Lightroom questions

WayneF

Senior Member
I can't say my WB is crude. It is usually quite correct. The same was not true for the D3300.

Direct bright sun is pretty much a constant.

But...
Sunrise and sunset and cloudy is not.
Shade and Cloudy varies with sky.
There are many colors (and bulb types) for incandescent (regular ones, not speaking of colored bulbs).
Fluorescent is a big mixed bag. Even if we knew bulb type, same type varies considerably.
With bulb age if nothing else (but there is plenty else).
Flash color varies with power level.
etc, etc.

If you think it is always correct, you are far from critical.

The crude camera settings (independent of scene) are the problem, not the solution.

If WB were easy and obvious, no one would ever discuss it.

The easy way (fast and good) is to include a known neutral white color in the (test) image. The raw software is quite good to identify a color cast in a known white area, and can easily fix the image(s) to be perfect color. Of course, we might still prefer to hit it with Vivid or something, but it does not have to have a color cast.
 
Last edited:

J-see

Senior Member
Direct bright sun is pretty much a constant.

But...
There are many colors (and bulb types) for incandescent (regular ones, not speaking of colored bulbs).
Fluorescent is a mixed bag. Even if we knew bulb type, they vary considerably.
Flash color varies with power level.
Shade and Cloudy varies with sky. etc, etc.

The crude camera settings (independent of scene) are the problem, not the solution.

If WB was easy and obvious, no one would ever discuss it.

No disagreement there. But only few of us use grey cards (I guess we're too lazy, at least I am) and thus we have to rely on the cam or on what the editor picks when we select a neutral part of the shot to correct. And all editors will use a slightly different WB even when picking the exact same spot.
 

cbay

Senior Member
With all the processing abilities these days it lends itself well to our artistic side. Nonetheless, i think i'll get a color card and carry it with me so i can get a more accurate baseline.
 
Last edited:

WayneF

Senior Member
No disagreement there. But only few of us use grey cards (I guess we're too lazy, at least I am) and thus we have to rely on the cam or on what the editor picks when we select a neutral part of the shot to correct. And all editors will use a slightly different WB even when picking the exact same spot.

Clicking around on different spots of same card will show slightly different colors. This has a lot to do with the choice of how many pixels the eyedropper picks. But that is very small difference, not a problem.

Speaking of 18%, a gray card is much better than nothing, almost decent maybe, but gray cards are designed to be 18% reflectance, and nothing is said about being a neutral gray. They are not controlled for color, and NOT purely neutral. And they are really too dark to be optimum to see a color cast (even black can work, but not very well).

There are white balance cards that are gray, but a much lighter shade of gray than 18%, supposedly using controlled ink, and the resulting cards are individually tested for neutral. This costs more, and involves a tolerance.

The white cards are just plastic without pigment, dirt cheap, washable, and an excellent neutral white. I also have the WhiBal cards, but I prefer the Porta Brace cards.

Even envelopes or cheap copy paper works pretty well. White porcellian china plates work well.
But a $5 Porta Brace white balance card is very easy to carry and works great.
 
Last edited:

sonicbuffalo_RIP

Senior Member
I suggest you go to lynda.com and watch some of their lessons on using Lightroom. It has helped me. You can download the lessons/videos by uisng Firefox and then saving the videos to a folder. Then play them back using media player. If you're using a Mac, I don't know how that would work. Good luck.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I don't use it all the time, but I do use an X-Rite Color Checker Passport frequently and it works quite well. From reading the directions it might sound like a pain to use, but in practice it's really very simple. If you're anal about your WB and color correction, it's worth considering.
....
 

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
I've created 3 or 4 custom camera profiles in various lighting conditions for each of my cameras... and can now just select those profiles in LR... and get within 99.99% without creating new profiles... I hate doing the process too... but the profiles, are pretty accurate if you take a systematic approach...:)
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I've created 3 or 4 custom camera profiles in various lighting conditions for each of my cameras... and can now just select those profiles in LR... and get within 99.99% without creating new profiles... I hate doing the process too... but the profiles, are pretty accurate if you take a systematic approach...:)
Interesting!

Could you give me some examples of what kind of "lighting conditions" you've created profiles for?
....
 

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
Sure...

Bright Sunlight
Shade
Flash <--I have a few different light systems, so I've broken them down... Speedlight910, 2700KFixed, etc

I just extend the names...

D300FullSun
D600SP910
D300GoldenHour
D600GoldenHour
etc

You can use the x-rite tools to manage/name the profiles...
LR only loads the profiles for the camera listed in the EXIF data of the image

If you want (I only did that as a test) you can export the profiles and load them as custom profiles to the camera too... but I don't shoot Jpeg so, only did it as a test once...
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Sure...

Bright Sunlight
Shade
Flash <--I have a few different light systems, so I've broken them down... Speedlight910, 2700KFixed, etc.
Okay, so just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, you went outside when it was bright and sunny and did a shot from which you then created your custom WB "Bright Sunlight". You then use this WB setting for any shot you took under similar sunny conditions, yes? It sounds silly to ask when I type it all out but I guess what I'm asking is you find the WB is consistent from day to day and week to week?

....
 

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
Yup... that's basically it... The studio setups require less tweaking because the lighting is fairly consistent and controlled... Outside lighting is different, but the profiles get me close... grass is grass... landscape doesn't require as much tweaking as portrait... skin tones require the most tweaking, in which case, I re-shoot the colorchecker for this conditions...
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Yup... that's basically it... The studio setups require less tweaking because the lighting is fairly consistent and controlled... Outside lighting is different, but the profiles get me close... grass is grass... landscape doesn't require as much tweaking as portrait... skin tones require the most tweaking, in which case, I re-shoot the colorchecker for this conditions...
Okay, yeah... That all makes perfect sense. I'm so going to try this later today.

Thank you!
....
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
This is what I'm getting from your RAW file when exporting to LR. This is with the Adobe Standard profile.

test shots-1452.jpg
 

cbay

Senior Member
Pete, i shot quite a few that morning and most all of them gave me trouble with color. I'm convinced it was the cloud filter / color that morning that kept me looking for something else. Actually, it serves as a good example of a scene where i would have appreciated a color checker for a good baseline. I better check in Lr again since i've had more time with the program - and my trial runs out in a couple days :( Trying to decide whether to just go ahead and get it now or wait for Lr6 so i may have a gap in my fun time if i wait for Lr6.
 

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
Chris... I guarantee if you buy/install/start using the CC version of LR right now... you won't be confused when they slip stream the 1/2 dozen new features that'll come with version 6... It's not like Adobe is going to change the interface between 5 and 6 and you'll have to relearn anything... all they'll be doing is adding new features to the existing product...
 

J-see

Senior Member
This is what I'm getting from your RAW file when exporting to LR. This is with the Adobe Standard profile.

I don't use LR but I was curious and loaded the NEF in RT and used its auto profile for the cam & also used the lens profile. This is how it looks there:

DSC_1452.jpg
 

cbay

Senior Member
Chris... I guarantee if you buy/install/start using the CC version of LR right now... you won't be confused when they slip stream the 1/2 dozen new features that'll come with version 6... It's not like Adobe is going to change the interface between 5 and 6 and you'll have to relearn anything... all they'll be doing is adding new features to the existing product...

If i weren't so head strong on not getting on a monthly payment plan it would already be done. I might give in before it's said and done though. The hdr feature and better gpu rendering has me willing to wait for Lr6 as a stand alone.
 

cbay

Senior Member
I've been looking at some of my deer pictures from earlier this year and noticed that no matter what i did in Lr i couldn't even come close to getting the quality of colors that i did in View NX 2. It bothered me enough that i did some reading and found that some were able to retain quality by using Capture or View and exporting as a TIFF image.
This may be old news to many, but i just tried it and the results look pretty good going from View nx2 - tiff - Lr.
From what i gathered previously Viewnx2 was destructive - and won't work with my 7200 (?), so what options to retain Nikon colors is there for the 7200? No software came with it.
 
Top