Not Starting from Scratch with a raw file

[Simon Garrett]

So then, why not just process it through canons processor first and then exported from there to an Adobe product and work on it there now that it's been processed?

The advantage of using the proprietary raw convertor (Canon's or Nikon's software, for example) is that they will take account of those settings like sharpness, contrast and saturation.  

However, with raw (as opposed to jpeg) you can defer the decision on those settings until post processing.  Personally I can't be fussed with setting all that stuff before every photo.  I've much more time to do it later in post processing.  And if you don't alter them for each exposure, then it makes no difference if you make fixed settings on your camera or in your raw processor.  

But to answer your question - why wouldn't you use the manufacturer's own raw conversion software?  In the case of Nikon, it's because I think Adobe raw conversion is markedly better than Nikon's, and the overall feature set of Adobe Lightroom is (IMHO) greatly superior that of Nikon's software.  Clearly that's a subjective judgement, and I can't speak for Canon's software.

Some people use a proprietary raw processor and then use Lightroom.  Personally I can't see much point in that.  

[hjulenissen]

So then, why not just process it through canons processor first and then exported from there to an Adobe product and work on it there now that it's been processed?

My goal is not to emulate the out-of-camera JPEGs. If it was, I'd use DPP or even out-of-camera JPEGs.

My goal is to make "good" images. And to maintain a large collection of images, some of which are from Nikon or Sony cameras. And to avoid consulting user manuals. For me and my needs, Lightroom has been a reasonable solution (with a few warts). For what I know, there may be other solutions that I never tried that would have done better, but DPP and DxO did not feel as immediately "right" as Lightroom did.

-h

[john beardsworth]

So then, why not just process it through canons processor first and then exported from there to an Adobe product and work on it there now that it's been processed?

A few reasons:

- When you own cameras from more than one manufacturer, you'll inevitably be less-skilled and less-efficient using each camera makers' own software than learning one app properly
- Camera companies are great at developing cameras, less wonderful at writing desktop software
- It's not just about processing but also about handling often large numbers of photos

[hjulenissen]

I still think it would be neat if Lightroom & friends could read and interpret the same meta-data as DPP does. If the user wants an emulation of in-camera JPEG, why not offer it (or as close an approximation that the different technologies multiplied by developer effort allows). Adobe seems to allude to this thought in that they offer camera manufacturer emulating color profiles?

Showing active AF points in Lightroom would be really handy. Searching for images in database where focus point selection was this or that might also be handy.

This is the point where someone will chime in saying that camera manufacturers are naughty for using proprietary file formats instead of open standards like DNG. And then the thread will spin for a page or two where proponents and opponents fight over that...

-h

[john beardsworth]

I still think it would be neat if Lightroom & friends could read and interpret the same meta-data as DPP does.

Wouldn't they be endlessly chasing their tails? But what I would like is to have LR display and use the embedded JPEG preview (in the same way as Aperture) which I think would be more practical.

There was a Lightroom plugin which displayed Nikon focus points, though I think its developer disappeared before it was finished. Focus points might be of educational value, but might not that development time be better spent on a focus mask which shows what is actually sharp?

John

[Simon Garrett]

Wouldn't they be endlessly chasing their tails? But what I would like is to have LR display and use the embedded JPEG preview (in the same way as Aperture) which I think would be more practical.

I think it displays the jpeg preview only momentarily, while it's building its own preview.  No way of seeing it after that. 

However, it would be nice to toggle back-and-forth to the jpeg preview, to get a comparison with the camera-rendered jpeg.  Is that what Aperture does?

[hjulenissen]

Wouldn't they be endlessly chasing their tails? But what I would like is to have LR display and use the embedded JPEG preview (in the same way as Aperture) which I think would be more practical.

From a user-persective, it would be a nice feature to have. From a developer perspective, possibly. But then there might be solutions (DNG raw files might be one).

There was a Lightroom plugin which displayed Nikon focus points, though I think its developer disappeared before it was finished. Focus points might be of educational value, but might not that development time be better spent on a focus mask which shows what is actually sharp?

Self-education is a large part of my photography. I want to get better, and knowing what I did makes it easier to see if results match expectations.

-h

[john beardsworth]

However, it would be nice to toggle back-and-forth to the jpeg preview, to get a comparison with the camera-rendered jpeg. Is that what Aperture does?

Yes, that's correct - with a nice big warning to keep you aware that you're in preview mode.

[StoneNYC]

What I don't understand is that, when I view a canon RAW image in my Mac preview will display the image as I shot it in camera, but when imported to Lightroom it initially displays in the in-camera settings, and then once finished loading/rendering, it changes and loses all the original stuff... So why can't it keep it, since it obviously is able to read and display the info.

[Simon Garrett]

What I don't understand is that, when I view a canon RAW image in my Mac preview will display the image as I shot it in camera, but when imported to Lightroom it initially displays in the in-camera settings, and then once finished loading/rendering, it changes and loses all the original stuff... So why can't it keep it, since it obviously is able to read and display the info.

It's not displaying initially the in-camera settings, or not directly.  It's displaying the small embedded jpeg preview that's stored inside a raw.  That preview has been made with the in-camera settings, so indirectly that's what you're seeing.  

When you shoot raw, a small low-res jpeg is stored in it as well, for things like the in-camera preview.  When you display a raw image on the back of your camera, you're not seeing the raw, you're seeing this little jpeg.  

Lightroom initially displays this preview also while it's building its own preview from the raw.  Once it has its own preview, it displays that, as it accurately reflects Lightroom's raw rendering (which the embedded preview won't).

We were discussing this a few posts above.  John Beardsworth explained that in Aperture, you can see this embedded jpeg later, if you want.  I think that would be a neat feature in LR, too, but John says it comes with a health warning in Aperture, as it's NOT a preview of the LR rendering.  

[digitaldog]

Wouldn't they be endlessly chasing their tails?

Yes! And why stop there. The preview should (?) match any other 3rd party raw converter. The problem is the concept that the preview rendering from the camera is somehow correct. It's just one interpretation.

[Vladimirovich]

Showing active AF points in Lightroom would be really handy. Searching for images in database where focus point selection was this or that might also be handy.

This is the point where someone will chime in saying that camera manufacturers are naughty for using proprietary file formats instead of open standards like DNG.

and which tag is for a focus point ? of points ? = http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/dng_spec_1.4.0.0.pdf

[hjulenissen]

Yes! And why stop there. The preview should (?) match any other 3rd party raw converter. The problem is the concept that the preview rendering from the camera is somehow correct. It's just one interpretation.

Someone might think that the in-camera JPEG is "the reference". To me, that is a strange idea.

There might be valid use-cases for being able to affect raw development while shooting the image. The user might decide that an image should be rendered as B&W while snapping. She might record to raw because she knows that will capture as much image information as possible. She might still prefer that her raw developer reads that she had explicitly set the "B&W" bit in the raw file, and do its best to default render as "B&W".

The look of one raw pipeline can never be anything but an approximation to the look of another raw pipeline. Sometimes, even crude approximations can be just what the user needs. The usage of "default" settings and "presets" in raw developers seems to support that people want the possibility of "crude approximations".

As a wild guess, someone who shot 1000+ (raw) images at a wedding and is under a strict deadline to present a preview of the best images for selection and posting on facebook the same night, would appreciate any measure that allows for more automation (even if full manual effort will always be needed for optimal results).

-h

[wofsy]

DPP works well . Thank you.

[wofsy]

Redcrown

You are describing a process by which one exactly determines the color and tone of a photo using another as a template. This seems to be a skill one would want to master.

I did not understand technically all of the things you mentioned - e.g. how to build a matching tone curve ...Is there a reference you can point me to?