P: Disable built-in lens profile

[Tokumeino]

I own Micro43 and compact cameras, where lens profiles are integrated in RAW files. With software like Capture One Pro, I can easily enable or disable theses built-in profiles. Actually, there is even a slider allowing to enable 0% or 100% of the built-in profile, and whatever percentage in between.

In LR (CC, Classic or LR6), the checkox for enabling or disabling profiles does not work with built-in profiles, which always stay enabled. This seriously limits the possibilities of several cameras which possibilities get unleashed by actual RAW developpers like Capture One Pro.

I'm actually a COP user (after switching from LR) but DAM sucks with COP and this built-in lens profile thing is the only deal breaker for me to come back. So please let users disable built-in lens profiles, or at least offer workarounds.

As a workaround, a dumb "zero" profile that would replace the built-in one (not coming on top of it) could do the job.

[Jao vdL]

They don’t need to read any data fields, simply give us the raw data as they are in the file and don’t apply the profile

[johnrellis]

Technically, of course, it's trivial to allow the lens profile to be disabled. But the issue appears to be driven by legal and contractual concerns.  Adobe believes it needs contractual permission from the manufacturers to read their proprietary raw files, which gives the manufacturers negotiating leverage to ask Adobe not to allow disabling of lens profiles embedded in those raw files. 

[deejjjaaaa]

> According to Adobe Principal Computer Scientist Simon Chen, the Adobe legal department believes that Adobe needs permission from manufacturers to read non-standard data fields: 

dear, to read the data is one thing - and what to do about it is another story ... for example PhaseOne is also not a one man shop that might be under the radar of camera manufacturers and yet they allow users to disable profiles... so please do not overchampion your Adobe's advocacy... 

[deejjjaaaa]

>  But the issue appears to be driven by legal and contractual concerns. 

PhaseOne example clearly shows that it does not

[Bob Somrak]

Different company, different or no contract.

[johnrellis]

"please do not overchampion your Adobe's advocacy"

Trying to understand Adobe's behavior is hardly advocating for them or agreeing with their decisions. Indeed, I wrote above, "In my opinion, [Adobe and manufacturers] are equally negligent in ignoring the desires of their customers." 

I also wrote above that Adobe appears unusual in its legal interpretation regarding non-standard, manufacturer-specific data in photos and that other companies haven't adopted that interpretation. Observing that Phase One may be one of those companies doesn't help us understand Adobe's position or contradict my analysis.

[deejjjaaaa]

indeed - different companies, different attitudes towards what the users want :-)...  take Fuji for example - Phase One has a deal with Fuji and there is a free Capture One Express Fujifilm ... Adobe has a deal with Fuji and not only we don't have a free LR Express for FujiFilm but we can't switch off profiles 🙂

[JohanElzenga]

Maybe that’s the deal...

[TarekAlShawwa]

I've highlighted in red my issue
There should be a toggle that allows us to turn off automatic corrections
Individuals that use these tools want control over their image and evey step of the process, please let us turn this off, sometimes I want natural vignettes in my images, sometimes i want barrel distortion, and chromatic aberrations can be used artistically as well, please let us turn off the built-in profiles, thank you

[TarekAlShawwa]

Has anyone from adobe responded or do they just not care about their customers anymore?

[hunterr89148280]

I shoot interiors and layer multiple shots with varying opacities. Using a Fuji X-T2 with the 10-24, the shots are often slightly misaligned, which makes it very hard to blend them. Usually Photoshop's Align won't handle it either. Today I opened two misaligned images in Capture One, where I can turn off the automatic corrections which Lightroom gives no control over. Sure enough, they do actually align, but there seems to be two different corrections being applied to the images in Lightroom, so they are misaligned there and once I move them into Photoshop for blending.
The ability to turn off the automatic lens corrections is badly needed. I'll either have to switch cameras, or software.

[hunterr89148280]

From Lightroom (no Transforms applied):



From Capture One:

[hunterr89148280]

Looking more closely, it might not be the automatic lens correction itself, but some information getting corrupted in the files? In Lens Corrections, neither of these images say anything at first, and when I turn on Enable Profile Corrections, it says "Unable to locate a matching profile automatically" and "None" in the drop down menu. Then, in the drop down menus, the 10-24mm isn't available.

Most of the other images from the same shoot say "Built-in Lens Profile Applied" in Lightroom, without checking Enable Profile Corrections. If I select Enable Profile Corrections, it then says "Built-in".

Looking through previous shoots, I find a few images that also can't locate a matching profile. Maybe that's why I only have the problem intermittently. So the problem might be that without any other indication, Lightroom is applying some unseen correction? Because as you can see, out of Lightroom, the two shots are different (one is distorted), in Capture One, they're the same.

[Todd Shaner]

Please post one of the RAF files that display the issue to a file sharing site for examination.

[hunterr89148280]

Here you go: https://www.swisstransfer.com/d/82c04574-6d40-45eb-b087-372add482811

That's three files, the two shown above, neither of which Lightroom can find the lens profile for, and one from the same series for which it can (robertson-1).

[Todd Shaner]

They all show as 'Built-In' Lens Profile Applied.' However, the robertson-3.raf file was shot at 11.5mm and the other two at 12.0mm. Because of that they won't align properly. Perhaps the Zoom ring on the lens may be slipping or got nudged.

[hunterr89148280]

I see that too, but it's actually false. Here are two shots from the same series, but bracketed with no contact with the camera between shots. One shows as 11.5mm and the other as 12mm.
https://www.swisstransfer.com/d/5b051946-21b9-49f0-85c9-deb038815941
Also, that doesn't explain why the photos do align in Capture One (which also shows one photo as being at 11.5mm and one at 12mm).

[hunterr89148280]

Of the five shots in the bracket, the first shows as 12mm, then 11.5mm, then 12mm, 12mm, 12mm. And as I said, no contact with the camera during the series.

[hunterr89148280]

Strange too on the Built-in Lens Profile showing for all. That's what I had thought I'd seen at first, but now I get this when Enabled.

[hunterr89148280]

When I first import them into Capture One, one image, robertson-2, has no Distortion correction in Lens Correction, however robertson-3 has Distortion set at 100. They appear the same then as they do in Lightroom. Setting Distortion back to 0 on robertson-3 brings them into alignment, as in the gif above.

[PKers]

LR has the habit to automatically apply the lenscorrection profile if that comes with the RAW-file.

even in such a way that there is no way to NOT apply it.

Some other RAW converters can ignore this lensprofile and give the photographer a way to choose.


There are many situations that you do not want to have the lensprofile
applied. ( one is when making panoramas, another is if one likes vignetting)

Therefore it should be a choice of the photographer to
apply the lens-correction or not, as is the case when the RAW-file does
not have the lens-correction information built in.

I would very much appreciate it if the LR designteam finds a way to add this feature.

[Todd Shaner]

I examined the EXIF data and the robertson-1.raf and robertson-2.raf file focal length show as 12.0mm and the robertson-3.raf as 11.5mm. LR reads these value and applies distortion correction based on that value, which is obviously slightly different. I opened the -1 and -3 files in Luminar Flex, disabled distortion correction, and exported to TIFF. Examination of the lower-left corner of the Luminar Flex TIFF files at 1:1 Zoom view reveals a very slight difference in -3 image file. This can only be caused by the lens focal length ring having been moved.

The only suggestions for now is to try not to touch the camera between shots by using a remote trigger or Fuji tethering software, which will also allow changing camera settings.  For your currently shot image files you can use the below plugin to change the focal length so they all match. That may work since LR will then apply the same distortion correction to all three files.


https://www.lenstagger.com/

[hunterr89148280]

As I say, it does that even without touching the camera, in the middle of a multi-shot automated bracket of five pictures. So somehow, it seems to misinterpret the information. Which is shown by the fact that setting all lens corrections to 0 in Capture One for both images makes them align perfectly. Which raises the question of why Capture One sets Distortion correction at 100 for one image and not for the other.

[Todd Shaner]

Which is shown by the fact that setting all lens corrections to 0 in Capture One for both images makes them align perfectly.

That is incorrect. Please reread my post and view the two C1 export files inside LR using Compare mode. The posted robertson-3.raf is slightly different with no distortion correction applied, but it's not enough to cause alignment issues inside C1.

So somehow, it (LR) seems to misinterpret the information.

LR is reading the camera distortion information correctly, but it's different in the robertson-3.raf so LR applies different distortion correction. You can't fault LR for reading different settings and properly applying the distortion correction. The fault lies with your camera–Denying that will not make it go away!
Here's the metadata your camera is placing into the RAF file and what LR is reading and applying:
File Name                       : robertson-2.raf
File Modification Date/Time     : 2019:07:31 16:56:28-04:00

Geometric Distortion Params     : 327.7272727 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 -0.075 -0.153 -0.236 -0.326 -0.458 -0.693 -1.062 -1.552 -2.122 -2.734

Field Of View                   : 90.0 deg
Focal Length                    : 12.0 mm (35 mm equivalent: 18.0 mm)
Hyperfocal Distance             : 0.90 m

File Name                       : robertson-3.raf
File Modification Date/Time     : 2019:07:31 16:56:30-04:00

Geometric Distortion Params     : 327.7272727 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 -0.086 -0.181 -0.292 -0.428 -0.634 -0.98 -1.482 -2.121 -2.805 -3.515

Field Of View                   : 93.3 deg
Focal Length                    : 11.5 mm (35 mm equivalent: 17.0 mm)
Hyperfocal Distance             : 0.81 m

[hunterr89148280]

Hi Todd,

I opened both images exported from Capture One in Photoshop and compared them by turning on and off one layer, and then setting one to 50% opacity. I see no practical difference between them. They blend fine, unlike when exported from Lightroom (with automated corrections) to Photoshop.

Those two were taken in two different steps, so it's impossible to rule out human error. The second lot I sent above, the 5 bracketed shots, were taken with one push of the shutter-release on an automated AE bracket, not touching the camera in between shots, on a solid tripod. And yet they show a difference in focal length. Number 2, which also shows as 11.5mm, shows the same distortion, most obvious in the upper left beam. Importing it into Capture One shows Distortion set at 100, whereas number 3, reading as 12mm, shows no Distortion correction.
I'm perfectly willing for the fault to lie with the camera, but it seems to be its interpretation by Lightroom that causes the problem, as it's useable from Capture One.