Any way to have Lightroom not edit/adjust RAW files on import? Flat RAW files possible?

[mood_lover]

<p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/XJtrkSV.png[" alt="" /><br /><br />For a second, before the contrast boost kicks in, the files are so flat and I much prefer to start there. I realize this is backwards to what most people want. The contrast boosts and I can't seem to go back to the original flat look, I have to add +100 shadows to get it back. Tone Curve is set to Linear, camera calibration is Process 2012 with Profile Adobe Standard (Camera Neutral doesn't help). Is a truly flat RAW file even possible? Thanks!</p>

[colin_mattson1]

<p>No "contrast boost" is kicking in unless you've added one—Lightroom initially displays the in-camera JPEG thumbnail generated by your in-camera JPEG settings. As Lightroom renders an actual preview using the Adobe Camera Raw engine, it replaces that camera JPEG.</p>

<p>Lightroom's defaults are effectively flat. But if you'd like something else, you can always <a href="http://help.adobe.com/en_US/lightroom/using/WS58F97739-1485-4613-B5D7-C7EA4AFECDC4.html">set your own defaults</a>.</p>

[mood_lover]

<p>Yeah you're right. I remember now why this is happening. I have Cinestyle picture profile installed which I had used when shooting a video. That picture style is much flatter than anything the camera has so that's why the jpg preview was so flat, but of course picture styles dont transfer into raw files.<br /> <br />With that said, what is the best way to make sure the jpg I'm seeing on the back of my camera looks identical to the raw ill see on the computer? Is that even possible? I hate seeing one image on the LCD of my camera and then seeing something different in raw, its frustrating. Is there a picture style or setting I could use to get close? Making sure I see contrast accurately is important, is tethering my best option?</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<blockquote>

<p>what is the .... on the back of my camera looks identical to the raw ill see on the computer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you're asking too much, the LCD screen on the back was never meant to be very accurate although things are getting better lately. It's meant for setting parameters and giving you a rough view about composition and image quality. Tethering may indeed be a good way to better judge an image and even then I'm not sure what you see with regard to image quality, contrast, etc. Think about iPad (and other Apple products) since these have at least a consistant colour reproduction. </p>

[howard_m]

<p>if you really want what you saw on the back of the camera, then basically, you need to use the camera mfgr's raw processor and then save it as TIFF or JPG. Everything that a 3rd party raw processor does is reverse engineering/guesstimating whatever the 'secret sauce' of the mfgr is.</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>You can adjust the default on import into LR to be whatever you want it to be. Edit one of your sample RAW files to look how you'd prefer, then in the Develop tab under the Develop menu you choose "Set Default Settings". You can even take it one step further and adjust file defaults by what ISO they were shot at. I use that to control the amount of default noise reduction and sharpening on higher ISO photos, saving me the time of having to apply NR individually in most cases.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>For a second, before the contrast boost kicks in, the files are so flat and I much prefer to start there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would you prefer a flat, ugly rendering when you're going to fix that? As other's have pointed out, the first '<em>preview</em>' you see is the camera generated JPEG which has <strong>no</strong> basis upon the raw you captured. And you captured raw presumably because you want to control the look of the rendering. Would not a good selection of a DNG camera profile and even resets that render the image as close as you desire be better than starting off with an ugly appearance? NONE of this has any effect on the raw data! The settings you start with, apply after that preview appears or after much work on all the sliders are only instructions that do not affect the raw data what so ever. It's totally non destructive. You're not editing an image (pixels) per se, you're editing instructions that will create pixels from the raw, so I'm not sure why starting out with anything worse than you could is a good idea. Sheldon's suggestions are spot on, set defaults to get an overall better not worse color and tone appearance, you can always adjust more or not and just move on.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I hate seeing one image on the LCD of my camera and then seeing something different in raw, its frustrating.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then shoot JPEG! The preview otherwise is a big fat lie in terms of what you're seeing and the proper exposure and the Histogram**! It's like saying "<em>I hate the look of my color negs"</em> but of course, once printed (and rendered properly) they look fine.</p>

<p><em>**Everything you thought you wanted to know about Histograms</em><br /> <em> Another exhaustive 40 minute video examining: </em><br /> <br /> <em>What are histograms. In Photoshop, ACR, Lightroom.</em><br /> <em>Histograms: clipping color and tones, color spaces and color gamut.</em><br /> <em>Histogram and Photoshop’s Level’s command.</em><br /> <em>Histograms don’t tell us our images are good (examples).</em><br /> <em>Misconceptions about histograms. How they lie.</em><br /> <em>Histograms and Expose To The Right (ETTR).</em><br /> <em>Are histograms useful and if so, how? </em><br /> <br /> <em>Low rez (YouTube):

/> <em>High rez: http://digitaldog.net/files/Histogram_Video.mov</em></p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

It makes sense, Andrew, to start without 'instructions' and add your own, instead of already finding someone or something has already added a bunch you will have to tweak or remove. That's the entire rational behind raw data: we (!) get to decide what to do, even if that is more work than allowing a camera manufacturer to decide what we would like.

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>It makes sense, Andrew, to start without 'instructions' and add your own, instead of already finding someone or something has already added a bunch you will have to tweak or remove.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Makes zero sense to me for these reasons: <br>

1. There are <strong>always</strong> instructions, LR/ACR and other raw converters can't even show you an initial preview without them! That's why the preview updates from the JPEG which isn't correct nor pertinent in terms of the raw data. You have to start somewhere, why with a rendering that's ugly? <br>

2. The initial instructions can be something that is ugly and flat or it can be far better and none of this has any effect on the raw data. <br>

3. Whatever rendering you see, unless you are using the manufacturer's raw converter and it can mimic the camera JPEG (begging the question, what makes that proprietary rendering correct), the current raw converter's instructions are taking place. You can go out of your way to make it look ugly or as good as possible and in each case, you'll probably have to continue to tweak a bit to get your final product. I see no point in starting from something farther away from my rendering goals, especially when LR/ACR provide so many tools to apply a starting point easily and quickly (especially LR upon Import with unlimited presets to do so).<br>

Starting with an ugly rendering and fixing it is an excellent approach for those charging by the hour! Otherwise, I see no point in going that route. It doesn't affect the data, the raw but it does affect how long you spend working on each image. <br>

</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

"

With that said, what is the best way to make sure the jpg I'm seeing on the back of my camera looks identical to the raw ill

see on the computer? Is that even possible? I hate seeing one image on the LCD of my camera and then seeing

something different in raw, its frustrating. Is there a picture style or setting I could use to get close? Making sure I see

contrast accurately is important, is tethering my best option?"

 

Set the camera to Adobe RGB, and in Picture Styles, set contrast, and sharpening to minimum. And neutral.

 

Newer Nikon's like the D750, D810, have a "Flat" picture Style" option.

 

In LIGHTROOM for theses cameras you can choose "Camera Flat" as a Camera Profile.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Andrew, What is "far better" depends on things default settings cannot know of. Nor can you: what you call flat and ugly is entirely up to you.<br>What the OP is looking for is as neutral as possible, so he can make his own choices of what is ugly and what not.<br>Makes perfect sense.

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew, What is "far better" depends on things default settings cannot know of.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's why you can and should roll your own! Or <em>anything</em> that appears better and closer to your final goal. Deliberately setting the image to look flat and ugly serves <strong>no purpose</strong>, at least one that anyone around here can describe. <br /> You've got maybe three options:</p>

<ol>

<li>Make the image look flat <strong>then</strong> better.</li>

<li>Use presets that you know will be a better starting point and move on.</li>

<li>Use presets that you know will be fine as both a starting and finishing point.</li>

</ol>

<p>One option just wastes your time. The other two save you time. All three have the same effect on the raw data (none at all).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What the OP is looking for is as neutral as possible, so he can make his own choices of what is ugly and what not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no such thing! Here's what the image really looks like with minimal processing, what good is this? Answer, no good at all:<br /> http://www.digitaldog.net/files/raw.jpg<br /> <img src="http://www.digitaldog.net/files/raw.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Andrew, you are still confusing the desire not to have (just let us say) you decide what our images look like with a belief that things should be what you call "ugly" and "no good at all".<br>The OP wants a good starting point and decide what he feels is a good end point, without having to undo what someone else thinks should be his starting and end point. Again: makes perfect sense.<br>You appear to be rather fond of your raw data images. And talk about raw can be a good analogy: proper cooks prefer their ingredients raw, not spoiled by what someone else already decided they should be treated like. Yes, preboiled and preseasoned does take you quicker to something resembling a good meal. But it takes away the possibility to turn them into a really great meal, the way you, the proper cook, want it.

[mood_lover]

<p>Yeah, I love a flat image to start with. It's my preferred way to begin, if you work a different way then that's your prerogative, not mine. I mostly asked about this because the jpeg preview didn't have shadows that were muddy, the lighting ratio appeared a lot less contrasty. However the true raw shows me that I obviously didn't have enough fill light, which I think is why my image came out too contrasty for my taste and lacks detail in the shadows (new to metering, should've metered the shadow side of the face but I got nervous and forgot).<br /> <br /> Getting perfect exposure and contrast on the 5D Mark III has been a challenge, but I know I can figure it out. I think I'll start now with shooting using a picture profile that's already in Lightroom like Camera Neutral so I can have somewhat of a ballpark figure about the contrast. Cinestyle was a bad idea, forgot to take it off when I went into the shoot. Good news is that DPP allows me to retrieve TIFF files with the flatter look and I love editing starting with a flatter, "ugly" picture.</p>

[keith_b1]

<p>If the camera neutral isn't flat/lowcon enough, I suggest creating your own user-generated preset; take a typical shot that you'll want to have the flat look , adjust the exposure, contrast, etc until it's got the look you want, then create and name this new preset. Then you can just click this user preset on previously imported files, and in the future you can use the "import with preset" function to apply your user-created preset as the images are imported. You may, over time, build up a collection of user presets that are all subtly [or radically] different from each other</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Again: makes perfect sense.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes I agree, for anyone who wants to spend more time working on his/her images. I'll keep that in mind when processing work for others and charging by the hour. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Getting perfect exposure and contrast on the 5D Mark III has been a challenge, but I know I can figure it out.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>IF your goal in <strong>optimal</strong> exposure for raw, then the first thing to do is recognize that you don't treat it like a JPEG or what you see on the back of the camera. <br>

http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf<br>

Flat or otherwise, the proper exposure treatment for raw data, one that produces <strong>optimal exposure and data</strong> will need a very specific starting point to optimize the preview as discussed above and below. It will look pretty awful on the camera LCD because that is the result of a JPEG processed n a very specific manner based on that data <strong>not</strong> on the raw data itself. <br>

Further reading on this subject:<br>

http://luminous-landscape.com/determining-exposure/<br>

http://luminous-landscape.com/optimizing-exposure/<br>

http://luminous-landscape.com/the-optimum-digital-exposure/</p>

<p>Good luck. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

For anyone who is capable of making his own decisions, it's a good thing to be allowed to make their own decisions. For anyone else, Andrew, painting by numbers may indeed be the best way they can serve their clients. ;-)<br>You appear to be hell bent on convincing us that making an image look the way we want is more work when we start with an image that does not look the way we want then when we start with an image that does not look like we want. And that it would make more business sense to do so (what exactly?) because sliding an on screen slider until we like the result apparently takes hours more than sliding that on screen slider until we like the result.<br>Makes no sense, Andrew.

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>You appear to be hell bent on convincing us that making an image look the way we want is more work when we start with an image that does not look the way we want then when we start with an image that does not look like we want.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm just waiting on anyone to explain why it matters or why anyone would start with a flat ugly image when all you're viewing is <strong>one</strong> interpretation of endless interpretations and tying that into a camera JPEG. You're welcome to your opinions, it would just be useful to explain how and why they have any merit. <br>

<em>If</em> your goal is to get from point a to point c, I'm not seeing how going to point x and working backwards is in any way useful.<em> If</em> it affected the underlying data or final data, that be one thing. It doesn't. </p>

[mood_lover]

<p>I sometimes like to use plugins to edit like VSCO or AlienSkin and when the image starts off very contrasty, the modifications the plugin makes ends up baking the image to death. Then I have to pull contrast back down, lift the shadows up and recover highlights, all this leads to a much lower quality picture in some instances. Though this is probably more of an issue of bad original exposure/lighting setup than it is a software issue. But still, a flatter image would allow me to make up for my mistakes. Though next time I'm just going to add fill light and try to get my desired look in-camera rather than rely on editing.<br /> <br />I really enjoy starting with a flat picture. I come from a video background where the original footage is very flat and low-contrast, and has an incredible amount of latitude to apply adjustments to. I can push the shadows without fear of muddying them up when starting flat. It's just the way I understand things and the way I feel comfortable working. Here's an example:<br>

<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.philwesson.com/blog/2014/7/27/luts-and-color-grading"><img src="http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5005b47424ac8599045698aa/t/53d5bcf9e4b0489a552c16f3/1406516487486/" alt="" width="1000" height="1125" /></a><br /> <br /> Cant the original image have the great contrast already to begin with? Of course it can, but then my options and latitude aren't the same. If you look at my original image in the first post, the shadows are screwed, too dark for my taste. Had the raw looked like the flat jpg, I couldve saved the quality of the image even though I messed up my lighting ratios. Having to add +100 shadows to get my desired contrast obviously isn't too healthy for the image quality. You might not agree with this mentality but good contrast is a subjective thing, a matter of taste. We have different tastes, whats ugly to you is the perfect way for me to start and get creative on. Why does that require so much justification?</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I can push the shadows without fear of muddying them up when starting flat. If you look at my original image in the first post, the shadows are screwed, too dark for my taste.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But that really isn't the case with the raw data. It would be with the JPEG. The shadows <em>appear</em> screwed because of a setting. The shadows are not screwed, there's data there and a proper (<em>appropriate</em>, <em>ideal</em>, <em>desired</em>?) setting gives you that appearance. One slider setting isn't ideal. One is or is closer. The raw data is no different in either case. A JPEG would be hugely different and in some cases impossible to fix. There's nothing broken assuming you captured the raw data properly and within the confines of the device.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Had the raw looked like the flat jpg, I couldve saved the quality of the image even though I messed up my lighting ratios.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes! I agree. But it isn't the JPEG thankfully, it's raw data. Raw data is digital clay. Initial settings produce a pretty vase that may or may not be finished <strong>or</strong> an ugly ashtray.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I come from a video background where the original footage is very flat and low-contrast, and has an incredible amount of latitude to apply adjustments to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With the raw data, the latitude is there. </p>

 

[mood_lover]

<p>I get what you're saying but I have to apply +100 to the shadows now to lift the dark side of my portraits face which as you can guess, leads to a lot of noise. That's really the issue here. I'm not saying raw isn't malleable and doesn't have latitude, it's just that for this particular situation I think I've exceeded the dynamic range of my camera and trying to make up for that leads to artifacts. I would just much rather lower shadows to get my desired look than lift them any day. I think that retains much better shadow quality.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I get what you're saying but I have to apply +100 to the shadows now to lift the dark side of my portraits face which as you can guess, leads to a lot of noise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you treating the exposure as if you were capturing the JPEG? </p>

[mood_lover]

<p>If I understand you correctly, yes I am trying to make the raw look somewhat like the jpg again. However, when I was shooting I made a huge mistake in a) forgetting that I had left on a flat cinema picture profile that lifts the shadows 1 stop, b) forgetting that it wouldn't transfer onto the raw in stills mode and c) forgetting that the camera jpg preview wasn't anywhere near what the raw file was going to look like. So I thought I was capturing a nice flat contrast ratio of 2:1 on the portrait but in reality the raw revealed it was actually more like 5:1. I should've metered the shadow side, added fill and tethered!</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Check out the URL's and articles I posted above. It makes sense based on the previews you've shown in LR and your questions that the noise is related to pretty severe under exposure of the raw data. </p>

[mood_lover]

<p>Yes I'm realizing that's exactly what the problem was. I finished watching your 40 minute histogram video and it was very helpful to fill in the gaps of my knowledge, thank you. Underexposure is usually the root of my photographic issues (moreso lack of fill light). Ive tested and found my camera can overexpose by 2 stops and still have the exposure brought down to 0 with a beautifully clean image that retains highlights somehow, but even a half stop of underexposure and the shadows lose data very fast, really weird.</p>