Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[park]

Could MC use the color and exposure settings set inside the actual RAW files rather than render the image the way it is doing currently. The color is always way off when viewing the images in MC, and changes to the color etc made in MC don't get reflected in either the Canon bundled software nor industry standard software such as Adobe Bridge. Likewise, changes made in either of those programs don't show up in MC when you do a "Update file from tags" either.

It would really be best if MC could just read the data embedded in the files, or from the xmp sidecar files.

[marko]

MC will do a default DCRaw conversion.  This will probably not match the conversion you'll do.  I would pull only finished images into MC.

Reading between the lines, rightly or wrongly, I took this to mean that there wouldn't be a great deal of development time assigned to this.
Do Bridge and the Canon software read each others edits?

I recently bought a Nikon D5000 and shoot exclusively in RAW.

It was with a lot of anticipation that I pointed MC at my first ever RAW photos. The let down was huge.

I say that, because I knew absolutely nothing about RAW files other than that they represent the image data as captured by the sensor. I was kind of hoping MC would 'just work' and I wouldn't need to climb aboard another learning curve.
I found that MC was very very slow in dealing with my RAW files, so I went for a trip into options and found settings for a RAW cache, which I set, but MC appeared not to be using; either that, or something else was causing the slow down.
When an image was eventually displayed, it looked pants and there was an ugly purple band down the right hand edge.
XnView faired no better in this regard.

I needed help, so I asked, and received some helpful replies.

I posted some of the issues I had experienced in another thread, "Nikon NEF: Kudos and Feature Request", where DarkPenguin explained that there were no industry standards for processing RAW files....

That is a pretty new camera, right?  Might not be supported fully (or correctly) by the version of DCRaw included with MC.  I wouldn't pull raw files into MC unless you're using MC to tag them.  They just will not look the same in MC as they will in whatever RAW software you're using.  This is a limitation of RAW.  There is no standard for applying RAW edits.  MC will do a default DCRaw conversion.  This will probably not match the conversion you'll do.  I would pull only finished images into MC.

edit: It should be mentioned that another way of working with RAWs in MC is to do the conversions in another application.  Then have MC try to auto stack the files.  (Test a few to see if this works.)  Then you should have the RAW file available and its preferred incarnation as the stack top.

As an aside I would be really happy if this $%@#$ reflux would settle down so I could go to #%$!#@$ sleep.

So, I grabbed a copy of the Lightroom 3 beta and began playing.
I used a temp jpg file and tagged it with every keyword in my MC library and imported it into Lightroom.

Having tried this for a while, I have decided that for me, keeping the RAW files in a program such as Lightroom is working well.
I export jpg files with keywords applied, from Lightroom to a folder that MC watches, and from there, MC takes over and the exported images can be correctly filed away as per the tags.

I've decided not to use the stacks suggestion as it feels as if it's adding a layer of complexity that I don't really need.
Lightroom looks after the RAW files, and MC looks after the jpgs. Simples!

I have begun lobbying family members to chip together and get me a Lightroom license for my upcoming birthday. Wish me luck

Apologies for the rambling post,

-marko.

[park]

Thanks for the reply marko. I still mix taking jpegs and raw, and so separating them out into different folders is a layer of complexity I could do without.

I just checked to see if Bridge and the Canon software talk the same language, but unfortunately it looks like Bridge does its' own thing. Of all the 3 pieces of software (MC, Canon Digital Studio, Brdige) Adobe Bridge gives the best previews. Almost no editing is required at all with Bridge. With Canon's software I see that the white balance needs to be changed quite often, and so does the exposure. Both are simple with its' picker tool and curves tool. With MC I have to know the exact RGB values I want to type in to get a god white balance, and adjusting the exposure using the sliders is like trying to thread a needle whilst wearing gloves.

I guess that like you I will have to come up with some kind of workflow and separate out my RAW files. Shame though because MC pees all over ever piece of software out there for organization, and actually finding my RAW files in Bridge is going to be a nightmare.

[DarkPenguin]

If anyone is using the LR 3 beta for raw files there was an aborted release of LR 3 beta 2 today.  So I would expect to see a new beta any day now.

Or maybe now ...

http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lr3_beta_2_preview/lr3-beta2-1.htm

[park]

I assume that Lightroom uses sidecar xmp files like Bridge to hold the tag and exposure settings data. Perhaps, since MC can now import xmp data, and has implemented sidecar file support for videos, JRiver could go the whole hog and create xmp sidecar files for untaggable image types like RAW.

Even if there isn't a de facto standard for how RAW exposure and color settinngs are stored, it would certainly help a lot of people if MC's method were tied in with somebody else's. I'd say that being able to organize the files in MC and edit them in Adobe software, with image previews and tag info between the two being connected, would cover a good majority of Windows users currently shooting in RAW.

[marko]

In a similar vein, Lightroom can be set to read and deploy Media Center's hierarchical keyword info, and can also be set to store hierarchical info when writing tags.

Problem is, Media Center cannot read the hierarchical info that Lightroom writes, meaning that, in order to keep the hierarchy intact in MC when importing images exported by Lightroom, we cannot use hierarchical keywords in Lightroom.

-marko

[park]

How does lightroom read MC's RAW file tag info? Is MC able to tag the files directly?

[park]

One more request.

DNG files get treated as RAW files, but they actually contain embedded jpeg previews. It would be cool if MC used these previews instead of generating it's own thumbnails. These previews are actually updated by Bridge when you do image processing and so are the most accurate representation of how you want to see the image.

[marko]

I've never tagged a RAW file using MC, but my understanding is that any tagging would be 'database only' like it is with .tiff files at the moment. If you make and save metadata changes in lightroom, lightroom writes out an xmp sidecar file for the RAW file. MC does not read that xmp file.

I'm about half way through that 'Luminous Landscape' tutorial DarkPenguin recommended... I tell you, illuminating as they are, those two are also quite irritating, especially the Canadian fellow!!

Personalities aside, they are extremely informative videos though, and early on, the Canadian guy stated that he wished he'd never started with DNG files, and promised more on that later...
I haven't got there yet, but his comment was enough to keep me away from DNG until I find out what his beef with them actually is

Apparently, I should learn how to 'expose to the right'... I tried for a bit, and failed... added to list of things to do!

-marko

[DarkPenguin]

I've never tagged a RAW file using MC, but my understanding is that any tagging would be 'database only' like it is with .tiff files at the moment. If you make and save metadata changes in lightroom, lightroom writes out an xmp sidecar file for the RAW file. MC does not read that xmp file.

I'm about half way through that 'Luminous Landscape' tutorial DarkPenguin recommended... I tell you, illuminating as they are, those two are also quite irritating, especially the Canadian fellow!!

Personalities aside, they are extremely informative videos though, and early on, the Canadian guy stated that he wished he'd never started with DNG files, and promised more on that later...
I haven't got there yet, but his comment was enough to keep me away from DNG until I find out what his beef with them actually is

Apparently, I should learn how to 'expose to the right'... I tried for a bit, and failed... added to list of things to do!

-marko

The puck lover is Michael Reichmann and the other guy is Jeff Schewe.

The issue with DNG is that it isn't supported by most camera makers software.  While you might not care today that could change tomorrow.  So if canon, for instance, comes out with a new version of DPP that does lens corrections (which they did) and all your files are in DNG format you will be out of luck.

Noise lives in the shadows.  Hence the whole expose to the right thing.  Look up uni wb if you want to have real fun with that.

[BartMan01]

There is not an easy answer for this one. The raw format is not a standard and changes from company to company and even from camera to camera.  And then companies encrypt different parts of the RAW image metadata and that encryption changes from camera to camera.

As to Lightroom, it mostly ignores the embedded exposure data (beyond the basics) and uses its own default settings (and its own RAW engine) regardless of what was set 'in camera' at the time.  Changes made to the exposure in Lightroom are not stored in the RAW file (unless you convert it to DNG), they are stored in a sidecar file and only seen by Adobe's products.

I will speak to Nikon since that is what I use:
If you shoot an image and do the initial processing in Lightroom to correct color balance and exposure.  Then you open that image up in Nikon's software (or anything that uses the Nikon SDK for image view), you are back to square one (looking at the original image).

Bottom line is that if you are shooting RAW you need to settle around a single workflow, and don't expect any other companies products to be able to see the adjustments the same as they appear inside your workflow.

[DarkPenguin]

One more request.

DNG files get treated as RAW files, but they actually contain embedded jpeg previews. It would be cool if MC used these previews instead of generating it's own thumbnails. These previews are actually updated by Bridge when you do image processing and so are the most accurate representation of how you want to see the image.

To the J River folk:  There is an adobe SDK and doing this looked pretty straightforward.  Was never sure of the demand for this...

[park]

There is not an easy answer for this one. The raw format is not a standard and changes from company to company and even from camera to camera.  And then companies encrypt different parts of the RAW image metadata and that encryption changes from camera to camera.

As to Lightroom, it mostly ignores the embedded exposure data (beyond the basics) and uses its own default settings (and its own RAW engine) regardless of what was set 'in camera' at the time.  Changes made to the exposure in Lightroom are not stored in the RAW file (unless you convert it to DNG), they are stored in a sidecar file and only seen by Adobe's products.

Bottom line is that if you are shooting RAW you need to settle around a single workflow, and don't expect any other companies products to be able to see the adjustments the same as they appear inside your workflow.

That's all good info, but I expect that most windows users who need to see the raw metadata in more than one piece of software are going to be going through adobe software. Other than the camera based software I cant think what else anybody would use. On the mac they might use aperture. And since Adobe puts all it's data in a well documented, open, accessible sidecar file, I'd say it's worth MC's effort to support that format. Especially since they are half way there with in-file xmp metadata support.

In a sense Adobe and JRiver complement each other's features pretty well. They dont tread on each other's feet. One does organization really well, and one does image processing really well. And each of them do the other's thing badly. XMP sidecars would tie the whole thing up nicely.

[BartMan01]

That's all good info, but I expect that most windows users who need to see the raw metadata in more than one piece of software are going to be going through adobe software.

Possibly, but Nikon's software is pretty good and is preferred by many Nikon shooters.  There are also Bibble, Phase One, Picassa, Breeze Browser, etc.  RAW conversion is half art/half science, and people get religious over their RAW converters much like they do over which camera brand is 'best'.

One thing to consider here is that any heavy RAW user already has a workflow and cataloging tool in place. MC at most would be used to store post processed images for that type of user.

In a sense Adobe and JRiver complement each other's features pretty well. They dont tread on each other's feet. One does organization really well, and one does image processing really well. And each of them do the other's thing badly. XMP sidecars would tie the whole thing up nicely.

I would disagree with this.  Lightroom is a great tool to both processing and cataloging RAW images.  What MC does is only half of the equation.

I do agree that standardizing around Adobe would be a good choice, but how open is Adobe to this?