Neverlost99
Senior Member
Better in camera when “ needed” or in post with Studio NX?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Active D lighting
- Thread starter Neverlost99
- Start date
- Status
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
It's not the same thing (as ADL on in camera) ...though it does have the same name. Take a RAW shot of a high DR scene with ADL on High then ADL off (auto ISO and in aperture priority will show the dif in as more obvious way) ....and compare the results you get. There will be some notable differences between the ADL on in camera result vs the ADL off in camera (then ADL applied by NXStudio) result. Most obvious dif will be the dif in shutter speed and ISO as well as how tones get applied in different areas of the image
--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)
Last edited:
I think the main reason to use ADL is when you have no choice but to hand over Jpeg images out of camera for immediate use and no ability or time to tweak them. Overall it does an amazing job in a variety of lighting situations with all the photos looking good to very good.
It does alter what ever camera settings you have set and occasionally it actually fights against a deliberately set exposure for certain effects like silhouetting or wanting certain areas blown out.
When you shoot RAW plus Jpeg the raw file settings are also altered from what ever you have set, but it is usually not enough to stop you from processing the raw file the way you want later.
When you apply ADL to a raw file either in the camera or on the computer it is different than shooting with it on as it has to work with your settings after exposure rather than over riding them before exposure.
ADL can also slow down camera response.
I find for the last version or two, Adobe lightroom "Auto" button is pretty similar to ADL High. The Adobe "auto" used to be horrible.
Also if you have very little time to process images ADL set to high typically yields a slightly flat jpeg that needs minimum contrast and exposure adjustment but the OOC jpegs will be a faster starting point than shooting jpeg with flat or neutral setting on.(Thom Hogan's method is flat or neutral but to me that is like working from the raw file with less latitude)
if you are shooting JPEG only, the priority is always your White Balance setting
It does alter what ever camera settings you have set and occasionally it actually fights against a deliberately set exposure for certain effects like silhouetting or wanting certain areas blown out.
When you shoot RAW plus Jpeg the raw file settings are also altered from what ever you have set, but it is usually not enough to stop you from processing the raw file the way you want later.
When you apply ADL to a raw file either in the camera or on the computer it is different than shooting with it on as it has to work with your settings after exposure rather than over riding them before exposure.
ADL can also slow down camera response.
I find for the last version or two, Adobe lightroom "Auto" button is pretty similar to ADL High. The Adobe "auto" used to be horrible.
Also if you have very little time to process images ADL set to high typically yields a slightly flat jpeg that needs minimum contrast and exposure adjustment but the OOC jpegs will be a faster starting point than shooting jpeg with flat or neutral setting on.(Thom Hogan's method is flat or neutral but to me that is like working from the raw file with less latitude)
if you are shooting JPEG only, the priority is always your White Balance setting
NikonMan09
Senior Member
My personal perspective on Active D Lighting (ADL) is that it is indeed a useful option on Nikon cameras that I have used often to avoid exposure hell. The most current Nikon camera I am using is the D7500, which offers the widest latitude of Active D Lighting adjustment in a Nikon DX DSLR to date. I would assume that for the Nikon Z cameras, the adjustment latitude is at least as wide. My present practice when facing an exposure hell scene, is to try to get the best possible exposure with ADL off and make ADL adjustments, if desired, in post using NX Studio. I will shoot with an in-camera ADL setting, if the scene is obvious exposure hell, but when doing so, as well as bracketing others have mentioned,one may want to take one shot with ADL off and one with ADL on at a preferred setting (I most often use Extra High). I normally shoot everything RAW (NEF).
In February I took this shot of Yosemite Falls where I was careless with my exposure compensation and got a strongly underexposed shot:
View: original size (external website)
In NX Studio, I was able to easily correct the exposure hell in this image by changing the Active D-Lighting (ADL) from None to High:
View: original size (external website)
Often, I would correct an incorrectly exposed shot in post by just adjusting the EC. Nowadays, I try both changing the EC or the ADL to get the best EC effect.
Good luck to all and wishing avoidance of exposure hell!
--
Fred
Shot Minolta SLR/DSLR and Sony DSLR 1978-2008. Switched to Nikon in 2009.
In February I took this shot of Yosemite Falls where I was careless with my exposure compensation and got a strongly underexposed shot:
View: original size (external website)
In NX Studio, I was able to easily correct the exposure hell in this image by changing the Active D-Lighting (ADL) from None to High:
View: original size (external website)
Often, I would correct an incorrectly exposed shot in post by just adjusting the EC. Nowadays, I try both changing the EC or the ADL to get the best EC effect.
Good luck to all and wishing avoidance of exposure hell!
--
Fred
Shot Minolta SLR/DSLR and Sony DSLR 1978-2008. Switched to Nikon in 2009.
Mach Schnell
Senior Member
You nailed it vockman. For someone who wants to use their images straight out of camera (which would imply JPG), then ADL is a great tool. For everyone else who shoots RAW, ADL doesn't really make sense. Yes I know, some people will scream at me and tell me how wrong I am, but this is my truth. Yours may vary. I never use ADL.
The in-camera histograms show the processed jpg data, including the changes made by Active D-Lighting, not the raw. I think that the raw file from both images would be the same, if they had the same ISO, shutter and aperture.
There's some threads on DPR about custom Picture Controls that try to make the histogram match the raw data. These usually look quite flat in camera.
Last edited:
Sagittarius
Veteran Member
ADL changes exposure, so RAW data will not be the same.
j_photo
Veteran Member
Both Nikon's and Adobe's software recognize that ADL was on when the image was shot, and in response process the image accordingly/differently. I'm just guessing. In your case if aperture, shutter, and iso were all fixed, the difference could be just your software making different rendering decisions when it sees ADL on. If you checked the image with a program that displays raw data, you could see for sure.
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
In manual exposure mode that is true but ADL may/can still change the actual ISO used even in manual exposure mode . In exposure modes other than manual...ADL will usually lower the exposure (by changes in shutter speed/ISO/Aperture to protect highlight details the recover shadow detail with processing
Ernie Misner
Forum Pro
Neverlost99
Senior Member
OP here. i really like it will play with in camera and post
--
TJC
--
TJC
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
I seen it happen depending on the scene and ADL setting. EXIF will report ISO 100 set while also showing ISO150 or ISO50 was actually used. Can happen with flash more often. You have to use a full EXIF viewer to see all the meta data. Even Nikon's own software doesn't report it
I really don't understand why Nikon does this, but using ADL in RAW (or RAW + JPEG) shooting, ADL will affects your camera's meter a lot! It gives you more work, if you want to use the RAW-file. You have to post proces the RAW-file. Don't activate ADL if you shoot in RAW.
Which Camera Settings Affect RAW Photos?
photographylife.com
Strange behavier from Nikon.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
Often in a positive way as it as it optimizes the shot for protecting highlight detail. Hard to get that back if clipped while relatively easy to adjust shadow detail in post
Actually makes the workflow process easier if you use Nikon software for conversion. I only shoot RAW and find ADL gives me a head start in processing with scenes that have a high dynamic range. Once you get accustomed to using it in that way...has a lot of benefits. That said...if you don't use Nikon software and don't really like to process much....good case for not enabling ADL when shooting RAW.
Neverlost99
Senior Member
-what about leaving it off but adding it to a bracket or just using in post with NX studio? -
TJC
TJC
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
No need as the ADL exposure is actually optimal for the scenes I use it in when shooting RAW
Leaving ADL off in camera but turning on ADL with NX studio is not the same thing...as noted earlier. Turning it "on" after the shot with NX studio is like using the older D-Lighting HS setting but on a shot that wasn't really optimally exposed for it
In my opinion, Nikon should have made their software in the camera so that ADL does not affect the RAW file, so it was completely untouched.
I use Adobe Camera RAW / Photoshop for my post processing and it only provides more work with ADL used. It is really a very strange setup ...
Tango 55
Senior Member
Although I’m relatively new to the Z5 and ADL, my testing indicates that the effect, shooting raw, is generally highly desirable, with better control of the otherwise “hot” highlights. Without ADL, I find myself applying negative exposure compensation most of the time.
I’m using Adobe Camera Raw for processing, which implies that Adobe applies various corrections based on its own interpretation of what Active D-Lighting should do.
In summary, still learning about ADL, but I find the final result very visually appealing.
Ricky
Sagittarius
Veteran Member
So do not use ADL. Not sure how using ADL provides more work.
- Status
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum