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.
I thought Active-D Lighting could have been the culprate but it is not, when I got home and noticed this huge drastic change... I started testing... I took various pictures with D-Lighting from Off to High... ACR 6.3 still did not develop the pictures properly, I then attempted 12bit raw, Compressed and not Compressed... Still the same problem.
I used to shoot with a D300s, Lightroom processed those correctly with D-lighting turned on.
D-lighting is similar to Fill-Light on Lightroom, tweeking this does help... but isn't really a fix, its more of a crutch, since colors, blacks, contrast is all off as well.
Clearly here the pictures are not similar and Adobe need to re-work its algorithm to better match what the shooter has intented.
I expect some differences from Nx2 to ACR 6.3 but this is beyond different.
1 person found this helpful
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.
This does explain that the current Camera Raw 6.3 with D7000 NEF Files will not process D-Lighting.
If your Explanation is that Lightroom just doesn't know how to handle D-Lighting then can you please Explain why it had no problems doing so with the D300s NEF Files?
In this Picture if you load it in NX2 and then in Lightroom... you can clearly see that lightroom has "Pre-Processed" the picture to compensate for D-Lighting.
If I were to turn of D-Lighting off in NX2 the file would be much darker then what lightroom has produced.
Thank you for you time.
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:
The in camera histogram is based on the sRGB jpeg, with all the in-camera settings.
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?
I've since been taking Random NEF 14 Bit Pictures with Active-D Lighting set to OFF with the D7000 and have been processing them with Nikon Nx2 and Lightroom 3.3 and have been noticing MANY differences that are not only the overall exposure and drastic histogram changes... but the colors take a huge hit as well.
I'm also very displeased that Adobe as note chimed in here to even discuss the issue, there is clearly an issue here... especially when my previous pictures taken from a D300s clearly shows that Active-D Lighting was process by lightroom in the properly.
Putting that aside and just sticking with the d7000, I will soon upload RAW Nef files with their untouched processed counterparts using Lightroom and Nx2 so ALL OF YOU can judge for yourselves.
I really hope Adobe will do what is right... and at least review the data to better the process that is done on NEF D7000 files.
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.
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.
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.
No... You are terribly wrong here... I do NOT want adobe to honnor D-Lighting... I would love if they did like on the D300s (See Previous picture uploaded for proof that ADL was ok with D300s) all I was asking here is; why yes for D300s and why no for D7000...
The Actual point laid out here was when ADL IS OFF!!!! Color, Exposure, Histogram... well basiclly the entire picture is not as shot nor is it even close especially when precision is needed. Increasing exposure does not "Fix" this in any way.
I've shot many pictures to prove this point and will be uploading them soon.
I've attempted to create my own presets... but there is too much to change and have noticed 1 preset does not work for all d7000 pictures... It seems that different situations need different presets.
Really.. your actual answer was to increase my exposure during capture... REALLY! Wow... thank you for telling me to improperly capture my pictures for them to properly develop with your software... amazing response. Remember its not just the exposure... its the overall image. I wouldn't be waisting my time here bringing a REAL problem to light if it wasn't an actual time losing problem, I shot and edit over 2000 picture per week... lets just say my workflow just got longer thanks to the improper or to quickly done configuration of the d7000 by Adobe.
Remember that on average 1 out of 1000 will complain of an issue..the others will just sit back and deal with it... this is an issue and it should be looked at,
I Hope this will make you Aware of the problem.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's interesting how many threads express the observation that "Adobe's color is different than my camera's color", isn't it?
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.
Do you have dynamic lighting turned on in your camera, that NX is seeing, but LR is not?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
Thanks for that Rob. Nothing like cream with raspberries and chocolate ah!