Skip navigation
This discussion is archived
MaxDiesel
Currently Being Moderated

D7000 NEF Files -- ACR 6.3 under develops vs Nx2, Histograms don't match in camera Histogram

Dec 29, 2010 10:55 AM

I'm having issues with the D7000 NEF Files. 

 

Histograms don't match (In camera or Nx2) and pictures are not as they were shot when loaded with ACR 6.3 or Lightroom 3.3

They end up Darker and Colorless.

 

When loaded with "ACR 6.3 in lightroom or PS CS5" compared to loading in NX2 there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE in final output of the picture. Making ACR 6.3 unusable without some seriously non conventinal tweeking in lightroom.

 

I'm forced to Convert all .NEF files to 8Bit Tiff with LZW compression and then import the Tiff's in lightroom.

 

Anyone else having this same trouble?

Is this a Known Issue?

 

Thank you.

 

Here are two of the hundreds of pictures I have with this problem.

 

http://hotfile.com/dl/92858733/3983469/MAX_1682.NEF.html

 

http://hotfile.com/dl/92857550/77c301d/MAX_1277.NEF.html

 

Load then both in NX2 and Lightroom/Photoshop and you will see the difrences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 29, 2010 11:08 AM   in reply to MaxDiesel

    Do you have D-lighting, enabled for the picture(s) in question?

     

    Since Adobe and Nikon are independent companies using their own proprietary RAW-processing algorithms, their RAW processing will be different to some extent.  NX2 is using Nikon-licensed technology so can duplicate the in-camera processing.  Adobe cannot.  Adobe is more concerned about getting similar results from a variety of cameras instead of duplicate each camera-manufacturer's processing.

     

    If you are using D-lighting, then it would be similar to using Auto toning in Adobe products, along with using a camera-specific Camera Calibration profile in the Adobe products.

     

    That's as close as you're going to be able to get to similarity, so instead of expecting Adobe and Nikon to use the same processing, which they cannot, learn how to use Adobe products to get the results you want.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 29, 2010 12:38 PM   in reply to MaxDiesel

    The difference in the posted examples is Active D-Lighting.

     

    It was enabled in the camera, and is ignored by ACR/LR.

     

    If you process your images in NX with Active D-Lighting disabled (i.e., set to "Off"), and process the same image thru ACR/LR using the "Camera Portrait" color profile in the "Camera Calibration" pane, you will find that the results are rather similar.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 29, 2010 8:47 PM   in reply to MaxDiesel

    In Photoshop CS5, if you do Help / About Plugins... / Camera RAW you'll see three names, one of which is Eric Chan, so if he says the Adobe RAW engine does not care about the D-lighting flag in NEF files, then it doesn't. 

     

    There is some other explanation for why other D-lighting settings are more similar to the older Nikon's D-lighting processing.  Maybe Nikon changed it to be more aggressive in more recent cameras?  He's answered our question about the histograms being off and how to approximate the D7000 in-camera processing in the Adobe RAW engine.

     

    I assume the term "D-Lighting" being used here is actually ADL Active D-Lighting in the camera, not the D-Lighting processing in NX after the fact.  ADL appears to be affected by metering and probably adjusts the base exposure level a bit, so that could be another difference in how the D300 and D7000 process the images.  It is also possible that the camera communicates a difference in base exposure level within other metadata and this is what is being picked up by the Adobe RAW engine.

     

    Some info on D-Lighting:

    http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00OYaw

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Pierre Courtejoie
    7,060 posts
    Jan 11, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 30, 2010 10:38 AM   in reply to MaxDiesel

    The in camera histogram is based on the sRGB jpeg, with all the in-camera settings.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 7, 2011 5:03 PM   in reply to MaxDiesel

    I am having this same issue. I turned off Auto D-lighting and that didn't change anything. I've updated all software; Photoshop 5, Lightroom 3, Camera Raw 6.3 and all have the issue where it doesn't match camera screen or Nikon ViewX on computer. I am contemplating returning D7000 for D300. It really seems like some big shift in Nef files with new Nikons. Any more insight?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2011 6:00 AM   in reply to MaxDiesel

    Careful about generalizing wrt D7000 thru ACR 6.3, I for one am pleased (and in no way surprised) by the results for my D7000.  I shoot with ADL on (High) most of the time, RAW only workflow.  I understand fully the difference between viewing these images in ViewNX 2 (on my system solely for informational purposes) and ACR.  Other than higher resolution I see no significant difference between these images and the ones from my previous DSLR, a D300.

     

    In short, I believe Adobe has done their usual competent job of camera profiles for the D7000.

     

    Richard Southworth

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2011 7:15 AM   in reply to RASouthworth

    There is no issue that I'm aware of here, other than the fact that MaxDiesel wants Adobe to honor the D-Lighting setting (or its general brightening effect), and we don't do it for the D7000.

     

    My suggestion: If you want your images brighter, either make your own default/preset (takes a few seconds and you won't have to worry about it again), or in some cases -- even better -- increase exposure at the time of capture.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2011 8:38 AM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    Eric,

     

    I understand his complaint, just don't agree.  And I don't believe the right advice is to increae exposure, at least not in general.   Attached is a screenshot of an image I took under difficult conditions, bright sun and shadows, with the D7000 set for ADL high.  In this case it reduced exposure, such that the entire dynamic range was pretty well captured.  Of course shadowed areas, particularly facial, are too dark for a pleasing picture.

     

    If I run the raw file thru ViewNX 2 it does a reasonable job of lightening up the dark areas, although further adjustment is required for good results.  IMO it's just as easy to tweak the fill and black sliders to taste, which I did to save out of ACR a reasonable snapshot of my grandchildren, never entering Photoshop.  And as previously pointed out a few presets would speed the process up further.

     

     

    Richard Southworth

     

     

    Sisters.jpgADLHigh.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2011 3:08 PM   in reply to MaxDiesel

    Increasing the exposure a little and dialing in some highlight recovery is a way to brighten shadows, as is adjusting fill and blackpoint and/or toning curve.

     

    Please upload your examples, rather than just threatening to.  There could be something wrong or a reasonable explanation for the difference, but demanding people agree with you w/o providing raw data they can draw their own independent conclusions from is not productive.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 12, 2011 5:56 AM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    I have an older Nikon camera, the D3, and I don't know if Active D Lighting works the same as with the D7000. As Thom Hogan explains in his guide for the D3, Active D Lighting is for high contrast scenes and basically underexposes to protect the highlights and then changes the tone curve to bring up the shadows. Aside from the underexposure, the contents of the raw file are not affected, but the processing in the camera is altered when shooting JPEGs. For raw files, a tag is applied so that the same processing can be applied in NX2. Most other raw converters ignore this tag.

     

    Active D lighting is useful for shooting JPEGs (or TIFFs) where the processing is done in camera, but Thom recommends that it be used sparingly or not all for raw shooting, even if you are using NX2. A better approach is to make sure that the highlights are not clipped and use the full DR of the sensor. One can then process as desired in ACR. Use of Active D lighting for normal contrast scenes will result in underexposure of the raw file and is counterproductive. If you want highlight headroom without using Active D lighting, you can underexpose slightly in the camera and then increase the exposure in ACR.Slight overexposure can often be corrected through use of the Exposure and Recovery sliders in ACR. Personally, I never use Active D lighting.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2011 6:42 AM   in reply to Bill_Janes

    As I have already explained, MaxDiesel, with the two images you provided, I get basically the same results out of Nikon's NX2 software as with ACR/LR when using the "Camera Portrait" profile in ACR/LR. Same tonality. Please try this for yourself. You should be able to get the same results.

     

    Regarding exposure: if one can increase the exposure at the time of capture without clipping, then it is always desirable from a noise perspective to do so. Clearly if one is in high contrast situations where clipping is highly likely, this is not advisable. But with all of the various "auto brightening" capabilities built into modern cameras, I tend to see many pictures "underexposed" by 1.5 stops or more (i.e., one could have increased exposure by 1.5 or 2 stops without losing data).
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 15, 2011 11:11 AM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    Regarding exposure: if one can increase the exposure at the time of capture without clipping, then it is always desirable from a noise perspective to do so. Clearly if one is in high contrast situations where clipping is highly likely, this is not advisable. But with all of the various "auto brightening" capabilities built into modern cameras, I tend to see many pictures "underexposed" by 1.5 stops or more (i.e., one could have increased exposure by 1.5 or 2 stops without losing data).

    I agree fully with your observations, which confirm my original views expressed some time ago in a thread on ETTR (Exposing To the Right) with Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe. The rationale of exposing to the right has to do with with noise and the not the number levels in the brightest f/stop of an exposure. Indeed, many of these levels are redundant as shown by the effectiveness of compressed NEFs on Nikon raw files, which throw away redundant highlight levels. In shooting in raw with my Nikon D3, I have rarely encountered an image where the camera luminance histogram showed no clipping and I could not obtain a satisfactory image with ACR. Sometimes, saturation clipping of reds and blues will occur, since the D3 only allows rendering the preview into sRGB or aRGB, but this usually takes place not in the raw data directly from the sensor but when white balance is applied by the camera. Some users employ UniWB where white balance multipliers of unity are loaded as a custom white balance.

     

    If one is shooting quickly using auto-exposure and does not have time to observe each camera histogram individually, then some degree of underexposure does give protection from highlight clipping. Two stops seems a bit extreme.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 29, 2011 7:58 AM   in reply to MaxDiesel

    I'm having the same issues as previously discussed. When importing my images into LR3.5, the initial preview looks exposed as it should and after double clicking on a photo to underexposure and change in saturation takes place. Again like others, I'm not using ADL at all. Clearly LR is "recognizing" how the image should be, but must be applying some type of development settings to it before the user does.

     

    Are there any real solutions to this problem? other than "change the way you shoot"

    And here are some screen shots of the before and after, after LR3 underexposes and changes saturation between the initial preview and after opening the file.

    Screen shot 2011-09-29 at 10.54.41 AM.png before

     

    Screen shot 2011-09-29 at 10.54.51 AM.png After

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 29, 2011 9:10 AM   in reply to Imperious Images

    You are seeing the initial camera-embedded JPG until LR renders the image using the Adobe RAW engine, with the default settings of LR, that you can see as the slider values.

     

     

     

    You shouldn’t expect the Nikon RAW engine as embodied in the camera and the Adobe RAW engine to understand each other’s settings or internal workings—they are created by separate corporations with their own proprietary algorithms, so each will have its own rendering.

     

     

     

    You can reset the LR defaults to whatever you want them to be.

     

     

     

    Just curious, are you using the Adobe Standard profile or the Camera Standard profile as the default?  The Camera Standard profile will be closer to the camera rendering than the Adobe Standard profile.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 29, 2011 2:58 PM   in reply to Imperious Images

    As Steve Sprengel said so well: Your camera and Lightroom are using different rendering engines and possibly different profiles, and don't share settings.

     

    But also, there is a radical difference in how Lightroom will display a histogram vs. camera/camera-software (and other software) even when the images look the same... - I don't understand it, but I've noticed it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,534 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 3, 2011 10:48 AM   in reply to MaxDiesel

    It's interesting how many threads express the observation that "Adobe's color is different than my camera's color", isn't it?

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 6, 2012 10:00 PM   in reply to MaxDiesel

    I am here as I have the same problem as Max Diesel, this is a REAL problem. I have spent days trying to solve this one. The only answer I have come up with is to trash Lightroom and stick with NX2 for my editing. Bring on NX3!! C U lata LR.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 6, 2012 11:54 PM   in reply to peter geen

    Do you have dynamic lighting turned on in your camera, that NX is seeing, but LR is not?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 7, 2012 1:35 AM   in reply to MaxDiesel

    What do you call 'dynamic lighting'? I assume you mean 'active D lighting'. Yes! I have had it turned on and have done some tests with it turned off and there is an improvement in the comparison between NX2 and LR. I guess that I can now conclude that if I want to edit my shots in LR I can expect not to be able to use all the options offered on my Nikon D7000. Thats a real shame, I have just bought LR 4 and nowhere have I seen any literature from adobe to say that LR is not compatible with all Nikon camera settings.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 7, 2012 6:17 PM   in reply to peter geen

    Nikon’s RAW converter’s settings are controlled by sliders in-camera and in NX.  Adobe’s RAW converter’s settings are controlled by sliders in LR and ACR.

     

    Nikon and Adobe do not know what each other’s RAW converters do internally—each is a distinct corporation with its own intellectual property and proprietary algorithms, so the settings you might set in your camera for Nikon’s RAW converter do not affect Adobe’s conversions, and vice-versa.  If you open an NEF with an XMP sidecar file containing Adobe settings using NX, then Nikon’s RAW converter doesn’t care what settings you might have made in an Adobe product, either.

     

    Learn how to use Lightroom.  It has an Auto toning mechanism, which you can apply using the Auto button in the Toning area or even apply to every image on import.  You can even Shift-double-click each slider in LR and get Auto settings for it, individually.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 7, 2012 1:53 PM   in reply to MaxDiesel

    Cheers for your reply ssprengel. One thing I find a bit strange that is happening while I import a shot from my D7000 or View NX2 is that when the thumb nail first arrives in LR it looks fine for about 1 second ( If you are quick enough to double click on it you can enlarge it  for a better look ) then as if LR is instructed too do so, the very problem we have all been discussing here happens, and the shot changes to its unexceptable look. Seems to me that Nikon and Adobe products are not the best of freinds!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 7, 2012 2:58 PM   in reply to peter geen

    The image you see when you first import the image is the JPG the camera saved in the NEF file, but Lightroom updates this image with a rendering using Lightroom's default values.  If the in camera values are at default values and you have Lightroom's default at nominal values and have selected the same canera profile in Lightroom that you have in the camera, the images should be very close to the same.  Adobe names the Camera profiles as Camera Standard, Camera Protrait, Camera Neutral, etc.  These should give results that are very close to the Picture Control profiles of Standard, Portrait, and Neutral used in the camera and Capture NX2.  If you have not changed the Adobe default to use these profiles, it will be using Adobe Standard which is very different than the Camera Standard, etc.  You can change Lightroom's default to use any of the availalbe Camera profiles instead of Adobe Standard.  I don't have a D7000, but get excellent agreement between Capture NX2 and ACR (Photoshop CS5 RAW converter) for my D700 when I have the default set to use the same Camera Profiles as the camera.  I don't get good agreement at all if using Adobe Standard as the default. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 8, 2012 1:42 AM   in reply to MaxDiesel

    Thanks for that b2martin_a.

    Well, after many hours of head bashing ( we aren't all computer geeks ) I think that I have found a way of importing a shot from my camera and NX2 that is pretty close to being exceptable and easy to do.

    When I import into LR I select the 'Auto Tone' preset in the 'Apply during import' box, I select 'Camera Neutral' in the 'Camera Calibration' box in the develop module after importing is done and all seems pretty close when compared to the imported shot in NX2. All a bit of extra work of course but it can be done.

    Nikon are a very major camera company and Adobe are a very major software company. The two ( you would think ) should be as compatible as Raspberries and Chocolate. Mmm!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 8, 2012 2:20 AM   in reply to peter geen

    If you really want them to be the same after import, then use ExifMeta & CollectionPreseter:

     

    ExifMeta will allow you to define collections based on active-d-lighting and picture style, then you can apply a preset with exposure compensation and matching camera profile using CollectionPreseter.

     

    This will match much more closely than camera neutral and auto-tone.

     

    Links:

    http://www.robcole.com/Rob/ProductsAndServices/ExifMetaLrPlugin

    http://www.robcole.com/Rob/ProductsAndServices/MiscLrPlugins#Collectio nPreseter

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 8, 2012 12:39 PM   in reply to MaxDiesel

    Thanks for that Rob. Nothing like cream with raspberries and chocolate ah!

    Cheers.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points