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

[PhotoBean]

I don't want to have to go through all those steps, just so I can see the photo in Lightroom the way I can already see it in the manufacturers software.

  Uncle

[RikkFlohr: Inactive]

Well, PhotoBean,

You have a couple of choices.

1. Convince your camera manufacturer to disclose their proprietary algorithms so that third-party software can emulate what they are doing behind their veil of secrecy

or

2. Create your own 'to-taste' development preset and apply it as a default when you import (or set a default import state).

You are barking up an 8-year-old tree here.

[Dietch]

If the manufacturer's jpeg rendering is preferred, couldn't one somehow use a colorchecker, take both a raw and a jpeg image, and then calculate the differences required to generate/approximate the jpeg colours for processing the raw file somehow? I'm no lawyer so don't know of any problems in attempting to create a profile this way...

[D Fosse]

PhotoBean wrote:

I don't want to have to go through all those steps, just so I can see the photo in Lightroom the way I can already see it in the manufacturers software.

There is only one conclusion to that: use the manufacturer's software.

Personally, I've never been able to understand this idea that the camera manufacturer's rendering is something sacred, and that the camera LCD is somehow, magically, showing the "true" image. That seems to me incredibly limiting. Whatever happened to your own interpretation?

What has always characterized the great photographers is their ability to visualize the scene. Exposure is solely to maximize the information content in the file (or negative, historically speaking). Then you create the image from that raw material.

<yes, this horse is well and truly dead and beaten to a pulp by now...>

[Keith Reeder]

D Fosse wrote:

Personally, I've never been able to understand this idea that the camera manufacturer's rendering is something sacred, and that the camera LCD is somehow, magically, showing the "true" image. That seems to me incredibly limiting. Whatever happened to your own interpretation?

We're clearly wasting our time on this one - obviously only how the manufacturer TELLS him an image should look, can be considered acceptable.

[DdeGannes]

Why would Adobe design software that will provide you with the same rendition of the raw data from your camera, which you already have for free, supplied by your camera manufacturer. Adobe is using different software technology and profiles to render the raw data, the camera manufacturer's processes are different and proprietary.

Adobe is providing an alternative which they believe is superior to the option your camera manufacturer has adopted. However everyones taste is different and you are certainly entitled to choose what pleases you most.

For the most part most camera manufacturers provide you with images that are results that enhance the tone, contrast and colours of the image and do not normally represent the actual reality of what is being captured.

In the days when the norm for capturing image was film one choose Kodak, FujiFilm, Agfa or whichever film was their preference.

[PhotoBean]

Getting the photo right in camera is a big time saver.  So if I don't have to do it all over again I am happy.  I like being happy, and I like spending more time shooting photos and less time tweaking photos.

Different things make different people happy.

And that's all I have to say about that, ever.

[DdeGannes]

I agree, do things that make you happy and do not do things that make you unhappy.

[johnvrasta]

Why Does the Photograph’s Preview Change in Lightroom and Bridge? | The Complete Picture with Juliea...

is the answer to the original question. I was a little bit confused about this discrepancy between the initial preview and the changed picture i view when i load the image either in Librady or Develop modules. Julieanne Kost explains it all once more

[Nightjar]

I totally understand the complaining! It is a true issue that should be taken care of by Adobe. It is

really unprofessional, no discussion!

Those arguing 'then shoot jpeg' are clearly either trying to defense adobe or not really working in

the photography/film business!

Let me explain:

Of course it is RAW and basically all the information is there and can be adjusted. But: do you

want to start of balanced, oversaturated, over contrasty image? No, unless you have too much

time. What you want is a great starting point for editing your pictues! And clearly Lightroom/PS

doesn't allow that by misinterpreting the cameras RAW/applying a lousy tonal change!

I - and apparently many others - have set their camera to a neutral, flat setting. And thats

how I would like to starte editing/grading my pictures.

This should be no big technical deal for adobe! Shame on you! That it is possible show - for

those who know it - DaVinci Resolve, here you can set your RAW processing based on

a RAW editor. E.g you can set to SLOG so the RAW will be interpreted correctly.

I hope this will change in the future...and there are a lot of entries with people complaining

about it. And for all the others: stop saying it isn't an issue!

[RikkFlohr: Inactive]

"I hope this will change in the future..."

I doubt it will.

and

If I wanted my images to look like some anonymous camera manufacturer engineer processed them, I would just have their engineer take the photo.  Why would you settle for their interpretation? Why would you demand it.

I take the opposite position and adjust my camera JPEGs to look more like raw files so am not FOOLED by camera-makers slight of hand on JPEG processing.

[DdeGannes]

The issue is. Your Camera Manufacturer has provided you with the software necessary for you to achieve exactly what you wish to achieve.

Why would Adobe who is supplying you with an alternative process, since they do not have the permission to utilise the technology being used by your camera manufacturer since it is proprietary and rite protected, provide you with the same output for your raw files?

Why would you pay them to do so since you already have it for free?

Adobe is providing an alternative which they believe is superior to your camera manufacturer's product, with additional and more advanced tools to produce a better quality result with a more productive workflow.

The choice is yours to to use the tools that work best for you. 

[miditime]

Here's a short tutorial on how to take care of this issue.

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 * Adjust the color calibration for your camera

I hate reading directions too. I'm glad there are threads like this that help me find the answers to problems.

[miditime]

And once you fix that problem, you'll want to read this about batch developing:

http://photofocus.com/2014/03/27/batch-applying-presets-using-lightroom/

[miditime]

Whoops, she left out that you needed to sync. (Watch the options you want to check.)

See this tutorial:

#CreativeFriday – Lightroom Sync Settings / Batch processing for a consistent style across a body of...