Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Epson R-D1 Leica M mount Digital Rangefinder

Epson R-D1 Leica M mount Digital Rangefinder A dedicated forum to the first Digital Leica M mount rangefinder camera.

View Poll Results: Do you shoot JPEGS or RAW with your R-D1? Choose as many as apply to you.
I shoot exclusively JPEG. 15 10.42%
I shoot exclusively RAW. 65 45.14%
I shoot both, but tend to use the RAW file. 39 27.08%
I shoot both, but tend to use the JPEG file. 20 13.89%
I shoot JPEG for monochrome images. 6 4.17%
I shoot JPEGs for "less serious" photographs and RAW for special stuff. 4 2.78%
I choose depending on space left on my card(s). 3 2.08%
I shoot RAW when the exposure is tricky, and JPEG most other times. 4 2.78%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 144. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

R-D1: Do you shoot RAW or JPEG?
Old 02-02-2012   #1
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
 
dreilly's Avatar
 
dreilly is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Finger Lakes Region of New York State
Posts: 1,031
R-D1: Do you shoot RAW or JPEG?

I'm curious who shoots JPEGS and who shoots RAW with the R-D1. I love the Out Of the Camera (OOC) JPEGs from the R-D1, though I've recently been experimenting with RAW files. What are your habits? It's multiple choice, so choose all those that apply.
__________________
-D is for Doug

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenar/collections/

No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film. ~Robert Adams, Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques, May 1995 (I suppose that should now read: "and have a full battery and an empty memory card." Though that sounds so dull.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #2
punkromance
Poor art student
 
punkromance's Avatar
 
punkromance is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 168
Raw files will always be better, if only for the noise reduction software that comes with LR3+ (1600 is perfectly usable) and once you've learnt your way around an editing program you'll be lost having to revert back to jpg.

If it's just a throwaway snap then sure shoot jpg, but if you're doing anything seriously you probably shouldn't be shooting anything other than raw.
__________________

R-D1s | M4-2 | CV 40/1.4
500C/M | CZ 80/2.8
D800 | 35/2 AIS | 135/2 DC
zerotwelve.co.uk | flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #3
roundg
Registered User
 
roundg's Avatar
 
roundg is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 792
If the 2G card capacity is enough for my trip, I always shoot in JPG+RAW
__________________
From North CA
Robin
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #4
Vagabond
Accomplished Malingerer
 
Vagabond's Avatar
 
Vagabond is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 179
I shoot RAW and then batch process them using the Epson PhotoRAW. No matter what lens I use, the JPEGs that I get straight out of it have too much vignetting for my liking. The images from the batch are created at a reduced resolution (1504x1000). I use these for review and also keep them as an archive. I'll then use the Epson plug-in to bring the "keepers" into PhotoShop for some final tweaking. I might mention that I use the R-D1 exclusively for b/w images.
__________________
Always treat children like adults and adults like children.

BESSA R2a - EPSON R-D1 - Fuji X100

My R-D1, R2a, Agfa PB20, Yashica D, Perkeo Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #5
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
 
dreilly's Avatar
 
dreilly is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Finger Lakes Region of New York State
Posts: 1,031
An interesting follow on poll would be workflow for raw, what processor people use, etc.

I use LR3 and do color noise reduction on JPEGs and RAW files there. I like the R-D1 vignetting but I can get rid of it with JPEGs as well in LR3.
__________________
-D is for Doug

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenar/collections/

No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film. ~Robert Adams, Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques, May 1995 (I suppose that should now read: "and have a full battery and an empty memory card." Though that sounds so dull.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #6
LCT
Registered User
 
LCT's Avatar
 
LCT is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,365
Always raw for color, sometimes jpeg for B&W when i need to shoot fast.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #7
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,737
I use RAW only, or RAW+JPEG (monochrome), depending on the scene/subject.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #8
sevres_babylone
Registered User
 
sevres_babylone is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,640
I shoot raw + jpeg all the time. I have been using the raw files more frequently in the last year or so, as I've become more comfortable with and more knowledgeable of Adobe Camera Raw. Most, but not all, of my prints are from raw files. I tended to use jpegs for quicker processing when I wanted to post quickly to flickr and pbase.

Even if I were to use jpegs more frequently, I would still shoot raw + jpeg. There are some files which need the ability to get the extra detail in the highlights sometimes lost in jpegs. Also, raw converters have been improving, so it's sometimes possible to improve the results from an older file.

At this point, even if I were to abandon jpeg processing, I like the raw + jpeg combination, because I use Photo Mechanic to rename, edit and sometimes sort, and it works quicker and with bigger previews using the jpeg.
__________________
Visit me at Pbase
and at Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #9
Landberg
Registered User
 
Landberg is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 634
Only RAW for me.
__________________
My photoblog rikardlandberg.com
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #10
umcelinho
Marcelo
 
umcelinho's Avatar
 
umcelinho is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 34
Posts: 1,300
only raw, after shooting raw for the first time and understanding what i could do with it, i never again shot jpegs.
__________________
Gear:
• right eye
• right index finger
• cameras & lenses

What I've seen around: flickr

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #11
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 63
Posts: 3,183
jpg: RD-1 and my sportsshooting with Canon dSLRs
RAW/DNG: everything else

when i had one, i thought the RD-1's jpgs were really nice right from the box.

i'm 100% lightroom, btw
__________________
--Mike (confirmed midget imagist on stilts)

The photographer chances upon a scene that fascinates him. He longs to be a part of it ... recording the scene and including within it his vicarious representative, the participating observer. --- Geoff Dyer

Gear: more than enough, film and digital

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #12
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 40,187
i shoot only raw and process in elements.
__________________
heart soul & a camera

xt20...xe2...xe1...
16...23...23...27...50...56...55-200

original canon F1...T90...24/2.8...100/2.8...200/2.8...300/5.6
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #13
daveisbest
Registered User
 
daveisbest is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 46
JPEG's only for me. When I first got the camera I shot RAW+JPEG's to see if there was any discernible difference in quality between the two. There wasn't, and still isn't, to my eye. The camera almost always gets the exposure and white balance right first time, so I have no need to change these things later in post-production. It also takes Photoshop an age to open RAW files from the R-D1 and since I usually only spend a minute or two in post-production on each photo JPEG's are a lot faster and easier to work with. Add the fact that the R-D1 can only take cards up to 2GB, and that I only take the card out of the camera and load the photos onto my computer once or twice a month and JPEG's make much more sense for me. I'm planning on getting a used X100 soon, and will almost certainly shoot only JPEG's with it too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #14
LCT
Registered User
 
LCT's Avatar
 
LCT is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,365
You should try a good raw converter like Capture One. There is a world of difference noise wise and colors are superb IMHO.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #15
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
 
dreilly's Avatar
 
dreilly is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Finger Lakes Region of New York State
Posts: 1,031
Thanks for the alternative perspective Dave. That's where I am at this point, though I am still fiddling with RAW to see if it grows on me. I've tried a few files through Lightroom 3 and I haven't seen much difference between the processed raw and the JPEG. But these images haven't been critical ones where I'm really trying to save an exposure, etc. I do wish the top dial had a selection for JPEG, RAW+JPEG and RAW instead of the JPEG high/JPEG normal/Raw setting there now.
__________________
-D is for Doug

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenar/collections/

No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film. ~Robert Adams, Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques, May 1995 (I suppose that should now read: "and have a full battery and an empty memory card." Though that sounds so dull.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #16
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
 
dreilly's Avatar
 
dreilly is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Finger Lakes Region of New York State
Posts: 1,031
What converter comes with the Epson? I'd like to try that.
__________________
-D is for Doug

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenar/collections/

No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film. ~Robert Adams, Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques, May 1995 (I suppose that should now read: "and have a full battery and an empty memory card." Though that sounds so dull.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #17
shadeofpale
Registered User
 
shadeofpale's Avatar
 
shadeofpale is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Krautland
Posts: 74
Epson photoRAW
http://cameraquest.com/Epson-R-D1/_r-d1/r-d1_links.htm

I shoot RAW and JPG (for safety reasons).
__________________
Je suis Charlie
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #18
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 40,187
the exposure meter is off on both my rd1 bodies and was off in the one i traded away earlier this year. i thinnk they are all off a bit from what i have read.
jpeg is nowhere near as good as a raw file with 3 minutes work done on it.
__________________
heart soul & a camera

xt20...xe2...xe1...
16...23...23...27...50...56...55-200

original canon F1...T90...24/2.8...100/2.8...200/2.8...300/5.6
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #19
mwooten
light user
 
mwooten's Avatar
 
mwooten is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: greenville sc, usa
Posts: 1,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by back alley View Post
the exposure meter is off on both my rd1 bodies and was off in the one i traded away earlier this year. i thinnk they are all off a bit from what i have read....
Yeah, I think that's right. On auto mine seems to expose ~ -2/3 of a stop. It's easier to pull something out of the shadows than create it from shot highlights.
__________________
rff gallery

blog: atomicspa.com


  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #20
Cagliostro73
Registered User
 
Cagliostro73 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Italy, Rome
Age: 43
Posts: 134
I'm using both. Jpegs are just fine for quick posting in my flickr but if I should need some post processing then I prefer having a raw file.
I'm a b&w shooter anyway and having the raw file for post proessing is always and advantage IMHO.
Converters: LR3 (quick), silver efex pro2 for serious tuning.
__________________
Buona Luce!
Best of Light!

www.flickr.com/zonasette

Epson RD-1s, Leica M2, summicron 40, 50, elmar 90, Fed 3b, industar 22, 61 L/D; jupiter 8, 9, 12.
_____________________________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #21
lofi
Registered User
 
lofi's Avatar
 
lofi is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 6
I'm only shot jpeg.
I’d like the B&W and especially the (vivid) colour straight from the camera, much more than the processed raw with LR or similar. And the other hand, I have an iMac with a LED screen and I haven’t been able to see differences between the jpegs and raws of this camera, even at high iso, but surely there will be.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #22
Guaranteed
Registered User
 
Guaranteed's Avatar
 
Guaranteed is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 237
I like my files like I like my carpaccio, Raw.
__________________
Christian
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2012   #23
andephotographic
Registered User
 
andephotographic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
Will I have any problems with the raw files out an RD1s in LR3 or Photoshop/Bridge CS3?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2012   #24
mwooten
light user
 
mwooten's Avatar
 
mwooten is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: greenville sc, usa
Posts: 1,058
No, you will have no problems. I have LR convert my erf's to dng's to save disk space (and hopefully allow legacy processing in the years to come) when imported.
__________________
rff gallery

blog: atomicspa.com


  Reply With Quote

Old 02-13-2012   #25
andephotographic
Registered User
 
andephotographic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
Awesome. I usually do the .dng conversion so will continue as ever.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-14-2012   #26
porktaco
Registered User
 
porktaco's Avatar
 
porktaco is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,482
raw only, LR3. the workflow is no different than when i shot jpeg. i don't understand why anyone would shoot jpeg.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-14-2012   #27
shadeofpale
Registered User
 
shadeofpale's Avatar
 
shadeofpale is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Krautland
Posts: 74
Not using LR might be a reason for shooting JPG …
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...d.php?t=113555
__________________
Je suis Charlie
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2012   #28
iforum
Registered User
 
iforum is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1
RAW+JPEG (monochrome)....sometimes the RD1 bnw settings save a heap of work and are spot on especially at 1600 iso
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2012   #29
Bike Tourist
Registered User
 
Bike Tourist's Avatar
 
Bike Tourist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central California
Age: 81
Posts: 1,036
100% jpeg all the time. My NikonView software works great on the output from any camera I may own. Years from now, after proprietary raw files can no longer be opened with then-current software, my jpegs will be just fine. My copy of CS5, along with all its companion software, will open the raw files from my cameras but why bother? Several iterations of PS changes are well tolerated — no artifacts, completely acceptable for commercial or personal use. I started out in my conversion to digital many years ago believing all the "experts" who said you weren't a real photographer unless you shot raw or, at least, tiff.

After many years I asked myself what I was gaining by shooting raw and what was I losing (besides disc space). My personal answer was "nothing".

So now I skip through life, stupidly trashing my images by shooting jpeg, but happy to do so.
__________________
Dick Thornton

Stock Portfolio:
http://www.shutterstock.com/g/biketourist
  Reply With Quote

RAW, AH why?
Old 03-02-2012   #30
Dektol Dan
Registered User
 
Dektol Dan is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 891
RAW, AH why?

I archive in TIFF from film scans. I won't get into the madness of correction algorithms available for just that. And, there's WAY too much post production that must be done for whatever format the image is to be viewed at in the end (ink jet, laser, monitor, DVD...) to waste time messing with RAW. The 'perfect correction' that you agonized over just isn't; I'm sorry.

As far a digital cameras go, from my experience, the curves provided by the manufacturer are always the best compromise of speed and file size. If the shot is properly exposed in the first place who needs RAW? I shoot primarily rangefinder cameras and I use digital cameras for sports (at least 6 shots a second) and lenses that don't adapt to rangefinder use very well (copy work, long lenses).

RAW is a non starter for action photography. I could see it's usefulness for copy work, but face it, the color from most digital cameras and what is seen from digital monitors is an abstraction (and that is being kind).

Why do you think I still shoot film? I want the palette to meet my needs and situation. RAW is an attempt to correct not only the shortfalls of the photographer, but the compromises made for, and built into, every design of every digital camera and scanner.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2012   #31
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
 
dreilly's Avatar
 
dreilly is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Finger Lakes Region of New York State
Posts: 1,031
Great to hear dissenting opinions on RAW. I don't feel so crazy now shooting JPEG, though on my GXR I'm still shooting Raw because I'm not as happy with the JPEG engine as I was with the R-D1 or an Olympus digital I ever shot. I might try an X100, it's supposed to have very good JPEG output, too.
__________________
-D is for Doug

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenar/collections/

No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film. ~Robert Adams, Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques, May 1995 (I suppose that should now read: "and have a full battery and an empty memory card." Though that sounds so dull.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2012   #32
LCT
Registered User
 
LCT's Avatar
 
LCT is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,365
I've tried many times since 2004 but i found absolutely no way to get jpegs as clean and sharp as raws developed in C1 so far. In spite of the age of the beast, 1600 iso pics are really usable in B&W and color this way.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2012   #33
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 40,187
to me, shooting jpegs is like shooting cheap drugstore film.

processing a raw file can be quick and painless and it produces a much superior iimage in the end.
__________________
heart soul & a camera

xt20...xe2...xe1...
16...23...23...27...50...56...55-200

original canon F1...T90...24/2.8...100/2.8...200/2.8...300/5.6
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2012   #34
andephotographic
Registered User
 
andephotographic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dektol Dan View Post
I archive in TIFF from film scans. I won't get into the madness of correction algorithms available for just that. And, there's WAY too much post production that must be done for whatever format the image is to be viewed at in the end (ink jet, laser, monitor, DVD...) to waste time messing with RAW. The 'perfect correction' that you agonized over just isn't; I'm sorry.

As far a digital cameras go, from my experience, the curves provided by the manufacturer are always the best compromise of speed and file size. If the shot is properly exposed in the first place who needs RAW? I shoot primarily rangefinder cameras and I use digital cameras for sports (at least 6 shots a second) and lenses that don't adapt to rangefinder use very well (copy work, long lenses).

RAW is a non starter for action photography. I could see it's usefulness for copy work, but face it, the color from most digital cameras and what is seen from digital monitors is an abstraction (and that is being kind).

Why do you think I still shoot film? I want the palette to meet my needs and situation. RAW is an attempt to correct not only the shortfalls of the photographer, but the compromises made for, and built into, every design of every digital camera and scanner.
Some good points and well made but I'm not so sure I follow on your last point.

I shoot film and digital too and when i shoot film it's generally b&w film that I dev and print at home and when i shoot digital I shoot in RAW.

If I want to digitise my film images I scan a print, partly because my scanner does a far better job of full platen scans than it does of negs but mostly because I see making the print as part of the film process.

For me shooting jpeg would be like shooting a roll of film and handing it to someone else to develop for me then trying to make prints the way I want them, I'd far rather retain the control over the process myself.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-03-2012   #35
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
 
dreilly's Avatar
 
dreilly is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Finger Lakes Region of New York State
Posts: 1,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by andephotographic View Post
For me shooting jpeg would be like shooting a roll of film and handing it to someone else to develop for me then trying to make prints the way I want them, I'd far rather retain the control over the process myself.
I get this. But coming from chromes, there was NO control. Shoot it, drop it in a bag, and wait for the results. My Nikon FM2's stupid center-weighted metering was prodigious at exposing slides...only needed occasional exposure compensation. You learn the characteristics of the slide film and work within them. Far as I know National Geographic photographers shot mostly chromes, and millions of them. Post-processing (whether wet darkroom or computer processing/printing) is to me just a different vocation.

I've never worked with color print film, except for some scanning...is there the same level of tweakability and control with color print that there is with black and white developing and printing?
__________________
-D is for Doug

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenar/collections/

No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film. ~Robert Adams, Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques, May 1995 (I suppose that should now read: "and have a full battery and an empty memory card." Though that sounds so dull.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-03-2012   #36
LCT
Registered User
 
LCT's Avatar
 
LCT is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,365
OK but there is no digital noise in tranies. As good as it may be otherwise the R-D1 has one of the noisiest jpeg engine ever made. It was yet more noisy than my D70 when i bought both in 2004.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-03-2012   #37
andephotographic
Registered User
 
andephotographic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
I started with b&w film, moved to digital when I could afford it, started shooting RAW as soon as I realised it was nothing to be scared of and have only gone back to jpeg when shooting for press etc.

Not tried the jpegs out of the R-D so can't really comment on them and I've never done any jpeg v RAW tests with any of my cameras. I do remember the RAW files from my Nikon D50 seeming to have a lot more detail in the highlights and shadows than was in the jpegs though. Possibly the D50 had a rubbish jpeg engine but it's probably stuck with me and is why I think that shooting RAW retains more information and more info = good thing.

I think another thing to discourage me from using jpeg is learning in college about lossy v lossless file types. if I still had kit that would shoot in TIFF then I might be doing that but I don't, so RAW it is.

Anyway, disk/card space is cheap so why throw away information at the point of capture that can easily be retained? Even if you expose perfectly for the visualisation you have for an image today, who is to say you won't have a slightly different visualisation tomorrow and if shooting RAW means you have the latitude to realise that new visualisation from the existing file rather than reshooting then some people might call it lazy but I say it's sensible use of available technology.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-10-2012   #38
markloch
Registered User
 
markloch is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 33
Speaking of LR and raw+jpeg, is there some way to get to the jpeg files that LR treats as a 'sidecar'? I now know I can import such that the jpeg is treated as a separate photo, but I don't want to do that with ALL my images, just the ones that were shot B&W ... I suppose I could try to remember to toggle the "treat jpeg files next to raw as separate photos" when importing B&W jpeg, but it would be nice if I could review my existing library with jpeg & raw side-by-side and select which jpegs to 'treat as separate photos' ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2013   #39
Darthfeeble
Accidental Photographer
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is online now
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 1,048
I shoot both with the camera set to BW. I like that if there's a shot that I would like in color, I have that available. Best of both worlds. I'm not a machine gunner so the limit of the card is rarely reached.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2013   #40
le-alain
Registered User
 
le-alain is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by lofi View Post
I'm only shot jpeg.
I’d like the B&W and especially the (vivid) colour straight from the camera, much more than the processed raw with LR or similar. And the other hand, I have an iMac with a LED screen and I haven’t been able to see differences between the jpegs and raws of this camera, even at high iso, but surely there will be.
Yes, the jpeg's color are very good with RD1, and LR is really not the best at it.

But I use ACDSEE Pro, to achieve the same color performance as the jpeg engine, with lot's off more information in the raw.

Bought it for 25€ as update of a very very old version of ACDSEE (non pro) I had, and it worth it !
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 17:49.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.