This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I *think* what I need is some advice on import presets for Lightroom 5, but let me explain.
I've recently got back from Iceland and bought Lightroom 5 (for a Mac) to develop the RAW images I shot on my Canon G10. As anyone who's been to Iceland will know, the light can be quite tricky and the colours bizarre (and sometimes hypereal - especially the greens).
This is where I'm having difficulties: the Lightroom RAW converter is automatically turning Iceland's stunning colours into leached out, warmed up, pale imitations of what's *really* (!) there, even when the images are displayed in the filmstrip in the Libary module before I've gone into the Develop module. I think the problem is with the automatic white balance settings that are being applied (ie when the white balance is "As Shot"), but I'm a Lightroom novice.
So, my question is: how can I prevent this happening? Surely I don't have to go into the Develop module and tweak every image manually. Any help help gratefully received.
(I thought of buying a grey card before going and setting the white balance of the camera while I was out there but this seemed like it would be a huge faff on what was a trek across the country rather than a photography trip. Now I'm not so sure!)
I've recently got back from Iceland and bought Lightroom 5 (for a Mac) to develop the RAW images I shot on my Canon G10. As anyone who's been to Iceland will know, the light can be quite tricky and the colours bizarre (and sometimes hypereal - especially the greens).
This is where I'm having difficulties: the Lightroom RAW converter is automatically turning Iceland's stunning colours into leached out, warmed up, pale imitations of what's *really* (!) there, even when the images are displayed in the filmstrip in the Libary module before I've gone into the Develop module. I think the problem is with the automatic white balance settings that are being applied (ie when the white balance is "As Shot"), but I'm a Lightroom novice.
So, my question is: how can I prevent this happening? Surely I don't have to go into the Develop module and tweak every image manually. Any help help gratefully received.
(I thought of buying a grey card before going and setting the white balance of the camera while I was out there but this seemed like it would be a huge faff on what was a trek across the country rather than a photography trip. Now I'm not so sure!)
In reply to Solaris: What you can do is to tweak one image in the Develop module, then go into the library module and select all of the photos that you want to synchronise then use the Sync Settings button to synchronise all of the parameters that you changed. This can be a big time saver.
In reply to Solaris:
It's not Lightroom but you'll have white balance set to auto on the camera.
I've an older version of LR (v2) and you can copy the settings from one shot to any number of others.
In the develop module chose one shot and make white balance and whatever other adjustments you need to copy to all the others. Now either goto Settings->Copy Settings or Shift+Cmd+C. A dialog box will appear showing what settings will or may be copied, chose what you want. Now click in the thumbnail bar at the bottom of the screen and select all (Cmd+A), now Settings->Paste Settings or Shift+Cmd+V and the settings will be applied to all the shots.
I was reading a review of LR5 and it appears that there's a batch mode to do this sort of thing but since I don't have it I don't know how to run that feature.
HTH
ALC
It's not Lightroom but you'll have white balance set to auto on the camera.
I've an older version of LR (v2) and you can copy the settings from one shot to any number of others.
In the develop module chose one shot and make white balance and whatever other adjustments you need to copy to all the others. Now either goto Settings->Copy Settings or Shift+Cmd+C. A dialog box will appear showing what settings will or may be copied, chose what you want. Now click in the thumbnail bar at the bottom of the screen and select all (Cmd+A), now Settings->Paste Settings or Shift+Cmd+V and the settings will be applied to all the shots.
I was reading a review of LR5 and it appears that there's a batch mode to do this sort of thing but since I don't have it I don't know how to run that feature.
HTH
ALC
In reply to a lakeland climber:
Just in case anyone else wants to chip in: I'm pretty careful about altering the camera's (usually reasonably accurate) white balance settings to suit the conditions and never use it on Auto. So I am inclined to think that it is Lr... and the images were displaying *correctly* in the camera.
Thanks to both you and John2 for swift and helpful replies. I'll have a try with what you suggest. The tedious bit will be that the light was changing so much that synchronising settings will probably not apply to many of the hundreds of images I shot. Still, fiddling will give me a chance to learn Lightroom!
> It's not Lightroom but you'll have white balance set to auto on the camera.
Just in case anyone else wants to chip in: I'm pretty careful about altering the camera's (usually reasonably accurate) white balance settings to suit the conditions and never use it on Auto. So I am inclined to think that it is Lr... and the images were displaying *correctly* in the camera.
Thanks to both you and John2 for swift and helpful replies. I'll have a try with what you suggest. The tedious bit will be that the light was changing so much that synchronising settings will probably not apply to many of the hundreds of images I shot. Still, fiddling will give me a chance to learn Lightroom!
In reply to Solaris:
You may find it helps if you set the white balance for all shots to Daylight. Which will give you something like daylight balanced film would have, if you're old enough to remember that far back. Or use a custom white balance - I use a temp of 5450, which suits my tastes when using Pentax DSLRs. YMMV. DON'T use "as shot" or "auto". And as others have said, copy or sync settings.
Basically if you've shot in RAW and are using LR5 you will be able to get what you want, unless you have blown any channels in the original capture. It will just take patience and some background reading!
Work down the basic editing panel. After getting the WB right, next get the midtones right first with the exposure slider. Then use the highlight / shadows / white / blacks sliders to taste. Only when you have the tonal values correct should you then consider saturation and vibrance. Or you may find it better to tweak individual colours using the HSL panel.
Good luck, post some of your images when you're happy - I'd like to see them!
Paul
You may find it helps if you set the white balance for all shots to Daylight. Which will give you something like daylight balanced film would have, if you're old enough to remember that far back. Or use a custom white balance - I use a temp of 5450, which suits my tastes when using Pentax DSLRs. YMMV. DON'T use "as shot" or "auto". And as others have said, copy or sync settings.
Basically if you've shot in RAW and are using LR5 you will be able to get what you want, unless you have blown any channels in the original capture. It will just take patience and some background reading!
Work down the basic editing panel. After getting the WB right, next get the midtones right first with the exposure slider. Then use the highlight / shadows / white / blacks sliders to taste. Only when you have the tonal values correct should you then consider saturation and vibrance. Or you may find it better to tweak individual colours using the HSL panel.
Good luck, post some of your images when you're happy - I'd like to see them!
Paul
In reply to Paul Evans:
Thanks very much. Any suggestions on background reading? I've been looking at the online tutorials and the Lightroom manual, but I think I need a clearer understanding of the first principles what I am trying to do.
One other question: to what degree are settings copyable for different light conditions? I mean, Icelandic light is a bit like that of the Hebrides, so one minute you've got full sun, the next sun through cloud, then you're into fog. You also get very high contrast between black sand, glacier, and cloud. Is it worth trying to copy settings correcting full sun images to fog images, or is it better to aim to go on a like for like basis?
Many thanks again.
> (In reply to Solaris)
> Basically if you've shot in RAW and are using LR5 you will be able to get what you want, unless you have blown any channels in the original capture. It will just take patience and some background reading!
> Basically if you've shot in RAW and are using LR5 you will be able to get what you want, unless you have blown any channels in the original capture. It will just take patience and some background reading!
Thanks very much. Any suggestions on background reading? I've been looking at the online tutorials and the Lightroom manual, but I think I need a clearer understanding of the first principles what I am trying to do.
One other question: to what degree are settings copyable for different light conditions? I mean, Icelandic light is a bit like that of the Hebrides, so one minute you've got full sun, the next sun through cloud, then you're into fog. You also get very high contrast between black sand, glacier, and cloud. Is it worth trying to copy settings correcting full sun images to fog images, or is it better to aim to go on a like for like basis?
Many thanks again.
In reply to Solaris: You could do no better than to buy The Digital Negative http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Digital-Negative-Processing-Lightroom/dp/032183... , written by a man who played a part in the development of Lightroom.
In reply to Solaris:
Remember that you aren't actually editing the file but creating a sidecar file that contains the changes you wish to apply. All "edits" are thus non destructive.
ALC
Remember that you aren't actually editing the file but creating a sidecar file that contains the changes you wish to apply. All "edits" are thus non destructive.
ALC
In reply to Solaris:
Download some free RAW viewers, check it out in different programs, see if you are correct
http://download.cnet.com/1770-20_4-0.html?query=RAW%20viewer&rpp=10&...
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
>
> [...]
>
> Just in case anyone else wants to chip in: I'm pretty careful about altering the camera's (usually reasonably accurate) white balance settings to suit the conditions and never use it on Auto. So I am inclined to think that it is Lr... and the images were displaying *correctly* in the camera.
>
> [...]
>
> Just in case anyone else wants to chip in: I'm pretty careful about altering the camera's (usually reasonably accurate) white balance settings to suit the conditions and never use it on Auto. So I am inclined to think that it is Lr... and the images were displaying *correctly* in the camera.
Download some free RAW viewers, check it out in different programs, see if you are correct
http://download.cnet.com/1770-20_4-0.html?query=RAW%20viewer&rpp=10&...
In reply to Solaris:
Setting the WB on RAW files is pretty pointless isnt it? An adopted WB doesn't actually change the RAW file, just gives you a nominal starting point for RAW conversion.
I've always shot Auto (Canon is usually pretty good), import with a Preset set up with WB "As Shot", and go from there. From then on it's down to taste.
In LR you can then Sync WB across a whole set of images. Choose the one you want as the base, make the WB a custom value, sync WB acorss all the selected images you want in Grid Mode
If I'm worried about the real WB, then just shoot a few White-Bal Cards whilst I'm out.
Setting the WB on RAW files is pretty pointless isnt it? An adopted WB doesn't actually change the RAW file, just gives you a nominal starting point for RAW conversion.
I've always shot Auto (Canon is usually pretty good), import with a Preset set up with WB "As Shot", and go from there. From then on it's down to taste.
In LR you can then Sync WB across a whole set of images. Choose the one you want as the base, make the WB a custom value, sync WB acorss all the selected images you want in Grid Mode
If I'm worried about the real WB, then just shoot a few White-Bal Cards whilst I'm out.
In reply to a lakeland climber:
Creating a sidecar file for RAW files is not mandatory, it's an LR option that (in theory) allows other programs to read your conversion settings. Most people turn off the sidecar option as writing to each sidecar file can slow things up.
But yes, LR is non-destructive, with the settings stored in the DB file with no changes made to the original imaget. Image previews are stored as separate files.
> (In reply to Solaris)
>
> Remember that you aren't actually editing the file but creating a sidecar file that contains the changes you wish to apply. All "edits" are thus non destructive.
>
> Remember that you aren't actually editing the file but creating a sidecar file that contains the changes you wish to apply. All "edits" are thus non destructive.
Creating a sidecar file for RAW files is not mandatory, it's an LR option that (in theory) allows other programs to read your conversion settings. Most people turn off the sidecar option as writing to each sidecar file can slow things up.
But yes, LR is non-destructive, with the settings stored in the DB file with no changes made to the original imaget. Image previews are stored as separate files.
In reply to Solaris:
This doesn't sound much like a white balance issue to me, but its hard to know what you've done. without seeing any images or settings. Did the shots look right on the back of the camera?
Bleached out and pale sounds like overexposure to me. As has been suggested, work on one photo until you are happy then 'sync' it with others by highlighting and 'sync settings' at the bottom of the develop menu. You might try first the 'Auto-tone' button in the library module.
In Develop I'd first try decreasing the exposure and increasing contrast. The basic controls work fine for starters. (I tend to do this by dragging the ends of the curves but since LR 4 they have built-in highlight/ recovery control I'd often rather avoid.)
Easiest way to get a decent WB is with the pipette icon - in the Develop module, click on the pipette icon next to the WB settings, and click it on something you want white (or grey or black, just not coloured) in the picture. It won't work if you select chronically over or under exposed areas. Personally if images are shot in daylight I rarely deviate from something like 4900-5500/ +5-9. If its heavily overcast I might go up to 6500 - but that's about it. I only tend to deviate more under artificial light or twilight.
Having said all that colours often appear 'hyperreal' in snowy conditions largely due to our perception - which isn't trustworthy especially where colours in a largely monotone scene are concerned. You might need to increase saturation to approximate what you experienced - in LR you can do this selectively in the HSL panel as well as globally.
Final thought - is your monitor set up right?
This doesn't sound much like a white balance issue to me, but its hard to know what you've done. without seeing any images or settings. Did the shots look right on the back of the camera?
Bleached out and pale sounds like overexposure to me. As has been suggested, work on one photo until you are happy then 'sync' it with others by highlighting and 'sync settings' at the bottom of the develop menu. You might try first the 'Auto-tone' button in the library module.
In Develop I'd first try decreasing the exposure and increasing contrast. The basic controls work fine for starters. (I tend to do this by dragging the ends of the curves but since LR 4 they have built-in highlight/ recovery control I'd often rather avoid.)
Easiest way to get a decent WB is with the pipette icon - in the Develop module, click on the pipette icon next to the WB settings, and click it on something you want white (or grey or black, just not coloured) in the picture. It won't work if you select chronically over or under exposed areas. Personally if images are shot in daylight I rarely deviate from something like 4900-5500/ +5-9. If its heavily overcast I might go up to 6500 - but that's about it. I only tend to deviate more under artificial light or twilight.
Having said all that colours often appear 'hyperreal' in snowy conditions largely due to our perception - which isn't trustworthy especially where colours in a largely monotone scene are concerned. You might need to increase saturation to approximate what you experienced - in LR you can do this selectively in the HSL panel as well as globally.
Final thought - is your monitor set up right?
In reply to Adam Long: Good point about the auto-tone. Perhaps the quickest solution would be to delete the images from Lightroom (but not from the disk) then re-import them with auto-tone set on.
In reply to John2:
Auto Tone is pretty rubbish most of the time and usually best avoided, but can be worth a punt if an image is really far gone. Certainly wouldn't suggest using in an Import Preset.
> (In reply to Adam Long) Good point about the auto-tone. Perhaps the quickest solution would be to delete the images from Lightroom (but not from the disk) then re-import them with auto-tone set on.
Auto Tone is pretty rubbish most of the time and usually best avoided, but can be worth a punt if an image is really far gone. Certainly wouldn't suggest using in an Import Preset.
In reply to ChrisJD:
No, auto is not one for for an import preset, but if the OP has never used LR before it might point them in the right direction. Or not...
Either way, get one image looking right and they should be set for the rest. No need to reimport.
No, auto is not one for for an import preset, but if the OP has never used LR before it might point them in the right direction. Or not...
Either way, get one image looking right and they should be set for the rest. No need to reimport.
In reply to Adam Long and everybody else:
Some really useful and helpful tips there. Thanks, guys - especially for the reading suggestions. I think patience is going to be the key thing.
In reply to Adam Long, specifically:
Yes, the images did look right in the back of the camera and although getting the exposure right was tricky at times, even when I was shooting in manual and able to take extra care, the images don't look right when imported to Lightroom. So I think it's more about Lightroom's RAW converter not "believing" what it's "seeing".
The thing that seems to me decisive is that when I first open an image from the filmstrip in Lightroom, it displays correctly while it's "Loading". But once it's "popped" - which, I assume, is the RAW converter doing its thing - the image looks bleached, etc.
Some really useful and helpful tips there. Thanks, guys - especially for the reading suggestions. I think patience is going to be the key thing.
In reply to Adam Long, specifically:
Yes, the images did look right in the back of the camera and although getting the exposure right was tricky at times, even when I was shooting in manual and able to take extra care, the images don't look right when imported to Lightroom. So I think it's more about Lightroom's RAW converter not "believing" what it's "seeing".
The thing that seems to me decisive is that when I first open an image from the filmstrip in Lightroom, it displays correctly while it's "Loading". But once it's "popped" - which, I assume, is the RAW converter doing its thing - the image looks bleached, etc.
In reply to Solaris: I assume you're shooting RAW + jpg and the jpgs look ok on your computer?
I don't know much about lightroom (have got version 4, but not played with it much), but as far as I'm aware, if you have dialled in extra contrast, saturation etc. in camera (e.g. under "picture controls") this is only applied to jpgs - lightroom won't know how you wanted the RAW file to look. As far as I understand it, there is no way to import a RAW file into lightroom and have it automatically apply the same contrast, hue, saturation etc. as you specified in camera. There are some presets which attempt to mimic some of the typical in camera profiles (e.g. "vivid", "neutral") etc. but they don't do a great job in my experience.
Not sure if this helps with your problem, but I'd be interested to hear what does - keep us informed.
I don't know much about lightroom (have got version 4, but not played with it much), but as far as I'm aware, if you have dialled in extra contrast, saturation etc. in camera (e.g. under "picture controls") this is only applied to jpgs - lightroom won't know how you wanted the RAW file to look. As far as I understand it, there is no way to import a RAW file into lightroom and have it automatically apply the same contrast, hue, saturation etc. as you specified in camera. There are some presets which attempt to mimic some of the typical in camera profiles (e.g. "vivid", "neutral") etc. but they don't do a great job in my experience.
Not sure if this helps with your problem, but I'd be interested to hear what does - keep us informed.
In reply to Solaris:
The RAW file has an embdded JPG, which is what is shown until LR has processed the image. It's also what's shown when you review the image on the cameras LCD.
Can you stick a raw file + JPG up somewhere for people to have a look at? This sounds very strage, LR is usually very good at Canon images.
> The thing that seems to me decisive is that when I first open an image from the filmstrip in Lightroom, it displays correctly while it's "Loading". But once it's "popped" - which, I assume, is the RAW converter doing its thing - the image looks bleached, etc.
The RAW file has an embdded JPG, which is what is shown until LR has processed the image. It's also what's shown when you review the image on the cameras LCD.
Can you stick a raw file + JPG up somewhere for people to have a look at? This sounds very strage, LR is usually very good at Canon images.
In reply to JDal:
If Solaris can do this (Dropbox or Google Drive?) we'll (the UKC LR Collective!) get to the bottom of the issue..
> Can you stick a raw file + JPG up somewhere for people to have a look at? This sounds very strage, LR is usually very good at Canon images.
If Solaris can do this (Dropbox or Google Drive?) we'll (the UKC LR Collective!) get to the bottom of the issue..
In reply to JDal:
I didn't record RAW+JPEG because I wanted to save space on my card and to extend battery life, but it's interesting to hear what you say about what's initially displayed in LR and it certainly fits with what I'm seeing.
I'd put up a RAW image and a JPEG one for contrast if I knew how to get to the JPEG before LR's got to it! (And I've still not properly had time to get my head round uploading to UKC, hence the small number of images in my gallery.)
I've had similar issues uploading some climbing shots taken in the alps to a friend's LR3: iPhoto was much closer to a "correct" white balance but less good at sharpening than the LR3 RAW converter. And this wasn't either my eyes or my monitor.
I didn't record RAW+JPEG because I wanted to save space on my card and to extend battery life, but it's interesting to hear what you say about what's initially displayed in LR and it certainly fits with what I'm seeing.
I'd put up a RAW image and a JPEG one for contrast if I knew how to get to the JPEG before LR's got to it! (And I've still not properly had time to get my head round uploading to UKC, hence the small number of images in my gallery.)
I've had similar issues uploading some climbing shots taken in the alps to a friend's LR3: iPhoto was much closer to a "correct" white balance but less good at sharpening than the LR3 RAW converter. And this wasn't either my eyes or my monitor.
In reply to ChrisJD:
Well, I'm glad this is of interest!
I could certainly do it via Dropbox, but I need to know how to get at the JPGs...
Andrew
Well, I'm glad this is of interest!
I could certainly do it via Dropbox, but I need to know how to get at the JPGs...
Andrew
In reply to ChrisJD: There is software to get the embedded JPG out of the RAW
In reply to JDal: There is no JPEG embedded in a RAW file. A RAW file needs to be processed by a RAW processing program in order to produce a JPEG.
In reply to John2:
Sorry, there is:
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/38594/can-i-save-the-jpeg-preview-...
Sorry, there is:
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/38594/can-i-save-the-jpeg-preview-...
In reply to Solaris: I've had a look at 3 of them and the tones are a bit different, but that's to be expected. Nothing dramtic though. Having said that I'm using LR4. I haven't checked. Can I upload to that dropbox account? I could stick a JPG my LR4 created on default settings and the extracted one so you could compart
In reply to JDal: Some JPG files uploaded for comment.
In reply to Solaris:
Thanks for the Dropbox files. I looked at Iceland-84 & Iceland-87.
Did straight import using LR defaults: basically everything zeroed, Process-2012, Adobe-Standard Profile.
Did three White Balance (WB) sRGB-80%-jpg renditions of each:
- LR WB As-Shot
- LR WB Auto
- LR Daylight WB (5500, Tint -10)
Uploaded to here:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7p0ly91s7mq1f3x/pOBUDqpmWZ
LR5 seems to be handling them fine to me.
Thanks for the Dropbox files. I looked at Iceland-84 & Iceland-87.
Did straight import using LR defaults: basically everything zeroed, Process-2012, Adobe-Standard Profile.
Did three White Balance (WB) sRGB-80%-jpg renditions of each:
- LR WB As-Shot
- LR WB Auto
- LR Daylight WB (5500, Tint -10)
Uploaded to here:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7p0ly91s7mq1f3x/pOBUDqpmWZ
LR5 seems to be handling them fine to me.
In reply to ChrisJD: Cheers Chris, but I'm 66 and I need to get used to being patronised
In reply to JDal:
Thanks, John. Your versions are much closer to how the place "looked" than the RAW converted LR files, and as you can see, the difference between the two is quite substantial, especially the colour temperature (if I've got the right term). Have you been to Iceland?!!
The next question will be what this shows about LR...
Thanks, John. Your versions are much closer to how the place "looked" than the RAW converted LR files, and as you can see, the difference between the two is quite substantial, especially the colour temperature (if I've got the right term). Have you been to Iceland?!!
The next question will be what this shows about LR...
In reply to JDal:
I'll pop over and help you across you road as well if you like
> (In reply to ChrisJD) Cheers Chris, but I'm 66 and I need to get used to being patronised
I'll pop over and help you across you road as well if you like
In reply to ChrisJD:
Likewise, many thanks, Chris.
I'm going to infer that you haven't been to Iceland! The only image that seems to me to be close to how it "actually looked" is CJD2 of the tent between the cold stream and the hot one.
I wonder whether you and JDal can see each other's versions?
Likewise, many thanks, Chris.
I'm going to infer that you haven't been to Iceland! The only image that seems to me to be close to how it "actually looked" is CJD2 of the tent between the cold stream and the hot one.
I wonder whether you and JDal can see each other's versions?
In reply to Solaris:
The difference between the embed jpg and the LR-default-jpg is: Learn How to Use LR5!
Default LR output from RAW will look flat - that's the point! In-camera jpg conversions (from RAW, which are then deleted by the camera) are sexed up to look nice and pretty.
But with RAW, you have full control of how the final product will look, not how the camera thinks they should look.
Most people create their own LR RAW Import Pre-set to get the initial flavour they want (their own jpg-look I suppose) and then develop to taste image by image.
But it could be that you just like (and are happy with) the in-camera jpgs as they are, which might mean you could be happy just shooting jpgs and not have to worry about RAWs at all (many people don't bother)
Bottom line with these images - The problem is not with LR....
Are you local to the Peak? Happy to spend some time going over LR basics if you are.
> The next question will be what this shows about LR...
The difference between the embed jpg and the LR-default-jpg is: Learn How to Use LR5!
Default LR output from RAW will look flat - that's the point! In-camera jpg conversions (from RAW, which are then deleted by the camera) are sexed up to look nice and pretty.
But with RAW, you have full control of how the final product will look, not how the camera thinks they should look.
Most people create their own LR RAW Import Pre-set to get the initial flavour they want (their own jpg-look I suppose) and then develop to taste image by image.
But it could be that you just like (and are happy with) the in-camera jpgs as they are, which might mean you could be happy just shooting jpgs and not have to worry about RAWs at all (many people don't bother)
Bottom line with these images - The problem is not with LR....
Are you local to the Peak? Happy to spend some time going over LR basics if you are.
In reply to ChrisJD: No, the processor in the camera generates a JPEG from the RAW file. There is nothing viewable embedded in the RAW file.
In reply to John2:
Google "is there a jpeg image embedded in a raw file"
E.g, in relation to a NEF RAW file:
http://regex.info/blog/2006-12-08/303
http://whatdoineed2do.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/embedded-in-raw.html
Google "is there a jpeg image embedded in a raw file"
E.g, in relation to a NEF RAW file:
http://regex.info/blog/2006-12-08/303
http://whatdoineed2do.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/embedded-in-raw.html
In reply to ChrisJD: AFAIK LR applies a default profile which differs from camera to camera. Some create output which is closer to the OOC jpg than others.
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/lightroom/using/WS939594D8-4279-41b4-B8E9-B06BC...
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/lightroom/using/WS939594D8-4279-41b4-B8E9-B06BC...
In reply to John2:
You'd better tell Thom Hogan then, http://www.bythom.com/qadraw.htm
> (In reply to ChrisJD) No, the processor in the camera generates a JPEG from the RAW file. There is nothing viewable embedded in the RAW file.
You'd better tell Thom Hogan then, http://www.bythom.com/qadraw.htm
In reply to ChrisJD: Well blow me (to coin a phrase). I never realised that the JPEG was embedded - I thought the camera just produced it to display on its screen.
In reply to ChrisJD:
Very many thanks, Chris, especially for your generous offer, it's really kind of you. Unfortunately, I'm about 3 hours from the Peak, but I have someone local who has just made a similar offer.
When you say the problem's not with LR, I'm not sure I quite understand. (And btw, the images on Dropbox were meant to be illustrative of the "problem" rather than of any grain of photographic ability I might have!)
I accept that shooting with a middle-of-the-road camera in poor light conditions with 25kgs on my back whilst it's windy and I'm breathing heavily isn't going to produce technically perfect images. And I welcome the fact that I can tweak the images to get them how I want; that's why I bought LR - and the G10.
I don't (yet) understand about embed JPGs and LR-default-JPGs, and that may be influencing the fact that what I'm not clear about is whether what I'm seeing after the image has "popped" in LR is the RAW image or LR's attempt to make the image look how it thinks it should. If it's the latter, then my criticism of LR is that in the case of my Iceland pictures (and some shot in the alps), I don't think it's particularly accurate.
This guy did a somewhat similar trip to us and his images 38, 47, 54, 59 and 67 will give a good idea of what the country is like:
http://www.phlumf.com/travels/iceland/photofiles/photofile47.shtml
Once again, many thanks indeed to the UKC collective. When I've got the images how they "should" (!!) look, I'll put some in my gallery. But don't hold your breath; I'm supposed to be working!
Very many thanks, Chris, especially for your generous offer, it's really kind of you. Unfortunately, I'm about 3 hours from the Peak, but I have someone local who has just made a similar offer.
When you say the problem's not with LR, I'm not sure I quite understand. (And btw, the images on Dropbox were meant to be illustrative of the "problem" rather than of any grain of photographic ability I might have!)
I accept that shooting with a middle-of-the-road camera in poor light conditions with 25kgs on my back whilst it's windy and I'm breathing heavily isn't going to produce technically perfect images. And I welcome the fact that I can tweak the images to get them how I want; that's why I bought LR - and the G10.
I don't (yet) understand about embed JPGs and LR-default-JPGs, and that may be influencing the fact that what I'm not clear about is whether what I'm seeing after the image has "popped" in LR is the RAW image or LR's attempt to make the image look how it thinks it should. If it's the latter, then my criticism of LR is that in the case of my Iceland pictures (and some shot in the alps), I don't think it's particularly accurate.
This guy did a somewhat similar trip to us and his images 38, 47, 54, 59 and 67 will give a good idea of what the country is like:
http://www.phlumf.com/travels/iceland/photofiles/photofile47.shtml
Once again, many thanks indeed to the UKC collective. When I've got the images how they "should" (!!) look, I'll put some in my gallery. But don't hold your breath; I'm supposed to be working!
In reply to Solaris:
It sounds as if you must have some settings applied in your camera which make the preview look good, but are not being transferred to LR.
I would suggest applying some alternative profiles. In develop, scroll to the bottom of the right menu and look at Camera calibration. Click on the profile and experiment with the choices on the drop down menu - try something like 'Camera landscape' for starters. Any better?
Should add a lot of punch (too much for most!).
It sounds as if you must have some settings applied in your camera which make the preview look good, but are not being transferred to LR.
I would suggest applying some alternative profiles. In develop, scroll to the bottom of the right menu and look at Camera calibration. Click on the profile and experiment with the choices on the drop down menu - try something like 'Camera landscape' for starters. Any better?
Should add a lot of punch (too much for most!).
In reply to Solaris:
I think the basic problem is that you are expecting LR to immediately produce an image that looks like [or better than ] what you saw (in real life) and/or looks like an in-camera jpg or the jpg in preview of a RAW on the back of the camera.
That does not happen I'm afraid!
Straight 'processing' of data from camera sensors (the RAW data) produces flat dull looking images. If you want to process your own RAW images (rather than letting the camera do it and produce a 'finished' jpg for you), then the starting point in LR (or any other RAW processor) is that flat dull 'unprocessed' looking image.
Unfortunately, it then takes a bit/some/lots of knowledge and bit/some/lots of experience (some call it the Dark Arts) to use a processor (like LR) to get what you want (or most of) out of a RAW file.
I think the basic problem is that you are expecting LR to immediately produce an image that looks like [or better than ] what you saw (in real life) and/or looks like an in-camera jpg or the jpg in preview of a RAW on the back of the camera.
That does not happen I'm afraid!
Straight 'processing' of data from camera sensors (the RAW data) produces flat dull looking images. If you want to process your own RAW images (rather than letting the camera do it and produce a 'finished' jpg for you), then the starting point in LR (or any other RAW processor) is that flat dull 'unprocessed' looking image.
Unfortunately, it then takes a bit/some/lots of knowledge and bit/some/lots of experience (some call it the Dark Arts) to use a processor (like LR) to get what you want (or most of) out of a RAW file.
In reply to Solaris:
These might not be to your taste, but a here's a quick interpretation of a few of your RAWs:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/w6s3iojrbs3xavd/JpbKFt5VTq
I actually had to go to negative-saturation on some of those crazy greens!
Nice images to work on - cheers!
I've put a LR5 Cat in there is well so you can see the 'Workings'. Suggest you copy the RAWs to a new location then point LR to the folder with the RAWs.
These might not be to your taste, but a here's a quick interpretation of a few of your RAWs:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/w6s3iojrbs3xavd/JpbKFt5VTq
I actually had to go to negative-saturation on some of those crazy greens!
Nice images to work on - cheers!
I've put a LR5 Cat in there is well so you can see the 'Workings'. Suggest you copy the RAWs to a new location then point LR to the folder with the RAWs.
In reply to ChrisJD:
Not quite; I think I've grasped that the RAW image is more or less just uncooked pixels and that JPEGs and the output of tweaking in LR is a cooked image.
What's puzzling me is that LR is doing *something* to the image in library module whilst the screen displays a small rectangle saying "Loading". I can see this because the "Loading" image looks different than the version after the image has "popped". The former is less sharp but the colours closer to what I saw; the latter is sharper but the colours are muted, warmed up, etc. Hence my puzzle about why the images in Dropbox look different from how they did for the 10 secs or so while the image was loading.
Yes but, if I've understood LR correctly, what one actually sees on-screen in LR once the image has loaded isn't a completely unprocessed image: the processing is what's going on while "Loading" is being displayed.
> (In reply to Solaris)
>
> I think the basic problem is that you are expecting LR to immediately produce an image that looks like [or better than ] what you saw (in real life) and/or looks like an in-camera jpg or the jpg in preview of a RAW on the back of the camera.
>
> I think the basic problem is that you are expecting LR to immediately produce an image that looks like [or better than ] what you saw (in real life) and/or looks like an in-camera jpg or the jpg in preview of a RAW on the back of the camera.
Not quite; I think I've grasped that the RAW image is more or less just uncooked pixels and that JPEGs and the output of tweaking in LR is a cooked image.
What's puzzling me is that LR is doing *something* to the image in library module whilst the screen displays a small rectangle saying "Loading". I can see this because the "Loading" image looks different than the version after the image has "popped". The former is less sharp but the colours closer to what I saw; the latter is sharper but the colours are muted, warmed up, etc. Hence my puzzle about why the images in Dropbox look different from how they did for the 10 secs or so while the image was loading.
> Straight 'processing' of data from camera sensors (the RAW data) produces flat dull looking images. If you want to process your own RAW images (rather than letting the camera do it and produce a 'finished' jpg for you), then the starting point in LR (or any other RAW processor) is that flat dull 'unprocessed' looking image.
Yes but, if I've understood LR correctly, what one actually sees on-screen in LR once the image has loaded isn't a completely unprocessed image: the processing is what's going on while "Loading" is being displayed.
In reply to ChrisJD:
Great images - that's exactly why I bought LR and shoot RAW. I look forward to learning the black arts - of which you are evidently a master!
You've got things looking pretty much as they were - especially in the boring shot of the tent between the two streams. 175, 221, and 343 are a bit on the wild side, but not much. 377: the sky is a tad more Wagnerian than it really was, but the rest of it's pretty accurate: perhaps you have been to Iceland!!
Thanks for the inspiration!
Great images - that's exactly why I bought LR and shoot RAW. I look forward to learning the black arts - of which you are evidently a master!
You've got things looking pretty much as they were - especially in the boring shot of the tent between the two streams. 175, 221, and 343 are a bit on the wild side, but not much. 377: the sky is a tad more Wagnerian than it really was, but the rest of it's pretty accurate: perhaps you have been to Iceland!!
Thanks for the inspiration!
In reply to Adam Long:
LR 5 has a little lightning symbol on the bottom RHS of the histogram menu for changing to the latest process - that makes a difference. Camera Calibration only offers me options for three processes: 2003, 2010, and 2012 (current) - no camera landscape. 2012 is preferable over the 2010 profile that it was working with, though the images are still a bit on the warm side.
> (In reply to Solaris)
> I would suggest applying some alternative profiles. In develop, scroll to the bottom of the right menu and look at Camera calibration. Click on the profile and experiment with the choices on the drop down menu - try something like 'Camera landscape' for starters. Any better?
LR 5 has a little lightning symbol on the bottom RHS of the histogram menu for changing to the latest process - that makes a difference. Camera Calibration only offers me options for three processes: 2003, 2010, and 2012 (current) - no camera landscape. 2012 is preferable over the 2010 profile that it was working with, though the images are still a bit on the warm side.
In reply to Solaris:
Just discovered that Lens Correction > Profile gives me some scope for tinkering...
Just discovered that Lens Correction > Profile gives me some scope for tinkering...
In reply to Solaris:
LOL, well I wouldn't go that far. Been using LR since V1-Beta and Photoshop before that (which makes LR look like a walk in the park).
The worked images are far from perfect - would spend more time getting right balance of noise reduction and sharpening and doing some more local adjustments.
You only want to be using the 2012 Process (well, until it gets updated). I just use Camera Standard for my RAWs, then use other features to get to where I want to be.
Don't get overwhelmed (carried away!) by all the features and tinkering - you do need some sort of general approach (but don't get rigid about it), else you'll end up in a right mess...
If you can cope with these guys (not everyones taste), these video tutorials will help you on you way to LR mastery
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/lr4_5_bundle.shtml
> (In reply to ChrisJD)
>
> Great images - that's exactly why I bought LR and shoot RAW. I look forward to learning the black arts - of which you are evidently a master!
>
>
> Great images - that's exactly why I bought LR and shoot RAW. I look forward to learning the black arts - of which you are evidently a master!
>
LOL, well I wouldn't go that far. Been using LR since V1-Beta and Photoshop before that (which makes LR look like a walk in the park).
The worked images are far from perfect - would spend more time getting right balance of noise reduction and sharpening and doing some more local adjustments.
You only want to be using the 2012 Process (well, until it gets updated). I just use Camera Standard for my RAWs, then use other features to get to where I want to be.
Don't get overwhelmed (carried away!) by all the features and tinkering - you do need some sort of general approach (but don't get rigid about it), else you'll end up in a right mess...
If you can cope with these guys (not everyones taste), these video tutorials will help you on you way to LR mastery
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/lr4_5_bundle.shtml
In reply to ChrisJD:
Well perhaps I was getting a bit carried away, but they are a great improvement on the raw materials.
Many thanks again for all your help and advice.
Andrew
> (In reply to Solaris)
> [...]
>
> LOL, well I wouldn't go that far.
> [...]
>
> LOL, well I wouldn't go that far.
Well perhaps I was getting a bit carried away, but they are a great improvement on the raw materials.
Many thanks again for all your help and advice.
Andrew
In reply to Solaris: worth remembering that RAW files are like negatives. if you shoot RAW you will always have to work on them as they are untouched by the in-camera algorithms that optimise JPEGs. the 'develop' options are pretty simple and if you are shooting a lot of similar shots in similar light conditions once you have a set of adjustments you like you can save them as a preset which will give you consistency of grading through a set of shots.
i start with exposure correction. with the amount of info in RAW files you can get push or pull by up to 2 stops. leave the contrast button, but play with the curves instead. remember you can always reset if you get it wrong and the RAW doesn't get changed. it will save adjustments in the catalogue but you can always reset later.
then play with the temperature and saturation. bear in mind that if you have CS5 or 6 or you always do additional work by going to photo> edit in> option which will open the worked on image in photoshop if you want to do lots of masking with layers to even up exposure etc
i start with exposure correction. with the amount of info in RAW files you can get push or pull by up to 2 stops. leave the contrast button, but play with the curves instead. remember you can always reset if you get it wrong and the RAW doesn't get changed. it will save adjustments in the catalogue but you can always reset later.
then play with the temperature and saturation. bear in mind that if you have CS5 or 6 or you always do additional work by going to photo> edit in> option which will open the worked on image in photoshop if you want to do lots of masking with layers to even up exposure etc
In reply to peterbeaumont:
Everyone develops their own way of dealing with images.
I hardly ever use Curves and find it much more controllable/intuitive to use a combination of the Basic Develop controls, global vignetting and the really powerful local adjustment, radial and gradient tools in LR5. Don't find the need go to PS layers with these tools.
Everyone develops their own way of dealing with images.
I hardly ever use Curves and find it much more controllable/intuitive to use a combination of the Basic Develop controls, global vignetting and the really powerful local adjustment, radial and gradient tools in LR5. Don't find the need go to PS layers with these tools.
In reply to Solaris and peterbeaumont:
I've just re-read my original post and can see that what I said is ambiguous, misleading, and doesn't convey what I meant. Apologies. I know that RAW images are like film negatives and that they need work to get them how they *should* be. That's why I bought a camera that would shoot RAW images and why I bought LR instead of relying on iPhoto.
What puzzled me (and still does) is that LR's RAW converter *seems* to be affecting my images more than I'd expected - hence what I wrote above about the image "popping" in the Library module from something that looked reasonably accurate to something inaccurate. I don't understand this (but am going to learn); thanks to people on here, what I do understand is that I'm going to have to fiddle with the presets and do some syncing to get LR's baseline image closer to what it *should* be before I start work on it.
> ...the Lightroom RAW converter is automatically turning Iceland's stunning colours into leached out, warmed up, pale imitations of what's *really* (!) there, even when the images are displayed in the filmstrip in the Libary module before I've gone into the Develop module. I think the problem is with the automatic white balance settings that are being applied (ie when the white balance is "As Shot"), but I'm a Lightroom novice.
> So, my question is: how can I prevent this happening? Surely I don't have to go into the Develop module and tweak every image manually?
I've just re-read my original post and can see that what I said is ambiguous, misleading, and doesn't convey what I meant. Apologies. I know that RAW images are like film negatives and that they need work to get them how they *should* be. That's why I bought a camera that would shoot RAW images and why I bought LR instead of relying on iPhoto.
What puzzled me (and still does) is that LR's RAW converter *seems* to be affecting my images more than I'd expected - hence what I wrote above about the image "popping" in the Library module from something that looked reasonably accurate to something inaccurate. I don't understand this (but am going to learn); thanks to people on here, what I do understand is that I'm going to have to fiddle with the presets and do some syncing to get LR's baseline image closer to what it *should* be before I start work on it.
In reply to Solaris:
Lightroom has to build previews of the RAW. These are then stored in a separate folder (and updated in real time as you edit). This collection of (non-viewable outside of LR) previews can get big - mine is only 18GB so far after a complete catalog rebuild for LR5. I never purge the previews and always build 1:1 on import.
So I guess that the intial 'image-that-looks-right' you briefly see is the embedded jpg that LR uses whilst it builds an actual preview off the RAW - this is why it then look low res, before becoming hi-res, as the preview is built in stages.
Remember its the initial jpg image that is inaccurate - the final RAW preview is the accurate one!
Lightroom has to build previews of the RAW. These are then stored in a separate folder (and updated in real time as you edit). This collection of (non-viewable outside of LR) previews can get big - mine is only 18GB so far after a complete catalog rebuild for LR5. I never purge the previews and always build 1:1 on import.
So I guess that the intial 'image-that-looks-right' you briefly see is the embedded jpg that LR uses whilst it builds an actual preview off the RAW - this is why it then look low res, before becoming hi-res, as the preview is built in stages.
Remember its the initial jpg image that is inaccurate - the final RAW preview is the accurate one!
> So I guess that the intial 'image-that-looks-right' you briefly see is the
> embedded jpg that LR uses whilst it builds an actual preview off the RAW
> embedded jpg that LR uses whilst it builds an actual preview off the RAW
Correct.
> Remember its the initial jpg image that is inaccurate - the final RAW preview is the accurate one!
Well... kind of, but not really.
The preview JPEG is a lower res preview of the image *with the camera's picture styles* baked into it. If you have your camera set to a fairly neutral picture style, then this won't differ too much from the raw data. However, if you set your camera to use a picture style that bumps up sharpness, contrast, saturation and so on significantly, then this will look quite a bit different to the RAW data.
LR can't interpret the camera's picture styles, but does have it's own variations of those picture styles that you can use.
In reply to JDal:
Hey JDal - its happening to me now! Well I did turn 48 today....
> (In reply to ChrisJD) Cheers Chris, but I'm 66 and I need to get used to being patronised
Hey JDal - its happening to me now! Well I did turn 48 today....
In reply to ChrisJD: all true .... depends what image needs. if it needs masking i prefer PS but that usually means balancing an exposure that was difficult in first place. i find curves on LR not as user friendly as PS. i'm fortunate my that company provides PS for me, so it's not too expensive for me to run and integrate both. i tried out phase one's capture which is very good and much 'easier' than LR5 if you are not used to processing images but costs almost twice as much for the full version
In reply to Solaris: Am I wrong in thinking that Lightroom opens RAW with a certain few presets already in place?
In reply to stroppygob:
It has to have some rules on how to convert a RAW file, which contains an array of green dots red dots and blue dots, into a colour image. The exact colours of these dots varies from camera to camera so LR has profiles for those cameras it can process. Some are closer to the cameras default output than others and I don't imagine any are identical.
It has to have some rules on how to convert a RAW file, which contains an array of green dots red dots and blue dots, into a colour image. The exact colours of these dots varies from camera to camera so LR has profiles for those cameras it can process. Some are closer to the cameras default output than others and I don't imagine any are identical.
In reply to ChrisJD:
Thanks again. I've now spent a bit of time learning LR properly rather than just tinkering with it - what an amazing piece of software. And on account of this thread, I've learned a lot about how it works and how to use it, though I still feel that there's a lot of terra incognita left to explore.
I take your point. What set me off on starting this thread in the first place was that using LR3 with the same camera on images taken in the UK and in the Alps, the difference between the jpg and the preview was relatively much smaller than with the Iceland images.
That difference would, I think, be down to Iceland's unusual light. Since the only thing that LR says it has done to my images when creating the preview was to adjust the white balance and the tint, I have now played with these more carefully and I am getting something *much* closer to what was *really* there and I am much happier with my camera and with LR as a consequence. (The colour temperature has to be a lot cooler than LR thinks.)
A long but educative route to a good result - thanks everyone!
> (In reply to Solaris)
Thanks again. I've now spent a bit of time learning LR properly rather than just tinkering with it - what an amazing piece of software. And on account of this thread, I've learned a lot about how it works and how to use it, though I still feel that there's a lot of terra incognita left to explore.
> Remember its the initial jpg image that is inaccurate - the final RAW preview is the accurate one!
I take your point. What set me off on starting this thread in the first place was that using LR3 with the same camera on images taken in the UK and in the Alps, the difference between the jpg and the preview was relatively much smaller than with the Iceland images.
That difference would, I think, be down to Iceland's unusual light. Since the only thing that LR says it has done to my images when creating the preview was to adjust the white balance and the tint, I have now played with these more carefully and I am getting something *much* closer to what was *really* there and I am much happier with my camera and with LR as a consequence. (The colour temperature has to be a lot cooler than LR thinks.)
A long but educative route to a good result - thanks everyone!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...