Light meter and Lightroom

[jorge_oliveira2]

<p>Hello,<br>

Both in my D7100 and an older D90 Lightroom auto development increases the exposure of nearly all my photos by some 0.5 EV (NEF files). Is that usual or my cameras have some problem?</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>auto-development? Maybe you're exposing too far to the left? If it's only by 0.5ev I bet they still look great though.</p>

<p>Can you post a sample?</p>

[andylynn]

Are the cameras set to use "actuve d-lighting"? That often causes underexposed raw files so it's usually best to turn it off

when shooting raw.

[kari_oinonen]

<p>There are some camera settings/instructions that effect on the development phase. Your camera jpgs have taken these into account.<br>

Now you give that same raw image to a tool (Lightroom) that is (possibly) unaware of camera settings, then your camera jpg will differ from the developed raw.<br>

You may download Capture NX-D from Nikon's site and see how it manages to develop the same raw images. If needed, tune your current auto-development or similar functionality for your taste.<br>

Your cameras are fine.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Lightroom's auto develop setting is practically useless. Don't rely on it for any indication of appropriate exposure. Usually it's at least two full stops off from anything remotely appropriate. If you need auto corrections Picasa is much better, although it works best with JPEGs. Otherwise work with a calibrated system and adjust Lightroom as desired until it looks right to you.</p>

[jorge_oliveira2]

<p>Ok, so Lightroom auto cannot be trusted..</p>

<p>Thanks again,</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Sure it can be trusted... when you are viewing on screen or using in a video only or have loads of images you need to very very quickly adjust.<br /><br />I use auto levels in PS a lot in those cases.</p>

<p>It all depends on the final output.</p>

[jorge_oliveira2]

<p>I usually use auto development as a first step, then do a manual adjustment to print the images. In the screen, to my eyes, LR make them a somewhat too light (my IPS monitor is calibrated using Win 7 adjustments, I have no other mean to adjust it). <br>

The histogram most of the times shows room to the right, less after LR auto adjust.<br>

Should I use the camera's or LR one?</p>

<p> </p>

[jim_foley4]

<p>Andy, thanks for that information about active d-lighting. I had no idea that anything impacted the RAW file. Is there anything else that does?</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Jim, active D-lighting only affects the exposure, not the content of the RAW file. The RAW data remains a straightforward capture of the sensor output, but the applied tone curve to JPEG and the stored metadata are changed. RAW is still RAW however, just with a slightly altered exposure.</p>

<p>Active D-lighting works by changing the exposure in order to apply extra highlight compression while at the same time expanding the shadows. Crudely, it's just lowering the contrast of the image by manipulating the applied tone curve. However, that tone curve can be ignored in RAW "development" and a different one applied. Conversely, it's just as easy to apply a D-lighting-like curve to a normally exposed RAW file. And IMHO, if you shoot RAW there's very little point in using active D-lighting, since just using ETTR exposure technique can achieve the same thing during RAW processing.</p>

<p>Here's Nikon's own description of Active D-lighting: "Active D-Lighting's image optimization, which takes place in the camera at the moment the photo it taken, applies <em>digital processing only to the necessary portion(s)</em> of the image." I've italicised the part about digital processing, which can only be applied to RAW data after capture, and not as implied, at the moment of exposure.</p>

<p>"Is there anything else that does?" - ISO speed, obviously. Raising the ISO setting applies more gain at the analogue stage of the sensor output and before A-to-D conversion. Once digitised, the extra gain and its consequent noise can't be undone.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I'm confirming what Andy L said about active-d setting when shooting raw. I did a series of photos using active d on and the images on the camera's monitor (D7100) were wonderful. when I went into camera raw in ps, I found they were all way too dark and I had to do a lot of lightening for each image. If I had shot jpgs they probably would have been how they looked in the view finder. Maybe nikon view nx would have bee ok too, but I prefer adobe acr for processing raw files.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Jorge, because you're using only a roughly calibrated system, I'll suggest a couple other tricks. Windows 7 calibration tools aren't bad, and there are other <a href="http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/"><strong>free methods</strong></a> for getting your system a bit closer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Peter suggested: "Sure it can be trusted... I use auto levels in PS a lot in those cases."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photoshop and Lightroom are very different beasts. Photoshop's auto levels tool might work well consistently. Lightroom's does not consistently work well. It's one of the significant weaknesses in LR at the moment. It should be fixed to make it more appealing to new photographers and folks who are new to digital editing. (On the other hand, LR's auto white balance works very well.) I'll occasionally use auto tone just to see what happens, but most of the time I end up choosing my own adjustments from scratch, or using a preset I've developed for similarly exposed photos.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that other Lightroom settings will affect the results of the Auto tone feature. For the following tests, set everything in Lightroom to neutral (although the sharpening and noise reduction settings won't matter). I'll attach a sample of my own to illustrate.</p>

<ul>

<li>Make a virtual copy of the raw file for each test - it'll be easier for comparison purposes. Leave the original raw file at neutral settings.</li>

<li>Scroll down to the "Camera Calibration" tab or panel at the very bottom of all the develop module tools. Choose Adobe, which is probably already selected by default. Now click "Auto" tone.</li>

<li>In a second virtual copy of the same raw file, choose Neutral or Standard from the Camera Calibration options. Then scroll back to the top of the develop module sidebar and click Auto tone again.</li>

<li>Compare the results, including the auto adjusted sliders. They're probably very different, because the Camera Calibration tool influences the auto tone choices automagically suggested by Lightroom.</li>

<li>If you're really curious, repeat these tests on other virtual copies of the raw file by experimenting with white balance tweaks before clicking auto tone. Again, you'll see different results.</li>

</ul>

<p>One of the easiest ways to get a handle on editing raw files in an approximately-calibrated system is to use in-camera JPEGs as a reference point. It's comparable to using color slide film for making scans or prints. You know what the scans or prints should look like because you have the slide as a handy reference point.</p>

<p>So if you're not already doing so, start shooting JPEGs simultaneously along with the raw files. Later, in processing, you can compare the properly exposed JPEGs and histograms to the raw files as you're editing as a guideline in Lightroom.</p>

<p>Also, download a copy of the freebie Picasa. It's not a great raw file editor - it lacks Lightroom's better white balance, noise reduction and other tools - but it does do auto levels and most auto corrections really well. Even the "I'm feeling lucky" one button fix works well. Occasionally Picasa will be fooled by tricky scenarios - a properly exposed subject taking up little space against a mostly black or white background - but Picasa isn't fooled as readily as Lightroom in these situations. You don't need to use Picasa for your final output. But it's handy for providing comparisons to the results you're getting in Lightroom until you feel more confident using only Lightroom for editing.</p>

<p>An alternative is Nikon ViewNX 2 or whatever the current version is. I don't use it often anymore because I shoot other camera brands and don't want to bother with an editor that handles only proprietary raw files (same reason I don't often use Fuji's version of Silkypix, which works only on Fuji RAFs). View has most of the basic tools to emulate the in-camera JPEGs from NEFs. However, like Lightroom, ViewNX 2 was weak at auto levels type corrections, so it can't be relied on for auto fixes. On the plus side, it's free, and it can provide better Nikon-like JPEGs than Nikon's own in-camera JPEGs. For example, the Nikon V1 has an odd quirk in some monochrome modes: the in-camera red filter adds some very noticeable grain/luminance noise. Whether this is deliberate or an unfixed bug, I don't know. But if I want the tonal effects of the red filter b&w mode without the grain/noise I'll use ViewNX 2 on the same NEF to create a red filter b&w TIFF or JPEG without the exaggerated grain/noise. Likewise, you can output better quality JPEGs without the compression artifacts in ViewNX 2. Nikon's in-camera JPEGs seem to impose around 75% or so compression - very good quality, but not great. There's some loss of fine detail. ViewNX 2 lets you output an identical looking JPEG but with higher JPEG quality, or TIFF if you prefer for printing or additional editing in other software - Lightroom, DxO Filmpack, Nik, onOne Perfect Effects, whatever.</p>

<p>And at the risk of a digression, this is another area where Google could develop Picasa into a Lightroom killer if it really wanted to. Picasa already beats Lightroom in some ways, notably in speed and auto-organization by facial recognition. Picasa is best for adjusting JPEGs and TIFFs, but that's good enough for many folks. However by adding serious raw adjustments - including white balance and noise reduction tools, lens adjustments, etc. - and adding some of the Nik features owned by Google, Picasa could become a serious workflow tool that's very comparable to Lightroom. But until that happens I only occasionally use Picasa to quickly retweak JPEG photos of people for online sharing. It is very good for that, particularly due to the facial recognition organizer.</p>

<p>I choose an uninteresting but tricky photo to illustrate Lightroom's auto tone differences that depend on the camera calibration/profile settings. It was snapped through a bus window of a very contrasty scene with bright highlights and deep shadows. Neither auto tone setting is terrible in this case, but a lot of tweaking is needed in highlight and shadow recovery to dig out the details. And Nikon ViewNX 2 actually handled this scene better than Lightroom, although ViewNX 2 lacks Lightroom's superior noise reduction and sharpening tools, and ability to finesse selected areas.</p><div></div>

[jorge_oliveira2]

<p>Thanks a lot for your post, LEX</p>

<p>I will do my homework now. Reading the other posts I'm stuck with another problem - I shoot RAW to process, JPG (basic) to have a quick look in a PC. Due to that, I use Active D lightning auto.<br>

But if it impacts the RAW files (darker) I should turn it off. But then JPG won´t look as good as could...<br>

Compromises, compromises...</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Nikon's Active D-Lighting is handy, but only if you're planning to use the JPEGs directly from the camera with no additional processing. I do that occasionally. Yes, the raw files may appear "underexposed" later, but I doubt the Active D-Lighting causes underexposure. It's just that the Active D-Lighting makes JPEGs appear brighter, which may mask some metering error in the camera. Most cameras can underexpose in tricky scenarios, particularly bright skies or backgrounds, with darker foregrounds.</p>

<p>When in doubt, turn off Active D-Lighting, especially if you plan to process from raw anyway rather than use JPEGs. That way the in-camera JPEGs will more closely reflect the actual exposure without artificially brightening shadows while pulling back highlights. And if you rely on the ETTR (expose to the right) technique, you should turn off Active D-Lighting so your JPEGs will provide a better guide to correct exposure.</p>

<p>You can mimic Active D-Lighting in Lightroom. Set "whites" and "blacks" as needed for true whites and blacks. Then use the "shadows" slider to brighten the shadow areas as desired, and "highlights" to recovery blown highlights. When taken to an extreme the effect will resemble semi-tone mapping or pseudo-HDR, a very flat effect where the natural lighting would have been contrasty.</p>