P: Use in-camera photo settings as RAW defaults

ISO does not affect exposure. ISO affects an exposure recommendation. You (can) control exposure if you wish.

Setting ISO speed does not change the sensitivity of the sensor to incoming light, like volume control does not change the sensitivity of a radio. In both cases the setting (ISO or volume) controls only the signal processing, while the input stage (sensor, antenna) provides the same input signal and in this case, exposure to the sensor.

That's why when ISO setting is cranked up, automatic exposure results in more noise - automatic exposure in this case decreases the exposure (that is, the combination of aperture and shutter speed is set to allow less light captured by the sensor). Less exposure, less light, more noise. If this Nikon 'feature' under exposes the raw, that's not good. Optimal exposure, for raw (which differs from a JPEG), a color neg, a transparency is all basic photography 101.

Articles on exposing for specifically and only raw:
http://www.onezone.photos
http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/
https://luminous-landscape.com/the-optimum-digital-exposure/
http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/mystic-exposure-triangle
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/red_flowers_photography_to-see-the-real-picture
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/exposure-for-raw-or-for-jpegs
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/beware-histogram
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/calibrate-exposure-meter-to-improve-dynamic-range

So some screenshots that show what happens. These are images of my basement with a bright window in it so I am only showing the as imported histogram and settings to show what happens.

ADL (high) on vs ADL off with auto-ISO on. You see it just biases the ISO and avoids the blown-out highlight and dials in a bit of exposure compensation.

Here is fixed ISO, aperture priority:

It biases the shutter speed in this case.

And here is fixed ISO, shutter priority

So all ADL does is bias the light meter a bit and compensates for it in post. If you have auto-ISO it doesn't change the exposure (remember exposure is ONLY shutter and aperture!), just lowers the sensor sensitivity (ISO) a bit. In fixed ISO mode, it actually lowers the exposure either by increasing shutter speed or increasing aperture which will introduce more noise but will create more headroom for highlights.

I am of the opinion that you are always beter off controlling the exposure yourself to create the optimal exposure but I can see how it can help make the images look a bit better on your camera back if you use the ADL modes and can have workflow benefits.

Yes, my experience is exactly what @Jao vdL describes.

I typically shoot "M" with auto ISO.  Enabling Active D-Lighting, the camera drops the ISO to underexpose the image, but I don't notice it in the EVF (nor in the JPEGs) as the camera adds "fill" to make the image look like it did not underexpose the image.

I learned this one the hard way when I once fiddled with some in-camera settings (including ADL) when shooting RAW on my Z6, and came back to a bunch of images in Lightroom that appeared underexposed as the previews were rendered.  I didn't realize a switch to "Camera Settings" for RAW defaults would circumvent this... I simply stopped using ADL at the time.  Thanks for the background, I'm going to re-evaluate that setting on my Z6, now!

It depends on your exposure mode and on your camera model. On my Z7, if you use auto-ISO, it (enabling active D-lighting) biases the ISO setting. It keeps the same shutter and aperture but simply dials down the ISO and so creates more headroom. Lightroom compensates for this automatically and dials in a positive exposure compensation and shadow and highlights value mimicing the in camera treatment. When you are in aperture mode with fixed ISO, it lowers the shutter speed. In shutter priority, it closes the aperture down a bit. So basically it just biases the light meter a bit and compensates for it. Lightroom seems to always just take care of it automatically if you have "Camera Settings" in the raw defaults. If you have Adobe Default set, you will get an underexposed image.

Considering that exposure is only two actual (physical) attributes that control the amount of light striking the sensor (aperture and shutter), how does "Active D-Lighting" affect exposure?

Can it affect the raw? Perhaps outside of actual exposure. Can it affect the meter or ISO? Perhaps.

Be useful to see two identical captures under control where the only difference is invoking this "Active D-Lighting" and open/examine both in RawDigger.

IF the only difference in "Active D-Lighting" is proprietary metadata that isn't understood by anyone but Nikon, or proprietary alteration of the raw above and beyond what really IS expsoure, no wonder Adobe has to and should ignore it.

Edit: seems this 'feature' doesn't do anything but alter the 'automatic' exposure which in of itself is often problematic shooting raw. It doesn't affect the raw whatsoever on manual and thus, doesn't affect exposure unless, like ISO, you blindly ignore actual image exposure:

Active-D lighting and RAW files

https://andybeales.com/best-settings-for-adl-nikon/

Yes.  It does affect the raw file because it works with the cameras metering system and therefore, can affect exposure slightly. Unless you are shooting in fully manual mode.

Just like ISO, which does not affect exposure. ISO affects automatic exposure which is why so often, people incorrectly state high ISO produces more noise. Under exposure produces more noise in raw data.

Nikon would like some to believe this affects DR which is an attribute of the capture system.

Bottom line, "Active D-Lighting" doesn't do anything Adobe needs to pay attention to. You the photographer control the actual exposure of the raw, if you actually control the exposure of the raw <g>. Another reason again why a raw+JPEG approach does nothing at all useful to the raw capture; just the opposite!

I've found that the "Active D-Lighting" feature really messed with exposures for my Z6, too.  I'd end up with underexposed files if I dared use ADL when shooting RAW.

The Z9 definitely behaves "better"... the exposures are correct now, and the files start their LR life with a raised shadow slider.  It's especially convenient shooting birds, because my EVF shows a milder version of what I'll be able to do later in PP, instead of everything crunched up against the top or bottom of the histogram.  SOOC RAWs all I really need to do is adjust sharpness settings depending on how sharp the actual photo is.

I've also found that LR seems to render my WB a bit greener than JPEGs... as a former Canon shooter I love my magentas, so I often correct that.

Otherwise, I agree LR does a pretty good job.  There's the few settings that aren't implemented that are causing me grief, and then there are whole model lineups of cameras that give boilerplate RAW files, but I'm glad my "high volume" camera is already most of the way there.

I find with my Z7 that my raw files come in virtually identical (only very minor differences) to the jpegs. I absolutely never use the dynamic lighting modes in camera though as they lie to you what the actual settings are but even if I use those modes they seem to be approximated fairly well by the equivalent Lightroom HDR-like settings (shadows, etc.). If you have your camera defaults set to using the camera settings it seems to go above and beyond the defaults that are written into the NEF file and try to approximate the HDR treatment in camera using shadows, highlights, and the appropriate exposure compensation to take care of the behind the scenes exposure bias that the in-camera HDR mode adds. To me this all seems to result in virtually identical images from an in-camera jpeg and a raw file. It's possible that this is different for your Z9 though. It is also possible that you are using settings in camera way more than I do (I really only touch exposure settings normally).  

@Ian Lyons, apologies if it sounded like I was implying Adobe was insular in its handling of manufacturer file formats. I think the opposite is true; Lightroom has long had the widest camera support among this category of software (which it admittedly created).  It's a feature I greatly appreciate, having shot some lesser-used models over the years.

@Per Berntsen, I think I understand.  Your camera is there to collect the absolute best possible data, and Lightroom is there to create your esthetic.  I guess I generally do the same, much of the time.  Lightroom can almost always give me exactly what I want with some work, and for many photos I'm happy to spend the time processing one of the half-dozen keepers I might have after a day's shooting.

I sometimes use Lightroom in a different capacity, however:

Shooting wildlife, the pain of culling hundreds of files is compounded by the need to apply some rough processing in LR to check for the "potential" in a mountain of similar "flat" RAW files.

Shooting sports, all I need are "good colors" and a correct exposure.  JPEG is generally fine here, but RAW white balance control and noise reduction sure would be nice!

Shooting causal family events, I generally tune in a "look" I'm going for in-camera, and just shoot that.  I rarely do any processing on these.  If I shoot "finished" JPEGs, I save a ton of time, but I better nail the shot!

In all these cases, I always have the same experience when importing RAW files into Lightroom.  I'll start to cull the images and find a really nice photo.  Excited, I'll enter Develop module to process it a bit, and then be momentarily crushed when the image goes from a pretty-close-to-done JPEG embedded preview to a flat, your-work-is-cut-out-for-you RAW file.

Oftentimes I'll go a different way with processing in the end, but there's significant time savings on the table for me if my RAW starting point were closer to what I originally visualized.

I've spilled way too much ink describing why I think this is useful, I suppose, but I feel Lightroom is the best DAM tool available, and I use it even for my "JPEG workflows".  I guess I'm excited at how close LR is to eliminating my JPEG workflows entirely.  Clearly I'm on a bit of an island here, but perhaps those that have accepted their JPEG fate don't hang out here.  🙂

May I ask why you're not a fan of this feature (if that's really even the right word, given that it's more Nikon than Adobe)?  Could you not just "turn down" the settings you don't like, and turn up the ones you do?  Are you using a series of Presets keyed to your model and ISO?  And if so, aren't Nikon's XMP "suggestions" eliminated by your presets anyway?

 

By @ckrueger2

I never shoot jpg, and I use the image on the camera's rear screen mainly to check sharpness. 

I also have the EVF histogram enabled most of the time, and use the rear wheel for exposure compensation, aiming for optimal exposure – as much exposure as possible without blowing the highlights.

It's a jpg histogram, it doesn't show RGB channels, and it's often misleading, but it's better than nothing.

With a proper exposure, I have the best possible starting point for editing in Lightroom, and I'm quite happy with Lightroom's initial rendering of my raw files. And rather than fiddling with camera settings when shooting, I prefer to do general editing on my calibrated monitor.

So camera settings are unwanted, and they are of course overwritten by my raw defaults on import.

> Except outreach to manufacturers, I suppose.

Adobe have long arms and been reaching out to manufactuers from the early days of Camera Raw. Some manfacturers provide the info (except for what they want to keep as proprietary) and others seem to keep walking away.