You need ExifMeta to see ADL setting in library panel and use for lib filter and smart collections.
If you just want to view for a particular photo on demand, Jeffrey Friedl's metadata viewer is excellent.
I think there is value in using ADL even though it's ignored in Lightroom: the amount that exposure is downthrottled is not fixed - it's based on light metering. - right?
The OP in the aformentioned discussion seems to be of the impression that ADL is doing something mysterious - it's not. Based on metering, it computes an amount of underexposure. The camera and/or Nikon software then does something akin to:
+exposure -highlights +shadows
I shoot raw with Active D-Lighting on most of the time (and post-process with Lightroom), because I hate over-blown highlights which is what ADL is trying to prevent.
If you're plenty good at controlling exposure without it, then leave it off. But having it on won't adversely affect quality, other than what it does to affect exposure (ISO biasing) I mean (which has the same impact on quality whether being processed with camera/NX2 or Lightroom).
If you shoot with it on, it just means the image will be less exposed (initially, in Lightroom) than what you saw on your camera or mfr s/w, and may need some "Lightroom D-Lighting" to compensate.
Excellent link...... however, I experimented by auto bracketing with ADL. I imported the shots to LR4 and there is a very noticable difference between the shots shot without ADL and those with ADL. I actually liked some of the ADL shots better, but not always. It seems that the differences are written to raw. I know that my understanding of this is sketchy. Is ADL changing the raw image, but allowing it to remain raw after it is changed? I know that doesn't make sense. I appreciate your knowledgable input.
This is starting to make more sense. It seems that as far as ADL and LR4 are concerned the ADL just results in a slighly underexposed shot and this could be accomplished variation of aperature, speed, or iso. Is this correct?
It seems that as far as ADL and LR4 are concerned the ADL just results in a slighly underexposed shot and this could be accomplished variation of aperature, speed, or iso. Is this correct?
Correct. - camera uses "ISO-biasing" to downthrottle exposure - that's the *only* effect on raw data. The rest is camera/Nikon software doing things that Lightroom can also do, only better .
Kinda like a modern microwave oven - there's settings for defrost and popcorn, but the only difference is the on/off duty cycle. ADL does not "compress dynamic range of raw data" - that's a misunderstanding.
Summary of ADL:
* Nikon Hardware: underexposure
* Nikon Software: exposure boost plus "intelligent" contrast reduction.
Yep. I think of ADL as a hint to the camera to protect highlights at the expense of shadows. This is a good thing when it's what you want, and a bad thing when it's not.
If you have it on when you have highlights in the scene that should be blown out (for optimal exposure), then you may end up with an image that is too underexposed (and when you bring up the exposure in post-processing, you get excessive noise in the shadows), in which case it would be best to turn it off. However, when you have a scene where what you want is to preserve as much of the highlights as possible, ADL can be a godsend (even when shooting raw and processing in Lightroom), since normal exposure would sacrifice some highlights to keep shadows from being too dark and clip blacks... Of course you could simply set a negative exposure bias to accomplish the same thing, but ADL is scene-adaptive whereas exposure bias is not (unless you are on the ball enough to keep changing it as the scene changes...)
PS - To those inclined to split hairs and pick nits: yes - I am aware that exposure bias does not accomplish exactly the same thing as ADL, since the manner of exposure reduction will be different, but I'm trying to get a point across and that nuance is not critical to the point.
i.e. the value of ADL is exactly the same when shooting raw, whether post-processing in NX2, or Lr. The difference is that you have to do the software compensation thang using +exposure -highlights +shadows sliders in Lightroom, instead of selecting the ADL "extent" using a drop-down in NX2.
Likewise, the potentially detrimental effects of ADL (too much exposure reduction) apply the same when post-processing in NX2, as Lr.
Even clearer now?, or more confused...??
my 0.02: I suggested to turn it off because I personally dont like it to be underexposed by the camera which is against the principles of "Exposure to the right". More to read: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
F. McLion wrote:
I suggested to turn it off because I personally dont like it to be underexposed by the camera which is against the principles of "Exposure to the right". More to read: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
Fair enough - seems like a reasonable strategy.
Ideally, it would be best to have ADL on when it's beneficial, and off when it's not. Whether you want to fuss with it, and which way you prefer to err when you forget to change it (or judge incorrectly), is a personal thang. I just hope people realize that it's potential for detriment vs. value has only to do with the scene you are shooting, and what you would consider optimal exposure, and *nothing* to do with the software you use to post-process the raws.
Europe, Middle East and Africa