Originally posted by pschlute As I understand it ACR is a plug-in for Photoshop, not LR. I too have found that when using the "edit in" function in LR and select Photoshop, the raw file does not open in ACR. If I use ACR I always open the raw file directly in Photoshop, perform the raw conversion before cropping and other adjustments.
When you go to the LR "develop" module, the editing controls appear to be the same between a jpeg and a raw file but there differences, white balance options for example. The develop module in LR uses the same technology as ACR, so I don't think you are missing out by using LR instead of Photoshop for raw development.
At one point ACR was loading on it's own, somehow without me directly choosing it, kinda like a step you had to skip. It may have once been from 'Edit In' from LR to PS but has since stopped doing it, or right clicking a DNG file on desktop/folder in Win 10, Open With>PS and it would insist on bringing up ACR first. Like I said it felt like a poor mans LR so I just hit 'OK' every time and proceeded with my PS edits, but now you have me wondering if there are some merits to it
Arn't I missing out on colour profiles or something that ACR has for Pentax lenses that LR doesn't?
Originally posted by pschlute In camera raw you can select a Pentax colour profile. In the "basic" tab click on "profile", select browse and select "camera matching". The Pentax options (bright/natural/landscape etc) should be selectable. You will need to be using a version of camera raw that supports your camera.
This is separate from the Lens corrections settings, which correct for distortion and vignetting and Chromatic aberration. Lens corrections do not alter the colours.
I'm seeing for example in LR, very bottom right, Camera Calibration. Process: Version 4 (Current) and Profiles I can choose Bright, Landscape etc. Is this then the same as what ACR has? Or does ACR 'Pentax colour profile' offer something different?
Originally posted by bdery I was referring mainly to the other two lenses.
I have both the 43 and 77, so I could compare them, and I have a few others so I could use those also. But it would be tedious to shoot the exact same scene with all lenses, plus it wouldn't necessarily allow a fair and complete comparison of all involved lenses.
The FA Limited do have a special rendering. Colours, I'd say yes, but not only that. The out of focus rendering, the center sharpness, the microcontrast are all contributors.
I think the best way to wrap your head around the differences is to look at many samples, to get an "averaged" opinion.
Having owned the DA40 and many 50s before owning the FA43, I'll say the 40 was clearly better than the 50s, but had much less character than the 43.
The 77 is in many ways comparable to the DFA 100 macro WR. Their rendering is close (I give the edge to the 77 but really they're not that different). I keep both because the macro is slow to focus, larger, and not as fast.
I really look forward to testing the DFA 50. I want to see how good it is as an artistic tool.
I saw this video;
Pentax 50mm 1.4 vs 43mm 1.9 Limited Series STILLS TEST Part 1 of 2 - YouTube
I linked that time to illustrate what I see with my FA77 vs some other lenses. It feels like it drives contrast and colours more. Despite the heavy corner vignetting (easily fixed in post), the FA43 @f2 I like more than what I see from the DFA 50 (in that particular shot/instance). Colours more saturated, punchier, DFA feels more 'washed out'.
Now as the video continues the FA43 seems more washed out, I think it's due to the sun, and the idiot shooting into it! Also, he even compared f1.4 vs f1.9 and I've always said the DFA50/1.4 is mostly about f1.4, that's where your monies really going! Starting both lenses out at f2 for comparisons is a tad odd imo.
But man look at the size differences of those two lenses. I just cannot ever have a DFA50, because I shoot primes only, and that means I swap lenses frequently from a belt pouch, they do need to be small in order to carry them on jobs. Something of this size needs to be a zoom imo, that makes sense, but a prime...! :S
Look forward to hearing your review however
Originally posted by kernos I shoot only RAW and get what I expect from the FA77 with really minimal touch up in LR. In fact, it is the lens most likely to produce great results for portraits right from the RAWs. But Brucebanner I don't use flash and I think with this lens that makes a difference. Flash, unless really delicately done (read studio) is going to wipe the microcontrast from the rendering. Also, the best color rendering seems to be stopped down a bit from wide open. 2.2 to 2.8 is best but the results can be lovely even really stopped down like 5.6 I don't think the issue is RAW files, as this is only giving you more information to work with. Nothing magic about the Pentax jpg engine and if you like it you can make a preset with slightly dropped blacks and highlights, and slightly boosted whites, shadows and clarity that will get close.
I can understand that. I own two lenses that I feel need the least amount of PP work, the Velvet 56 and FA77. I don't know if it is my copy but even f1.8 feels fantastically colourful and punchy, this shot requiring hardly any PP at all;
Originally posted by runswithsizzers Sorry this is off-topic, since it does not discuss color, but your comment about exposure needs exploration.
Your shadows will be even easier to recover if you set your EV to
+(plus)0.7. Search for articles about ETTR (Expose To The Right, like <
here>) and <
here>. In the vast majority of scenes, the extra exposure will not result in "loosing" any highlight detail in the RAW file. Even though your JPEGs will look pale, and the histogram (which is for the JPEG) may look like near-overexposure, most often any "lost" highlight detail can be recovered from the RAW file in Lightroom - and - you will gain more shadow detail while reducing noise.
Of course this assumes you are a RAW shooter who doesn't care about the camera JPEGs. And there are high contrast lighting conditions where negative EV is indicated. But for a RAW shooter to routinely underexpose in normal lighting conditions is
throwing away dynamc range for no good reason.
I don't know what options your cameras have for User Presets and Highlight contol, but if you are not comfortable with the ETTR technique, consider making a User Preset to protect highlights in high contrast scenes, and return your EV to +/- 0 for routine lighting.
---------- Post added 11-14-18 at 09:46 AM ----------
Yes. If you are using an older version of Lightroom/Camera Raw, then Adobe will, by default, display your RAW with a Profile called "Adobe Standard" which I NEVER used because it is very boring. A few months ago, Adobe changed the default Profile to "Adobe Color" which is a big improvement, in my opinion. However, Adobe offers half-a-dozen other options as well.
And as pschlute says, there should be some profiles which are specific to Pentax, as well. Oddly, I just checked, and I am not seeing ANY Pentax-specific Camera Profiles for my K-3 in the latest version of Lightroom. Perhaps it is because I have my camera to deliver my raw files as DNG rather than PEF?
I haven't been shooting my K-3 enough to get to know it like I do my Fuji. In the case of Fuji, most often I tend to pick one of the Fuji profiles in Lightroom as preferable to the Adobe options, but more recently I do find myself using "Adobe Color" some.
I should say, no matter what camera profile I start with in Lightroom, that is usually just a starting point for additional corrections.
As for the OPs concern with the coloration of this lens vs. that one, in my limited experiece, any differences in coloration provided by a particular lens are rather subtle compared to the significant shift in coloration that occurs from changing a camera profile in Lightroom. I did experiment with ETTR at one point, I think mostly for Landscape work (a User Mode created for Landscape specifically). IIRC I had EV way higher than that +1.7 or +2. however I think I was metering Spot and locking AE at the highest shutter speed in the scene (like a cloud or something).
I gave up because I thought I was finding the brightest part in the scene, sometimes I got it right and barely a red blinky on the LCD, sometimes I got it quite wrong and a lot of the LCD was red. I was just doing too many retakes.
I ended up -0.7 EV I think from my left over days of using flash in Av mode PTTL and having flash set to 0 or +1 etc. This provided a nice punched out look for the person being lit outdoors, without that feeling of it being overdone and blatantly obvious.
Now you have me thinking tho. Yes I recall the principles of ETTR, and even if there is a hint of a blinky, it's unlikely to be there in RAW. Perhaps I need to revisit this idea of ETTR, but not for landscapes per se but as a general rule and take your advice and set for +0.7. I can always make a User Mode for Flash where EV is set back to 0.7 etc. So I thank you for that indeed good sir!
I'm in LR just now, I am a subscriber but have not updated for awhile (at all this year I think!), Under Camera Calibration I have Profile; Embedded, Adobe Standard and then Bright - Vibrant. I'm not seeing a Pentax specific colouring profile from within here?
The only Pentax Lens Profiling I can find from within LR is from the Lens Correction tool, but as mentioned earlier that leaves colours alone, it's a distortion, vignetting and defringing adjustment only...
And yes, that's kinda my point in regards to your last message. I edit the raw file in various ways, sometimes VSCO, sometimes Topaz, sometimes Nik Collection. The colours therefore dramatically change.
I'm now just curious to create a User Preset in the cameras I use (KP and K-1) and take a bunch of lenses and shoot the same thing and compare colours, I'm thinking I'd have to avoid RAW for this and get it all 'right' in cameras as a nice outputted Jpg to be fair (and not visit any PP tool). I know for example my Takumar's can render things a bit 'green', skin tones can appear quite off etc.