P: Use in-camera photo settings as RAW defaults

Thanks for the insight into the mechanism making LR adjust its settings, @Per Berntsen!  I can see how there's not a whole lot Adobe could itself do to extend this behavior as it is currently implemented.  Except outreach to manufacturers, I suppose.

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?

I find that for B&W images especially, that using D-Lighting and Contrast adjustments in-camera not only help me get a better idea what I might get out of LR later, but helps me remember roughly what I was going for as I cull my take.

I understand the implications of similar versus same... I see the not-quite-exact film simulation analogs that Lightroom presents when I shoot RAW with my Fujifilm cameras.  In most cases, I'd call Lightroom "really close", and most of the time that's good enough.  As this kind of feature would be mostly helpful to get a close starting point for later processing, I think this limitation isn't really an issue.

By @ckrueger2

You were the one that asked for identical images in your initial post. That is why I explained that this is impossible. You can already define a camera default that mimics the camera settings 'pretty well' however, and all of a sudden you seem to be content with that. So here's how to do that: https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-classic/help/raw-defaults.html

Nikon Z cameras write some camera settings in XMP, which Adobe applications understand. (XMP was invented by Adobe)

Here's the XMP settings in a NEF from my Z 7, as shown by RawDigger.

As you can see below, all the XMP settings correspond with Lightroom settings, but there is no Lightroom setting called "Effect Level", which explains why this setting doesn't carry over.

I'm not a fan of these XMP settings, so I created my own camera defaults in Lightroom.

A sharpen radius of 2 is way too high, and I do not want to apply luminance noise reduction to an ISO 64 image.

 

I originally submitted this as a bug report in another thread, as I find that the RAW files from my Z9 have very nearly 100% coverage of in-camera settings already!  I find this extremely useful, but was disappointed to find that only one important setting ("Effect Level") was not implemented in Lightroom.  The older thread is linked above for context.

By @ckrueger2

Where you were told by Adobe and others: “This is not a bug”.

Enough said.

I can see we're going to circle each other on this strawman argument over the usability of proprietary maker tags, so I'll make just correct two points before signing off.
By @ckrueger2

Only because you seem to have reading comprehension issues.

I told you that there is proprietary data that isn't understood. I never said all proprietary data can't be understood.

A PSD is a proprietary file format that many other applications CAN understand and can use. There is a fee to use it but it is still proprietary AND thanks to Adobe, understandable by their doing. I never stated Lightroom cannot react to in-camera settings. In fact, I provided an example where it can when the data is presented to be understood (White Balance) when it can't by design (Nikon encrypting it).

There IS proprietary data from camera manufacturers that isn't understood by design. And no other raw converter can use it. I wrote this, I stand by this, it still remains:

Anything proprietary that isn't understood by anyone but the manufacturer isn't understood and isn't used (it can't be). No, it isn't a semantics argument. Adobe nor any other 3rd party raw converter can handle proprietary data, metadata or otherwise that it cannot understand by the choice of the hardware company producing that data.

I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.

I can see we're going to circle each other on this strawman argument over the usability of proprietary maker tags, so I'll make just correct two points before signing off.

First, proprietary doesn't mean unsuable, as you assert.  Industry is littered with examples of proprietary file formats that are used by third-party systems.  For example, the PSD file format is a proprietary Adobe Photoshop file format, but it is usable by numerous other software packages.  Perhaps even more on point, NEF is a proprietary Nikon file format, but it is used by Lightroom (and many other packages).

Adobe has even created DNG as an open standard RAW container, and specifically states that proprietary RAW files create archival risk.  Not "make files unusable by third-party software".  Merely creates risk.  (Personally, I agree and would like to see universal DNG adoption, but that's beside the point.)

When you say "Adobe nor any other 3rd party raw converter can handle proprietary data", you are incorrect.  I submit Lightroom processing proprietary RAW files as proof.

Second, I've presented evidence of Lightroom reacting to in-camera settings.  You've presented an opinion that such things are impossible.

Respectfully, evidence trumps opinion.  You are incorrect in your assertion that Lightroom cannot react to in-camera settings.

Regardless of the internal mechanisms that result in Lightroom altering its Develop Mode default values, the effect is real from the end-user's perspective.  Now, if an engineer with understanding of how this "magic" is happening were to say "Nikon is putting processing hints in their RAW files that Lightroom is accepting", my response would be "That's great!  Please work with camera makers to make this a standard feature for all new cameras!"  My request was for a user feature, after all, not necessarily for Adobe to reverse-engineer some BLOB data in NEF.  I've done that kind of work in a past life as a developer, and it's not fun.

I don't like to respond to an argument and then "run away", but I don't think continuing to argue about this "proprietary" business is going to get anywhere.  I'm sure you agree.

If you'd like to debate the merits of the feature request itself, I'm happy to do so... I would find this feature very useful, or I wouldn't be spending time arguing my case.  I have two cameras now that can create RAW files at 20fps.  Leveraging this feature on the front end would save me real-world time over creating a variety of LR presets on the back end, and has the added advantage of allowing me to visualize in-camera and have the results reflected in software.

OK, so to be exact:  "proprietary metadata isn't understood".

By @ckrueger2

Correct.

OK, so to be exact:  "proprietary metadata isn't understood".

My experiment to prove otherwise, then, is this:

1. Set up a shot with a Z9.  Manual exposure, 1/160, f/4, ISO1600.

2. Set the camera to Neutral Picture Control.  Default settings within.

3. Shoot Frame A

4. Set the camera to Neutral Picture Control and the following settings within:

     * Sharpening 4.5

     * Mid-range sharpening 4.0

     * Clarity 2.5

     * Contrast 3

     * Saturation 3

5. Shoot Frame B

Do we agree that the RAW files should look identical?  I changed nothing in these two frames except the five settings listed, which are ostensibly JPEG settings.  The RAW sensor data should be identical, and while Nikon is surely writing proprietary metadata into the RAW file (so Nikon's RAW converter can understand the Picture Control settings), as you said, Lightroom doesn't understand this proprietary metadata.

So, here's Frame A:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7kwqeidpd61p8fa/NZ9_3499.NEF?dl=0

And here's Frame B:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dgxnrjwawd69cs3/NZ9_3500.NEF?dl=0

I literally dragged these directly off the CFE card and into Dropbox.  They have not been touched by any software before ending up in Dropbox.

If you will, import both these files into Lightroom.  When I do, what I see in the Develop tab is:

Frame A has Contrast 0, Texture 20, Clarity 10, Saturation 0, and Sharpening 22 / 2.0 / 25

Frame B has Contrast 60, Texture 80, Clarity 50, Saturation 30, and Sharpening 60 / 2.0 / 24

The files clearly have different Develop Mode default settings.  Which should be impossible if Lightroom doesn't understand proprietary metadata.

Furthermore, if I Copy Settings from Frame A to Frame B, the files then look identical (except for my slight camera movement).

Perhaps there's some way to say that this isn't technically proprietary metadata, but I think that's a semantics argument.  Clearly what Lightroom is doing with Z9 files is showing different Develop Mode default settings based on in-camera settings.  Which is precisely what my feature request is asking for.  It's just not fully implemented, for all cameras.

I'm happy to grant that this might be Nikon's doing more than Adobe's.  I'm also happy to accept that Adobe understanding Nikon's proprietary data might not be a reasonable thing to request.  But the evidence is in these files, that Lightroom alters its default rendering based on in-camera settings on a Nikon Z9, and I'd love it if this were implemented fully, and for as many cameras as possible.

you're the second person who has told me that LR (and others) don't deal with manufacturer-specific metadata.  Respectfully, I have Z9 RAW files that prove that Lightroom is affected by in-camera settings.  I don't know the underlying mechanism that makes this work, and perhaps this is more Nikon than Adobe?  I also should say that my Z6 and X100V do not seem to exhibit this behavior.  But if I adjust my Z9's in-camera contrast, clarity, noise reduction, or most other settings, the RAW file's defaults in the LR Develop module change accordingly.
By @ckrueger2

That isn't what I told you. I told you that some proprietary metadata isn't understood and I told you metadata that isn't proprietary, like White Balance is understood but interpreted differently every converter.

Some settings, metadata or otherwise, proprietary or otherwise can affect the raw data. But the raw is just that, raw. You can't unbake that. And there is proprietary processing for a JPEG that cannot be fully mimicked by anything but the manufacturers converter; it is again proprietary processing.

Some metadata is used by other converters. Some not. Proprietary metadata isn't but that's because in this case, Nikon has decided not to disclose how it works which is their right to do.

As for JPEG, again a rendering in camera is always from the raw and it is proprietary and nothing makes that 'correct' any more than Velvia is more correct or accurate than Ektachrome. You may prefer that rendering and sometimes you can get 'close' to reproducing this proprietary conversion from a 3rd party but there is and never will be a guarantee. It again is proprietary. Just as there is never a guarantee that one E6 film can or will match another.

Lastly, I'd summit that a huge part of photography is rendering the image as the creator desires, not some baked rendering (like from a JPEG). This long but superb article goes into this in detail with many examples:

http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf

@JohanElzenga, I understand the implications of similar versus same... I see the not-quite-exact film simulation analogs that Lightroom presents when I shoot RAW with my Fujifilm cameras.  In most cases, I'd call Lightroom "really close", and most of the time that's good enough.  As this kind of feature would be mostly helpful to get a close starting point for later processing, I think this limitation isn't really an issue.

@TheDigitalDog, you're the second person who has told me that LR (and others) don't deal with manufacturer-specific metadata.  Respectfully, I have Z9 RAW files that prove that Lightroom is affected by in-camera settings.  I don't know the underlying mechanism that makes this work, and perhaps this is more Nikon than Adobe?  I also should say that my Z6 and X100V do not seem to exhibit this behavior.  But if I adjust my Z9's in-camera contrast, clarity, noise reduction, or most other settings, the RAW file's defaults in the LR Develop module change accordingly.

I've seen some other conversations where people are saying Nikon is putting metadata into the RAW file that Lightroom uses... I can't verify the mechanism, of course, but this feature is somehow already partially-implemented.  I can't attach a NEF file here, or I would happily show you a sample file that exhibits this behavior.

Again, to the utility of this feature: I certainly don't think fiddling with some boilerplate in-camera settings replaces post-processing.  But I am not the only person who switches to JPEG for high-volume action shooting to avoid PP work, and if I could get RAW files that look even similar to in-camera JPEGs in LR via a feature like I described, I'd have the best of both worlds, and wouldn't shoot JPEG at all.