Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: DavidPalermo on December 04, 2018, 02:44:51 pm
-
I would like to be able to import a RAW file and have Lightroom NOT put any profile or preset to it. I don't want any sharpening or curves or anything applied automatically. I'd like to do that myself.
Is there any way to not have Adobe put a profile to the image? I see a "curve - none" under the color preset list in the Develop module but in the Profile panel on the right there are many choices but none that indicate zero or even "minimum" profile type. They all do something. It'd be wonderful if there were a profile in the list that is the absolute minimal setting possible.
I realize that if everything was zeroed out I wouldn't be able to see the RAW data but do any of you know of to get it set at the very very absolute minimum so I can actually see what I am working with and then I can enhance everything to my liking on my own rather than have Adobe do it? I want a very very neutral starting point for my RAW landscapes with little or no modifications from Adobe or anyone else. Thank you!
-
Not really, but Adobe Neutral is probably the flattest (ugliest IMO), most neutral treatment. You'd also need to zero out other adjustments like sharpening and NR. Then save as your own default - and be prepared to do more work than if you'd chosen another profile ;)
-
Not really, but Adobe Neutral is probably the flattest (ugliest IMO), most neutral treatment. ....................... and be prepared to do more work than if you'd chosen another profile ;)
Flat and ugly doesn't matter because it's only a starting point. Whether it really causes you to do more work is a moot point, because the default settings are just that - not the last word. One often finds oneself undoing some of that stuff in order to redo what one wants. So I can relate to what David is looking for - building the image from the bottom up. Up to several years ago this was the conventional approach with Lr unless one created a preset that started the photo otherwise. I see it making sense.
-
I can relate to it too, though maybe I feel Adobe Neutral goes too far in producing that starting point and would almost always mean more work than, say, Adobe Color. But AN does seem the closest to what David says he wants.
-
Exactly what Mark said. I am using this for landscape work and I want everything to be as close to the raw data as possible so I can determine what to change. I have created a preset using Adobe Neutral and I also turned sharpening to zero and I have a very flat looking file that HAS detail in the brightest whites and shadows which is perfect. I can now start adjusting it knowing I have that data. Thanks guys!
-
Not really, but Adobe Neutral is probably the flattest (ugliest IMO), most neutral treatment. You'd also need to zero out other adjustments like sharpening and NR. Then save as your own default - and be prepared to do more work than if you'd chosen another profile ;)
Yup, and even then, the request isn't happening; there's really no way not to have LR do something under the hood to the image in terms of tone and even sharpening. No way not to have some camera profile affect the rendering. You can set to 'ugly' or zero everything out but it's not zero (scene referred). It's just (often) uglier visually than if you just setup a default rendering that is at least a good starting point for further rendering.
If you want something as close to raw as possible but sill minimally rendered, LR isn't for you.
Maybe look at what a product like RawDigger provides.
-
If I am not mistaken don't you have to have some kind of "interpreter" in order to even see the RAW data? Lightroom, Capture One etc... all have to render a RAW file in order to see it to begin with! Capture One has "Linear Response' I think it's called and it does a nice job too. I still have to zero the sharpening in both programs though.
-
Exactly what Mark said. I am using this for landscape work and I want everything to be as close to the raw data as possible so I can determine what to change. I have created a preset using Adobe Neutral and I also turned sharpening to zero and I have a very flat looking file that HAS detail in the brightest whites and shadows which is perfect. I can now start adjusting it knowing I have that data. Thanks guys!
It'll be interesting how long you feel happy with it. I believe Neutral is mainly designed for more extreme contrast scenes, rather than for general use, and it does seek to reveal detail in the whites and shadows. It might well prove suitable for your typical scenes, even if I do fear you're making work for yourself ;)
-
There are very good reasons to start from a flat, neutral file especially with landscape photographs. When a 3rd party applies what they think is a good starting point it can sacrifice hi light or shadow detail that I may want! also when sharpening by default is applied it's applied globally - not necessarily how I want to do it! It's not more work at all. It's a pleasure! It's like being in a dark-room with a perfect negative. ; )
-
There are very good reasons to start from a flat, neutral file especially with landscape photographs. When a 3rd party applies what they think is a good starting point it can sacrifice hi light or shadow detail that I may want! also when sharpening by default is applied it's applied globally - not necessarily how I want to do it! It's not more work at all. It's a pleasure! It's like being in a dark-room with a perfect negative. ; )
You do realize you can have any desired rendering as a starting point you yourself produce as a default? It's not a 3rd party doing this, it's YOU. Obviously you'd do this on a group of representative images. But there's zero reason to accept any 'default' you didn't create as a starting point. Ideally less 'ugly' than necessary. As John correctly states, you don't have to make a lot more work for yourself. A custom .DCP profile would aid in all this too......
-
I would like to be able to import a RAW file and have Lightroom NOT put any profile or preset to it.
You can't and in reality you don't want to...an actual linear raw file with zero color or gamma adjustments will look very dark (nearly black) and very green. So, ALL raw processing apps MUST apply a default color and gamma adjustment. ACR/LR does that by applying a DNG Profile (not to be confused with the new appearance profiles).
While you may not think so, Adobe RGB is the most technically accurate color/tone curve rendering of a raw file. Yes, it looks a bit adjusted but if you compare known colors such as on a ColorChecker, Adobe Standard will render those colors and tone patches more accurately than other profiles.
You may not "like" the rendering but that rendering is more accurate.
What you are looking for is a different starting point which by definition is less accurate but a more pleasing (flat) starting point that you then build up to your final result.
Hey, you are welcome to create any starting point you want to...just understand that ANY starting point is an arbitrary non-raw starting point and that all adjustments you choose to make are up to you. If having a more technically accurate starting point hinders your adjustment process, change it...just understand that what you are doing is just as arbitrary (and less technically accurate) than the default Adobe Standard profile will give you.
-
It rarely matters where I start from. It all gets adjusted.
-
You can't and in reality you don't want to...an actual linear raw file with zero color or gamma adjustments will look very dark (nearly black) and very green. So, ALL raw processing apps MUST apply a default color and gamma adjustment. ACR/LR does that by applying a DNG Profile (not to be confused with the new appearance profiles).
While you may not think so, Adobe RGB is the most technically accurate color/tone curve rendering of a raw file. Yes, it looks a bit adjusted but if you compare known colors such as on a ColorChecker, Adobe Standard will render those colors and tone patches more accurately than other profiles.
You may not "like" the rendering but that rendering is more accurate.
What you are looking for is a different starting point which by definition is less accurate but a more pleasing (flat) starting point that you then build up to your final result.
Hey, you are welcome to create any starting point you want to...just understand that ANY starting point is an arbitrary non-raw starting point and that all adjustments you choose to make are up to you. If having a more technically accurate starting point hinders your adjustment process, change it...just understand that what you are doing is just as arbitrary (and less technically accurate) than the default Adobe Standard profile will give you.
I understand all that and mentioned that every program has to interpret that RAW file or it will be green and dark etc... as you mentioned... I just want the most un-adjusted RAW file I can get (in LightRoom and Capture One) as a starting point.
I didn't know that Adobe RGB was the most color-accurate. The problem with it is that it blows some of the highlights out and that is not acceptable to me. I prefer Adobe Neutral as a starting point. I can correct the subtle color differences. Thanks!
-
You do realize you can have any desired rendering as a starting point you yourself produce as a default? It's not a 3rd party doing this, it's YOU. Obviously you'd do this on a group of representative images. But there's zero reason to accept any 'default' you didn't create as a starting point. Ideally less 'ugly' than necessary. As John correctly states, you don't have to make a lot more work for yourself. A custom .DCP profile would aid in all this too......
Yes, I realize that. However it IS the program when set to default that starts with Adobe Color (or Adobe RGB) Capture One also has it's default way to render a RAW file. I don't want those because of the reasons I stated earlier. I want to see the MOST information - details in highlights and dark areas and start from there.
There are similar ways to get there...
-
You can't and in reality you don't want to...an actual linear raw file with zero color or gamma adjustments will look very dark (nearly black) and very green. So, ALL raw processing apps MUST apply a default color and gamma adjustment. ACR/LR does that by applying a DNG Profile (not to be confused with the new appearance profiles).
While you may not think so, Adobe RGB is the most technically accurate color/tone curve rendering of a raw file. Yes, it looks a bit adjusted but if you compare known colors such as on a ColorChecker, Adobe Standard will render those colors and tone patches more accurately than other profiles.
You may not "like" the rendering but that rendering is more accurate.
What you are looking for is a different starting point which by definition is less accurate but a more pleasing (flat) starting point that you then build up to your final result.
Hey, you are welcome to create any starting point you want to...just understand that ANY starting point is an arbitrary non-raw starting point and that all adjustments you choose to make are up to you. If having a more technically accurate starting point hinders your adjustment process, change it...just understand that what you are doing is just as arbitrary (and less technically accurate) than the default Adobe Standard profile will give you.
Thanks for that post Jeff its spot on for users to understand the way they should process their raw files, and not be consumed with doubting the look produced by different raw processing applications in comparison to what is produced in camera by the manufacturers firmware and raw processing application.
-
I prefer Adobe Neutral because it doesn't seem to blow out highlights and retains more shadow detail compared with Adobe Standard (and Adobe Color)... attached is an example... I did a screen capture and Lightroom's magnification is at 3:1. Sharpening is set to "0" on both images.
-
I prefer Adobe Neutral because it doesn't seem to blow out highlights and retains more shadow detail compared with Adobe Standard (and Adobe Color)... attached is an example... I did a screen capture and Lightroom's magnification is at 3:1. Sharpening is set to "0" on both images.
The only way to truly know if highlights are blown out is to examine a raw Histogram. That's why RawDigger (https://www.rawdigger.com) is so useful.
I've been begging Adobe to allow a toggle of the Histogram to show us the raw data but it's fallen on deaf ears.
-
The only way to truly know if highlights are blown out is to examine a raw Histogram. That's why RawDigger (https://www.rawdigger.com) is so useful.
I've been begging Adobe to allow a toggle of the Histogram to show us the raw data but it's fallen on deaf ears.
That's right and good you've been doing that even though they haven't responded. Maybe one of these days. There are all kinds of things that can be done to improve the Develop module in Lightroom but Adobe seems to have other priorities, developing glitzy features for cloud computing and mobile devices that probably have more marketing appeal.
But getting back to the technical issue, yes, I appreciate the comparison David posted because it shows how Neutral reveals more highlight information than one may be lead to believe exists just looking at Adobe Standard and without the benefit of Raw Digger, which is also a trip to another application. BUT, as long as ALL the captured data is preserved in the raw file whatever interpretative algorithm is used as the starting point, it's not difficult to pull the Highlights slider to the left and see it all come into full view - if it were not blown at capture time. I think it makes more sense to see all that by default, but just to say, nothing is lost whichever way one breaks into it - except a bit of time one way or another.
-
But getting back to the technical issue, yes, I appreciate the comparison David posted because it shows how Neutral reveals more highlight information than one may be lead to believe exists just looking at Adobe Standard and without the benefit of Raw Digger, which is also a trip to another application.
No, not really. There's a difference from the profiles as there would be a difference just altering the Highlight slider and making a preset. You can have an image without any highlights actually being blown and make them utterly blown out by altering the sliders. And the opposite. You can have two channels actually blown out and you can 'reconstruct' them from the one channel that isn't. By altering the PV or other sliders in the application. Which doesn't tell us anything about the actual highlights in the raw. A raw Histogram does. That's why we need it; to know the facts about our exposure and it's effect on the data itself, not the rendering of that data.
-
I know all that, why I agreed with your previous post on the usefulness of Raw Digger. All I'm saying is that if one suspects the starting "recipe" is blowing highlights, one can check for that by toning them down and seeing what happens. I'm not pretending it's a perfect substitute for seeing all the raw information.
-
I know all that, why I agreed with your previous post on the usefulness of Raw Digger. All I'm saying is that if one suspects the starting "recipe" is blowing highlights, one can check for that by toning them down and seeing what happens. I'm not pretending it's a perfect substitute for seeing all the raw information.
Here's what I don't understand. You say you appreciate the comparison David posted because it shows how Neutral reveals more highlight information than one may be lead to believe exists just looking at Adobe Standard, begging the question, if he used Adobe Standard then moved the Highlight recover, could he recover just as much highlights san's anything else the profiles affect aside from highlights? More highlight than one believes to exist just where? We can recover highlights that don't exist and we can blow out highlights that do exist by altering far more than profiles.
This all goes back to the idea of 'turning everything off' the topic here that isn't possible in this product. Perhaps many others.
-
I don't know what you're arguing about. Look at David's example. In the Adobe Standard case the highlights don't reveal as much highlight detail as in the Adobe Neutral case. So he's saying he prefers to start with Adobe Neutral because it has a better chance of avoiding that kind of problem. It may well have other effects too, depending on the image, but one can start with either. All I was getting at is that if one started with David's Adobe Standard image, one could shift the highlight slider to the left to see whether more highlight detail comes into view as a result of pulling the highlights back. That's all. I think it's pretty obvious. I'm not leveraging that into arguing anything else.
-
I don't know what you're arguing about. Look at David's example. In the Adobe Standard case the highlights don't reveal as much highlight detail as in the Adobe Neutral case. So he's saying he prefers to start with Adobe Neutral because it has a better chance of avoiding that kind of problem. It may well have other effects too, depending on the image, but one can start with either. All I was getting at is that if one started with David's Adobe Standard image, one could shift the highlight slider to the left to see whether more highlight detail comes into view as a result of pulling the highlights back. That's all. I think it's pretty obvious. I'm not leveraging that into arguing anything else.
We (I'm) not arguing about anything. I did ask you to explain what you wrote. Is there anything I wrote about highlights with respect to the profiles or other settings that's inaccurate? Is there anything I stated that this idea of a 'turning off everything' isn't possible? I did look look David's examples and I can counteract the effects by altering other areas of the software that control highlights. So I don't see what's being shown there as being very pertinent to the idea or desire of 'turning everything off" which again, I firmly believe isn't possible in this product. Perhaps others.
-
Good Lord! For the 3rd time let me be clear - I'm not saying anything you said is inaccurate or incorrect. Basta Andrew. I'm moving on..........
-
Good Lord! For the 3rd time let me be clear - I'm not saying anything you said is inaccurate or incorrect. Basta Andrew. I'm moving on..........
Fine with me.
This is for David since you've left the scene.
Below is Adobe Neutral. The ONLY difference is PV1 vs. PV5. As you can see but (Mark may not), just the selection of a PV alters highlights tremendously. Same profile, every other setting identical. So no, you can't turn this stuff off and no, you can't tell squat about highlights (and other factors) without looking at the raw data, which is what I believe you wish to do.
-
How would I eliminate the initial settings since I'm starting with scanned color or BW film where no adjustments are applied during the scan except for possibly black and white points? Would there be settings on the other hand that would help initially that I could use?
-
How would I eliminate the initial settings since I'm starting with scanned color or BW film where no adjustments are applied during the scan except for possibly black and white points? Would there be settings on the other hand that would help initially that I could use?
Don't understand the question or why you'd be using a raw converter for scans.
-
Don't understand the question or why you'd be using a raw converter for scans.
What do you mean why use a raw convertor? I don;t understand? I use Lightroom when I process digital and film scans.
-
What do you mean why use a raw convertor? I don;t understand? I use Lightroom when I process digital and film scans.
Lightroom (Develop module) is (primary) a raw converter. Why are you not using the scanner software to "process" the scans?
-
Fine with me.
This is for David since you've left the scene.
Below is Adobe Neutral. The ONLY difference is PV1 vs. PV5. As you can see but (Mark may not), just the selection of a PV alters highlights tremendously. Same profile, every other setting identical. So no, you can't turn this stuff off and no, you can't tell squat about highlights (and other factors) without looking at the raw data, which is what I believe you wish to do.
I understand that you cannot use a RAW image in Lightroom without a profile. I get that. I was looking for a starting point whereby I can see with pretty good accuracy what my camera's sensor is recording without moving any sliders! Once I view and evaluate the image I then plan on what enhancements I will do to express my vision for the photograph. It's pretty simple.
I realize there are many paths to achieve the final image however I specifically asked how to get closest to a very neutral starting point that allows me to see the data I have to work with.
Adobe Neutral, to me, seems to be the best solution for my own personal work-flow.
-
I understand that you cannot use a RAW image in Lightroom without a profile. I get that. I was looking for a starting point whereby I can see with pretty good accuracy what my camera's sensor is recording without moving any sliders!
You can't do that in LR. Or many raw converters. You can't do this without settings, zero is a setting.
First of all, this is what raw looks like with one type of previewing raw data:
(http://www.digitaldog.net/files/raw.jpg)
You probably don't want to view your raws this way but none the less, the above is what raw looks like with very minimal rendering from what is just a big pile of numbers.
Next, you probably want scene referred output based on what you say you want :D :
http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf
Not at all easy to get depending on the raw converter.
So we're back to your original question about profiles and presets and turning everything OFF. It's not possible. As such, any setting you start with that you are happy with as a starting point if fair game. If that means using Adobe Neutral, so be it and fine.
What you'd start off with using a custom profile could be an interesting area for you to investigate but let's go no farther down that path unless you so desire.
-
Lightroom (Develop module) is (primary) a raw converter. Why are you not using the scanner software to "process" the scans?
If you adjust with the scanner, you;re locked into the results. If you want to change them, you have to re-scan, which takes a lot of time and effort. By scanning "flat", or at the most just esetting black and white points, you never have to go back to re-scan.
Also, Lightroom has more adjustments available like cloning and spot removal to get rid of dust spots on the negatives, curves, graduated filter operations, etc, as well as great conversion to BW from color. Basically, I start with a "flat image and then adjust from there with Lightroom. I was curious if others use some sort of presets when they open the scanned file in the Develop mode?
-
What is Adobe Neutral and how do you set it in Lightroom?
-
If you adjust with the scanner, you;re locked into the results. If you want to change them, you have to re-scan, which takes a lot of time and effort. By scanning "flat", or at the most just esetting black and white points, you never have to go back to re-scan.
Also, Lightroom has more adjustments available like cloning and spot removal to get rid of dust spots on the negatives, curves, graduated filter operations, etc, as well as great conversion to BW from color. Basically, I start with a "flat image and then adjust from there with Lightroom. I was curious if others use some sort of presets when they open the scanned file in the Develop mode?
You don't lock in the scanner software especially if it's good and powerful, you use it as you would in LR or PS and get a great scan (globally) and move on. Perhaps your scan software sucks. Ask Mark about Silverfast which is pretty good (it ain't LinoColor or Color Quartet).
-
Here's an example of the scanned image without adjustments and the final image adjusted in LR. Note the histogram for the scanned file stops at around 172. That's pretty typical of color scans, for me. So I then start from scratch for each photo using LR to produce the final. I was wondering if anyone else has a different take on LR presets using film scans?
-
What is Adobe Neutral and how do you set it in Lightroom?
It's a camera (raw) profile; not going to work on scans.
-
Here's an example of the scanned image without adjustments and the final image adjusted in LR. Note the histogram for the scanned file stops at around 172. That's pretty typical of color scans, for me. So I then start from scratch for each photo using LR to produce the final. I was wondering if anyone else has a different take on LR presets using film scans?
Yeah, obviously the "no adjustment" scanning method stinks. MAKE ADJUSTMENTS.
-
Yeah, obviously the "no adjustment" scanning method stinks. MAKE ADJUSTMENTS.
Adjustments are made in LR after the scan. If I made them for the scan and didn't like the way the scan came out, I'd have to change the scanning software settings and re-scan, a timely procedure. Also, LR adjustments are more powerful. EVen if the scan came out good with the scan software, I would still need to use LR in any case: spotting dust, adding graduated filter, adjustment brush, etc. So I;d be using two softwares to get a single result. Scanning flat and using LR only is a more efficient process. I don;t have to learn and pay for a second adjustment software. In any case, this procedure works for me. Others, I'm sure, have developed their own ways that work for them.
-
It's a camera (raw) profile; not going to work on scans.
How would I set it when using digital images?
-
I apologise for coming to this discussion late. I agree with Jeff Schewe that you really don't want to try to work from raw data and that the Adobe Standard color profile is a pretty accurate representation of what the world looks like (not what you REMEMBER it looked like, of course). But I agree, too, with Ilah Borg (Raw Digger, Fast Raw Viewer) that it can be useful sometimes to zero-out all the added adjustments, especially the Baseline Exposure Compensation (BLE) and contrast curve that Adobe raw conversion adds to the image. This is especially useful if you want to verify your usual shot-preparation routine for exposure choices.
Illah's article on how to zero the BLE and the contrast curve is here:https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/deriving-hidden-ble-compensation
I've made an LR preset that zeroes this on my Olympus 4/3 cameras.
-
Here's an example of the scanned image without adjustments and the final image adjusted in LR. Note the histogram for the scanned file stops at around 172. That's pretty typical of color scans, for me. So I then start from scratch for each photo using LR to produce the final. I was wondering if anyone else has a different take on LR presets using film scans?
Well, yes. I wrote a whole book about exactly that kind of stuff - using SilverFast stand-alone or integrating it with Lightroom, Photoshop etc. There are too many considerations to bundle into a forum post and there are reasons for implementing any workflow option I worked out there. But in a nutshell, let me just say here - there are several generally applicable principles no matter what you do: (1) Use the scan and the post scan software for what each does best; there's no religion about this - it's just a matter of what works best where; (2) get the most out of each stage of editing that you reasonably can, in order to maximize editing headroom for the subsequent stages of work, and (3) at the scan stage, it's best to create a low to medium contrast, "open" image with no clipping of either highlights or blacks, and proceed with whatever post-scan editing in whatever software from that basic output. If you produce one scan that respects these characteristics, you won't need to rescan, and you'll have something very amenable to work in any other image editor of your choosing. That is easily achievable in SilverFast, as in some other scan software.
Using a histogram that maxes-out at level 172 makes no inherent sense. Normalize the histogram in the scan software. And once you have a scan with a properly normalized histogram to start with, you don't need any particular presets in Lightroom for doing further work with it. Just import it and adjust as needed.
-
How would I set it when using digital images?
sigh, your scan IS a digital image. The profiles are only accessible for raws. Newest version of LR, accessible from Basic panel.
-
It’s been many years since I’ve used a method similar to what Alan Klein is referring to.
Certain Scitex scan software called “oXYgen” could save out a file that carried a .DT file extension representing “digital transparency.” Scitex did call their files DT but many users just called them raw. The concept was “SOOM - Scan Once, Output Many.” So, scan at the machine’s full resolution, 16bit, max dynamic range, etc.” Yes, the files were initially very dark (gamma 1.0?) until processed via an interpreter they called oXYgen Open. There was also a Photoshop plugin option to handle certain tasks such as retouching in heavy workflow scenarios, conveniences of TIFF, etc. Fully ICC aware around the year 2000 and the time of Photoshop 5.
The image below is a facsimile of an actual DT image from my files although it may not be the absolute original without later adjustments. One can find at least one finished interpretation here a finished version from same session (http://www.cpsnet.co.uk/scanners/eversmart-scanners/eversmart-supreme-ii.aspx). (Not from my files.)
-
Quote Digital Dog.
Lightroom (Develop module) is (primary) a raw converter. Why are you not using the scanner software to "process" the scans?
unquote
You can process Tiff's ???
-
Gamma 1.0 images are not dark. Not when tagged with an associated profile that defines that gamma. Dark when untagged and incorrectly assumed another and incorrect gamma.
Yes indeed Develop module handle TIFF. And JPEG and PSD too, the word missed was primary (it is primarily) a raw processor. Those are the facts and why, going full circle, the processing color space in Develop module and ACR is gamma 1.0; originally intended for processing raw data.
(http://digitaldog.net/files/TaggedUntaggedLinear.jpg)
The top photo was a linear (gamma1.0) capture without the associated profile seen at the bottom.
-
You can't do that in LR. Or many raw converters. You can't do this without settings, zero is a setting.
First of all, this is what raw looks like with one type of previewing raw data:
(http://www.digitaldog.net/files/raw.jpg)
You probably don't want to view your raws this way but none the less, the above is what raw looks like with very minimal rendering from what is just a big pile of numbers.
Next, you probably want scene referred output based on what you say you want :D :
http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf
Not at all easy to get depending on the raw converter.
So we're back to your original question about profiles and presets and turning everything OFF. It's not possible. As such, any setting you start with that you are happy with as a starting point if fair game. If that means using Adobe Neutral, so be it and fine.
What you'd start off with using a custom profile could be an interesting area for you to investigate but let's go no farther down that path unless you so desire.
s.
You’re making this wayyyy more complicated than it is! I’m a photographer not a nerd! No offense of course but the problem has been solved for me. Technically, yes you are correct. I don’t wish to get into a technical discussion about how in reality RAW looks. I know that already. And I also know that there are starting points in Lightroom based on what profile is applied to a RAW file. I mentioned all that already.
Anyway, my question has been answered and I thank you all for that.
Ok, now that that’s out of the way I’ll next figure out the same solution for Capture One! Haha! I’m serious but I’ll post in the Capture One area. 🥴
-
Some of us are nerds and photographers :D
Happy you got some of the answers you desired.
-
Well, yes. I wrote a whole book about exactly that kind of stuff - using SilverFast stand-alone or integrating it with Lightroom, Photoshop etc. There are too many considerations to bundle into a forum post and there are reasons for implementing any workflow option I worked out there. But in a nutshell, let me just say here - there are several generally applicable principles no matter what you do: (1) Use the scan and the post scan software for what each does best; there's no religion about this - it's just a matter of what works best where; (2) get the most out of each stage of editing that you reasonably can, in order to maximize editing headroom for the subsequent stages of work, and (3) at the scan stage, it's best to create a low to medium contrast, "open" image with no clipping of either highlights or blacks, and proceed with whatever post-scan editing in whatever software from that basic output. If you produce one scan that respects these characteristics, you won't need to rescan, and you'll have something very amenable to work in any other image editor of your choosing. That is easily achievable in SilverFast, as in some other scan software.
Using a histogram that maxes-out at level 172 makes no inherent sense. Normalize the histogram in the scan software. And once you have a scan with a properly normalized histogram to start with, you don't need any particular presets in Lightroom for doing further work with it. Just import it and adjust as needed.
Mark That's pretty much what zI do now. I set the black and white points to spread out the scan image. But then leave all other adjustments to be done in LR. Thanks.
-
sigh, your scan IS a digital image. The profiles are only accessible for raws. Newest version of LR, accessible from Basic panel.
Sorry, I was referring to RAWs when I'm using my digital camera (Sony RX100iv). LR applies certain adjustments. How would I change the initial applying to something different?
-
Stephan, I was hoping to learn a way to do this with LR But thanks for the other suggestions.
-
Sorry, I was referring to RAWs when I'm using my digital camera (Sony RX100iv). LR applies certain adjustments. How would I change the initial applying to something different?
-
Some of us are nerds and photographers :D
Happy you got some of the answers you desired.
Hahah... I am teasing mostly! It's GREAT that you and some others really get deep into this. I used to be a nerd to when I worked at Apple... well, perhaps I still am somewhat! Otherwise I wouldn't be here asking about such things.
Thanks for your help!
-
If you want to start with the Adobe Standard color, but remove the Tone Curve that increases contrast in the midtones and compresses highlights, you can change the Tone Curve embedded in the DCP camera profile to a linear tone curve. You can use the DNG Editor, but the faster and easier way is to use EXIFTool with the following command:
exiftool -ProfileToneCurve="0 0 1 1" -ProfileName="YourNewProfileInternalName" -o NewProfileName.dcp OriginalProfileName.dcp
This will create a new DCP profile based on the original, but the tone curve contained in the original will be changed to a linear one in the new profile (connecting point 0,0 with point 1,1); likewise, the internal name (the name that gets displayed inside of the ACR and LR interface) in the new profile will be changed to "YourNewProfileInternalName." The argument after the -o flag is the filename you wish to give the new DCP profile and the final argument is the profile you are feeding exiftool as the basis (for example, Adobe Standard for your camera).
On a Mac, the Adobe Standard Profiles can be found here:
/Library/Application\ Support/Adobe/CameraRaw/CameraProfiles/Adobe\ Standard
And you would put your new linearized profile in your user profile folder here:
/Users/<your username>/Library/Application\ Support/Adobe/CameraRaw
Removing the Tone Curve and linearizing it will remove the contrast in the midtones and expand the highlights, resulting in a flatter file.
See: https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/overriding-raw-converter-default-adjustments-settings
and take a look at the comments, where this technique is discussed (using exiftool).
Have fun!
Kirk
-
Just be advised that this will cause color to change, so test it for yourself. If you want a linear profile with "correct" color then it is probably best to create your own profile with a custom tone curve - use, for example, Anders Torger's terrific profile tool LumaRiver Profile Designer.
Kirk
-
Andrew, I don't see the Profile section in my Basic. I'm using LR6 perpetual and looking at Sony ARW RAW files for an RX100iv camera.
-
Andrew, I don't see the Profile section in my Basic. I'm using LR6 perpetual and looking at Sony ARW RAW files for an RX100iv camera.
It's been awhile since I used that version but if memory serves it is down in the Calibration section... all the way down on right in Develop module.
-
Andrew, I don't see the Profile section in my Basic. I'm using LR6 perpetual and looking at Sony ARW RAW files for an RX100iv camera.
Sigh (Again), I wrote "newest version" earlier. Now you inform me you are two versions back. Anyway, what David said is correct.
-
OK I found it in Camera Calibration. But it only shows Adobe Standard and things like Camera Portrait, Camera Landscape, etc. I don;t see anything called Sony anything or Camera Neutral. Could that be because I'm using LR6 perpetual?
-
OK I found it in Camera Calibration. But it only shows Adobe Standard and things like Camera Portrait, Camera Landscape, etc. I don;t see anything called Sony anything or Camera Neutral. Could that be because I'm using LR6 perpetual?
Such profiles don't exist for your camera. Which is why you'll see for my Sony RX10, I built my own.
-
Ok. Thanks.
-
Quote "But it only shows Adobe Standard and things like Camera Portrait, Camera Landscape, etc. I don;t see anything called Sony anything or Camera Neutral."
The profiles that you see Camera Portrait, Landscape etc are profiles created by Lightroom to simulate the profiles used by your Camera model's software.
The profiles you see available for the raw files from your camera model are specific to to the camera model they are produced from. You will not see the camera model named e.g. Sony, Canon, Nikon etc you will not see anything that is not specific to your camera model.
-
Quote "But it only shows Adobe Standard and things like Camera Portrait, Camera Landscape, etc. I don;t see anything called Sony anything or Camera Neutral."
The profiles that you see Camera Portrait, Landscape etc are profiles created by Lightroom to simulate the profiles used by your Camera model's software.
The profiles you see available for the raw files from your camera model are specific to to the camera model they are produced from. You will not see the camera model named e.g. Sony, Canon, Nikon etc you will not see anything that is not specific to your camera model.
Denis: So do any of them match the jpeg from the camera? I shoot JPEG + RAW so I always have both image files.
-
Denis: So do any of them match the jpeg from the camera? I shoot JPEG + RAW so I always have both image files.
So you're OK under exposing all your raws doing this?
To answer your question; depends on the settings for the JPEG on the camera. IF you had a setting called "Landscape" for the JPEG (and you actually believe that's what's going on under the hood, a different discussion), you'd look for a camera matching profile called "Landscape" and perhaps, the raw using that profile would 'better" match the JPEG. There's zero guarantee it will match! Adobe may or may not have provided such a camera matching profile; depends on the manufacturer and camera model.
Sounds like you should just shoot JPEGs: you'll expose optimally for that data and you'll get a camera rendering you presumably like because that's what you set on the camera.
-
So you're OK under exposing all your raws doing this?
To answer your question; depends on the settings for the JPEG on the camera. IF you had a setting called "Landscape" for the JPEG (and you actually believe that's what's going on under the hood, a different discussion), you'd look for a camera matching profile called "Landscape" and perhaps, the raw using that profile would 'better" match the JPEG. There's zero guarantee it will match! Adobe may or may not have provided such a camera matching profile; depends on the manufacturer and camera model.
Sounds like you should just shoot JPEGs: you'll expose optimally for that data and you'll get a camera rendering you presumably like because that's what you set on the camera.
I shoot jpegs + RAW. Jpgs set for "normal", whatever that means. Most of the time I just use the jpegs from vacations that I'm taking. I might increase the saturation and presence and sharpen a little when I reduce it for slideshows on my UHDTV. If it's a shot that's having some issue with exposure, than I'll adjust the RAW. If it's a shot that's really difficult and I want to make sure I capture is correctly, then I'll bracket 7 shots at 1/3's of a stop when I shoot it. SO I'll have 7 RAWs to choose from.
Why do you say I'm under-exposing my RAWs? The cameras's histogram and LED viewfinder shows the jpeg interpretation. So what choice do I have?
-
Why do you say I'm under-exposing my RAWs? The cameras's histogram and LED viewfinder shows the jpeg interpretation. So what choice do I have?
Because you are; you're targeting the exposure for a JPEG, not the raw and the camera Histogram shows you the JPEG data, not the raw. Take one of your raws (shot as a JPEG) and examine the raw Histogram with something like RawDigger. You'll be in for a shock. To answer your question: You have a choice to optimally expose your raws.
-
Alan, if you're a member:
https://luminous-landscape.com/the-optimum-digital-exposure/
-
. . . the camera Histogram shows you the JPEG data, not the raw.
I keep forgetting to ask: why is this? Is there some technical reason cameras don't display raw histograms?
-
I keep forgetting to ask: why is this? Is there some technical reason cameras don't display raw histograms?
There's no technical reason and further, Canon users can get a 'hack' that shows an actual raw Histogram: https://magiclantern.fm
One issue is, so few photographers know (or know and care).
Thankfully, outside of the above hack, there is RawDigger.
https://www.rawdigger.com
-
I'm still confused about Camera Calibration tile. It's on Adobe Standard right now and had been before I guess since I started using it. There are also Camera Standard, Camera Light, Camera, Neutral, Camera Landscape, Camera Portrait. Camera VIvid etc.
Why is there no setting call "RAW right out of the camera"?
Also, would Camera Neutral or Adobe Standard or something else be the one with the least applied changes by LR?
-
I'm still confused about Camera Calibration tile. It's on Adobe Standard right now and had been before I guess since I started using it. There are also Camera Standard, Camera Light, Camera, Neutral, Camera Landscape, Camera Portrait. Camera VIvid etc.
Sigh once again. Let's try this for (what?) the 3rd time: they are CAMERA MATCHING PROFILES.
https://theblog.adobe.com/april-lightroom-adobe-camera-raw-releases-new-profiles/ (https://theblog.adobe.com/april-lightroom-adobe-camera-raw-releases-new-profiles/)
Why is there no setting call "RAW right out of the camera"?
Have you followed any of the posts here about Profile and Presets - turning everything OFF!?
There's an image already posted in reply #46 we could call raw (not RAW) right out of the camera. You like it? :-\
-
Yeah I kinda lost track of the point of the thread. So I'm going to leave it on Adobe Standard the way it's been and stop wasting time. If it ain't broken, why fix it?
-
Yeah I kinda lost track of the point of the thread. So I'm going to leave it on Adobe Standard the way it's been and stop wasting time. If it ain't broken, why fix it?
Yes, good idea, yes.
-
You can create a preset in the Develop Module - I call mine Zeros. To create it, select one test image, then move all the sliders to 0. You will need to Profile to something neutral - I shoot Canon and use "Camera Faithful". You should also set the "Calibration" to the latest version you have. Then save the preset. Hitting the preset will obviously set everything as discussed. If desired you and use that preset on the Import Module - thus getting no edits at all after the import. Hope I understood your question.
-
I would like to be able to import a RAW file and have Lightroom NOT put any profile or preset to it.
it is technically not possible with Adobe products - even if you delete all .dcp camera profiles and .xmp profiles for your camera (model), ACR & LR still have simple matrix profiles embedded in their code... so no luck w/ Adobe
-
it is technically not possible with Adobe products - even if you delete all .dcp camera profiles and .xmp profiles for your camera (model), ACR & LR still have simple matrix profiles embedded in their code... so no luck w/ Adobe
Adobe Camera Raw / Lightroom are third party applications for processing raw files from supported digital camera models (this is their primary function), if you do not wish to use the Adobe processes and profiles for editing your raw files then you should choose another option. You have the software provided by your camera manufacturer (free gratis when you purchase your camera) then there are numerous applications that provide alternative / unique and proprietary processes to do the same job, Adobe Camera Raw/Lightroom, Capture One, SilkyPix, ACD See and at least a dozen more that may suit your taste.
None of them is the best, correct, accurate they just provide a different recipe for processing the raw data.
Applications that work with raw files do not alter the original raw file, so you can process in different applications as many times you desire. When you use these applications you are the creator of the initial output to a viewable rendered file for sharing, printing etc.
To wit Adobe only uses their own processes and profiles or user profiles created specifically for their applications, they cannot utilise other applications processes / profiles as these are proprietary.
-
The questions I would ask is which ones of them are systematically better in enough respects to make it worthwhile sacrificing the integrative practicality of the Lightroom Photoshop synergy. Why chase after zeroed settings and linearity above everything else? Yes, there is some merit to starting an editing procedure from the bottom up so one is not undoing and redoing, but really - how fundamentally important is this? The bottom line is what the final product ends up looking like, and how adept we are at getting there quickly and expertly, which really means - whatever software we are using, knowing how to use it well. This of course is a much broader topic than the scope of this thread, so perhaps best started somewhere else. I can think of all kinds of ways in which Lr could be improved; giving users the option of truly zeroed settings may be useful to some, but perhaps not the "killer improvement" this application could use, in lieu of some of the glitz being offered primarily for penetrating the mobile device market.
-
Applications that work with raw files do not alter the original raw file
Adobe products actually can alter the original raw file ;D
-
The questions I would ask is which ones of them are systematically better in enough respects to make it worthwhile sacrificing the integrative practicality of the Lightroom Photoshop synergy.
for starters - some people like me do not want to have Adobe's DAM to be imposed on me... and with LR you have to import first, even if you don't need that... so I use ACR... and LR PS can shove its synergy up the proverbial place.
-
Adobe products actually can alter the original raw file ;D
Other than this command to update the Edit time (in LR) what can an Adobe product alter?
-
for starters - some people like me do not want to have Adobe's DAM to be imposed on me... and with LR you have to import first, even if you don't need that... so I use ACR... and LR PS can shove its synergy up the proverbial place.
In terms of processing raw, there's no difference between LR and ACR with respect to profiles and presets; the actual topic here. They both use the identical raw engine and one can bounce back and forth between ACR and LR (if the same version parity).
-
In terms of processing raw, there's no difference between LR and ACR with respect to profiles and presets; the actual topic here. They both use the identical raw engine and one can bounce back and forth between ACR and LR (if the same version parity).
I believe the poster you are responding to, in his own foul manner, was broadening the discussion to make the point that he doesn't want to be bothered with importing photos and managing a catalog, so that person prefers to stick to Photoshop where this is not necessary. That person of course fails to understand that there are other people - very knowledgeable and experienced photographers, who value the integration between Lightroom and Photoshop for good reasons.
-
I believe the poster you are responding to, in his own foul manner, was broadening the discussion to make the point that he doesn't want to be bothered with importing photos and managing a catalog, so that person prefers to stick to Photoshop where this is not necessary. That person of course fails to understand that there are other people - very knowledgeable and experienced photographers, who value the integration between Lightroom and Photoshop for good reasons.
Foul, perhaps. ::)
-
In terms of processing raw, there's no difference between LR and ACR with respect to profiles and presets;
(https://www.chargrilled.co.uk/t-shirts/prodimages/staticimages/square/m0captainobvious_m_Royal%20Blue.jpg)
-
(https://www.chargrilled.co.uk/t-shirts/prodimages/staticimages/square/m0captainobvious_m_Royal%20Blue.jpg)
Yet you obviously can't answer the question asked of you about what Adobe does to actually alter the original raw. Still thinking it over?
-
Other than this command to update the Edit time (in LR) what can an Adobe product alter?
the raw file, dear (embedded thumbnail for example in DNG formatted raw file, add dcp profile inside)... I think you fail to comprehend the meaning of the statement - "Adobe products actually can alter the original raw file" (emphasis on the "file"), certainly due to the limited knowledge of Adobe products operation that you consistently demonstrates here - just like this time... ;D
-
Yet you obviously can't answer the question asked of you about what Adobe does to actually alter the original raw. Still thinking it over?
Andrew, you are paid attention between coffee sips and other matters, so just sit tight and wait when your time comes...
-
the raw file, dear (embedded thumbnail for example in DNG formatted raw file, add dcp profile inside)... I think you fail to comprehend the meaning of the statement - "Adobe products actually can alter the original raw file" (emphasis on the "file"), certainly due to the limited knowledge of Adobe products operation that you consistently demonstrates here - just like this time... ;D
Not the original proprietary raw: you struck out dear. Adobe products actually alter non proprietary raws and other FILES (heard of a TIFF?).
I think you fail to comprehend the meaning of the word Original dear. Clean up that coffee stain from your pants.
Adobe products actually can alter the original raw file ;D
-
the raw file, dear (embedded thumbnail for example in DNG formatted raw file, add dcp profile inside)... I think you fail to comprehend the meaning of the statement - "Adobe products actually can alter the original raw file" (emphasis on the "file"), certainly due to the limited knowledge of Adobe products operation that you consistently demonstrates here - just like this time... ;D
What alternative do you use to avoid this issue?
-
What alternative do you use to avoid this issue.?
One alternative to this issue is not to feed the troll. :o