5DM4 - in camera corrections vs. lightroom

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>The 5DM4 has in camera corrections for lenses</p>

<ul>

<li>Peripheral illum corr</li>

<li>Distortion Correction</li>

<li>Digital Lens Optimizer</li>

<li>Chromatic Aberr corr</li>

<li>Diffraction Correction</li>

</ul>

<p>Lightroom has some built in corrections for lenses. <br>

Questions</p>

<ol>

<li>How do the two approaches differ</li>

<li>Which of the above overlap what Lightroom does?</li>

<li>If I turn on any of the above, is that info carried in the EXIF info?</li>

<li>Does Lightroom recognize any of the above were turned on, if not, does it end up over compensating?</li>

</ol>

<p> </p>

[dcstep]

<p>I'm not sure, but I think that the in-camera corrections are applied to the in-camera jpeg and not the Raw file. Hence, you'll want to use the LR corrections in Raw conversion. </p>

<p>There are a zillion assumptions and corrections built into the in-camera processing of Raw to jpeg. Those are not recorded in the EXIF, other than to state which version of the Firmware was used. If you're happy with the compromises of a committee of Japanese engineers, then the in-camera jpeg is all you need and LR is useless. If you like making your own compromises, then use LR or some other Raw converter and make your images your own.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> Those are not recorded in the EXIF, other than to state which version of the Firmware was used. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Do you know that specific to this camera? I ask because Apple's Preview app shows all the JPEG settings in detail.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Those jpeg settings are meaningless because there's no agreed industry standard. +5 on Digital Photo Professional and +5 on LR and +5 on DxO can mean three totally different amounts of adjustment.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I think from looking at the manual, that David is correct. In all cases the RAW file is unaffected and the corrections are only applied to JPEGs. So you can have all the corrections on in camera and also have them on in LR or DLO and no "extra in-camera" processing of the RAW files will result.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>They're not meaningless. For one thing, Picture Style is given, which is some indication of how it was shot. Out of the four questions, only the fourth question can be answered "no." The first one depends on what software is being used. The second depends on how one uses LR. The third, which is what that was about, is answered "yes," the data is there. It's still there even if it's meaningless.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Explain their meaning, please Jeff. Maybe I'm missing something. How do you use them?</p>

<p>If I'm going to do my own Raw-to-jpeg conversion, what useful information do I gain from the in-camera data? The in-camera conversion settings are gibberish to other Raw converters. That data only has meaning in comparing one in-camera jpeg to another in-camera jpeg, for some sort of relative differences, but it's not going to help you much in making your own LR cookbook of the same interpretation, for instance. </p>

[ruben leal]

While the additional data in the RAW file may be meaningless for LR users, DPP uses it as its departing point for

processing. That's one of the strengths of DPP, and one that saves me a lot of post-processing time.

 

Regarding trusting a committee of Japanese engineers to convert in camera, that's what most photojournalists do, so all

their award winning photos are converted trusting them, and that may mean we don't always need to spend hours

manually converting every single image.

 

My own workflow varies by the use of the photo: if I'm doing fine art landscape photography, then I will use a few days to

tweak a single photo; if I'm doing a wedding photo book, I will review every single image, manually processing a lot of

them; but if I'm selling prints at an event, I will shoot JPEG to have the photos printed within minutes of being taken. This

means I understand the advantages of both formats, and won't try to use one when the other one is the right tool for the

job at hand.