Lightroom / Canon S90 = curved horizon

denisegoldberg

Does anyone have experience using Lightroom with raw images from a Canon S90?

My new toy showed up today, and I had to run out and shoot a few images. Not too many as it was very close to the end of the daylight, but I just had to play a bit.

Something very odd happened with the horizon in my photos. If I didn't know better I'd think that I was shooting with a (mild) fisheye lens.

I was shooting RAW + JPG.

• JPG image looks normal.
• CR2 to JPG processed with Lightroom shows a curved horizon.
• CR2 to JPG processed with Canon's DPP looks normal.

I can't imagine that it was something I did in Lightroom. Images below were just converted from CR2 to JPG with no other post processing. Top image was done with Lightroom, bottom with DPP. (Images also available in gallery at http://www.denisegoldberg.com/Other/Lightroom-vs-Canon-raw-to-jpg/10036175_EkREC)

Is this simply a case of needed to wait for Adobe to catch up Canon's new camera? Or is there something I should be able to adjust in Lightroom?

Thanks for any ideas!

--- Denise

denisegoldberg

Yikes. It's even worse than I thought. Not only are straight lines curved, the colors are a mess too.

Two more examples - top photo processed with Lightroom 2.5, bottom photo processed with Canon's DPP. Again, the processing was just a conversion from RAW to JPG.

--- Denise

CynthiaM

Denise:

Sometimes when these new cameras come out you do have to wait for Adobe to catch up. But instead of converting to jpeg, try converting to dng. If I remember correctly, Lightroom has its own dng converter, which means to use it, you have to bring the images into LR, first. Instead of doing that, if you go to the Adobe site, you can download a standalone dng converter (I suspect that although you are able to bring these images into LR, that something is getting corrupted as if it is doing a half-assed recognition of the image but the software isn't written yet to recognize the s90):

http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/

Convert the images to dng, then bring the dngs into LR. Please post back your results; curious to know if this works as I, too, am interested in this camera. Good luck.

colourbox

denisegoldberg wrote:

Is this simply a case of needed to wait for Adobe to catch up Canon's new camera? Or is there something I should be able to adjust in Lightroom?

I doubt it's anything in Lightroom since there's no distortion feature in Lightroom.

I don't know the exact answer, but there are some conclusions we might jump to based on recent history.

There is no official support for the S90 listed on the Camera Raw/Lightroom pages. There is also no official support for the G11 or the 7D, but Adobe has said that there is preliminary (unfinished) support for all these cameras. Those who have asked about these cameras on the Adobe forums get the official answer that Adobe is still working on the proper calibration for these cameras. So that's the first guess.

The second guess has to do with the distortion. I have a Panasonic LX3, the camera which arguably inspired Canon to drop the megapixels and up the high ISO quality in the G11 and S90. The thing about the LX3 is that the lens produces a high amount of barrel distortion, but you do not see it in the final pictures. When the LX3 came out, people noticed that if you process the LX3 raw with the bundled converter or shoot JPEGs the images looked fine, but if you processed the raw with anything else the barrel distortion was revealed (sound familiar?). Clearly Panasonic had chosen a lens for its wide angle and low light performance with the tradeoff of barrel distortion, and also chose to correct the distortion in camera firmware (for JPEGs) or raw software before anybody saw it.

You might be seeing what looks like the same situation with the S90. I don't know what's really going on, but it looks like the same thing: Having chosen to meet the LX3 head on, Canon may have similarly chosen a fast wide lens that has a side effect of high distortion removed in firmware/software, and we may all have to wait until our preferred raw converters can deal with it. Apple's raw software still cannot deal with the LX3 although Adobe's now do support that camera.

In any case, that's my guess. It looks a lot like the situation with the LX3 where the lens really is distorted but it is removed on the fly and any software dealing with the camera's raw format must be able to handle that. I guess we'll find out the truth eventually.

denisegoldberg

Thanks Cynthia and Colourbox. It's really good to know I'm not going crazy (or crazier).

I just tried the dng converter, and unfortunately came up with the same results when I pulled the .dng files into Lightroom. It looks like I'm going to need to use Canon's DPP as a stepping stone for a while.

--- Denise

CynthiaM

denisegoldberg wrote:

Thanks Cynthia and Colourbox. It's really good to know I'm not going crazy (or crazier).

I'm out of energy for today, but I'll try the dng converter tomorrow. And I'll definitely let you know how that works.

--- Denise

Another thought. If converting to dng does not eliminate the distortion, I presume the camera came with some kind of software that will process these raw files? Use the software to render tiffs (don't "process" the files, just render/convert to tiffs). Then bring the tiffs into Lightroom and play away.

denisegoldberg

CynthiaM wrote:

Another thought. If converting to dng does not eliminate the distortion, I presume the camera came with some kind of software that will process these raw files? Use the software to render tiffs (don't "process" the files, just render/convert to tiffs). Then bring the tiffs into Lightroom and play away.

Converting to dng didn't help.

Yes, the camera included Canon's Digital Photo Professional, which can be used to convert raw into jpg, or a couple of different TIFF options: EXIF-TIFF 8-bit, or TIFF-16 bit (no EXIF on this option). I'm assuming that I would want the EXIF-TIF 8-bit.

I haven't worked with tiff before. Is the benefit here that there would be less loss between raw and tiff than between raw and jpg?

Thanks so much for the help.

--- Denise

CynthiaM

denisegoldberg wrote:

Converting to dng didn't help.

Well that stinks!

denisegoldberg wrote:

Yes, the camera included Canon's Digital Photo Professional, which can be used to convert raw into jpg, or a couple of different TIFF options: EXIF-TIFF 8-bit, or TIFF-16 bit (no EXIF on this option). I'm assuming that I would want the EXIF-TIF 8-bit.

I haven't worked with tiff before. Is the benefit here that there would be less loss between raw and tiff than between raw and jpg?

Thanks so much for the help.

--- Denise

Tiff is a lossless format. It is also publicly documented which means it is likely to be readable by more programs, now and in the future, than a psd file. Yes, there should be less loss between the raw to tiff vs raw to jpeg. Also, even though you may lose the exif data in the 16bit tiff, for me, 16 bit is always the way to go. You will end up with better files, which means you will get better prints. If you never print anything, then you could probably get away with 8 bit.

Honestly, while I know it must be frustrating to have a new toy that is not yet fully functional, I would try to hold off on any serious photo editing until Adobe comes out with its updates. It's got to be just around the corner.

Richard

Not sure what to tell you about the color issues, but there are a number of free and low-cost plugins for Photoshop that correct barrel and pincushion distortion. I have used PTLens a bit and it does a pretty decent job.

colourbox

Richard wrote:

Not sure what to tell you about the color issues, but there are a number of free and low-cost plugins for Photoshop that correct barrel and pincushion distortion. I have used PTLens a bit and it does a pretty decent job.

If you have a recent Photoshop you can use the built-in Lens Correction un-distorter too, though I hear the plug-ins like PTLens are a little more robust.

denisegoldberg

CynthiaM wrote:

Honestly, while I know it must be frustrating to have a new toy that is not yet fully functional, I would try to hold off on any serious photo editing until Adobe comes out with its updates. It's got to be just around the corner.

I also filed a support case with Adobe last night. Nothing from them yet, but I'm hoping they might give me a clue as to when the raw support will be added. I know, I know, it's unlikely that they will give me a straight answer, but I had to try. Assuming that I get some kind of answer from them, I'll post it here.

--- Denise

CynthiaM

denisegoldberg wrote:

I also filed a support case with Adobe last night. Nothing from them yet, but I'm hoping they might give me a clue as to when the raw support will be added. I know, I know, it's unlikely that they will give me a straight answer, but I had to try. Assuming that I get some kind of answer from them, I'll post it here.

--- Denise

Another thought.
I would go nuts if I had to utilize lens distortion filters & software on a consistent basis for the type of images you posted. Check the return policy; you might want to consider returning and re-purchasing when adobe comes out with its updates. It would be a helluva thing if you still have these issues status post updates.

By the way, what happens if you render jpegs and tiffs with the canon software? Does the distortion disappear?

denisegoldberg

CynthiaM wrote:

...Check the return policy; you might want to consider returning and re-purchasing when adobe comes out with its updates. It would be a helluva thing if you still have these issues status post updates.

By the way, what happens if you render jpegs and tiffs with the canon software? Does the distortion disappear?

I already had the Lightroom license, have been using it for photos from my other (not so new) Canon cameras. Or were you talking about the camera? I'll use the Canon software in the interim.

I haven't tried rendering tiffs with the canon software yet, will try that when I get home from work. But rendering jpgs with the Canon software is fine.

And I actually got a response from Adobe support this morning with a suggestion to change a plugin (they told me to download a plugin from CS4 and install it in Lightroom). I'll experiment with that when I get home too.

--- Denise

CynthiaM

denisegoldberg wrote:

I already had the Lightroom license, have been using it for photos from my other (not so new) Canon cameras. Or were you talking about the camera? I'll use the Canon software in the interim.

I haven't tried rendering tiffs with the canon software yet, will try that when I get home from work. But rendering jpgs with the Canon software is fine.

And I actually got a response from Adobe support this morning with a suggestion to change a plugin (they told me to download a plugin from CS4 and install it in Lightroom). I'll experiment with that when I get home too.

--- Denise

The camera's return policy. I would want to be certain that the camera will work with LR after adobe has released its updates. You will always be able to use Lightroom.

Sam

Denise,

Send me a few Raw files. (if you are inclined) I would love to take a look at this.

Sam

CynthiaM

Sam wrote:

Denise,

Send me a few Raw files. (if you are inclined) I would love to take a look at this.

Sam

Good idea. Send me one, too; one with the distortion. If nothing else, it's another level of trouble shooting; is it showing up on another computer.

DavidTO

Google this and you'll find plenty of others with the same problem. Adobe will fix it.

I get my s90 today! I hope they fix it soon!

cmason

DavidTO wrote:

Google this and you'll find plenty of others with the same problem. Adobe will fix it.

I get my s90 today! I hope they fix it soon!

Think it was panasonic or some other about a year ago had a similar problem. The issue was that the camera was applying in camera processing even to RAW, as it was eliminating barrel distortion and other issues due to the small lens. This sort of thing always goes on with JPG, and no one is the wiser. When you expose RAW, you dont get processing (well usually, in the case of the Panasonic, they were processing the RAW and pissing purists off)

In this case, I suppose the RAW converters just need the proper adjustment, unless Canon adds it in camera.

DavidTO

Good point, could be a firmware upgrade, too.

Tee Why

I suspect that Canon's DPP is applying distortion correction as a default feature that you may or may not be able to turn off. BTW, even if you shoot RAW, DPP often by default applies Noise reduction as well. DPP also remembers the "picture style" and it's customized settings made in camera and applies those to the RAW image as well, but you can easily play with the sliders and set them back all to default settings.

I don't think it's being done in camera to the RAW image as LR shows the distortion. Maybe an upgrade in LR will correct these in the future as well but you can in PS correct for barrel distortion as well. I think Panasonic GF 1 and Olympus EP 1 also do this as well. I also believe Nikon applies CA reduction to it's images digitally (not sure if it's only in JPEG or includes RAW) but IIRC, if you use Adobe products to open the image, the CA is not removed.

So if you really like LR, I'd use that and correct the distortion in Photoshop.

As for colors, you may have to play around with the "camera calibration" panel at the bottom of the Develop module to get the colors correct.

Good luck.

denisegoldberg

Sam wrote:

Send me a few Raw files. (if you are inclined) I would love to take a look at this.

You can grab copies of the two photos I showed above from here -
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2565362/rawImages/IMG_0014.CR2
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2565362/rawImages/IMG_0027.CR2

--- Denise

Tee Why

Here is another site's forum discussion about it.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=33314883

I guess if you shoot jpeg, the camera's processing corrects for the distortion. I guess if you shoot in RAW it does not, but if it's opened in DPP, the DPP will correct it. With other RAW converters, the distortion is not corrected.

denisegoldberg

Tee Why wrote:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=33314883

...but if it's opened in DPP, the DPP will correct it. With other RAW converters, the distortion is not corrected.

Thanks for that link.

I'm having an ongoing discussion with Adobe - their suggestion was using their DNG converter, which Cynthia already suggested and I already tried. I'll post any updates here.

--- Denise

DavidTO

denisegoldberg wrote:

Thanks for that link.

I'm having an ongoing discussion with Adobe - their suggestion was using their DNG converter, which Cynthia already suggested and I already tried. I'll post any updates here.

--- Denise

Great. I know that the Adobe converters for the G11, s90 and 7D are not final, but I'm still interested in what Adobe has to say. I'm hoping that the next revision to LR will fix it up.

Oh, and I got my camera. I've been stuck at work, so had only moments to play, but I think I'm in love!

CynthiaM

I downloaded the files and just like you, they looked distorted and colors were off when viewed in LR. They looked fine in DPP, which is obviously doing some processing even without clicking into anything with respect to distortion and color. I did notice that there were no options to pick under the camera calibration tab in LR, so when it does catch up to the s90 the picture style camera calibration choices should be available so the color issues should disappear. So it looks like you are limited to DPP until LR catches up although DPP did a very good job with regard to the distortion and easier than going into Photoshop.

I did see some mention of distortion in these cameras on other forums ( do a search on dpreview) and it seems to be more of an issue when shooting at the wide end of the zoom and worse if the plane of the camera is tilted upwards.

What are your thoughts about the camera, otherwise? How does it feel? How are the controls? Does it have a live histogram?

denisegoldberg wrote:

I'm having an ongoing discussion with Adobe - their suggestion was using their DNG converter, which Cynthia already suggested and I already tried. I'll post any updates here.

--- Denise

Also, like you, the dngs were no better; I think Adobe was talking out of their tookis on this one. Nothing new.

denisegoldberg

CynthiaM wrote:

What are your thoughts about the camera, otherwise? How does it feel? How are the controls? Does it have a live histogram?

Thanks for the sanity check! For now, it's DPP. Hopefully Adobe will catch up before too long.

The camera feels good. It's small, settings for the manual mode are done using the ring surrounding the lens - something that took a little getting used to, but are quite easy to set. And yes, it does have a live histogram (as long as you are shooting in P, Tv, Av, or M).

Oh, and it does take nice photos.

--- Denise

CynthiaM

denisegoldberg wrote:

Thanks for the sanity check! For now, it's DPP. Hopefully Adobe will catch up before too long.

The camera feels good. It's small, settings for the manual mode are done using the ring surrounding the lens - something that took a little getting used to, but are quite easy to set. And yes, it does have a live histogram (as long as you are shooting in P, Tv, Av, or M).

Oh, and it does take nice photos.

--- Denise

Enjoy! Thinking of getting this for my husband to use when we travel. He does a decent job with a camera in his hands but leaves the post processing to me. I'd much rather work with raw. So I'm most curious to see how people like this camera. If you think of it, send me a link every now and then with new stuff from the s90 that you've posted on your site.

Regards,
Cynthia

arodney

Tee Why wrote:

I suspect that Canon's DPP is applying distortion correction as a default feature that you may or may not be able to turn off.

I’ll bet that’s it too. Has nothing to do with DNG or conversions. Don’t hold your breath that Adobe or any 3rd party Raw converter will access the proprietary metadata in the CR2 to fix this like DPP although distortion fixes might come into a Raw pipeline in some product in the future.

As for colors, you may have to play around with the "camera calibration" panel at the bottom of the Develop module to get the colors correct.

Again I think you’re spot on here. Color and tone can be “fixed” either with a custom preset or with some work in the calibration tab or a custom DNG profile. Fixing distortion, ain’t going to happen anytime soon. But one should be able to produce fully acceptable color and perhaps fix the distortion elsewhere after Raw processing in something like Photoshop. Ideally this would happen in Lightroom but that’s not possible today.

denisegoldberg

CynthiaM wrote:

...send me a link every now and then with new stuff from the s90 that you've posted on your site.

I've tagged the photos I've uploaded so far with the keyword "canon s90" - http://www.denisegoldberg.com/keyword/canon+s90. I'll try to remember to keyword new photos as I add them.

--- Denise

cmason

denisegoldberg wrote:

I've tagged the photos I've uploaded so far with the keyword "canon s90" - http://www.denisegoldberg.com/keyword/canon+s90. I'll try to remember to keyword new photos as I add them.

--- Denise

Thanks! any chance you can turn on originals for this gallery?

denisegoldberg

cmason wrote:

Thanks! any chance you can turn on originals for this gallery?

Which gallery? That was a keyword link, not a gallery link. And sorry, I don't want to turn on originals for the gallery where they reside.

Is there something specific you're looking to do? If you want to play with a couple of raw images from this camera, two are available, links to two of the originals are available for download in post 21 of this thread.


--- Denise