Raw images - how they look in camera - how they look in lightroom

ulrikft

Hey! I tried to search for this, and if it is an old topic, sorry.

When i watch images in-camera, they sometimes look great color/contrast wise, and then I import then in Lightroom and the preview still looks great, but the actual image when done processing looks more .. crap. Any nice tutorial on setting the lightrom importer to be more like my taste? Am I being stupid here or something?

Ulrik

arodney

The preview on the screen is pretty much science fiction. Its based on the JPEG IF you didn't shoot Raw and asked the camera to process the data based on the current matrix settings. Also, the LCD on the camera is a pretty far cry from the LCD you'll hopefully be editing on (calibrated and profiled).

Next, the initial preview you see in LR is a default built using the current settings. You need to alter the settings to produce a color rendering you desire (the beauty and power of Raw) and you can save them as presets or even a new default rendering. So the embedded preview in the JPEG is being over-written by the current ACR or LR defaults and that's why you see it updating.

This might help too:
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/tech/exposing-for-raw.html

ulrikft

Thanks! Reading now

BradfordBenn

Also the resolution I have found to be much lower on the camera back compared to a full size monitor. At work with hardware vendors we deal with this on a few products with 1/4 VGA panels that do not render as nicely as full VGA panels. It just seems to a limitation of the hardware. So my hunch is that the preview is matched to the hardware.

BigAl

Remember, the preview shows the jpeg embedded in the RAW file - this has all the in-camera settings applied to it. Lightroom, ACR and most other RAW only editors will show the unprocessed file.

Pindy

BigAl wrote:

Remember, the preview shows the jpeg embedded in the RAW file - this has all the in-camera settings applied to it. Lightroom, ACR and most other RAW only editors will show the unprocessed file.

In addition, it's fairly easy to make a LR preset to mimic the rendering of the camera (I made a 30D—Standard preset early on to check the difference between the embedded JPEG), but once you do this, you'll probably want to take the image beyond what the camera saw fit to do. This is the point of RAW! It's supposed to be crap. The default rendering is not meant to be the final product.

CatOne

Pindy wrote:

In addition, it's fairly easy to make a LR preset to mimic the rendering of the camera (I made a 30D—Standard preset early on to check the difference between the embedded JPEG), but once you do this, you'll probably want to take the image beyond what the camera saw fit to do. This is the point of RAW! It's supposed to be crap. The default rendering is not meant to be the final product.

It's not supposed to be crap. It's supposed to be fairly representative of what you saw when you took the picture, and you can tweak from there. A crap default render just means that you need to spend post time on EVERY SINGLE photo and that's no fun from a workflow perspective.

KED

This has been very much on my mind based on recent shoots, and just yesterday I stumbled this thread and checked the link to arodney's article on but quite honestly, it was WAY over my head. So I will give a little detail on the specific scenario:

Shooting outdoors in RAW, aperture priority, wide open (2.8), adjusting ISO as needed to keep shutter speed at or above 500. In post, everything warranted pushing exposure up, in a wide range from .25 to almost 2.0 (and in most cases blacks down too). That's fine if that's what is to be expected under these circumstances, but is there anything to be gained from in-camera exposure compensation in this scenario? Doesn't in-camera exposure compensation just force one of the three variables?

CatOne

KED wrote:

This has been very much on my mind based on recent shoots, and just yesterday I stumbled this thread and checked the link to arodney's article on but quite honestly, it was WAY over my head. So I will give a little detail on the specific scenario:

Shooting outdoors in RAW, aperture priority, wide open (2.8), adjusting ISO as needed to keep shutter speed at or above 500. In post, everything warranted pushing exposure up, in a wide range from .25 to almost 2.0 (and in most cases blacks down too). That's fine if that's what is to be expected under these circumstances, but is there anything to be gained from in-camera exposure compensation in this scenario? Doesn't in-camera exposure compensation just force one of the three variables?

What can the compensation force? If you're shooting aperture priority and you want 1/500 but you dial in a stop of exposure compensation, you'll get 1/250 of a second (assuming 1/500 gave you what the camera thought was the "right" exposure in the first place). I don't think Canon cameras will tweak the ISO for you but I believe the newest Nikons (D300 or D3) give you this option -- based on some things I saw Reichmann write about.

Pindy

CatOne wrote:

It's not supposed to be crap. It's supposed to be fairly representative of what you saw when you took the picture, and you can tweak from there. A crap default render just means that you need to spend post time on EVERY SINGLE photo and that's no fun from a workflow perspective.

You and I are operating on two different definitions for the word "crap". I was simply re-iterating the term used by the OP and I understand the sentiment behind it.

Rhuarc

I just found this thread as well.

I am looking for a preset for Lightroom that will give me a "good" import, something that might approximate the JPEG that the camera would create. I realize that good is in the eye of the beholder. I do not shoot professionaly, so for many of my "average" shots that I take this would be good enough. Of course, since I am shooting RAW I can always have the latitude then to take a "good" shot and make it even better. I don't know enough about what constitutes a good all around preset to create my own.

So how about it? Anybody out there have a preset that I can apply to all my shots on import that will give me good, if not great results? This will cut down immensly on the time I spend.

Just for some context, right now I might shoot 200 shots at a friends ball game. of these I get rid of 50 to 100. Of the remaining say 100, I tag them with 1 to 3 stars. I first spend very little time on the one stars. Then I spend a lot more time on the 2 and 3 stars. These are the one I will end up taking to photoshop for further editing. The 1 stars I just do a basic RAW adjustment and that is it. If i had a preset that would give me a decent first step I could save time on these 1 stars.

Thank you!

cmason

Well I have found that the "Auto" setting works well, at least 70% if the way there. However, white balance is always different, and there is always tweaking to be done.

Frankly, I find no real benefit to doing these at import. Rather, I simply groups shots into Collections, for example those at a common location, or similar time of day, and then sync them so that corrections for one apply to others.

I do find a few presets from 3rd parties to be useful and you may as well:

onOne makes PS plugins, but offers a really nice set of free Lightroom presents that are very good:

http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=33

and some from Lightroom Killer Tips:

http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/archives/presets/

Rhuarc

When you say the Auto settings, what are you referring to? Import settings?

As for not using Collections I don't use Lightroom to manage my work, only to develop the RAW files. I rarely have more than my previous outings worth of pictures in Lightroom at once.

I'll try out the Auto settings, and also check out the Presets that you referred me to.

cmason

Rhuarc wrote:

When you say the Auto settings, what are you referring to? Import settings?

As for not using Collections I don't use Lightroom to manage my work, only to develop the RAW files. I rarely have more than my previous outings worth of pictures in Lightroom at once.

I'll try out the Auto settings, and also check out the Presets that you referred me to.

I am referring to Auto Tone, found within the Develop Module. This isnt available for import, unless you have created your own preset from it. All presets are available from the import module, and creating one is dirt simple. I just dont find any real time savings in using it at import.