Skip navigation
rextranter
Currently Being Moderated

D700 files shot in Adobe RGB colorspace

May 6, 2013 10:07 PM

Tags: #file #nikon #.nef #d700 #lightroom4

I can open my D700 files in Lightroom 4.4 only if there were shot in sRGB colorspace.  Lightroom does not recognize them if they were shot using Adobe RGB colorspace.  Is there some update or plug in to lightroom that will allow me to open these?  ( I have downloaded the latest Lightroom 4.4)

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2013 10:32 PM   in reply to rextranter

    Can you post one for others to see: upload one of something unimportant to www.dropbox.com and post a public download link, here, so others can see if their systems act the same.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,389 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2013 7:09 AM   in reply to rextranter

    These are JPEGs?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2013 8:05 AM   in reply to rextranter

    Something is not right.  LR should recognize the AdobeRGB-thumbnail files, too, which is why a sample NEF from your camera would be useful to see.

     

    Of course you could also just set your camera to sRGB and not worry about it.  There is no benefit to setting your camera to Adobe RGB if you are shooting RAW.  The sensor data in the files is the same, only the camera-embedded-jpg-preview and it’s accompanying histogram is different.  If you are also shooting JPG then the JPGs would be different, but not the NEFs.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,389 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2013 8:07 AM   in reply to ssprengel

    Something certainly isn't right as setting the camera for Adobe RGB (1998) doesn't change the raw data one bit, it's only metadata. I've never heard of this issue.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2013 8:14 AM   in reply to rextranter

    If your camera is set to Adobe RGB and you shoot JPG then your JPGs will be in Adobe RGB not sRGB.  Are you really setting your camera to sRGB to shoot JPGs and Adobe RGB to shoot raws when there is no effect on the raw data?  That seems backwards.  Adobe RGB is a lightly wider colorspace so it helps to have JPGs in that if there are bright colors, but there’s no benefit to shoot raw with Adobe RGB.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2013 9:03 AM   in reply to rextranter

    To get a file here for people to look at, see reply #1: upload it to www.dropbox.com or www.skydrive.com or another temporary large-file-hosting service, and then post the public download link, here.

     

    Another question:  are you using Nikon Transfer to move the files?  Older versions of this software are obsolete according to Nikon and change things in the file headers that make files unrecognizable to Adobe products.  This shouldn't have anything to do with the colorspace tag you have set in the file metadata (sRGB vs Adobe RGB) but maybe it does or maybe it is a coincidence.   If you want to continue to use Nikon software to transfer pictures from your camera to your computer then install the very latest version of View NX2 and use its Nikon Transfer component.  Or just use Explorer / Finder / Lightroom to transfer the pictures.

     

    If you have corrupted files wtih Nikon Transfer, then you can fix this using a tuility from the following website:

    http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/fix_corrupted_nef.html

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,389 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2013 9:08 AM   in reply to rextranter

    It be useful to have a raw set as you do to produce an error. Or maybe you can try on another local system.

     

    FWIW, doesn't matter if you set sRGB or Adobe RGB (1998) capturing raw, it only affects the JPEG.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2013 10:46 AM   in reply to rextranter

    Each new model of camera would need to be supported by Nikon View NX(2), specifically, so Nikon would need to release a new version of software for each new camera, but you should be able to use the newest version with all your older cameras, too, right, or does Nikon stop supporting older cameras in their newer software?

     

    Hearing that and old ViewNX(2) might be corrupting the files would be new information (to me) and good to have confirmed as something for people with corrupt files to fix.

     

    Are you doing anything in ViewNX(2) that would have to rewrite the file, perhaps adding a copyright or a rating or a flag?

     

    If the camera setting of AdobeRGB vs sRGB makes a difference, perhaps ViewNX(2) is rewriting the thumbnail as sRGB when it was originally AdobeRGB and thus modifying the file and corrupting it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2013 11:50 AM   in reply to rextranter

    The V1 version of Nikon Transfer is known to cause issues with newer camera NEFs so it's this surprising that the V1 versions of the other Nikon software also has problems. 

     

    The unimportant question, other than being a curiosity, is why Adobe RGB is causing a problem when sRGB isn't, but it is not something Lightroom is doing different, it is something the old Nikon software is doing differently to the new camera-models' raw files, changing something in the data when Adobe RGB colorspace is specified and making them unreadable to Adobe but not changing the same thing when they are shot in sRGB colorspace.  Without doing some low-level byte-by-byte file analysis you probably aren't going to be able to understand what the Nikon software is doing, but at least you know what to do to make things work.

     

    If you still thing Lightroom has something to do with causing the problem, then copy an sRGB NEF and an Adobe RGB NEF directly from your camera to your computer and without touching either with Nikon software and make sure they both import into LR without issue.

     

    Camera manufacturer's software usually doesn't understand raw files from another manufacturer because one of the jobs of the camera-manufacturer software is to render the JPG from raw in exactly the same way as the camera and that rendering is proprietary and cannot be known by outside entities.  Canon's DPP software doesn't work with Nikon NEFs, either.  Software from a third-party, such as Adobe Lightroom, has to be able to work with various manufacturers' raw files for anyone to pay any attention but at the cost of knowing things that are specific to a particular manufacturer, like you cannot see focus points for your NEFs in Lightroom, but I'd guess you can in the NX software which is produced or at least licensed by Nikon.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2013 3:56 PM   in reply to rextranter

    I shoot raw w/AdobeRGB and haven't had such problem.

     

    To be clear: although colorspace won't affect raw data, it *will* affect jpeg preview embedded in raw file:

     

    Colorspace affects raw file thusly:

    * Initial preview in Lightroom and other (non-Nikon) programs, and it will be wrong (slightly off), unless program is properly attending to colorspace metadata (there is *no* embedded icc profile, but there *is* metadata indicating how the jpeg preview image data should be interpreted) - Lightroom doesn't and most don't.

    * Initial preview in Nikon programs (and it will be right, since Nikon software properly attends to colorspace metadata) and camera back.

     

    PS - I wish Nikon just included the icc-profile in embedded jpeg preview and spared us a bit of grief, but they don't.

     

    Thankfully, they do include the icc profile in the jpeg sidecar.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2013 6:46 PM   in reply to rextranter

    Surprising.

     

    I would not have expected that simply opening for view would alter the raw file, but NEFs are no more sacred to Nikon software than DNGs are in Adobe software, so I guess I should not be so surprised... - e.g. people have reported DNG file changes simply by clicking for view in Lightroom...

     

    PS - I suppose this is obvious now, but I can't help saying it: in the future, consider using the latest version for such software. I mean, compatibility and interoperability are prime reasons to release new versions...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2013 1:33 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    So perhaps direct conversion to DNG on import isn't such a risky practice after all? I mean, there is always risk of corruption, proprietary or not.

     

    People always told me I'm crazy to convert and not keep the NEFs. But I just made a decision to not worry so much...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,389 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2013 6:52 AM   in reply to twenty_one

    twenty_one wrote:

     

    So perhaps direct conversion to DNG on import isn't such a risky practice after all? I mean, there is always risk of corruption, proprietary or not.

     

    People always told me I'm crazy to convert and not keep the NEFs. But I just made a decision to not worry so much...

    Considering part of the covnersion to DNG is a validity test of the data, yes! If when doing this on import pops an error when converting, stop, try to recover the original raw from the card and fix it.

     

    FWIW, I don't keep my original raws.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2013 7:52 AM   in reply to rextranter

    Converting to DNG precludes your using most camera-manufacturer software now or in the future since it is primarily a camera-native format only for very high-end specialty cameras ($10K+) or for use with Adobe products or some other third-party raw converters.   Most camera manufacturers who have gone to the trouble of making a proprietary raw format have no interest in also making a DNG.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,389 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2013 7:59 AM   in reply to ssprengel

    ssprengel wrote:

     

    Converting to DNG precludes your using most camera-manufacturer software now or in the future since it is primarily a camera-native format only for very high-end specialty cameras ($10K+) or for use with Adobe products or some other third-party raw converters.   Most camera manufacturers who have gone to the trouble of making a proprietary raw format have no interest in also making a DNG.

    The trouble they've taken has by and large produced software I'm very sure I'll never use.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2013 8:27 AM   in reply to ssprengel

    I am confident that DNG will prevail, just like VHS

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2013 4:45 PM   in reply to Andrew Rodney

    Andrew Rodney wrote:

     

    The trouble they've taken has by and large produced software I'm very sure I'll never use.

    And you're sure no software will emerge in the future, from any company other than adobe, that you'd want to use if you could (and which might not work well with adobe-converted dngs I mean).

     

    In addition to camera manfacturer software, here are a few examples of software which has had trouble reading and/or updating adobe-converted dngs:

    * Bibble

    * DxO Optics

    * CaptureOne

    * ExifTool

     

    Want to be future proof? - don't toss your originals.

     

    Want to support Adobe and DNG exclusively? - do toss your originals.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,389 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2013 4:58 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

    And you're sure no software will emerge in the future, from any company other than adobe, that you'd want to use if you could (and which might not work well with adobe-converted dngs I mean).

    Actually my 2nd choose (Raw Developer) supports DNG. And no, I'd never use a software product that didn't support DNG. It's easy to do. DNG has far too many useful capabilities as a file format I'm not going to lose. As a potential customer for a new raw processor, the manufacture has to support the DNG format.

    Want to support Adobe and DNG exclusively? - do toss your originals.

    Thanks for that Rob, I'll follow that advise.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2013 5:53 PM   in reply to rextranter

    To be clear:

     

    * Bibble

    * DxO Optics

    * CaptureOne

    * ExifTool

     

    all support DNG.

     

    What they haven't always done is reliably support Adobe-converted DNGs - see the distinction?

     

    Note: Adobe was almost a year late publishing v1.4 DNG documentation.

    Example: @v9.25 ExifTool fully supports v1.4 DNGs. For most of the year before that: not so much...

     

    My aim: not to persuade. I couldn't care less if anybody does or does not convert to DNG, or throws away their originals. I do care if people misunderstand due to mis-information. And to be clear: I'm not accusing anyone of mis-informing here, but there is a lot of misinformation in this forum by zealots.

     

    I want people to know: if you convert to DNG, and especially if you toss your originals, you may have problems if you try to use those converted DNGs in other software (other than correctly updated Adobe software I mean).

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,389 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2013 6:03 PM   in reply to Rob Cole


    I want people to know: if you convert to DNG, and especially if you toss your originals, you may have problems if you try to use those converted DNGs in other software (other than correctly updated Adobe software I mean)

    Fair enough.

     
    |
    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