20 Replies Latest reply on Aug 11, 2014 9:32 PM by ski ne where

    Alternative to camera raw?

    ski ne where Level 1

      I don't know what forum this actually belongs in; Im trying to learn raw processing and I use LR.

       

      I get that all raw processing, including OOC jpg, is an interpretation of sensor output, and that it's a misconception to regard any single interpretation as "the absolute right one".

       

      I feel pretty confident with tonal interpretation (highlights/shadows/contrast etc).  But I'm struggling with color.

      I shoot either jpg or raw + jpg. Not confident enough to shoot raw only.

       

      I'm generally happy with the OOC jpg's I get from my Canon T5i. (99% of the time I use AWB with the Standard picture settings, with saturation not maxed but bumped a couple points above default.  Usually I love the color I get.

       

      Processing a RAW in LR, I can usually get an image that I think is better toned than the camera jpg. (often LR's default is better.)

      I can never get color similar to the OOC jpg. The difference is more than just saturation.  Canon seems to do things in the red-yellow range that I can't figure out.  4 out of 5 times I prefer the OOC jpg.

       

      I'm wondering about using Canon DPP to initially process the raws for color, then import to LR for everything else.

       

      My question is, is there common file format (maybe 16 bit TIFF?), supported by both LR & DPP, that represents the camera's full DR?

       

      Hmm, maybe I need to ask this in a Canon forum, but I appreciate whatever tips anyone here can offer!

        • 1. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
          dj_paige Level 9

          My question is, is there common file format (maybe 16 bit TIFF?), supported by both LR & DPP, that represents the camera's full DR?

          File format has nothing to do with color space and color interpretation of raw sensor data.

           

          Have you tried using different camera profiles in Lightroom to see if one is more to your liking?

          • 2. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
            ski ne where Level 1

            "File format has nothing to do with color space and color interpretation of raw sensor data."

             

            I know.  I want to use Canon's software to interpret the raw for color, and then LR to tone the image. But I want LR to be able to work with the full DR that the sensor captured.  Is there a way to accomplish that?

             

            "Have you tried using different camera profiles in Lightroom to see if one is more to your liking?"

             

            LR does not by default use a camera-specific profile for raw files created by that camera?  I'm not being rhetorical. I honestly assumed that LR would, by default, apply camera-specific, or at least manufacturer-specific profiles.

            (FWIW, my version of LR4 came with profiles for several Canon lenses I use.  So why not raw conversion profiles?)

            • 3. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
              JimHess Adobe Community Professional & MVP

              We are not talking about lens profiles. Go to the calibration tab in the develop module and take a look at some of the other profile options. These profiles are designed to simulate the different picture settings in your camera. Lightroom cannot read those settings in your file, but provides profiles that should match those settings very closely.

              • 4. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                ski ne where Level 1

                I just mentioned lens profiles as an analogy, sorry about the confusion. :-)

                I'm aware of the Develop module profile options ("Direct Positive" "Punch" "Medium Contrast" etc).  I didn't find anything that appromixated what my camera produces.  Are there more options buried somewhere else?

                 

                I have not yet tried Googling for "LR profile that equals Canon OOC jpg download free"

                • 5. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                  DdeGannes Level 5

                  This is a question that is answered at least daily on the internet for in excess of ten years.

                  All camera manufacturers have their own proprietary software for processing the raw data captured by the camera sensor. The firmware in the camera uses this process to create the jpeg photo file which is displayed on the screen of your camera. In the case of Canon Cameras their process software is called DPP.

                  Canon also supplies this software for use on your PC /Mac computer and is able to reproduce the same results that you get with your camera produced jpeg (rendered photo files)

                  Adobe is a third party software provider that produce and sell their product (Adobe Camera Raw and Adobe Lightroom) that offers an alternative rendering which is proprietary to Adobe.

                   

                  The two renditions will be different, your camera rendition which is decided by the Canon engineers that created the software and profiles that produce the rendered photo file, and Adobe ACR /LR that has been decided by the Abobe engineers. Neither is right or wrong just the different creators recipe.

                  The profiles created for your camera model can be accessed in the "Camera Calibration" section of the Develop Module, the "adobe standard" setting is the normal profile for your camera.

                   

                  There are several other profile in he list "camera neutral" "camera vivid" "camera portrait" etc which try to emulate those settings in your camera. You can access those to see if you prefer them.

                  The tools are there in Lightroom which should allow you to create a rendered file that is as good as or superior to the OOC files with lots more options to be creative.  

                  • 6. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                    JimHess Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                    I think you will find that there are just too many variables for that to happen. The JPEG image is affected by the picture style chosen in the camera. As I said previously, Lightroom cannot read that setting. The reason is that each camera maker stores that information in a different location. That's why the camera profiles are so helpful.

                     

                    You might consider adjusting one of your images to match the JPEG as closely as possible, and then either create a preset that saves all those settings or save new camera defaults. The preset could be applied on import. If you change your default settings those adjustments will be applied automatically when new images are imported.

                    • 7. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                      ski ne where Level 1

                      JimHess: Thanks and my apologies.  I took a second 2nd look after my last post and found the Camera Calibration section you originally mentioned.  I'll experiment with this.

                       

                      DdeGannes: Very nice summary.  It will be informative to anyone whose future search catches it.

                      • 8. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                        areohbee Level 5

                        JimHess wrote:

                         

                        Lightroom cannot read that setting.

                        To be clear: Lightroom most certainly could read that setting, if it wanted to - it doesn't want to.

                         

                        (details available upon request)

                         

                        Let's not mislead people - it's not illegal nor technically difficult to read that setting.

                         

                        Don't get me wrong: I don't blame Adobe for not wanting to go too far down the road of emulating camera settings, but the reasons for it are not what is so often proposed.

                         

                        Camera emulation profiles are available for many models, but won't be auto-selected based on in-camera setting - 'nuff said?

                         

                        ~R.

                        • 9. Re: Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                          ski ne where Level 1

                          I'll admit, I'm curious about why Adobe does not want LR to read and/or automatically emulate camera settings and/or results.

                           

                          "Details available up on request".  I'm requesting, if you don't mind.  Your choice whether to reply privately or to the thread.

                           

                          My takeaway from recent posts is that the settings in the Camera Calibration section are at least somewhat calibrated to the actual camera that produces the raw file, but don't develop expectations of similarity between the OOC jpeg and LR's raw conversion; the two can still be substantially different or very similar or somewhere in between.  YMMV.

                          • 10. Re: Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                            dj_paige Level 9

                            Probably there are three related answers why Lightroom doesn't read the camera settings and produce an image that is substantially the same as the OOC JPG

                             

                            1. It was never the goal of Lightroom to give you the ability to do the same thing as other software, including the in-camera JPG software; it most likely was the goal of Lightroom for you to create an image from essentially a un-edited RAW, and not be tied down to starting at the same starting point as the OOC JPG
                            2. The amount of effort needed for Adobe to duplicate the development capabilities of other software, and to match the OOC JPG, would probably be prohibitive
                            3. The OOC JPG isn't necessarily the "correct" rendition of the image; it is a single representation of the captured image, out of an infinite number of representations of this image. Thus, there's really no reason to emulate the OOC JPG, many people feel you can create a better image than that from a RAW.
                            • 11. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                              JimHess Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                              Well, to be clear, Lightroom "can't" read the settings because it hasn't been told to do it. Are we splitting hairs here?

                              • 12. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                                areohbee Level 5

                                JimHess wrote:

                                 

                                Lightroom "can't" read the settings

                                The term "can't" implies something very different than "doesn't".

                                 

                                "can't" implies:

                                * it's illegal, or

                                * it's too difficult, or

                                * it's too risky, or

                                * it would require on-going maintenance, or

                                * due to whatever reasons, it's not feasible, or

                                etc., and generally:

                                * it would like to (or at least it would be subject to consideration) if it could.

                                 

                                None of those things applies.

                                 

                                Lightroom doesn't read them because it doesn't care what they are - they're not pertinent to what Lightroom does, so there is no reason to read them - that's a LOT different than "can't".

                                 

                                Pop quiz:

                                =======

                                Why doesn't Lightroom display focus points?

                                A. because it can't read focus points.

                                B. other.

                                Answer: B

                                 

                                Why doesn't Lightroom emulate camera settings?

                                A. because it can't read proprietary camera settings.

                                B. other.

                                Answer B.

                                 

                                Splitting hairs you ask?

                                No, I don't think so..

                                 

                                Rob

                                • 13. Re: Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                                  areohbee Level 5

                                  ski ne where,

                                   

                                  The details "available upon request" had to do with readability of stuff they supposedly "can't" read, not the reasons they've not wanted to, yet.

                                   

                                  In a nutshell:

                                   

                                  We know they can, because:

                                  * others are, for example: exiftool, Aperture, BreezeBrowser, PhotoMechanic, etc...

                                   

                                  We know it's not that hard because:

                                  * we can see example source code, by downloading exiftool source distribution, and inspecting it (and note also: one person wrote exiftool, and he works full-time, and wind-surfs a lot too.. - Phil Harvey).

                                   

                                  So, back to the question: why doesn't Adobe read more camera settings, and take a whack at emulating them in Lightroom?

                                   

                                  My guess: just not enough bang for buck, and to be honest, I think it prolongs it's users attachment to camera results, instead of weening.

                                   

                                  I think most experienced Lightroom users rarely look at in-camera jpegs anymore, so the feature to start from in-camera results would be of very little value.

                                   

                                  Most people who want their raws to look like their jpegs, even if only initially, are people who've become very attached to the in-camera results, and/or the camera settings used to get them, and haven't been able to get consistently superior results using Lightroom, yet.

                                   

                                  Me? I think Adobe should do more in this regard, for example:

                                  * support the option to choose a camera profile based on in-camera style chosen.

                                  * maybe bump exposure when ADL (and similar) is enabled.

                                  * display focus points.

                                  * have better support for raw+jpeg shooting, and embedded preview.

                                  for the sake of the people who would use such features.

                                   

                                  5-10 years ago I would have loved such features - I started raw development with NX2 and later transitioned to Lightroom, and initially: results in Lightroom were frequently inferior to what I could do in NX2, so I was constantly comparing, in the interest of honing my Lightroom skills (and tastes..).

                                   

                                  Now? - wouldn't use them much, except to satisfy idle curiosity: I shoot raw, develop in Lightroom, have my own camera profiles.., and don't look back...

                                   

                                  Note: focus points are an exception, which I would still like to see support for in Lightroom - they have nothing to do with raw development and a lot to do with honing one's ability to focus the camera.

                                   

                                  One of the main advantages of developing raws is the freedom to ignore camera settings (except for basic exposure and focusing of course) and concentrate on getting the shot.

                                   

                                  Sorry for going on, but you kinda asked for it .

                                   

                                  Cheers,

                                  Rob

                                  • 14. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                                    cppasm Level 3

                                    Focus points are pretty useless too.

                                    Have you ever recomposing after focusing (half-pressing the shutter)?

                                    So focus points would not really show you what you were focusing on, so why bother to show them.

                                    • 15. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                                      areohbee Level 5

                                      cppasm wrote:

                                       

                                      Focus points are pretty useless too.

                                      To you maybe, but they are useful to some of us.

                                       

                                      cppasm wrote:

                                       

                                      Have you ever recomposing after focusing (half-pressing the shutter)?

                                      I have 51 focus points in my camera, not all are the same type, and there are several auto-focusing modes and settings. Without knowing which focus points were engaging from shot to shot, when shooting a burst of photos of a moving animal, for example, it's harder to know why some frames were in focus, but others weren't, and to figure out which settings would be optimal.

                                       

                                      If all you do is focus still shots, then recompose, then shoot, then I agree: focus points are pretty useless - and I probably wouldn't even bother showing them.

                                       

                                      Rob

                                      • 16. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                                        Simon G E Garrett Level 2

                                        No argument with Rob about why Adobe don't read camera picture settings and related proprietary metadata.

                                         

                                        There was a recent (June) press release by Adobe about joint working with Nikon: http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/nikonraw.html.

                                         

                                        Nikon used to have a raw convertor and editor called "Capture NX2".  They could claim at a (long) stretch that this was a competitor to Lightroom and Photoshop, and so Adobe was probably seen by Nikon as a competitor.  Recently Nikon dropped NX2, and like Canon provide only a free raw convertor. 

                                         

                                        Some have speculated that Nikon might now be looking to work with Adobe rather than competing.  I wouldn't expect much from this, but perhaps they might open up some proprietary metadata, or even create camera profiles for LR/ACR.  It seems to me that it's in both Adobe's and the camera makers' interests to make Lightroom / ACR work better with raw images. 

                                        • 17. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                                          thedigitaldog MVP & Adobe Community Professional

                                          JimHess wrote:

                                           

                                          Well, to be clear, Lightroom "can't" read the settings because it hasn't been told to do it. Are we splitting hairs here?

                                          Even if it could read it, doesn't mean it is at all useful. There is more than one product out there using the term Saturation (even Vibrance). Understanding the term and processing the data identically is vastly different. Yes, Adobe could understand a term some other product uses. Does it understand the various algorithm's and processing path's that setting uses? No. Could it? Probably not, that's proprietary processing. So the debate is pointless. Adobe doesn't have a clue how others deal with the same raw data and a setting called Vibrance nor should they.

                                          • 18. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                                            areohbee Level 5

                                            ski ne where wrote:

                                             

                                            found the Camera Calibration section -  I'll experiment with this.

                                            So, what's the word? - Do Adobe's Canon camera matching (emulation) profiles do the job for you?

                                            • 19. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                                              Simon G E Garrett Level 2

                                              Simon G E Garrett wrote:

                                               

                                              There was a recent (June) press release by Adobe about joint working with Nikon: http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/nikonraw.html.

                                               

                                               

                                              My mistake here - apologies. 

                                               

                                              It turns out that this recent press release, although dated June 2014, isn't new!  It's a regurgitation (word-for-word) of the press release produced in 2005 after the spat between Nikon and Adobe over the encryption of white balance info in D2X raw files.  See http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8466187899/nikon-adobe

                                               

                                              Given the constant trauma in the Adobe web site over the last year or so, I think their information management system found this page, and has re-posted it in the Photoshop help area (note the URL starts "helpx...").

                                               

                                              There's been a long discussion on dpreview about the meaning of this press release (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54152669), but it now transpires it means nothing - it's almost certainly a mistake by Adobe. Oh well...

                                              • 20. Re: Alternative to camera raw?
                                                ski ne where Level 1

                                                Rob, et al.  I've only experimented a little bit so far but I'll cautiously say the Camera Standard profile appears to do a good job matching my camera's jpegs' colors.

                                                 

                                                Too many good points here to reply to everything but I appreciate the discussion.

                                                 

                                                I get that it's a better goal, to be able to visualize how one wants their final image to look and develop that from the raw, than to remain bounded by the camera's jpeg interpretation.

                                                Crutch or Confidence builder - everyone has their own way of learning. I'll get there eventually...