Workaround the NEF settings problem in ACR

[sam_motskin]

<p>I do all my initial processing in ACR but I've been unhappy how it interpretes the colors and tonality from my D300. No reason to repeat why, we all know that. Granted, tweeking the sliders makes it better but still I had problems geting tonality, contrast, and colors right. So I've been trying to find a workaround.</p>

<p>After some experimenting I found a way that works for me. I initially load the NEF files into VIewNX, do initial vetting, and then save them in TIFF format. I then open the files in Bridge/ACR and do my usual processing. To reduce the file sizes I save them in ACR in DNG lossless compression format. The files are still larger then NEF but it looks like the initial NEF settings are wrritten into the TIFF files and recognized by Adobe. And the colors and tonality look very good </p>

<p>Has anybody tried something like this?</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>I just use the Camera Profile dropdown menu (camera standard, camera landscape, etc.) in ACR or LR. It's not as exact as Nikon's own software, but it's close enough for a starting point for me. YMMV.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>There's really no reason not to use Camera Profiles. If you don't have them, you can download them from the Adobe site.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>There's really no reason not to use Camera Profiles. If you don't have them, you can download them from the Adobe site.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Or better yet, if you have a Macbeth 24 patch target, roll your own.</p>

<p>http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles:Editor</p>

[bkkstudios]

<p>I just tried this and it's not so easy to get what you want, at least on my first attempt.</p>

<p>I downloaded the DNG converter, then the camera profiles, and the DNG editor. I converted NEF files to DNG. Then I opened the DNG editor to try and create a D3 profile that would match my in-camera settings. In the editor, you can only change hue and saturation and lightness. I suppose in theory, that is everything. But I can't quite get the sharpness and contrast I have on-camera. Maybe tinkiering for hours I might do it. Also, this method seems to be very photo specific, or at least for all photos where the model has the same outfit.</p>

<p>Am I doing something wrong here?</p>

<p> </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>In the editor, you can only change hue and saturation and lightness. I suppose in theory, that is everything.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ah yes, that's everything! </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But I can't quite get the sharpness and contrast I have on-camera. Maybe tinkiering for hours I might do it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's not the role of a camera profile. You would alter the capture sharpening in Develop and save a preset. </p>

[sam_motskin]

<p>Thanks everybody for your interest and comments. My workflow is very straitforward. And that's what I was looking for: a simple and effective workflow solution. I do not use the DNG converter to create my camera profile. I have the latest Adobe camera profiles in ACR.<br>

It's not a religious war, just looking for practical solutions.</p>

<p>I load the NEF files into ViewNX and save them in TIFF format. I then open the TIFF files in Bridge and do my usual processing in ACR and CS3. The difference is that the camera settings are embedded in TIFF and understood by Adobe. While in ACR I save the file in DNG lossless compression format just to reduce the file size. You could leave them in TIFF. When I get to CS3 I save the files as I've always done in PSD layered format.</p>

<p>I took a few pictures indoors in low light with ISO 2500. I set up an in-camera picture control with NR on and bumped up sharpening. The pictures turned out quite usable what I could not get in these conditions with strait ACR/CS3 processing. I just had to do a few adjustments in ACR and a little selective NR, and capture sharpening in CS3 using PK. I used Zeiss 25mm on my D300. I felt the pictures took on 3-dimensionality I could not get before.</p>

<p>Generally I find the colors are truer, the contrast and tonality are better, and the workflow is faster. May be it's lens or lighting dependfent but it works for me. </p>

 

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>The difference is that the camera settings are embedded in TIFF and understood by Adobe...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You sure about that? A TIFF is a rendered image too, its a baked color appearance which a Raw is not. Every Raw converter will produce a differing color appearance from the same Raw and even the same Adobe converter will produce a different appearance based on the default rendering settings. </p>

[sam_motskin]

<p>You sure about that?<br>

------------------------------<br>

Andrew, I don't know the mechanics of either Nikon or Adobe algorithms but that's what I was given to understand. There are mathematical ways to have lossless conversion but how NIkon and Adobe do that I've no idea. All I do in ViewNX is to convert the 14bit NEF files into 16bit uncompressed TIFFs. I also back up the pristine NEF files.</p>

<p>I compared side by side the NEFs in ViewNX with the TIFF and DNG in Bridge/ACR, blown up to 200%. I have not perceived any color, tonality, or contrast shift. I think I'm getting the best of both worlds. In my view the Nikon software interface is cumbersome and it's a resoutce hog. So I'm basically getting in and out quickly</p>