Reading mode: Light Dark

Lightroom 'sucking' the punch out of my D3 RAW files.

Go to last post
M

momofoto

Member
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
When I first import my D3 NEFS into Lightroom, the shots are full of punch. Then a few seconds later Lightroom renders the previews and 'sucks' the punch right out them. Can anyone explain what's going on here? I don't remember seeing this with my D200 NEF's?
 
in every raw image there is a preview jpeg included. that's what you see in thumbnail view in windows, or what the camera used to show on the display. anyway when lightroom imports the shots, it first shows that preview (which has all the settings of the camera applied) and then renders it's own default version. now as the D3 has a very punchy jpeg engine the differnce here is very big.

on the D200 the jpeg engine is much less saturated etc and therefore the differnce to the lightroom version is much smaller, but that change was there as well
--
Mario

My Gallery
http://www.mg-photo.ch
 
momofoto said:
When I first import my D3 NEFS into Lightroom, the shots are full of
punch. Then a few seconds later Lightroom renders the previews and
'sucks' the punch right out them. Can anyone explain what's going on
here? I don't remember seeing this with my D200 NEF's?
Click to expand...
I'm not the expert, but I suggest that what's going on is that in the initial display of a NEF file, LR is displaying the imbedded thumbnail JPEG in the raw file, and then after calculations, is displaying the LR conversion of the raw data.

If you have the camera's "Picture Control" to Vivid, for example, then the imbedded JPEG thumbnail is bound to be quite a bit more saturated ("punchy") than the default LR conversion. This would make the initial display of the images to look more contrasty and saturated before the full preview is calculated.

Sound reasonable? Picture Control (and its particular looks) is new to the D3 and D300 if I'm not mistaken.

--
Dave Hoelscher
 
A new Nikon feature that allows matching the look of the output from different cameras, besides the individual look. Maybe LR should figure out how to add this support.
 
The "Punch" images are the Jpeg rendered previews, that are automatically attached to the "raw" data. NEF files are imported into lightroom as DNG or native raw-files, with a rendered jpeg that is ofcourse using the standard adjustments programmed in your D3 through your custom jpeg settings. As soon as lightroom reads the data from the NEF file, it replaces the fake image (the rendered jpeg) with the real image RAW+XMP= viewable RAW image without the "punchy" jpeg adjustments. Is this bad ? NO, this is necessary as to implement raw-handling on sensor-data to have maximized output quality instead of "pimp-my-jpeg".

Greetz,
BBPhotographer.
 
Just set up Lightroom with the defaults that you like and/or camera calibration section. Then have that applied during import.
--
Scott
 
That makes sense. So it seems that NX, by default, takes those settings that 'pimp the JPEG preview' and uses them, whereas Lightroom discards them?

I just did a test on an image I shot this morning. One was imported into Lightroom, then exported direct to JPEG - no other adjustments made. The other was imported into NX and again, exported to JPEG with no adjustments.

The Lightroom version..



The Capture NX version..



I never realised that if I was shooting just RAW, the JPEG settings came into effect in such a way?
 
momofoto said:
I never realised that if I was shooting just RAW, the JPEG settings
came into effect in such a way?
Click to expand...
I would interpret it slightly differently. They are camera settings. With a JPEG they get 'baked in', with the RAW you can change them in PP.

Adobe - through a combination of laziness, obstinance and arrogance - throws them away and forces you to recreate them, starting from its arbitrary set of assumptions.

Adobe isn't alone, to be fair. Only NX (View and Capture) renders based on the complete settings - everything else drops some, most or all of them.

--
Guy

'Critics talk about art; artists talk about brushes...'

My 'work' photos are at http://swarbrick.com/photos
The 'fun' stuff is at http://www.flickr.com/photos/swarbrick

Equipment in profile

 
Guy Swarbrick said:
Adobe - through a combination of laziness, obstinance and arrogance -
throws them away and forces you to recreate them, starting from its
arbitrary set of assumptions.
Click to expand...
Is it Adobe's fault? I thought that sort of information (Vivid, the old Color Modes, etc.) can only be reproduced accurately using the camera vendor's proprietary software. I don't think it's just an Adobe thing...I know Aperture doesn't take those settings into account either. Are there any 3rd party raw convertors that read the picture settings info and try to do their best to match them?

edit: I see you mention the 3rd party software don't. I think it's a proprietary Nikon and Canon thing, not any 3rd party fault.
 
Do you mean like changing from Vivid mode to Portait mode or something like that? Why would you even bother doing that shooting raw?
 
PeterPawinski said:
PeterPawinski said:
Adobe - through a combination of laziness, obstinance and arrogance -
throws them away and forces you to recreate them, starting from its
arbitrary set of assumptions.
Click to expand...
Is it Adobe's fault? I thought that sort of information (Vivid, the
old Color Modes, etc.) can only be reproduced accurately using the
camera vendor's proprietary software. I don't think it's just an
Adobe thing...I know Aperture doesn't take those settings into
account either. Are there any 3rd party raw convertors that read the
picture settings info and try to do their best to match them?

edit: I see you mention the 3rd party software don't. I think it's a
proprietary Nikon and Canon thing, not any 3rd party fault.
Click to expand...
Just to set the record straight: Nikon makes its conversion "engine" available to any third-party that wants to use it. Almost all of the 3rd parties choose not to use it (for various reasons, including they think they can do it "better", they have optimized their software for their own demosaicing routines, etc.), but it's not Nikon's fault they choose not to do so.

--
John Walker
http://jhwalker.smugmug.com/
 
Gotcha. So it is possible for a third party to 100% replicate an in-camera JPEG if they choose to do so.

Presumably, then, the way Lightroom or Aperture interpret and manipulate raw data, then, don't translate exactly from Nikon's JPEG engine. Is this correct?
 
Raw means "raw". You have to work the image to get it how you want it to look!

That's the whole point of shooting raw! If you want them to look like the jpeg then shoot jpeg.

I don't understand what you are saying?
--
'Photography is catching a moment in time, and keeping it forever'
 
Are you absolutely sure about this? I was just checking out Luminous Landscape, and the most recent post I could find (Nov 15, 2007) states that the JPEGs camera manufacturers build from the raw file is a proprietary conversion. They don't specify Nikon, but say that in general. Is this wrong, then? It comes from one of the more regarded sources on that site.
 
The conversion in the camera is proprietary; NX's conversion is the same*; you can license (free of charge, I believe) Nikon's SDK to use the same conversion engine - Adobe and others choose not to.

I sort of understand why - they want to use their conversion technology because it's easier (lazy), they think it's better (arrogant) and claim they don't want to risk Nikon pulling the plug (obstinate).

Actually, I think that's something of a simplification. I'm sure a Borg or an Odell will be along shortly to be more precise.

--
Guy

'Critics talk about art; artists talk about brushes...'

My 'work' photos are at http://swarbrick.com/photos
The 'fun' stuff is at http://www.flickr.com/photos/swarbrick

Equipment in profile

 
PeterPawinski said:
Do you mean like changing from Vivid mode to Portait mode or
something like that? Why would you even bother doing that shooting
raw?
Click to expand...
Because it gives the look I want and I don't want to have to mess around in PP - but I do want the ability to change my mind or subtly tweak it later.

I'll give you two better examples. I tend to have sharpening set quite high because a) it makes it easier to assess sharpness on the LCD screen and b) it makes the companion JPG look 'better' to customers on the event website. If they order a print I take off the 'in camera' sharpening setting and sharpen properly.

I also happen to like the way Nikon does B&W conversions in camera (mostly). I can shoot in B&W, use the LCD to review, adjust exposure etc. In NX I can then do levels, sharpening etc on the B&W image - reverting to colour if I want to. With Lightroom Adobe throws away the B&W conversion and I have to start from scratch with the (very good) B&W mixer. I don't always want to bother.

--
Guy

'Critics talk about art; artists talk about brushes...'

My 'work' photos are at http://swarbrick.com/photos
The 'fun' stuff is at http://www.flickr.com/photos/swarbrick

Equipment in profile

 
SMPhoto said:
If you think that's bad, you should see what my once beloved Aperture
does to my S5 Pro RAFs....If the new DXO 5.x supports the D3 yet you
should check it out, it just amazed me on my Fuji files.
Click to expand...
I like DXO but the workflow is such a total faff. And an extra £159 to upgrade to the Pro version because I bought a D3 is unreasonable, IMO.

--
Guy

'Critics talk about art; artists talk about brushes...'

My 'work' photos are at http://swarbrick.com/photos
The 'fun' stuff is at http://www.flickr.com/photos/swarbrick

Equipment in profile

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top