Lightroom changes the appearance of my images after import

[ninjapimp]

I dont understand this or why it does it. my preferences has everything unchecked.

I import my images

i see the thumbnails which look fine but when i click on image, it displays on my 2nd monitor and looks perfect. but here is the problem, a second later it makes an adjestment to it which ruins my image, it makes it too bright. its like its auto toning yet i dont understand why it must do this.

my goal is to simply view my image on 2nd monitor w/o lightroom making any adjustments to it.

how can i prevent this or why is it happening?

can anyone please help me...any help would be greatly appreaciated.

Message title was edited by: Brett N

[areohbee]

Perhaps you could give a more complete example, with real filenames (including extensions) and foldernames...

My hunch is that this is an operator error (i.e. you are looking at an original raw, instead of some other copy..., or something like (or unlike) that...), but I could be wrong...

Cheers,

Rob

[Herrera Héctor Armando]

It is advisable to create a custom camera profile.

Nonetheless, go to the Develop Module and under Camera Calibration choose "Camera Neutral" instead of the Adobe Standard or any other you might have in there. In most cases, this will return some of the adjustments made to the large previews of your RAW files and help maintain the same appearance of your image when you first saw it. Try it to see if it helps.

[ssprengel]

What reason is there to do anything but ignore the camera preview once the photo is imported into LR?

[wanderviolet]

THIS has fixed it for me. I was having the same issue - three little dots would appear on the thumbnail and it'd correct *something*. I just changed the settings to camera neutral as suggested above which seems to have returned the image to how they look originally and there is no more 'loading', three dots, or alterations. It applied to my images shot in RAW on a Nikon D60.

Thanks.

[areohbee]

Camera profile should NOT affect loading and dots.. - to Lr, one profile is the same as another (none have special performance benefits..).

As far as alterations, if you are no longer experiencing them, as much, then it's because you were shooting with neutral picture style in camera. Try shooting vivid in camera, and you'll need to change the Lr settings to "Camera Vivid" to "avoid the alterations" - Lr will still re-render after import, but the "alterations" will be less dramatic.

To be clear: Lr will always "correct something", but the closer your default settings are to those used in camera the less noticeable..

[victor_sindean]

I had the same problem and your advice helped a lot. It was an issue with the camera calibration and camera neutral sets it back to how I shot it. Thank you very much!

[Guest]

I have been experiencing the same issue.  I understand the posts and what it is doing.  I have a custom picture profile setup to my liking and wish this would transfer over as the default and "starting point" when importing in Lightroom.  Since we relly on our cameras in the field and are able to preview the image before ever getting back to the computer, it would be nice for lightroom to use the way it came out of the camera as its rendition of the RAW material.  I am going to have to just try and make a new camera profile setup in Lightroom that matches my current camera configuration to more closely match the preview image on the camera that I am seeing on location.  I am guessing when you use Lightroom, it does no good to setup camera profiles on the camera end if it is not exactly matched when importing into Lightroom. 

I recently purchased the D800 body and have noticed the most dramatic differences with this body in the default Lightroom configuration.  Much more so then my 700 body.

Nothing is wrong with your Lightroom, it is just the way it is.  Adobe wish list - make Lightroom use my camera picture profile as its default starting point or atleast give me the option to do so without having to try and fine tune a user camera profile setting.

[richardplondon]

Nothing is wrong with your Lightroom, it is just the way it is.  Adobe wish list - make Lightroom use my camera picture profile as its default starting point or atleast give me the option to do so without having to try and fine tune a user camera profile setting.

In Star Trek they have something called a Universal Translator, so that when they land on an unknown planet, they can immediately talk with the inhabitants just as readily as they talk among themselves. This is science fiction.

Of course we would all love it if Adobe software came ready-loaded with full understanding of, and the ability to simulate the action of, every detail of the proprietary and maybe even patented in-camera processing, that all the different constantly-changing camera models use.

But outside of science fiction magic, Adobe would need to make LR read and translate every possible combination of settings for the camera, and then somehow find a combination of native LR settings which produced a visually identical outcome, doing so in a way that was then easily adjustable. 

They'd need to do this for each supported camera, without being able to rely on any advance notice, inside information or cooperation from the manufacturer. Some of these proprietary camera settings are not simple adjustments, but adaptive (smart). So it's not just difficult in practice, it's difficult in principle too.

[areohbee]

Richard,

I don't think I could top that one! .

Certainly, matching all settings to the point of being able to continue in Lightroom where you left off in-camera, for all models, is totally un-realistic...

On the other hand, some half-measures might still be appreciated.

For example: evaluating customized versions of proprietary in-camera picture styles would be over the top, but auto-selecting a canned profile based on standard in-camera profile setting doesn't seem quite so outlandish to me.

Me? - I'd rather have my camera show me a raw histogram (and be able to emulate Lightroom), than have Lightroom able to emulate my camera.

Adobe? - Eric Chan has openly stated that it is not anywhere near the top of their list to delve into interpretation of proprietary camera settings (my words, not his).

So what's a poor photographer to do, @now?

1. Use camera manufacturer software to process the raws, or

2. Forget what pictures looked like in camera and learn to get outstanding results using Lightroom.

Did I miss an option?

Oh yeah, one could also:

* Use ExifMeta to create smart collections based on proprietary camera settings.

* Use CollectionPreseter to assign presets to those collections.

(you'll also have to invent the "camera emulation" presets to be assigned)

PS - For the record, I do *NOT* recommend using exifmeta and collection-preseter for this purpose. Why? because I think it's going the wrong direction, and prolongs an "un-healthy" attachment to proprietary camera settings. I think a better long-term plan is to learn to enjoy shooting without worrying about proprietary camera settings, and polish photos during post-processing instead...

Summary: Lightroom's better, right? (otherwise, why are you using it??) - learn to use it to it's fullest...

Cheers,

Rob

[Guest]

Well while I appreciate your love for Star Trek and science fiction, this is a little over the top.  Adobe already depends and has to make adjustments to be able to even read RAW files from new camera models as they are released.  When the D800 was released, lightroom could not initially read the RAW data file and Adobe released camera RAW update to fix the issue.  It is not really science fiction. 

Try using Adobe Bridge.  It must be a miracle that Bridge can read your camera specific settings and when opening from Bridge into Photoshop the RAW dialog box seems to pull the adjustments in the camera made to the file and gives you that interpretation of the RAW data as the starting point.  If you have saturated boosted on your camera, you will see the saturation adjustment in the RAW dialog box adjusted accordingly and etc for the other settings.  If you have DLighting on and the camera has made an adjustment, it seems as though the brightness adjustment seems to be adjusted as well.

If your not happy with Lightroom for your RAW files, try using Bridge and making edits that way.  Let me know if your bridge seems to do a better job of interpretation of the RAW data based on your camera settings.

I guess I am from the old school thinking of getting it right in the camera first and not relying on tedious editing hours if it can be helped.  If I see a scene I want to capture in a certain manor, I can simply make the adjustments right there while looking at the scene to produce the look I want and then capture it.  It is all just a workflow preference.  No right or wrong, Bridge and Camera RAW dialog for Photoshop seem to do a better job for my personal workflow.

[areohbee]

I dunno how much of your reply is aimed at me, and how much at Richard, but:

If the view in Bridge looks like camera's not Lightroom's, then it's just showing you the jpeg preview, *not* an ACR/Lightroom interpretation of the raw data.

None of Adobe's products interpret camera settings, other than white balance I mean.

Put another way: ACR is the common engine for raw data interpretation in all Adobe products - if you're seeing a difference in raw data interpretation (*not* jpeg preview) in Bridge vs. Lightroom, then you've got some trouble-shooting to do...

JoeyBordelonPhotography wrote:

I guess I am from the old school thinking of getting it right in the camera first and not relying on tedious editing hours if it can be helped.  If I see a scene I want to capture in a certain manor, I can simply make the adjustments right there while looking at the scene to produce the look I want and then capture it.  It is all just a workflow preference.

I agree, regarding:

* basic exposure settings

but when it comes to getting it right in camera: contrast, saturation, ... - you are going against the grain if you are using Adobe products to post-process raws.

Don't get me wrong: I respect any individual's proclivity for doing things how best suits them, but that won't change the facts: ACR does not interpret proprietary camera settings (other than white balance), so all of that "hard work" will be lost...

If you *really* want to preserve that "hard work", you will have to teach Lightroom some of your tricks (see previous post). Adobe will probably not be altering their priority for camera emulation features any time soon (just my prediction - I could be wrong).

Rob

[richardplondon]

I didn't mean to be flippant, the "translator" analogy popped into my head and I just ran with it .

More seriously, the auto-selection of camera image mode or profile, is not dissimilar in principle AFAIK, to something that has already been quite well resolved: the interpretation and allocation of a particular lens profile, against manufacturer-proprietary lens code information written into EXIF. LR has even given us the ability to assign a chosen lens profile as a changed default, against a given lens ID that is encountered, whatever that may be. So on that basis, absolutely, camera profiles, good idea.

It's the equivalent of Kirk pointing at himself and saying his name, then pointing at the alien and waiting: full comprehension is not needed.

However that does not remotely resolve the issue of how LR interacts with camera-specific features such as Active D-Lighting, Super Physics-Ignorer, highlight or shadow enhance settings, mock-HDR and the like.

These difficulties are the equivalent, of the alien pulling out a raygun (because in that culture, it was terribly rude of Kirk to point his finger) - LR's use of only partial camera information, may in practice be not much help.

LR users - as you rightly say - are wise to keep a healthy disconnect between the two aspects of our camera - as a Raw-capturer, and as a picture-maker.

[Guest]

Well said both of you (richardplondon & Rob Cole).  I did not in any fashion mean to come off the wrong way.  I was just frustrated with this same concept this thread is regarding.  I am now going to take the time to teach Lightroom and attempt to setup user presets that match the most used camera settings for various things and then process those type of shoots with that preset when importing giving me my relative "starting point".  An extra step in an ideal world but will be wirth it.  You both made great points and I appreciate it.  time to teach a program to interpret to my likings and make my life consist of less time behind this computer.  Have a great day.

[areohbee]

Joey,

I understand your frustration, and I think you are on the right track now.

Another (easy-for-Adobe-to-do) thing that would help people who really do want to attend to various post-processing issues before sitting in front of the computer, is to implement better support for jpeg previews/sidecars.

I could go on about it, but perhaps it suffices to say it's not the direction they are heading.

As it stands, Lightroom deep-6's that jpeg preview as quickly as possible and never looks back...

Obviously, you can shoot raw+jpeg and import separately, but that only gets ya so far...

How about a morphing plugin which uses a feedback loop to adjust raw settings to match jpeg preview - this would be doable if plugins had access to image/histogram data, and a quicker response to develop setting changes. I've thought about this for auto-toning too. Sorry: off-topic... - done, forgive...

Rob

[areohbee]

If you really want to have your photo's initial appearance match customized camera settings, another option is to use OttoImporter. It includes a camera emulation option which is aimed at doing exactly what you want to do.

All the info you need is available on an exif "platter" if you've a mind to try and match with Lr settings.

Note: some technical capability is required, since you will be editing a lua text file to customize advanced settings.

Rob

[missclaire101]

That is helpful thanks. But I think you are misunderstanding at what point the problem came into effect. It wasn't when I intially uploaded or sorted through them, and it wasn't even when I first started editing them. I was working on the photos for weeks. It was some time after this, I had exported a few pictures that were edited, but still had them in lightroom. I didn't delete any files, original, edited, etc. The problem just started on its own randomly. I am going to try any options though to try to find a solution. Thanks.

[areohbee]

My previous reply was to the OP: JoeyBordelonPhotography - different issue.

missclaire101 - I think you should start a new thread, since your issue is completely different from Joey's - and without more specific info to go on, it's dang near impossible for me to figure out what may have happened in your case. My guess: there's a rational explanation, but it may take some "breaking it down" to find.

[martin-s]

richardplondon wrote:

In Star Trek they have something called a Universal Translator, so that when they land on an unknown planet, they can immediately talk with the inhabitants just as readily as they talk among themselves. This is science fiction.

No, they work really well, you should give it a try!

Besides since Star Trek things have moved on a lot: ours now come in tablet form.

[Neil Watcyn-Palmer]

Reesponding to the useless answer - Lightroom must already KNOW what the RAW image coming in is to be able to chnage it.

I also see the iage  in its original state  moment before Lightroom sticks its messy paws in.

Adobe. This is s a lame excuse for a significant issue.

I am seeking to keep my time lapse stills as close to the RED footage.. ie crushed blacks  for later colour management.

Lightroom is dabbling where it does not need to.

[ssprengel]

I thought the Star Trek universal-translator being science fiction is a good analogy for people’s unrealistic expectations.

Either you’re expecting Adobe to somehow know and mimic every manufacturer’s raw conversion which it cannot and don’t want to take the time to make your own presets that work the way you want, or you have something set wrong in your LR defaults.

Neither of these is “Lightroom dabbling where it does not need to”.

[martin-s]

I am seeking to keep my time lapse stills as close to the RED footage.. ie crushed blacks  for later colour management.

Someone else would probably be shocked to see crushed blacks, I know I would. You need to understand that your preferred rendering style is just one out of a myriad of possible interpretations of the RAW format – there is no 'right' one.

You can either go on complaining or learn how to create your own preset that produces the look you're after. It's easy enough to do.

[RikkFlohr]

You should probably read this: http://www.lightroomforums.net/showthread.php?10418-Why-did-Lr-ruin-my-picture before continuing.

For timelapse work you also may want to consider shooting JPEG as that ultimately appears to be the look you want (your camera's in-camera processed JPEG).

[jrholt1023]

I am having the same problem I think but with JPGs.  Please see my post for examples.

http://forums.adobe.com/message/5596160#5596160

I'm updating my post with the fix for this issue that was posted above.  I didn't find it at first because of all the know it alls who posted arrogant replies on what they KNEW was true but in fact it was something else.

It's sad when people are so smart that they can't imagine that a peice of software could be the problem.  For me I believe upgrading to OSX Mavericks caused an issue with my develop settings.  I am running Lightroom 4, and highlighting all the photos, right clicking and going to "Develop Settings" and clicking "Reset" Fixed the problem.  It had absolutely NOTHING to do with camera settings and was completely an issue with Lightroom settings from an upgrade of my OS, or in the below responses case, an upgrade of Lightroom. 

"I have never before imported images with an autotune setting or preset of any kind.  I always do my editing post-import.  However, it appears that upon upgrading to a newer version of LR, my catalog preferences were reset to include a default setting I had never used before.  Under "edit" and "preferences" then "presets" tab, under "default develop settings", the box was checked for "apply auto tone adjustments".

I unchecked the box and some of the images reverted back to the way they looked upon initial import (LR's interpretation of my camera's RAW data with no autotuning).  However, for some images, I had to right-click on the image and select "develop settings" (in Library module) or "settings" (in Develop module) then click "reset."  This set the images back to my RAW or JPG data as it was on import."

[Jeff Schewe]

JoeyBordelonPhotography wrote:

I have a custom picture profile setup to my liking and wish this would transfer over as the default and "starting point" when importing in Lightroom.

If you are referring to an in-camera setup, this is an unreasonable expectation. ACR/LR now supports over 300 cameras. There is simply no way Adobe would (or could) spend the time required to reverse engineer over 300 camera's individual in-camera settings...ain't gonna happen and the sooner you learn how to make presets (or modify the ACR/LR "Defaults" the sooner you'll get to bed at night. Wishing on a star that is 100's of Lightyears away ain't gonna put you on a plantet in that star's solar system. Just saying you might want to learn how to set up ACR/LR so you get what you want regardless of how the camera saw the scene...it's all under YOUR control (not the camera makers).

[D Fosse]

There's a basic schism here. In the film days you had the choice of shooting transparencies, where everything had to be right in camera, and negative film, where you would just concentrate on getting the maximum amount of information onto film and worry about the picture later.

So it seems those two schools continue into the digital age, and never the twain shall meet. Who's right? I don't know, but personally I'm in the latter camp.

But it does seem tempting to say that if the camera version is so sacred, why not shoot jpeg?