Does LR honor in-camera settings when...

If I shoot RAW with my D200 and use in-camera sharpening, saturation,

contrast, and so on, will LR honor those settings? I thought it did, but

something I read (I forget where) led me to believe it doesn't.



If it does, how do the changes I make in Develop relate to the in-camera

settings? Are they above-and-beyond, or instead-of?



--

Rob Freundlich

''Males are biologically driven to hunt giraffes'' - Newt Gingrich

''Some folks you don't have to satirize - you just quote 'em'' - Tom Paxton
Does LR honor in-camera settings when...
No. Lightroom behaves just like ACR when it comes to the teatment of NEF files.
Does LR honor in-camera settings when...
The only application that does that is Nikon's godawful slow Nikon Capture (NX). Otherwise, you will have to make some calibration entries in LR to emulate that--and that is not exactly easy :)

No. No RAW processing program should honor things like that. Only bitmap

images can have things like that applied and then they aren't RAW. Take RAW

in the literal sense in that it is the RAW unprocessed data from the cameras

sensor. To apply contrast, sharpening, etc. to a RAW image would mean it was

no longer RAW.



If you want those things applied to your images then shoot JPG or TIF.



Robert

Oh, one last thing. Those settings aren't even included in the RAW file so

even if a program like ACR or Lightroom wanted to use them they aren't

there. Now the propritary software may automatically do things to a RAW

image that it brings in, but most RAW programs can do that as well.

Including ACR and LR.



Robert

%26gt;No. No RAW processing program should honor things like that. Only bitmap images can have things like that applied and then they aren't RAW.



This is not correct. Every time you make an edit in Lr, the edit is stored as metadata - just like the sharpening setting set in-camera. The issue is whether Lr can take advantage of these in-camera settings. This is unlikely because camera makers do not document these settings in the raw files.

%26gt;Oh, one last thing. Those settings aren't even included in the RAW file so even if a program like ACR or Lightroom wanted to use them they aren't there.



Whoops, wrong again. The information is saved in the raw file - usually in the maker notes. As I mentioned above, the way it is stored, and what each setting means is not documented by camera makers.

If I understand the Adobe philosophy of the handling of raw images correctly, the only camera setting Camera Raw reads is white balance. While it is true that these other settings might be recorded by the camera, they are not interpreted by Adobe Camera Raw. Camera Raw and Photoshop both treat the raw image as a read-only of raw data that must be processed completely within the Camera Raw plug-in and finished in Photoshop if necessary.



Edit: sorry, I forgot which forum I was in. The same is true with Lightroom. Additionally, Lightroom treats JPEG and tiff images the same way.

Yes Rory the camera manufaturers do not want 3rd party providers of raw conversion software to be able to process their raw files. So its up to Adobe, Bibble, Capture one etc to develop their own procedures and profiles. Its a matter of competition remember each camera manufacturer are also providers of conversion software and firmware for the in camera processing. No one wants to reveal what they consider their competive edge.

%26gt;Yes Rory the camera manufaturers do not want 3rd party providers of raw conversion software to be able to process their raw files. So its up to Adobe, Bibble, Capture one etc to develop their own procedures and profiles. Its a matter of competition remember each camera manufacturer are also providers of conversion software and firmware for the in camera processing. No one wants to reveal what they consider their competive edge.



I understand the why and I am an advocate of open raw. I did not think it was germane to the topic. But, now that you have got me going, I was not a happy camper when Nikon encrypted WB. We can thank Thomas Knoll for putting Nikon's feet to the fire. And before you bring it up, i know other manufacturers have and do obfuscate data in a variety of ways. I have taken a close look at the dcraw code.



Cheers

Rory

I just made to point because on many forum I frequent the same issue crops up all the time. I use LR, SilkyPix, RSP, Bibble and tried a few others. Most new users want the default to match the camera makers jpg.

%26gt;Most new users want the default to match the camera makers jpg.



True.

''Most new users want the default to match the camera makers jpg. ''



I would change that to ''Most new users _THINK_ they want the default to match the camera makers jpg.'' largely because they don't know any better...

oops!

I've nearly convinced myself to switch to DNG from now on.



I shoot raw on a D80, and the default presets (which I understand /replace/ most settings present in the raw file) for the Nikon D80 look fine in Lightroom. As soon as I get a Macbeth colour chart I'm going to cook up my own preset (just because I can).



I tried the Nikon NX software for 5 minutes, and it was truly horrible. I'm not overly impressed that Nikon has decided to encrypt all the details in their raw format, but at least Adobe convinced them to provide the key for the WB for ACR.



As long as ACR can get at the white balance and the camera preset is reasonably accurate, I see no reason not to abandon storing my images as NEF and switch to DNG.

John,



I shoot Nikon D200 NEF, and I see no advantage to converting to DNG. I may not want to use Nikon software now (and don't think I will in the future) but definitely couldn't if I converted.



I found converting to NEF didn't save space, and was another step in the process. I guess now you can inport in LR as a DNG.



I know the argument for converting to DNG is that some day Nikon and Canon will just dog up and die and we'll all be stuck with our CRW and NEF files. I don't think Nikon and Canon is going to go away, and if they do, I'll just tell the computer to convert then and then go to to sleep.



I suppose one advantage is not having xmp sidecare files, but I guess I really don't care about them unless the get flat tires and stop rolling with the image files.

''I know the argument for converting to DNG is that some day Nikon and Canon will just dog up and die and we'll all be stuck with our CRW and NEF files.''



No, the argument is that for long term preservation and conservation of digital photes, what's more likely to be usable in 10, 25 or 50 years from now...a proprietary, undocumented file format from Nikon or Canon that even THEY have a hard time keeping working or a standarized and documented file format that is not propietary...check this article (that I wrote, so I may be biased) on PhotoshopNews.com called
Digital Preservation it refers to an initiative by the Library of Congress called the
National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program



They have come to the conclusion that there are 7 factors that will effect the long term preservation and conservation of ''digital objects'' (which includes things like Word docs, audio and video files and things like digital photos). Read the factors and you'll see why NEFs and CR2s pretty much suck.



Am I worried about accessing my image next year? Well, aside from drive failure (which is a REAL worry) not particularly...am I worried that my original (raw) images may not be accessible in 50 years? Yeah, I am. Consider what is at risk...



I recently had to go deal with my Mom's house (after she passed away). The biggest problem and disappointment was dealing with family photos. Seems there are prints from the late 1890's (B%26amp;W) that look fine and dandy...seems the photos from the 60s %26amp; 70s are literally, almost gone. Why? Cause Kodak stuffed non-archival color print processing down our throats and we didn't know any better.



I ain't falling for that same crap this time from the camera companies...



Unless they come out with some sort of statement regarding their company's policy regarding raw file format support on into the future, I simply will not believe a word that say...there is just too much as risk that they'll blow it off some point down the road...



So, you may not think that your original raw file format images are at risk...but I'm here to tell you that they are, given the current state of affairs. And nothing that Nikon or Canon have said has had any effect on my feelings...only Adobe is even addressing the issue. And that says something, right there.

I prefer to archive the finished images, rather than the RAWs. Look at the RSP situation. If people haven't converted and lose the use of RSP (which they will eventually as new operating systems and computers come into use), they will have to re-create whatever they were thinking at the time in a new tool, even if they converted to DNG. The RSP migration tool isn't available yet, but when it does become available, the conversions in LR won't be perfect matches to those from RSP. Finally, any edits done at the pixel level aren't preserved in a RAW or DNG containing a RAW.



JPEG is a documented format, and it's supported much more widely than DNG. I recommend anyone wishing to preserve images for a long time convert them to JPEG at full resolution and high quality. Preserving the RAW or DNG is secondary, which isn't to say you shouldn't do it. It is to say you shouldn't do it at the expense of preserving the finished image.

OK Jeff point well taken.

On Tue, 1 May 2007 12:52:09 -0700, John_Verne@adobeforums.com wrote:



%26gt;I tried the Nikon NX software for 5 minutes, and it was truly horrible.



Admittedly the UI isn't the easiest to relay to and speed could still

be improved, but in my experience 5 minutes is - unfortunately! - not

enough to appreciate Capture NX. It takes days and weeks, depending on

the number of photos one uses it on. The moment one ''gets it'' NX is a

wonderful tool.







--

Dierk (sometimes known as Evo2Me)

[DH虏 Publishing]

www.DH2Publishing.info

Writing and Imaging

Dierk:



That was 5 internet minutes, as in ''worth 5 minutes of my time''. I tried to use Capture NX for the entire trial period. It is a terrible app that I refused to pay money for. It had a lot of unrealized potential, but was not worth any more of my time. I lasted a week or so.



I am not excited about spending money on proprietary software and file formats that may not be supported into the future. This is a real problem that digital media faces going forward.



At any rate, the /only/ thing that Capture NX gave me was the ability to do identical in-camera processing on imported exposed images. This is a neat idea that, in practice, didn't end up being all that significant. Especially when you have to fight with one of the ugliest, unusable apps I've ever seen a vendor ask real money for on the Mac.



For me, this is about photography, and there are many existing tools that can let me (for example) take a section of sky in a photo and turn it magenta, or tweak the sharpening. All I find I care about anymore are the three exposure parameters and white balance. I like to get it right in the camera, and the ability to tweak that ''right'' on the desktop, while very powerful, did not make up for the places where Nikon, and Capture, fall down.



Plain and simple: if I knew then what I know now about NEF and the history of Nikon with raw images, I might not have stayed with Nikon when I decided to get an SLR. And I /love/ Nikon products.



Encrypting the file format details and giving me a single app from a single vendor that I can use to access those details smells like vendor lock-in to me. After spending nearly $2k, I'd at least expect the software to access the data to be complementary.



This is my data, to be used under my terms. Anything else is unacceptable.

John,



I certainly will defend NX only to the point of there being a couple of good features in it--otherwise it sucks dead bunnies through a straw. It has the poorest, slowest, most archaic UI of any app ever designed that I know of, and I have been doing digital since day one. But, it is a step up from Capture!



Having said that, however, I also have to say that not knowing that would be the case with Nikon Software is equally inexcusable. If you did any research, or visited DPR to get aquainted with all things Nikon, etc, you should have quickly been exposed to Nikon's terrible reputation for godawful proprietary software--and they are not alone in that, but they have the unmitigated gall to charge for it!



Fortunately, Nikon users (35 years for me) are not stuck with Capture or NX.