I use Capture NX-D to export the D7200 files as a TiFF format with the ICC profile attached. I load those in RT and they look identical as in Nikon soft. You can do the same in LR.
You need the latest version of Capture.
Lightroom questions
- Thread starter cbay
- Start date
I use Capture NX-D to export the D7200 files as a TiFF format with the ICC profile attached. I load those in RT and they look identical as in Nikon soft. You can do the same in LR.
You need the latest version of Capture.
If you are shooting with settings such as Vivid in the camera, Adobe raw does not add Vivid, but you can add it (in Adobe raw).
The row of icons in Raw has one icon that looks like a camera, toward the right end. It is called Camera Calibration. It has a Camera Profile in it, and such as Vivid is in there. You can even make that be automatic default if you wish (that seems a bad plan to me though, it gets old fast. )
Last edited:
Thanks Wayne, i'm wanting to do as j-see stated and use capture to transfer a tiff, but that program is confusing to me; as i just tried to do a batch process and got lost from there. 
So i loaded images from a raw folder into capture and that is as far as i got. I created a new folder in "my pictures" called "my Tiffs" to send them to from capture but the process didn't go like i planned.....so far.
I'm terrible with file/folder structures!!
So i loaded images from a raw folder into capture and that is as far as i got. I created a new folder in "my pictures" called "my Tiffs" to send them to from capture but the process didn't go like i planned.....so far.
I'm terrible with file/folder structures!!
OK, sorry, I can't comment on Capture, I don't use it. But it seems the wrong philosophy to transfer to TIF or PSD or JPG (for other than just a copy for external viewing use), because then you have lost all of your lossless editing advantages. The raw NEF and XMP files should remain our original master archive copy. You were lamenting Lightroom, and I was addressing your "what options to retain Nikon colors is there?" By "Nikon colors", I assumed the profiles, like maybe Vivid. Which Lightroom does not copy like Nikon does.
But no matter, actually the big idea of raw is to wait and look at it, and then decide then what it actually needs, and what we can see will help best. Setting we set months ago have little meaning to the actual scene in front of us today.
And I was thinking that it should be easy in Lightroom to get any result you want. I was thinking you might be overlooking that Adobe Raw provides Camera Profiles to match the camera, if desired. They are just not an automatic match as like in Nikon software (but they can be an automatic default, same automatic default as we probably treat the camera settings).
But no matter, actually the big idea of raw is to wait and look at it, and then decide then what it actually needs, and what we can see will help best. Setting we set months ago have little meaning to the actual scene in front of us today.
And I was thinking that it should be easy in Lightroom to get any result you want. I was thinking you might be overlooking that Adobe Raw provides Camera Profiles to match the camera, if desired. They are just not an automatic match as like in Nikon software (but they can be an automatic default, same automatic default as we probably treat the camera settings).
TIFF is just a file format, a system of tags describing the data. A particularly versatile one. Yes, one use of TIFF tags is to store raw data, called NEF in our case. TIFF can have about anything in it, remember the old Kodak PhotoCD format? But file extension .TIF is normally RGB. (can be grayscale or CMYK, or Indexed). But for color photos, normally just plain RGB. The main distinction and pride of TIF is that it does not have JPG artifacts in it.
(actually Adobe has one option where it does).I don't think it is even semantics... RGB is not lossless. Crop it and that trimmed part is gone. Make it be blue, and it's blue now, any other choice has to undo the blue before it can be not blue (involving two large shifts up and down the gamma curve). It does have gamma in it.
OK, TIF and JPG if in raw editors like Lightroom can be lossless FROM THAT POINT ON (not related to 16 bits). That is due to Lightroom, TIF had no part in it. And that's good for compact camera JPG with no other choice, but in our case, we still cannot go back to the original raw and/or its edits (not without discarding the TIF or JPG, and starting over). It's giving up too much, unnecessarily. Other than special effects, Lightroom and raw, according to very many opinions, can do anything we might want in regular photo processing. No need of TIF. IMO.
Last edited:
Well, as I tried to say, if you edit that TIF, and then decide you went wrong, yes, you can discard it and go back to the original raw file. But then you start all over again. Unnecessarily. In raw edits, you just say undo... of whichever mistake you made. The rest of it, the good stuff, you can keep. Lossless editing. It is a modern philosophy, good stuff.
I convert my D7200 files to Tiff and load those in my editor. Regardless what tweaks I do, I can always go back to the original TiFF I started with. It requires one step more because at the moment I can't process the RAW directly but besides that step, it's identical.
If I want the RAW identical as Nikon shoots, either processing in Nikon soft or using TiFF as a conversion is the only option. The moment I use other soft, I get another look. Loading cam profiles in those editors does not change that.
It's silly they don't openly share their formats but it's as it is.
Apparently I cannot make my point. The TIF cannot go back to original raw. At most (even editing in a good raw editor like Lightroom), the TIF can only go back to the TIF it got from the original raw editor, which contains whatever unthinking edits that were done in the raw editor. If from camera settings, unthinking is surely the right word (been there, done that). If those settings are the problem, you're out of luck (until you discard the TIF and go back for it). So you are giving up advantages that you could have had before.
In Nikon Capture, it seems better to learn it to get the final results you want.
Or same in Lightroom. Pick one, learn it, and go with it.
Let me show you:
I converted one NEF twice; once to DNG using the DNG converter and once to TiFF. I then loaded both in the same editor and simply saved them as JPEG.
The shots:
They look similar.
Now let me run them through an analyser.
Close but no cigar. This is while using the same editor. If I'd use a different editor, the end results would differ much more.
I converted one NEF twice; once to DNG using the DNG converter and once to TiFF. I then loaded both in the same editor and simply saved them as JPEG.
The shots:
They look similar.
Now let me run them through an analyser.
Close but no cigar. This is while using the same editor. If I'd use a different editor, the end results would differ much more.
So if I convert a RAW to TiFF and then process that Tiff, I can not go back to the original RAW?
I guess I then have been performing miracles until now.
Wayne, i'm not too sharp on this stuff but i just wanted to try keeping the Nikon profile on the Raw and then edit in LR. I've tried Adobe's camera profiles in Lr and they are not the same so i wanted to try this method. I'm not even familiar with Adobe raw, is that in photoshop? I'm probably making things harder than they have to be but figured i'd give this a try in my effort to keep the Nikon color and edit from there.
? Oops! I definitely do not want to pursue this any more (wrong road geeky comparisons instead of practical pictures that we can actually see), but will mention that I question your comparison, whatever it is. Only rhetorically, no answer sought.
Here is my quicky comparison:
This is Photoshop menu Image - Calculations - Difference. It is your two images, and the second has been updated to show just the differences from the first one, the brightness of the difference in the red channel.
All differences are highlighted there. Frankly, I see absolutely nothing. File size is even the same, which is something for JPG.
Just for example of the tool, here: What does JPG Quality Losses Mean?
is the same tool showing the difference in a 100% JPG and a PNG file (lossless compression). Even at 100%, JPG is still JPG, and the differences (here) are all edge effects.
The only point of mentioning this is to show how the tool shows differences in pixels. If there are any differences.
Try listening to the words.
At most, you can go back to the TIF you got from the raw editor. It contains whatever edits the raw editor did (apparently those you seek). It is NOT the original raw data which you otherwise could have obtained, when you might become disillusioned with the camera settings you made months ago, instead of for todays scene. One huge advantage of raw is that we can see it before we have to decide.The same Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) module is in Photoshop, Lightroom, and Elements. All work the same (Elements does omit all but the basics features however).
Last edited:
I guess if you value eyesight over an image analyzer we're done.
If you knew what you were comparing you'd have noticed that between both shots, 20Kb of information is missing. Guess which one lost that information?
Here's your difference blending and a pure black. If there are no differences between both shots, both file sizes should be identical.
If you knew what you were comparing you'd have noticed that between both shots, 20Kb of information is missing. Guess which one lost that information?
Here's your difference blending and a pure black. If there are no differences between both shots, both file sizes should be identical.
Last edited:
It has little to do with calibration. Using different editors leads to different results although they're not dramatic in all cases. When I use RAWTherapee my result is not identical to Capture NX-D or Lightroom.
The problem is reverse engineering and different standards of application. It matters just as much as we desire it to. What's worse is a loss of information although even that isn't always that visible. The two shots I showed look identical but one has 5% information more than the other. That's a lot of pixels but do we notice it? Not surprisingly it's the DNG conversion that loses information.
The problem is reverse engineering and different standards of application. It matters just as much as we desire it to. What's worse is a loss of information although even that isn't always that visible. The two shots I showed look identical but one has 5% information more than the other. That's a lot of pixels but do we notice it? Not surprisingly it's the DNG conversion that loses information.
Last edited:
Yes thats true, But my point is that the profile that is selected might be what he is looking for but the monitor has too much blue and overpowers the yellow glow.
But yeah, The bigger problem is the software used to process the raw file.
Hi Ryan, no i haven't i'm dragging my feet on it but will eventually. This color difference between Nikon and Lightroom (and probably other editors) has become too noticeable for me to ignore anymore so i wanted to have a go at a method others were having success with in retaining that particular quality.
I think i got it figured out and will post some results in the "before and after" thread later.