be quite nasty too.
So do you also see the yellow green cast that Philber is mentioning?
edwardkaraa wrote:
As I quoted from the Kodak document about CFA a while ago, both color separation and converter demosaicing algorithms are responsible for color rendition. So you are partially right
Back to this issue, I hope to try to test the importance of each of these factors, whether one can compensate for the other, and whether any resulting differences in color rendition between different products can be seen in output when properly calibrated to the same standard.
edwardkaraa wrote:
So do you also see the yellow green cast that Philber is mentioning?
Actually, I see it on my color-managed desktop monitor, but it's not particularly visible on my non-color managed laptop (which I should get around to calibrating).
At least for now, the two are incompatible. You cannot use LR3-converted files in LR2, and moreover, LR3 will redo the conversions from LR2. So if you take an existing collection and import to LR3, the files WILL change. There is not an "LR2 compatibility mode" kind of option. But, in my opinion, the changes are for the better.
Who knows what the plans are for production. It does seem a dicey proposition to introduce a tool that is going to retroactively change all your developed files.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Is the converter in LR3 consistent with the converter (Camera Raw) in the latest version/update of PS CS4? Why would Adobe design or maintain 2 different converters? Wouldn't they just adopt the better of the 2 for both products? They serve the same purpose/function in both products. It doesn't make economic sense to maintain 2 different converters, or to maintain an inferior one.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Actually, I see it on my color-managed desktop monitor, but it's not particularly visible on my non-color managed laptop (which I should get around to calibrating).
Thank you Lotusm50. This could explain why I am not seeing the cast. I am using a non-color managed laptop these days.
mawz wrote:
Note the LR3 engine will likely be ACR 6 in CS5 next year. We are unlikely to see a new engine in ACR5.x at this point in its life cycle.
yes, Adobe will probably pull another Canon 5DII trick with CS5. Of course, the irony is that one of the supposed main benefits of having ACR as a separate plug-in was that one could easily just update ACR whenever new cameras were introduced rather than having to update Photoshop. I guess that did not work out from a money-making marketing standpoint for Adobe.
joekraft wrote:
ACR5 and greater only work with CS4? That _is_ a dirty trick.
Yes, ACR 5 and later (well, likely until ACR 6 right?) are only compatible with CS4. There are cumbersome workarounds such as converting the 5DII raw files to DNG first but that is a pain.
