Active D Lighting

[daveomd]

Do you turn on Active D lighting, or just correct on post processing?

I have a Z8 and use DXO PL8.7 in post.

 

[Wahrsager]

Do you turn on Active D lighting, or just correct on post processing?

I have a Z8 and use DXO PL8.7 in post.

I just turn it off. If I were a jpeg shooter, I'd probably use it.

 

[Hayden N]

I use it but in post with Nikon NX studio. In the Camera I turn it off as it can mess with how the Camera meters the exposure for a scene.

I find its the best way to get a balanced natural looking image in high dynamic range scenes. DXO smart lighting is nowhere near as good in my Opinion.

 

[Mako2011]

ADL overrides your set brightness and contrast settings. In settings higher than "low", it also affects the actual exposure by adjusting aperture/shutter speed/ISO either alone or in combination depending on the exposure mode set. In manual exposure mode (no auto ISO) it only affects the meter and not the actual aperture/shutter speed/ISO....but will still affect the brightness, contrast, and tone curves. CaptureNX2/NX Studio can reverse this in manual exposure mode with the raw file. Note though if shooting in other than full manual and ADL set to higher than "low"....the effects on actual exposure can not be un-done, even with the RAW file.

It's possible to "add" a similar treatment with tone mapping and selective brightness/contrast control but it's not really the same exact thing as taken by the camera. If you shoot raw, only ViewNX2/CapturNX2/NX Studio can apply the tone mapping accurately. For that reason, if you use third party RAW conversion it's suggested to turn ADL off.

It's designed to work with matrix metering and there is no way of knowing if it was actually active as it's dynamic and scene dependent. So if you have ADL set to "normal" (as an example) and the scene is very straight forward with no major highlights or shadows (small dynamic range)...ADL may not even be noticed and your normal brightness and contrast settings get applied.

I often have ADL set to "normal" and shoot RAW only. The DR of the scene determines if I change that. Shooting multiple HDR exposures is also another place where ADL seems to have a very positive affect on the final product. I do not recommend using ADL with flash.

 

[Thom Hogan]

I often have ADL set to "normal" and shoot RAW only.

For raw files the only thing Active D-Lighting does is underexpose them (minimum 1/3 stop at lowest level, as high as two stops at the highest level). This means you'll be bringing shadow detail up and promote noise in raw processing.

If you're using raw for optimal data, Active D-Lighting should always be set to Off. Yes, the embedded JPEG preview image will look better, but you're capturing sub-optimal data.

 

[Schrodingers cat]

As a general rule I avoid most automatic stuff because I’m never certain exactly what it’s going to do. When multiple automatic things run simultaneously I really get lost

To contradict myself on the above, I do like to use aperture priority. But since most of the stuff that I shoot, like castles and cathedrals that don't move a lot, in good light I don’t really care much

 

[Mako2011]

I often have ADL set to "normal" and shoot RAW only.

For raw files the only thing Active D-Lighting does is underexpose them (minimum 1/3 stop at lowest level, as high as two stops at the highest level).

In terms of actual exposure..true

If you're using raw for optimal data, Active D-Lighting should always be set to Off. Yes, the embedded JPEG preview image will look better, but you're capturing sub-optimal data.

Not necessarily...if you are using Nikon software for initial processing...Shooting with ADL on (and Matrix metering) can give you a head start in PP for the final optimal look you're trying to present (get me the starting optimal data for my workflow/intent). For me, ADL on when shooting RAW saves me a lot of time in my PP workflow. It usually results in the exposure solution I would have used anyways had ADL been set to off. That's especially true when I'm bracketing with it, in my experience. In some cases...best to keep it off...like with flash as I have noted. Also, I turn it off for center and spot metering. Like any tool in the tool box...use it a lot and it can be a plus with experience...but not always the best tool for a specific job.

 

[ericbowles]

I often have ADL set to "normal" and shoot RAW only.

For raw files the only thing Active D-Lighting does is underexpose them (minimum 1/3 stop at lowest level, as high as two stops at the highest level). This means you'll be bringing shadow detail up and promote noise in raw processing.

If you're using raw for optimal data, Active D-Lighting should always be set to Off. Yes, the embedded JPEG preview image will look better, but you're capturing sub-optimal data.

Hi Thom - Hope you don't mind my added clarification.

ADL low = no exposure adjustment but the other settings - Medium, High and Very High - have adjustments to reduce exposure by -0.3, -0.7, and -1.0 respectively. The exposure adjustment is baked into the file - you can actually see exposure settings change.

In addition, ADL applies a curve to protect highlights and brighten shadows. Adobe LR reads the embedded XMP in the NEF file and translates this into an adjustment to Highlights and Shadows. To see this adjustment and others, you need to have your Preferences set to Apply Camera Settings as a preset on Import. That will give you a Camera Profile rather than the default Adobe Profile that corresponds to the Picture Control.

You can change the ADL setting in Nikon NX Studio, but the exposure adjustment is baked into the file. In Lightroom Classic you can do the same thing but it is Adobe's interpretation of the adjustments to Highlights and Shadows based on Nikon's information in the NEF file.

As Thom points out, both the exposure adjustment and the curve adjustment for highlights and shadows are baked into the JPEG - along with your picture control choices. That can limit your ability to make extreme adjustments to highlights and shadows during editing, so you need to make sure your exposure and picture control choices don't create problems with excessive contrast that needs to be recovered.

I like ADL Low for medium to high contrast. Because it has no exposure adjustments, it does no harm. In earlier versions of Nikon Capture software, you had to have used ADL at Low or higher to be able to change it in post processing, so you had some tools available only if you used ADL Low or higher. That's not the case in NX Studio. As Thom points out, ADL set to Off is also a good choice. Above all, don't use ADL Auto for raw files because you will get unpredictable exposure adjustments that cannot be changed later.

 

[Kenneth Almquist]

ADL low = no exposure adjustment but the other settings - Medium, High and Very High - have adjustments to reduce exposure by -0.3, -0.7, and -1.0 respectively. The exposure adjustment is baked into the file - you can actually see exposure settings change.

If these are consistent you could just take them into account when setting exposure compensation. For example, if you want to raise the shadows but don't care about the highlights, you could set ADL to Medium and exposure compensation to +1/3 stop to have shadows raised without changing the exposure.

 

[olyflyer]

Do you turn on Active D lighting, or just correct on post processing?

I have a Z8 and use DXO PL8.7 in post.

Nikon Z7 is my camera. I have always kept ADL off in every camera I had but turned on in NX during raw image processing. Not for all images, but for the images I feel ADL improves. I go for the "looks" of an image, not the measured curves or other engineering stuff.

I do the same with NR, off in the camera but apply during NX processing if I feel it improves the looks of an image without degrading the details.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

In addition, ADL applies a curve to protect highlights and brighten shadows. Adobe LR reads the embedded XMP in the NEF file and translates this into an adjustment to Highlights and Shadows.

Nikon used to say in the primarily DSLR era that ADL used in cameras could help protect highlights from being blown out.

If highlights are blown out there is not much using ADL in post can do to recover lost highlight detail.

Going back to the era around 10 years ago when digital dynamic range was usually distinctly lower than; now potential lost highlight detail was a bigger risk than with recent Z bodies.

I take the view that the availability of live histograms in recent bodies - used with common sense - and often wider in camera dynamic range removes some of the need to consider using ADL in camera..

As always if you will keep an eye on the histogram in post and regularly encounter blown highlights; my advice is you should consider any of several metering options of which ADL might or might not be appropriate for you.

EDIT - I broadly agree with suggestions that using ADL in camera can be more appropriate when shooting JPEG.

JPEG being limited to 8 bit has potentially narrower dynamic range than RAW files.

---

Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is similar to learning to play a piano - it takes practice to develop skill in either activity.

 

[Hal Wilson]

Do you turn on Active D lighting, or just correct on post processing?

I have a Z8 and use DXO PL8.7 in post.

I have to confess, I don't actually know what 'Active D Lighting' is. Having owned Nikons with that feature for over 12 years now. I'm pretty 'old school', so I just don't pay much attention to such things, and I shoot RAW (+JPEG for archival purposes) anyway, so in-camera processing isn't something I'm bothered about. Coming from a film background, I was used to the distinct lack of DR especially with slide film, so such modern features are a bit 'gimmicky to me. I suppose my own sense of aesthetics means I'm happy with things as shot, mainly. I'm definitely not a fan of the ultra high dynamic range 'HDR' type look that has become popular. Sometimes I will boost shadows a bit in post, but generally only with stuff shot in very poor lighting conditions. I'm more inclined to boost contrast and actually darken shadows for effect. The only time I might fiddle with lifting some darker areas is say for portraits where lifting the eyes a little can help give a bit more pop to an image. But less is always more.

 

[24Peter]

Do you turn on Active D lighting, or just correct on post processing?

I have a Z8 and use DXO PL8.7 in post.

I love it - especially for video but also for stills. I've used it on two Nikon DSLR and five Nikon Z bodies. At lower ISO the noise impact is minimal and for me it provides a much more natural looking file.

 

[Ruedon]

Do you turn on Active D lighting, or just correct on post processing?

I have a Z8 and use DXO PL8.7 in post.

I'm configuring it to Auto. This releases me from intentionally underexposing high contrast scenes and boost shadows during post processing. Typically Auto means conservative, i.e. helps without causing harm to the picture.

Here is an example where Auto resulted in moderate Active D-Lighting:



This is not as perceived when taking the photo. The kids were not playing in the dark. It's challenging to capture the mixture of artificial light and daylight from the head windows with a camera -- not talking about white balance that the Z8 managed very well in this case.

The overall direction of Active D-Lighting points into the right direction. I further changed it to Extra High 1 in NX Studio:

 

[Kenneth Almquist]

On the Z8, it appears that the exposure adjustments associated with Active D-Lighting are:

Low - none

Normal - 1/3 stop

High - 2/3 stop

Extra High 1 - 1 stop

Extra High 2 - 5/3 stop

Auto - variable

As far as I can make out, when Active D-Lighting is set to “Auto,” the camera chooses between “Low,” “Normal,” or “High” depending on how much contrast the scene has.

The only scenario where I would consider using Active D-Lighting is one where I would be adjusting exposure anyway. The most obvious example would be a Christmas tree with colored lights. It will probably take at least a stop of exposure compensation to capture the colors of the lights. Setting Active D-Lighting to “Normal” or “High” and using 1/3 or 2/3 stop less exposure compensation might capture the colors of the lights without making the picture look too dark.

 

[Ruedon]

I often have ADL set to "normal" and shoot RAW only.

For raw files the only thing Active D-Lighting does is underexpose them (minimum 1/3 stop at lowest level, as high as two stops at the highest level). This means you'll be bringing shadow detail up and promote noise in raw processing.

If you're using raw for optimal data, Active D-Lighting should always be set to Off. Yes, the embedded JPEG preview image will look better, but you're capturing sub-optimal data.

What about Active D-Lighting set to Auto? Isn't it easy for the camera to decide whether to use it or not based on the contrast in the image -- and isn't it better to underexpose in high contrast cases?

 

[Thom Hogan]

What about Active D-Lighting set to Auto?

Nope. Anyone that's read me knows that I have a problem with Auto anything. In essence, you're handing a critical decision to an automated process you have no idea how it decides on what to do. Auto can underexpose your image nearly three stops.

Isn't it easy for the camera to decide whether to use it or not based on the contrast in the image -- and isn't it better to underexpose in high contrast cases?

This gets us into the nitty gritty of why this can be dangerous. Nikon's matrix metering, which I'm pretty sure an Active D-Lighting user would select, attempts to preserve highlights. So it's pushing down the overall exposure to start with. There are cases where it won't do that, sure, but you're starting to get into the "in order to use the automation you need to know what the automation is doing" problem.

If the metering system is already pushing down the exposure, pushing it down still further means that bringing up the deep shadows has to be done more aggressively. You've got two problems with that: bits and noise. Even in 14-bit raw files, the deepest capture doesn't have great deal of bit discrimination, and the math used by most converters to upscale that creates what I call "grunge." But more important, you've potentially pushed exposure so far down in the shadows that you've increased the presence of photon shot noise (the randomness of photons).

What you're doing with Active D-Lighting is not exactly ETTR. In my experience, anything other than Low results in loss of dynamic range. High clips dynamic range quite a bit, nearly three stops.

Active D-Lighting was specifically designed for JPEG use. That it works with raw is partly due to the fact that there's an embedded JPEG file in the raw file and that's used for camera review/preview, which you'd probably want to get an idea from how the image could be processed. I'm not a fan. My experience is that I get better results simply by paying attention to highlights myself.

 

[Mako2011]

Active D-Lighting was specifically designed for JPEG use. That it works with raw is partly due to the fact that there's an embedded JPEG file in the raw file and that's used for camera review/preview, which you'd probably want to get an idea from how the image could be processed.

I find it works with RAW well IF you're are using a Nikon-centric workflow. Start with Nikon software for macro edit and conversion and do the final tweaks with Adobe and such. (if you like the results). Because the ADL rendering affects different areas of the image uniquely...it's not easy to do the same thing in PP...can be done but not quite the same and more involved. I generally work with normal or low near base ISO so any potential loss in DR is minimal and zero with ADL on Low

I'm not a fan. My experience is that I get better results simply by paying attention to highlights myself.

I do that with ADL as well and adjust EC as required. Trick is simply knowing what ADL will do with the exposure and it's actually pretty consistent. In most cases, I get a better "look" final image and save time with ADL and RAW...but it only works if you like how it handles the rendering in different areas and use Nikon software. (A similar look to D-Lighting HS but not quite the same).

I used to not use it at all and only used Nikon software for conversion to TIFF....but found the look I liked in my final images using just Adobe for PP...really closely resembled the same look had I used ADL at the start...so now I get near same results with less time spent in PP using ADL...but I don't use it all the time