Can Bridge and Lightroom recognize camera optimization settings?

[dan_south]

<p>Whenever I browse my RAW files (Nikon NEF files to be specific) with Bridge or import them into Lightroom, the optimization settings seem to be lost.</p>

<p>For instance, any image shot with the Vivid preset is rendered dull and decidedly NOT vivid. If I open the same photo in View NX or Capture NX, it looks fine. How can I convince Bridge and Lightroom to render the image with the correct colors?</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>Neither Bridge nor Lightroom can read those settings. However, you can apply the Camera Vivid profile in ACR or in Lightroom's Develop module, which is designed to look quite similar.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I tested this on my Pentax K100D by changing the incamera image optimization presets between two Raw shots of the same scene, same exposure and viewing in ACR. Both images looked identical and looked far from the Pentax supplied browser preview.</p>

[dkm]

<p>No, they won't. It's one of the reasons I gave up ACR.</p>

<p>However I believe you can build a custom profile that will let you ballpark the settings.</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>The point and advantage of shooting RAW is to apply your own optimization (that is either unavailable or doesn't exist from the camera), and/or to have greater adjustability for the image in post-processing than is possible with a compressed format like jpg.</p>

<p>RAW is basically just that - the raw sensor data, with no processing applied (althouth most PP software will apply White Balance). RAW is meant to suit <em>your visualization</em> of how the image should look, as opposed to a camera manufacturer's idea of how it should look. Otherwise, there's really no advantage to shooting RAW over jpg.</p>

<p>LR has optimization presets under 'Camera Calibration' in the Develop module that will automatically recognize supported cameras. As you've discovered, Nikon's software will apply the presets to RAW files, but what's the point of that?</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>The responses above are wrong, except for the one directly above posted at the same time as mine. I don't know why this bad information keeps getting repeated.<br>

<br /> ACR and LR2 have the ability to use what Adobe calls Camera Matching profiles. These can be downloaded from the Adobe site if they don't show up in an update. Here is what Adobe says about Canon and Nikon CM profiles:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In general, there are 5 CM profiles per Canon DSLR, one for each of the default Canon Picture Styles. These five Picture Styles are called Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, and Faithful. The CM profiles will match the Canon Picture Styles with all Canon sliders (i.e., Contrast, Color Balance, and Saturation) set to their default values of 0.</p>

<p>Similarly, in general there are 8 CM profiles per Nikon DSLR, one for each of the Nikon Picture Controls. These Picture Controls are called Standard, Neutral, Vivid, Landscape, Portrait, D2X Mode 1, D2X Mode 2, D2X Mode 3. The CM profiles will match the Nikon Picture Controls with all Nikon sliders (i.e., Saturation, Tone Compensation, etc.) set to their default values of 0. Note that <a href="http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles:FAQ#WhyD2X">the D2X name is applicable to all Nikon DSLRs, even non-D2X models</a> . <strong>This is not a bug.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>So download the profiles at the Adobe site (you can search on "DNG editor" which is the fastest way to find them, despite the search terms) and you can recover the image correctly matched to the profile you used in the camera.<br>

<strong><br /> </strong><br>

<strong><br /> </strong></p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Guess nobody reads post number two in these forums.</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>Yeah, Jeff, I think that's exactly what I said. You shouldn't need to download anything if you're using a modern version of ACR or Lightroom.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>RAW is basically just that - the raw sensor data, with no processing applied (althouth most PP software will apply White Balance). RAW is meant to suit <em>your visualization</em> of how the image should look, as opposed to a camera manufacturer's idea of how it should look. Otherwise, there's really no advantage to shooting RAW over jpg.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't want to edit every image that I shoot. I'll never have time to eat or sleep. RAW gives me the opportunity to do so, but I don't want that opportunity to become an obligation.</p>

<p>Further, RAW is lossless at most settings. JPEG is not. I'd never shoot in JPEG even if I knew that all of my optimization and white balance and exposure settings were right on the money.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>My question is what settings in Lightroom should be applied to a raw image to "mimic" the in-camera rendering. I get applying the right DNG profile (i.e. camera portrait), but what should the settings for exposure, etc be? Autotone? <br>

In my experience images just don't look right with auto settings. I've created my own presets but don't pretend that they match my camera jpegs (reasonably close but not the same).</p>

[tony_wellington]

<p>Seems to me that in-camera presets tend to make all one's images look the same. Why not shoot RAW, then consider each image on its merits through ACR or LR? The huge range of image-tweaking options in ACR goes way beyond anything the camera can do, and can be fine-tuned for each image. Store all your pics as RAW files, then you only need to bother adjusting them if and when you open them up in PS or LR.</p>

<p>However, as noted above, one can always generate a preset profile in ACR which can be applied to each image - if you want every image to look similar. Strange way to approach photography though.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Why not shoot RAW, then consider each image on its merits through ACR or LR?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a reasonable question if one assumes that the photographer is producing in low volume for themselves. If the photographer is producing a lot of images, for example from an event, for a client, the expectation is usually that each photograph will have similar characteristics.</p>

[n-j]

<p><em>This is a reasonable question if one assumes that the photographer is producing in low volume for themselves. If the photographer is producing a lot of images, for example from an event, for a client, the expectation is usually that each photograph will have similar characteristics.</em></p>

<p>i guess thats why they included the sync tool?<br>

if you´re a professional you should know better bout the apropiate workflow; sort > develop > sync; next stack,...<br>

nj</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>However, as noted above, one can always generate a preset profile in ACR which can be applied to each image - if you want every image to look similar. Strange way to approach photography though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm, you're right. Next time I shoot a series of portraits for someone, I'll load everything into ACR so I can give them a different complexion in every shot: white, pale, beige, tan, jaundiced, brown, George Hamilton.</p>

<p>And when I shoot someone's product, I'll make sure that the colors look different in every single image. That should make the photo editors at their advertising firm very, very happy.</p>

[tony_wellington]

<p>Ah, Dan, you misunderstand. I stated that one can create settings in ACR which can be applied to every photo opened in ACR. You can bookmark a range of these. Thus every photo in a batch can have the same adjustments, just like an in-camera settings option. <br>

By the way, I do work as a professional photographer. I don't use any in-camera settings. I do work in batches sometimes. I preview my photos and sort in View NX. But I only make adjustments via ACR and PS. It just doesn't make sense to me to use the camera to make alterations which can effectively be made better, more delicately and effectively in post production (ie ACR & PS). You're all welcome to disagree. But to my mind, it's always better to see what basic material you're working with (what you've actually shot) then decide how to enhance it, rather than enhance it roughly at the time of shooting.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>As a former art director I can tell you Jeff and Dan make a valid point that's at the core of all this. There needs to be a consistency to the look with regards to color and contrast among a large batch of images if you want to be considered and work as a professional. I've seen quite a few photographer's galleries online that maintain this consistency among their images be it landscape or studio and its that consistent look that comes across as professional.</p>

<p>Changing lighting environments for event photography be it outdoor/indoor, wedding or sports related require varying exposure settings to overcome changing scene dynamic ranges creating an environment of inconsistency where one Raw converter preset/Develop sync setting will not look good on all images shot this way especially if you ETTR.</p>

<p>I don't think I've read anywhere online that addresses a satisfactory method of workflow to address the inefficiencies created by shooting Raw. From what I see you're always going to be a PP slave if shooting and developing large volumes of images of one single event and have it look like the same guy with the same camera shot it.</p>

<p>I've been trying to teach myself to do this shooting Raw and it's never easy.</p>