Adobe RAW image processing (LR & ACR)

[hark]

Don, as I mentioned already, camera profile can make a huge difference in workflow. There are two schools of thought here.

One, not to give a rat's ass about what the JPEG preview looks like and always start with one profile because you'll always get a similar look and feel as a starting point. Adobe Standard, Camera Standard and Camera Neutral seem to be the most common. Or if you have a specific style of shooting that lends itself to a look you like to start with, pick that one.

Two, always keep your camera set to one profile and then match that profile on import. This is the method I use.

Even though LR defaults to Adobe Standard, it's very easy to change the defaults for a camera. In the LR Develop module, go to an unedited image from the camera that you're using and make the changes that you would like to see applied to every image imported by that camera (I check boxes for Chromatic Aberation and Lens Profile Correction, set my default for input sharpening and set the Camera Profile to Camera Standard. Once done, go to the Develop menu and choose Set Default Settings... and click the Update To Current Settings button. This will now apply all these as a part of your import process, but know that the more you do here the more work Adobe has to do during the preview phase of the import. These changes are specific to a body type, so if you shoot multiple bodies you will need to do it for each type (D750, D610, D7100, etc.). You can also click a box in the Presets tab of the Preferences dialogue to make the settings specific to a camera serial number in case you have multiples of the same body and have done some specific sensor profiling (the same body can have minor differences in what the sensor gives you).

It may add a bit of time to your import, but it won't add another step to your workflow.

This is interesting...I must have missed this post when you first wrote it. Jake, do you know of any way to set defaults in Bridge when opening images there? I don't think Bridge imports like LR so it's possible it can't be done. Thanks for any info!

 

[BackdoorArts]

Danno, they're all good questions and the answer may sound flippant as well, but all I can say is, "It depends".

There are 2 problematic factors as I see them. The first is recognizing that the software isn't interpreting your RAW image correctly in the first place. This is where being linked into a good set of bloggers who care about this stuff, and particularly investigate new bodies talk about it with no specific agenda is key - or being tied into a place like this where others are tied in and willing to point you at the articles. This is important so that you are both aware of the issue when it exists, and as importantly whether or not it's been corrected and if so fully or partially. The second is understanding what is wrong when there is something and being able to properly adjust your workflow to compensate. This involves a certain degree of technical adeptness so that you can either create a custom profile to compensate for the shortcomings of Adobe's, or at least being aware of what can and cannot be fixed in post so that shortcomings are ignored as a part of the culling process.

Personally? I do initial culling based purely on composition. I've recovered enough "great" images from "horrible" lighting that I know I can make a picture out of something provided I've captured something. It pains me when I realize I've done more work than I needed to in order to get there (the basis for my posting this), but in the end I only care that I get there.

Given my potential foray into the other major camera brand I had a long conversation with my brother about processing Canon RAW files and while he shoots mainly JPEG, he told me that he has found Canon's Digital Photo Professional software to be head and shoulders about ACR in getting a starting image, particularly with regard to the way in which lens profiles are applied. His recommendation was to do the initial edits in that, save the TIFF and then go to Photoshop. Not sure how easy this is to integrate into a LR/PS based workflow, but if nothing else I take away from it that while Adobe may have been the only great player in this market for a while they may either be stretched too thin or simply resting on their laurels and counting on folks not wanting to adapt to a new product when they've invested so much time and money here?

Regardless, it's a tool and I can still swing this hammer and likely will because I'm very comfortable with it.

 

[BackdoorArts]

This is interesting...I must have missed this post when you first wrote it. Jake, do you know of any way to set defaults in Bridge when opening images there? I don't think Bridge imports like LR so it's possible it can't be done. Thanks for any info!

I know nothing about Bridge and don't even have it installed to look myself, so you'll need to dig. What I'm talking about with regard to LR would be something that would be applied as you open the image in ACR from Bridge, so perhaps look in the Preferences dialogue regarding what gets applied as you open in an external editor?

 

[hark]

I know nothing about Bridge and don't even have it installed to look myself, so you'll need to dig. What I'm talking about with regard to LR would be something that would be applied as you open the image in ACR from Bridge, so perhaps look in the Preferences dialogue regarding what gets applied as you open in an external editor?

Thanks! I'll look there--yes, I'm hoping to find some way to automatically apply setting changes to all photos opened in Bridge.

 

[Danno_RIP]

Danno, they're all good questions and the answer may sound flippant as well, but all I can say is, "It depends".

There are 2 problematic factors as I see them. The first is recognizing that the software isn't interpreting your RAW image correctly in the first place. This is where being linked into a good set of bloggers who care about this stuff, and particularly investigate new bodies talk about it with no specific agenda is key - or being tied into a place like this where others are tied in and willing to point you at the articles. This is important so that you are both aware of the issue when it exists, and as importantly whether or not it's been corrected and if so fully or partially. The second is understanding what is wrong when there is something and being able to properly adjust your workflow to compensate. This involves a certain degree of technical adeptness so that you can either create a custom profile to compensate for the shortcomings of Adobe's, or at least being aware of what can and cannot be fixed in post so that shortcomings are ignored as a part of the culling process.

Personally? I do initial culling based purely on composition. I've recovered enough "great" images from "horrible" lighting that I know I can make a picture out of something provided I've captured something. It pains me when I realize I've done more work than I needed to in order to get there (the basis for my posting this), but in the end I only care that I get there.

Ok that helps some... I have a couple more questions. If I get annoying just tell me and I will stop... First, my technical abilities are not what they wore... my brain has a couple shorts in it.

First I do understand that LR has issues, (Thank You for sharing your research), some of the stuff I saw I thought was my doing... or how I was seeing it (still may be, but this makes me feel a bit better none the less).

Second I did match my camera and LR to be the same and I set the lens correction items in my "current settings".

Finally, I too hate doing more than I need too in order to get the photo the way I want it. Some is not bad, because I am learning and getting better, but I do hate to waste time. Now in my process I look at almost every picture I take... It helps me see compassion errors that I need to correct... At one point with my D3200 I found I was positioning my subject to far left in the frame and had a lot of useless junk... I did get good at cropping, but again not the best approach but I did teach my brain a new trick or two and I guess that is good. the D7200 helps with the grid I see in the view finder, and I am getting better at it.

Now today, and likely for some time, I have one camera the D7200... I have only been doing this a year and I have a limited budget... Likely will be a while before I upgrade anything more than Lenses.

I have tried to be as candid as I can. The stroke I had took with it much of my technical skills I am uncertain that I could right a routine to improve this, but I do feel like I can move the sliders the way I want, often starting with some presets I have installed, and getting to a photo I like. The two additional pieces of software mentioned in the article seemed good for review. I have to think about that a while, and I hope as you play with them, you will share your take on them.

As I re-read your reply, I am thinking I am in a decent spot to continue to learn the craft of both taking the photo and the post processing step. I am, as I have said before, thankful for this site and guys like you and the rest on this thread, for your willingness to share. If I am missing anything please let me know, and thank you for starting this thread... and your patience.

 

[BackdoorArts]

Danno, here's the thing I want you to understand (and no, you're not asking too much), the crux of the point here is starting point that Adobe gives you for your RAW processing and how accurate that is with regard to what you captured in-camera. The crux of the problem is whether or not what you see here is causing you to either throw out an image or do more work than you really should. Any decision that needs to be made depends on whether or not the "problem" is really a problem for you.

I suspect that for most people if you've never noticed a problem then you're probably not experiencing one. There are folks who have gotten a new camera and immediately complained that their darks were much darker than on their old camera or what they're seeing when they bring in two identical photos taken with the same lens and settings by two different bodies was exposed differently and they can't understand why. In the past I would attribute it to camera differences and not to the software because, frankly, I never would have thought that there could be this kind of a difference, and particularly that if there was this kind of a difference that it would eventually be corrected by the s/w manufacturer and it's not.

I am a huge fan of Lightroom as a post-processing tool and will continue to use it. I am less of a fan, after reading the article, and much more skeptical of Adobe and what they put in front of me with regard to my own images. I have always simply worked my image as best I can from the ground up and never thought much about the foundation the tool was giving me to build on. I can wish that the starting point was purer, but I do not find anything in here that has caused me to produce something lesser from my photographs. I posted this primarily for who may have noticed something about that initial foundation and may want to better understand why things are different from what they see in other cameras, or perhaps what they see if they open something in LR for the first time after using something else.

What I'm learning is that for RAW shooters there is nothing that will be better for initial image review and matching to the camera preview than what the manufacturer provides. Whether that's ultimately a better tool for everything you need after that point is another question entirely. Ultimately, unless you're willing to hunt down, pay for, and incorporate every "best" tool for your camera/photography into your workflow then there will always be a compromise, however small it might be. I'm happy compromising by taking a slightly "off" view of a RAW image from the beginning provided that the resulting image derived from the file is universally the same (i.e. WYSIWYG on TIFF and JPEG) once I'm done editing.

 

[Danno_RIP]

Danno, here's the thing I want you to understand (and no, you're not asking too much), the crux of the point here is starting point that Adobe gives you for your RAW processing and how accurate that is with regard to what you captured in-camera. The crux of the problem is whether or not what you see here is causing you to either throw out an image or do more work than you really should. Any decision that needs to be made depends on whether or not the "problem" is really a problem for you.

I suspect that for most people if you've never noticed a problem then you're probably not experiencing one. There are folks who have gotten a new camera and immediately complained that their darks were much darker than on their old camera or what they're seeing when they bring in two identical photos taken with the same lens and settings by two different bodies was exposed differently and they can't understand why. In the past I would attribute it to camera differences and not to the software because, frankly, I never would have thought that there could be this kind of a difference, and particularly that if there was this kind of a difference that it would eventually be corrected by the s/w manufacturer and it's not.

I am a huge fan of Lightroom as a post-processing tool and will continue to use it. I am less of a fan, after reading the article, and much more skeptical of Adobe and what they put in front of me with regard to my own images. I have always simply worked my image as best I can from the ground up and never thought much about the foundation the tool was giving me to build on. I can wish that the starting point was purer, but I do not find anything in here that has caused me to produce something lesser from my photographs. I posted this primarily for who may have noticed something about that initial foundation and may want to better understand why things are different from what they see in other cameras, or perhaps what they see if they open something in LR for the first time after using something else.

What I'm learning is that for RAW shooters there is nothing that will be better for initial image review and matching to the camera preview than what the manufacturer provides. Whether that's ultimately a better tool for everything you need after that point is another question entirely. Ultimately, unless you're willing to hunt down, pay for, and incorporate every "best" tool for your camera/photography into your workflow then there will always be a compromise, however small it might be. I'm happy compromising by taking a slightly "off" view of a RAW image from the beginning provided that the resulting image derived from the file is universally the same (i.e. WYSIWYG on TIFF and JPEG) once I'm done editing.

Great! Thank you. That was the clarification I needed. Thank you!

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk