I will also note that for smaller batches of conversions (30 images and under or so) the system was still pegged out, but not with the responsiveness issues that I had with the larger batch conversions. So how about the files, do they look better? Are they even worth adding this extra step into my workflow? I would say yes, with a few caveats. First, there are still some issues with the conversions, occasionally there is an image that is not converted correctly and the DNG is flawed. I am fine with just chalking this up to the software being in Beta, but it is worth noting that you may have to go back and reconvert an image or two here or there if you decide to give the beta a go until the final release. The second issue, which is really more of an annoyance, is that portrait images in the DNG are not displayed with the correct orientation when imported into Lightroom. In other words, the portrait orientation is not transferred to the DNG when the image is converted. So you have to go into Lightroom after imported the DNGs and rotate all of the portrait oriented images to their correct orientation. You only have to do this once per image, and while it’s not a huge deal with a small number of images, it would be rather annoying for a big shoot. In terms of the sharpness, there is a very noticeable difference between the DNG and the RAFs converted via Lightroom. Simply put the DNG files are simply sharper and the sharpness is ‘cleaner’ than an RAF file sharpened with Lightroom.Īs far as my workflow with this software. I pull the RAF files off my card, into a temporary folder on my computer. Then I convert them with Iridient X-Transformer, and then import the DNG files into Lightroom as I would normally do.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |