« Chick Cameras | Main | Random Excellence: Eric Ogden »

Saturday, 13 November 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Yes, that is one of the most amazing tools in Lightroom and makes it worth the money on its own. I hardly use Photoshop now that those corrections can be made is Lightroom.

CS5 has the same feature.

Yup, love that in LR3, and the ever-present camera profiles. First thing I tend to do is check those two boxes, select all, sync.

Why doesn´t the video show in the drop down list PENTAX?!!

It's interesting how "fair practices" perceptions change with time as we get more and more used to digital. A lot of photographers would have frowned at such changes applied so liberally a decade ago. I remember a comment I left here at TOP some time ago about similar mods to an image done "freehand" on PS and I remember the comments varied a lot. Sad I can't find that post. It was an experiment, but it looked clearly like a big possibility for digital to me.

I LOVE Lightroom 3 and think it's mostly terrific. I hardly use Photoshop any more, but do have Photoshop CS5 and it works just fine for me.

I'm pleased to have the Lens Correction feature in Lightroom 3 and it seems to work great with my Canon 50mm F1.4. Unfortunately, the Adobe Profile for my Zeiss Distagon 28mm F2 stinks! Readers should scrutinize images treated with these lens profiles Adobe provides and not assume they are correct for YOUR lens. I found that the Adobe Profile for the Zeiss Distagon 28mm F2 lens, would apply a chromatic aberration correction that did not remove the slight chromatic aberration MY lens has. Instead, it actually created MORE chromatic aberration of a different sort! The profile was actually worse than just leaving the images taken with this lens uncorrected for CA! I created a manual correction for this lens for both Distortion and CA, and saved them as a Development Preset. This works waaaay better than the supplied Adobe Profile. Some day I might try building a custom profile with their free procedure+software, but for now, the manual method seems plenty good enough.

It's amazing that they offer this kind of tool, yet some of the other tools are so screwed up.
Cropping forces you to stay within the photo, so you can't overcrop one edge and then clone in just that edge, or the cloning tool that is a real PIA to clone a straight line out.
And don't get me started on the double doctorate in computer languages that is required just to modify a simple web export template.

Quick tip-- if you are doing a custom profile say for your obscure 21mm 3.2 on your trust k10...
you can shoot the test target directly from your screen and save the trouble of printing a test target, getting it flat and evenly illuminated, etc...
(presuming you have a largish matte monitor)

1) download "lens profile creator" from adobe labs
2) install, and find the test target directory
3) open the 11x17 target (fits my 20" cinema)
4) view full screen (in reader)
5) photograph according to profile creator instructions! (better in dark room)

and if anyone wants the profile for the 21mm/ k10...

One of the features I really like in LR3 and wish was native in Aperture but as said I can use PS as the external editor for Aperture and get the features.

I can also get 3rd party solutions for Aperture.

I’m in the process of deciding which solution LR3 or Aperture I will use so this kind of info is great.

I am all atwitter about it too as it has made my work more efficient.

When I use a lens that is miraculously included on the profile list, I check the box and let it go to fixin," needed or not. Then, during the time when that cute little Mac ball starts spinning as my apparently under performing Mac bogs down, I can download the Adobe profile tools and make profiles for my other lenses.

Ooo. But no Pentax lenses? Boo.

I guess I'll be sticking with my old skew-n-dodge approach.

I do really like that feature, although I'm not sure the link can justify as a vote of confidence in Adobe since it's crashed my browser three times already.

This is a nice feature. Opensource project 'lensfun' also provides lens correction. The wonderful raw processor 'ufraw' utilizes their database in recent versions.

I couldn't see it, Flash died.

Lens corrections would be a great project for open-source/community project; would save people the trouble of going to profile the less common lenses themselves and everyone would get profiles. It would work so that a large number of people would profile something they have, put it to the project and pretty soon it would grow into a nice library of profiles.

PTLens has been doing this for many years, and for much less money.

I have the function in PSCS5 and, as the video says, it includes only a handful of lenses. PTLens, on the other hand has profiles for hundreds of lenses and (D)SLR cameras probably amounting to thousands of combinations, and many more fixed lens cameras.

CA correction isn't automated, but lens distortion is. I'm sure sharing sites will show up, but I still prefer PTL's model. IF you have a camera/lens combo for which there is no profile. Follow the instructions on the site to take test shots.

All the profiling is done by one person, who can reject inadequate samples and assure consistent results. The new profile(s) are than added to the profile download, for every user to benefit from.

So - send lots of money to Adobe or DxO, and pay for updates? Or pay $25 once to epaperpress.com, a one man enerprise, for a lifetimes free updates?

Non Affiliated Moose

The (automatic) corrections-by-profile are a great feature indeed - but beware (at least I do): at least half of my photos look worse without their 'native' vignetting. Not that I noticed any vignetting before it was corrected, but every lens has some and somehow it is part of what lens-made images are anyway. Even (or especially) when it is only noticed subliminally. And when it is done away with for one hundred percent and the picture is absolutely even in that regard, it may appear flat. At least that is what 'corrected' pictures did to me in a number of cases.

Another RAW converter / image editor that includes a similar lens correction (distortion & vignetting) tool is Bibble, and they do support Pentax (and Olympus, and Panasonic, as well as several high end compacts, for lens correction at least, if not for RAW conversion) It seems to work almost automatically (sometimes you have to tell it which lens was actually used), and of course not all lenses are supported - you can add parameters, though it appears to be a bit more complicated than Adobe's procedure.

Mike - good to see some airtime for Lightroom. Like a lot of others I now use it exclusively for photo work. It won't satisfy people who do a lot of complicated digital post processing, but for someone like me who just wants some tonal control and dodging and burning it's fine. Profiles will appear for Pentax lenses - quite a few have already been created by people over on Pentaxforums. Even without a profile the non-destructive perspective correction is a godsend.

I like the integrated workflow as well, with good cataloging functions - and very fast. If you go down the DNG / XMP route then your archive becomes your catalogue and is to a large extent software neutral if you decide to jump ship.

Although there is still no soft proofing, I find printing straight out of LIghtroom fine. I love the fact that if you print multiple sizes for example, you don't need to have multiple versions - you just have a snapshot in your history and go back and print that. You only ever need one file.

Good feature. Olympus not supported :-( What a surprise! It took DxO years to add Olympus to their list. Sure, you can do your own profiles, if you have time...

Mike, have you tried Dxo Optics Pro against the ALC in Lightroom 3 ? If so, what do you think?
If not, do yourself a favour, compare both, and tell us what you see.

Lightroom is about the only current Adobe application I'm not ready to toss, and the user interface of DxO Optics Pro is rough-hewn at best. But in the optics correction department, specifically, I think Dxo is right now the better hammer.

Moose beat me to it by a few hours - PTLens is my tool of choice, and has been for years. It's cheap, one-time, and keeps on givin'. It gets better and more integrate(able)d with every release, and works flawlessly.

For people not like me who work on large sets of images, it can even batch-process.

I'm not just trying to be "little man vs big man" (I use Adobe software too), it's just that credit is due where credit is due, and PTLens did it all, sooner, better, and cheaper. Still does, actually.

PTLens works well and is great value. But to batch correct a dozen photos, if you are starting from Raw, involves converting and saving a dozen TIFF files onto your disk for PTLens (or whatever) to work on. With Lightroom version 2 that was what I did: setting up PTLens as an external editing program, which I could pick directly off an "Edit In..." context menu.

However one is always conscious firstly of the file storage, secondly of the finality. You are cut off from the Raw source hereafter - at least, for this particular copy with the lens correction or perspective adjustment. (It is not, really, perspective correction when, say, converging verticals are made parallel: since the original convergence was geometrically accurate).

Now in Lightroom 3 - and one or two others - such changes can be made with no file storage or working sequence penalty at all. That is a huge practical benefit, and permits it to happen routinely rather than as an exceptional step.

richardplondon - exactly. . Lightroom might not suit some power users, but for many photographers it will be just what they need. I think DxO also requires you to exit the RAW workflow? Adobe realised the market for a photographer's tool, and Photoshop was just too much. They are still in business to make money, but I think they have been quite photographer-friendly recently - think about the open standards of DNG and XMP for example which might not be perfect but they are heading in the right direction.

I use Lightroom 3 quite happily with scanned files from 40 - 150mb. With DNG's from digital sources it's even quicker (my biggest are from EOS5D II) In this release I think they traded off catalogue speed for image processing speed, but it's still fine on a medium spec iMac

Yep, I have to say that even after participating in the Adobe-bash, I feel at least a little tug toward lightroom. It seems like the perfect central tool for digital photography, import, sort, correct (level the horizon, fix lens deficiencies, zap some dust spots, crop, finesse the levels and colors) and do something with the image like share or print it. Any advanced work requires the appropriate tool such as photoshop, lightroom just covers the core flow of photos from the camera into a ready-state.

I'm disappointed that the price is a touch out of my reach for my uses.

I'm afraid I have to say "big deal". Bibble, my RAW processor of choice, has had this built in for at least 3 years, and I'm about to release a plugin for Bibble 5 which adds automated/profiled chromatic aberration correction as well. I'm glad to see Adobe broadly keeping pace with the competition!

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007