[JohnBee]

No, I mean the colors of RAW are so dull in Lightroom,that even strong saturation boosting does not really come close to K-5 jpeg colors. I never get a nice, rich and ''tasty'' colors using LR.

Hmmm... that doesn't sound right.
Have you checked to see if you're using the right camera and color profiles?
I don't know if LR and ACR still share the same core but when I process images in Adobe Camera Raw they look fantastic without any major boosts in anything.

This might be worth looking into further.

[kent]

LR camera profile is embedded, no modifications done to it since it accepts K-5 raws. Simply the color rendering is to dull and muted to my taste while Bibble gives awesome rich colors and even default rendering of raw file is much more saturated (still no additional modifications)

[JohnBee]

LR camera profile is embedded, no modifications done to it since it accepts K-5 raws. Simply the color rendering is to dull and muted to my taste while Bibble gives awesome rich colors and even default rendering of raw file is much more saturated (still no additional modifications)

That's most interesting.
I'd be curious to see a comparison between ACR/LR and Bibble to try and figure out what is happening. But something tells me that the differences are likely in profiling(most likely custom curves etc). However, this wouldn't be the first time I've read of someone complaining about LR RAW output not being up to snuff either. Then again... I hardly use Adobe for RAW processing since I've discovered RPP and Raw Therapee. To which I should add are best used to produce complely neutral transition files. So no color profiling issues there either I guess.

To bad for Lightroom though. I always thought it would make a great all in one solution for bigger jobs.

[kent]

I made one raw picture and uploaded to each program. No further modifications made, no auto settings, no color boosting, nothing, just fresh rendering, and have a look. The bibble renders almost the same colors as you see on the camera screen and thats without boosting colors. Compare to PS and LR.. Sadly, the upgraded bibble version crashes now often (never was with older version)

[JohnBee]

I made one raw picture and uploaded to each program. No further modifications made, no auto settings, no color boosting, nothing, just fresh rendering, and have a look. The bibble renders almost the same colors as you see on the camera screen and thats without boosting colors. Compare to PS and LR.. Sadly, the upgraded bibble version crashes now often (never was with older version)

Wow thanks that's great!

I don't think I've ever used Bibble Pro myself, but by the looks of things, I guess I should download a trial and give it a good looking over.
PS. Any chance I could borrow your RAW image for testing? It looks like a great color benchmark file.

JohnB

[kent]

Download IMGP0884.DNG from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way there you go. Bibble is really great software and it works fluently and fast (if you get proper update. I regret I updated it to newer version). It has excellent noise reduction system, however I do not like it's approach to auto white balance.

[JohnBee]

Download IMGP0884.DNG from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way there you go. Bibble is really great software and it works fluently and fast (if you get proper update. I regret I updated it to newer version). It has excellent noise reduction system, however I do not like it's approach to auto white balance.

Got it thanks!
Also downloaded Bibble pro and installed it.
At first glance, I wasn't able to replicate the colors on screen. Is there a setting or profile that I should use to get Bibble to match?

[kent]

Try to set Look Profile to Event. Even Product profile is more saturated than both LR and PS

[Ron Kruger]

After testing a large number of programs, I came to the conclusion that all Adobe products are designed primarily with Canon and Nikon in mind, and that nothing converts RAW files and preserves those "Pentax colors," better than the software that comes free with the cameras. It is designed specifically for Pentax, and Pentax packages it with their cameras to get the most from them. Previous versions were clumsy, but CPU4 is about as user friendly as any software out there and much easier than most.
I still use ACDsee for some JPEG tweaking and PS (rarely) for things that require layers, but for initial edits and conversions, I believe using anything but CPU4 is a waste of money for inferior results.

[JohnBee]

Try to set Look Profile to Event. Even Product profile is more saturated than both LR and PS

Yes that worked(perfect).
With this, I was able to look over the differences between ACR and Bibble Pro and found that that were limited to profiling(basic settings). And so to test this theory, I adjusted ACR to match and created a new profile called: ACR_Event.xmp (see attached file).

Anyways, if you're interested, you can download the profile and give it a try. I'm not 100% certain but it might work in LR too. However, the differences are so small that I think anyone could easilly adjust and create their own profile in LR also. So there's that option as well.

Having said that, I've been looking over Bibbles demosaic output to compare with ACR and I think they are both using the same engine(identical artifacts etc):


As for ACR and Lightroom, I think it's a shame that Adobe doesn't take the time to code the camera profiles into the software. Especially knowing they do it for Nikon and Canon. Having said that, I guess it's not so bad considering that most profiles can be easily created and replicated too. - Perhaps there should be a repository on Pentax Forums for such things.

Anyways, I'm going to give Raw Therapee a look and see how it measures up against Bibble on the profile and demosaic side of things. Who knows... maybe the free software will end-up being the better solution

[simico]

Using "event" look profile in bibble... omg. I guess you have your camera set to "vivid" if "event" gives you the same oversaturated look as your cam jpg.

There's nothing wrong with LR, it gives almost the same colors as "neutral" image tone on the K-5. On the other hand Bibble has a broken camera profile for K-5 (and many other cameras), you may want to check the bugs section on their forum. Just saying as a Bibble and LR user.

[kent]

Yes that worked(perfect).
With this, I was able to look over the differences between ACR and Bibble Pro and found that that were limited to profiling(basic settings). And so to test this theory, I adjusted ACR to match and created a new profile called: ACR_Event.xmp (see attached file).

Thats interesting John, however I do not know how to upload that profile to LR and PS. Could you explain?

[JohnBee]

Thats interesting John, however I do not know how to upload that profile to LR and PS. Could you explain?

Sure its really easy.

You first unzip the profile anywhere you like. Then goto the preset tab in ACR, select the context drop down menu(on the left of the pane) and choose > Load Settings. Then load the profile.

You can then save this profile afterward to be part of your own ACR settings(for later use).

[kent]

Than you very much! It works indeed and looks better

[JohnBee]

Than you very much! It works indeed and looks better

Your very welcome.
And since this discussion, I've taken it upon myself to replicate all of the K-5's camera profiles in ACR. Which I'll upload and post here to share with everyone interested in adding them to their workflow. Who knows... maybe this will motivate Adobe to follow suit one day

Thanks for your help with this also.
It's been a real eye opening experience.

JohnB