My Lightroom lens corrections need correcting. Is this normal?

Report · Aug 02, 2013

I have bought myself my 1st DSLR camera (Nikon D3100) as i now want to shoot Raw instead of Jpeg. I've always shot Jpegs in the past with my old cameras. The in-camera Jpegs from my new Nikon don't show any lens distortion. However, when i open the Raw (NEF) files in Lightroom and tick 'enable profile correction' in the Lens corrections section, the distortion correction seems too much and i have to manually adjust it every time.

The lens profile comes from Lightroom itself (not from other users), & so this doesn't seem quite right to me that the correction is somewhat wrong each time.

I'm wondering if i'm doing something wrong or that maybe its even normal to have to adjust the correction further yourself each time (and perhaps most users have to do that too)?

I've included 3 Jpegs of the same image to demonstrate the problem (detailed below):

1) The export from Lightroom with the lens distortion corrected by Lightroom (note the straight red line).

2) An exported Jpeg version of the uncorrected Nef from Lightroom (to show the full original lens distortion)

3) The original in-camera Jpeg (obviously the distortion corrected by the camera)

I've drawn straight red lines on to the images to demonstrate the differences.

Any ideas?

^ above image is a Lightroom exported Jpeg (from NEF) with lens correction ON (note the red line along the top of the roof)

^ above image is a Lightroom exported Jpeg (from NEF) with NO lens correction yet, thus showing original distortion.

^ above image is the ORIGINAL in-camera JPEG showing no distortion at all (note the red line along the top of the roof).

P.s i've taken different shots too and the problem is the same for them all (at least at 18mm anyway).

Additional information:

The Nikon D3100 has an APS-C sensor (I'm not sure if that's significant or not). Also the lens described in the profile correction matches the one from my camera.

Report · Aug 08, 2013

Pbeck1 wrote:
I've just been doing some Lightroom distortion correction tests and have concluded the following about the problems i was experiencing:
The distortion anomalys get worse the further away the subject is. Less of a problem is focal length (how zoomed in i am), but things do get slightly worse at 18mm (aps-c) and much less so at 24mm, and insignificant by 35mm.
So i'm pretty much safe when zooming above 24mm and shooting a subject thats not too far away. All quite do-able considering i mainly take images of my child.
I just need to make a chart now of the 'amount' of manual distortion correction i should apply on top of Adobe's at the various values of focal length and distance combinations. Hmmm, more lost sleep, lol

Based on your test the "worst-case" LR Lens Profile Distortion correction is distant subjects shot at 18mm. Your 18-55mm lens exhibits barrel distortion at the 18mm setting (CF to infinity). The distortion visible in the posted image (i.e. roofline) is pincushion type of 1% or less, which indicates a very small amount of "over-correction" is being applied by the lens profile.

As already suggested you should try lowering the Lens Corrections> Profile> Distortion Amount from 100, which will reduce the over-correction. You may find that this alone substantially corrects the issue across all focal lengths and then you can save it as the new Lens Profile Default Settings.

Report · Aug 09, 2013

Thank you trshaner for your reply (and all of them too).

I will try your advice. I'm also going to attempt to make my own lens profile too via the Adobe lens profile creator. I've read it through about 5 times and it's starting to make sense to me now

Report · Aug 09, 2013

Rob there is another way i found too:

1) Use ACDsee (or possibly any other RAW developer) to independently convert copies of your Raw files to TIffs and save them into folder 1.

2) Export the same Raw files from within lightroom (must have the same filenames) including all your adjustments to Tiffs too, and place in folder 2.

3) Use Exif Copier to batch copy the complete Exif data from all the ACDSee exported Tiffs to all the Lightroom exported Tiffs.

4) Then you can open up your Lightroom exported Tiffs in the usual way in DxO safe in the knowledge that they have the exif metadata copied from Tiffs rather than Raws.

One word of caution (or a few, lol): ACDsee has an option in its settings to auto rotate images based on Exif orientation. I would imagine this would have to be looked at to see if this option should be ticked or not.

P.s for some reason DxO doesnt work as the Raw developer in step 1)

Report · Aug 09, 2013

Thanks Paul,

I'm working on version 2 of my DxOh plugin, which will support:

DxO lens corrections for photos that have been cropped/angled in Lightroom and/or flipped/rotated.

Rob

Report · Aug 09, 2013

sounds complicated, lol

Report · Aug 09, 2013

Pbeck1 wrote:
sounds complicated, lol

It is, for the plugin, but NOT for the user (just the opposite).

Report · Aug 10, 2013

Just finished making my own Adobe Lens Profile for my camera.

I'm actually very very surprised because it seems to correct the lens distortions perfectly.

I feel a bit unsure about it though because i found it quite complicated to understand and was expecting it to have bugs, lol. I've tested it with lots of straight line pics and they all render perfect.

I only profiled for a fixed aperturee of f11, with focal lengths of 18, 24, 34 (not 35 for some reason) and 55 mm.

Am i right in thinking that those settings pretty much cover me for lens distortions for any picture i may now develop from my camera, no matter what the aperture may be (although vignetting would have to be manually)?

Can my profile be saved with my catalogue? I.e travel with the catalogue if it's moved from Pc to Pc?

P.s the correction that i was having to apply on top of Lightrooms default lens profile distortion correction for my camera was unfortunently anything from 5% to 25% to get those pesky lines straight, & certainly more than 1%.

Report · Aug 10, 2013

Pbeck1 wrote:
Just finished making my own Adobe Lens Profile for my camera.
I'm actually very very surprised because it seems to correct the lens distortions perfectly.
I've tested it with lots of straight line pics and they all render perfect.

Thanks Paul - that's good to know.

It sounds like Adobe cut some corners (or made some mistakes) when making their lens profiles, or is it really due to a individual variations (I doubt it).

Is there another explanation?

Perhaps a path of less resistance for me would be to create custom profiles for my most problematic lenses (read: 18-200) instead of trying to integrate lens corrections from DxO into my Lr workflow.

Pbeck1 wrote:
although vignetting would have to be manually

Because you only used one aperture you mean? Or do I not understand something...

Pbeck1 wrote:
Can my profile be saved with my catalogue? I.e travel with the catalogue if it's moved from Pc to Pc?

Lens profiles are kept in user app data, not with catalog (they are shared with ACR, even if you don't use ACR).

So you'll have to copy/sync with other computer(s) to have them available.

Rob

Report · Aug 10, 2013

Pbeck1 wrote:
Am i right in thinking that those settings pretty much cover me for lens distortions for any picture i may now develop from my camera, no matter what the aperture may be (although vignetting would have to be manually)?

Distortion will remain the same regardless of aperture, but vignetting wil change in a non-linear manner with aperature for both amount and midpoint. You can see test results here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=662

At some point you might want to run the same lens profile creation setup to include images for the other suggested aperature settings.

Pbeck1 wrote:
Can my profile be saved with my catalogue? I.e travel with the catalogue if it's moved from Pc to Pc?

Not way that I'm aware of. You will need to "manually" install the profile(s) you created (or downloaded) here with Win 7:

C:\Users\your user name\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\CameraRaw\LensProfiles\1.0

Report · Aug 11, 2013

Thanks Rob & Trshaner for all the advice. I think that just about covers it, lol

Rob, have you never made a lens profile before? It looks and sounds harder than it actually is. There are 1 or 2 pitfulls but after doing it once you soon get the hang of it.

I found it a bit hard understanding how to apply global settings to all the images in the creator at the same time (if they shared same values). It boils down to parent/child file and folder clicking in the interface.

Bear in mind that the creator automatically puts images from different focal distances into seperate folders for you. The 'create profile' function seems weird, i.e you can't seem to make the profile in just 1 go with all the images from all the different focus distances. You have to tick to select all the images from one focal distance folder to start making your profile, then weirdly you have to close the application, reopen it and untick the images that were previously selected and tick images from your next focal distance group instead. Then you again go through the 'create profile' procedure but this time 'appending' the profile you've already made with the information from those next images. Seems strange that you just can't do it all in one go (unless i did something wrong, lol!)

If using Live view to frame your photos then remember to put on your viewfinder cap too (stops light from viewfinder entering down to the sensor)

Report · Aug 11, 2013

Pbeck1 wrote:
Rob, have you never made a lens profile before?

Never ever, yet. But I may - I was hoping somebody would share a better 18-200 profile and save me the trouble, but so far that hasn't happened.

But if you can do it, maybe I could too .

Cheers,

Rob

Report · Aug 12, 2013

But if you can do it, maybe I could too .

You're the cleverest person i've never actually met, so you can do it, lol

Would be interested to hear the results.

p.s tip, get your lens calibration chart mounted at the printers. It was the only realistic way i found of keeping it really flat.

Report · Aug 13, 2013

Pbeck1 wrote:
You're the cleverest person i've never actually met, so you can do it, lol

Thanks Paul - you've won my respect as well .

I've been coming at it from another cropped angle so to speak:

DxOh 2.0

Feel free to contact me outside the forum for more info...

Rob

Report · Aug 03, 2013

Rob Cole wrote:
Hi Paul,
I'm really not sure exactly what DxO outputs when you choose DNG:
It's not raw data, yet preserves some ability to do raw things in Lightroom, like white balance and camera profiles.
I dunno about pulling from highlight/shadow "reserves", but note: it's different than a DNG-wrapped tif or jpeg, it may be able to pull from the highlight/shadow reserves as can be done via the DNG used for smart previews - I just don't know.
trshaner: do you know for sure that a DxO DNG hard-clips shadows/highlights, or are you just "extrapolating/assuming/educatedly-guessing"?
Regardless, DxO has some auto shadow/highlight recovery (for those extreme black/white tones) that is quite good - don't sell it short.

Google 'dxo linear dng highlights.' Here's one that supports what I said:

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/663428

I've tried using Canon's DPP for the same purpose with TIFF output AND with DPP's highlight recovery. I can't get the same highlight recovery with the TIFF as compared to the raw inside LR with PV2012.

Rob Cole wrote:
I still think about it when Lr's lens corrections are wonky. But my problem with Lr's lens corrections have more to do with vignetting than distortion (because I mostly shoot nature, not buildings...), and I can add manual correction and/or a dab of paint to the automatic corrections, which saves me the complication of front-ending via DxO. If distortion is your primary concern, consider balancing auto with manual distortion corrections (I've not done much of that, so no guarantee...). Also, there's the upright feature in Lr5...

What's wrong with simply changing the Lens Profile 'Amount' settings from 100 if a specific lens profiles is "over-correcting" or "under-correcting? Don't forget most zoom lenses have a "complex" moustache shaped distortion, which is NOT easily corrected with LR's Manual Distortion control. You can certainly try both, but there's no way to save the Manual Distortion "correction" setting to a specific lens profile's defaults.

Rob Cole wrote:
PPS - DxO's purple fringe tool will get the fringe out without the artifacts of Lr's global defringer, however it may also take away real image color sometimes, and can't be done locally, so one may ultimately get better results in Lr if willing to spend a while painting local defringing.

I've never seen any artifacts caused by the LR Defringe tools (see image posted of Canon 8-15mm Fisheye lens CA), but you do need to be very careful concerning the actually settings used. After using the eyedropper tool to sample a fringe area I fine tune the settings to eliminate desaturation of areas that have similar color as the fringe area. Once you have the correct settings save it to a Develop preset for manual application. For example with my Canon 8-15mm F4L Fisheye zoom I have two (2) Develop presets of 8-12mm (Purple 2, 30/55) and 13-15mm (Purple 4, 30/55). There is no need to use Local controls with Defringe if you follow my suggestions for manually tuning the settings to prevent desaturation in like colored areas. IMHO the LR CA and Defringe tools are darn near perfect when you use them correctly!

Report · Aug 03, 2013

trshaner wrote:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/663428
I've tried using Canon's DPP for the same purpose with TIFF output AND with DPP's highlight recovery. I can't get the same highlight recovery with the TIFF as compared to the raw inside LR with PV2012.

Fair enough - thanks.

trshaner wrote:
What's wrong with simply changing the Lens Profile 'Amount' settings from 100 if a specific lens profiles is "over-correcting" or "under-correcting?

It's not about over/under, it's about right/wrong. I mean, I do use different percentage of correction depending on lens - some are better than the others. The problem is: how good or bad for a given lens depends greatly on focal length - I probably should go back to what I used to do before auto lens corrections - divide into collections based on lens *and* focal length, then apply a preset. I think I've gotten lazier though and that seems not worth the bother...

PS - to combine manual with auto lens corrections, do auto such that the inner-most region is closest, but edges and corners: not so much, then bring up or down the outer-most (or next outer-most "ring") using manual lens corrections. If need be, apply paint to finish...

trshaner wrote:
I've never seen any artifacts caused by the LR Defringe tools

There were plenty of posts about it when it was first introduced - remember? (and it hasn't been improved since then). Anyway, it sometimes leaves blocky areas devoid of color around the corrected regions, rather than blending or something, for lack of a better way to describe it.

IMHO, Lr's (global) defringing is *far* from perfect - perhaps we should just agree to disagree?

FWIW - I'm totally happy with the auto-lateral-CA correction, which some people also deem "far from perfect".

Rob

Report · Aug 04, 2013

Rob Cole wrote:
It's not about over/under, it's about right/wrong. I mean, I do use different percentage of correction depending on lens - some are better than the others. The problem is: how good or bad for a given lens depends greatly on focal length -
PS - to combine manual with auto lens corrections, do auto such that the inner-most region is closest, but edges and corners: not so much, then bring up or down the outer-most (or next outer-most "ring") using manual lens corrections. If need be, apply paint to finish...

Rob, I only have experience with Canon DSLR lenses and Adobe's lens profiles for these lenses. I have no issues and in fact if I try using the Manual Distortion control it makes distortion worse for most of lenses, since the distortion is "complex" moustache shaped.

Hers's an example image using my Canon 17-40mm F4L at it's worst zoom setting (17mm), It's also my "worst" lens for distortion.The image on the left has Lens Profile Distortion at '0' and on the right at '100.' I also set Manual Vertical to '17' on the right image to correct perspective distortion. The grid lines should be visible in the full-size image. I see no "visible" distortion, even with the grid lines present. I'm not seeing an issue with the Adobe Canon lens profile, do you?

(Click on image to see full-size)

Something else to remember is that the subjects you are shooting may not be geometrically perfect! The roofline in the OPs first image could very well have a small percentage of "out of plumb" area in the image center. If so LR's lens profile correction is actually more acurrate! The amount of distortion visible in the OPs image with LR correction is <1.0%, which is pretty darn small. Is that old roofline really flat to <<1%? Get out your laser-level or you'll never know for sure. Regardless, simply backing off on the LR Lens Profile Distortion setting would easily correct the "visible" sag. Again, this is why I set my Lens Profile Distortion default setting to '0' and only adjust to correct images that actually have "visible" distortion. YMMV and you may find a default setting of 50 or what ever works better. At least give it a try mate!

Rob Cole wrote:
trshaner wrote:
I've never seen any artifacts caused by the LR Defringe tools
There were plenty of posts about it when it was first introduced - remember? (and it hasn't been improved since then). Anyway, it sometimes leaves blocky areas devoid of color around the corrected regions, rather than blending or something, for lack of a better way to describe it.
IMHO, Lr's (global) defringing is *far* from perfect - perhaps we should just agree to disagree?
FWIW - I'm totally happy with the auto-lateral-CA correction, which some people also deem "far from perfect".

I agree with you 100%, I thought you meant something else concerning "artifacts." Yes, the Defringe tools are very "tricky." Fortunately I only have two lenses that exhibit any serious axial CA (Canon EF 8-15mm F4L and EF 85mm F1.8). Eric Chan wrote a very lengthy primer on how to use the Defringe tools with examples. The best takeaway is to hold down the ALT or Option key when adjusting the Defringe controls, which "color highlights" the image areas that are being desaturated. If you see an area that is NOT CA try reducing the Amount slider or changing the Hue sliders. There's plenty of instructional information here:

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/04/new-color-fringe-correction-controls.html

Report · Aug 04, 2013

Hi trshaner

I've done multiple test shots at 18mm and Lightroom gets them all wrong. It's worst at 18mm and dissapears as that increases.

I can't help feeling like someone has made a mistake along the line at Adobe's end, and dont feel confident using their lens profile for my camera.

Report · Aug 04, 2013

Understood, and there's no way to simply change the Lens profile settings for the single 18mm focal length. Did you try reducing the Lens Profile Distortion setting from 100 to perhaps 80 or whatever is necessary until the sag disappears in the 18mm shot? Then check images using the "reduced" Distortion setting at other zoom focal lengths. Based upon what you've stated a "balance" between 18mm performance and all other focal lengths can probably be established using a Distortion setting <100.

Lenses and all mass-produced items have well established "manufacturing tolerances" to keep cost of manufacturing low and to maintain specified quality standards. In the case of a low-cost "kit lens" like the 18-55mm these tolerances will be understandably higher, resulting in more sample-to-sample variation for both image sharpness AND things like distortion. There's a very good possibility that if you tried another 18-15mm lens of the same model that it might be better or even worse with Adobe's lens profile.

I suggest trying the Adobe Lens Profile Downloader at the links provided. I see four (4) lens profiles listed under '18-55mm f/3.5-5.6' for 1.5 crop camera. It doesn't state which model 18-55mm lens, but I'd download all four and try them all! There are another four (4) profiles available listed under 'Nikon DX AF-S NIKKOR 18-55mm 3.6-5.6G II ED,' but each one is for a single focal length. Not sure why and probably less useful. Lastly you can create your own lens profile if so inclined. Out of curiosity do you shoot using any other lenses, and if so how do they perform with Adobe's Lens Profiles?

Report · Aug 04, 2013

Hi trshaner

Thanks again for taking the trouble to write a long and good reply.

I will just say that in the images that Lightroom gets wrong down by 18mm, the Nikon in camera Jpegs and also DxO always seem to instead get right. So i think it's a problem with the lightroom lens profile, rather than being any kind of manufacturing tolerance defect.

With my last camera (Lumix G3) the auto focusing was terrible or at least there seemed to always be some blur (i'd throw away more shots than i kept), and as a result i'd always shoot at 18mm to try and reduce motion blur caused by me. I'm still in that habit now. I have to say that this Nikon DSLR has amazing focusing, and i'd say about 95% of the images it takes are spot on.

It is a strange lens though because if you zoom right in on something and then start zooming out again the lens obviously starts retracting back in towards the camera, but when you start getting down past 30mm going towards 18mm the lens starts expanding back out againt. Interestingly the lens distortions are non existant higher than 30mm in LR.

I'm going to find a nice straight building (glass or metal) with a nice corner too and take some test shots again and fully document how lightroom, ViewNX and DxO all handle the lens distortions (straight lines) at the different distances and lengths, and i will compile a list of what manual distortion adjustments would need to be applied in Lightroom each time for those images too.

There is another lens in Lightroom called Nikon DX AF-S NIKKOR 18-55mm 3.6-5.6G II ED (same as the one you mentioned above) and i hate to say it but it does seem to produce much better results at 18mm (i haven't tried it at other settings), but i feel reluctant to use it as it's designed for a different lens!

p.s i did download the lens profile creator from Adobe but read the instructions once and understood non of it, and so shy'ed away, lol.

Report · Aug 04, 2013

Difference between the 18-55mm VR & ED lenses:

Snippet from the web:

I want to buy D3100 with lens, but I'm not sure I understand the difference between these 2:

AF-S DX 18-55mm 3.5-5.6G ED II (VBA280K002)
AF-S VR DX 18-55mm 3.5-5.6G (VBA280K001)

There are rather more changes from the previous Nikon 18-55mm than at first meet the eye. The physical similarity between the lenses masks a multitude of differences; most notably the new lens has a more complex optical formula of 11 elements in 8 groups as compared to 7 elements in 5 groups, and interestingly the new lens loses the Extra-low Dispersion (ED) glass element of its predecessor. The use of ED elements allows superior correction of image aberrations in simpler lens constructions, and presumably Nikon consider the more complex design of the new lens renders their use superfluous.

Other changes include a modest increase in size, with about 3mm added to the diameter and 6mm to the length, and a 60g increase in weight. As seems to be the current fashion, the smooth black plastic of the old lens has been replaced by a new stippled matte black finish, which resembles magnesium alloy and matches the D60 body. Other differences include a larger rear lens element (20mm vs 15mm), an additional circular flare-cut diaphragm placed in front of the aperture assembly, and new 'Super-Integrated Coatings'. Overall this newcomer is clearly a completely different beast to the old lens, and as the old 18-55mm had an unusually high reputation for image quality (for a kit lens at least), we will be interested to see if the new version maintains this standard.

Report · Aug 04, 2013

Pbeck1 wrote:
I will just say that in the images that Lightroom gets wrong down by 18mm, the Nikon in camera Jpegs and also DxO always seem to instead get right. So i think it's a problem with the lightroom lens profile, rather than being any kind of manufacturing tolerance defect.

I'm not insinuating your lens has a manufacturing defect. What I am trying to convey is that ALL lenses have manufacturing tolerances, which are normally within the manufacturer's Quality Control specifications. This means that a lens meeting the specification may have measured distortion within say 0% to 3%. If Adobe used a sample of your lens model with 3% distortion at 18mm and your lens has only 2% distortion, then the Adobe Lens Profile will "over-correct" your images by 1%. This is about what I'm seeing in the posted image, 1% or less distortion with the profile applied. One simple solution as I suggested is to simply reduce the Lens Profile Distortion setting amount from 100 to a lower value and then check the other zoom focal lengths with this setting. You do not mention actually trying this....Why not?

Pbeck1 wrote:
I'm going to find a nice straight building (glass or metal) with a nice corner too and take some test shots again and fully document how lightroom, ViewNX and DxO all handle the lens distortions (straight lines) at the different distances and lengths, and i will compile a list of what manual distortion adjustments would need to be applied in Lightroom each time for those images too.

I suggest NOT using the manual adjustments, except if the raw converter doesn't provide manual adjustment of the lens profile distortion. The Manual Distortion control in LR is "linear," meaning it applies a uniform correction across the image field. Most zoom lenses use one or more aspherical lens elements that cause the image to exhibit a "non-linear" moustache shaped distortion. In the case of LR simply first lower or raise the Lens Profile Distortion amount. Then if the image still exhibits distortion in some areas try adding the Manual Distortion control on top of the Lens Profile Corrections. You may need to go back-and-forth between the two Distortion controls. Please let us know you results, it should be an interesting experiment!

Report · Aug 04, 2013

Pbeck1 wrote:
I've done multiple test shots at 18mm and Lightroom gets them all wrong.
I can't help feeling like someone has made a mistake along the line at Adobe's end, and dont feel confident using their lens profile for my camera.

I still wonder if it's possible for a user to do a better job using the downloadable kit, or if there are inherent limitations / imperfections in the algorithm / technology being used.

Report · Aug 04, 2013

Rob Cole wrote:
I still wonder if it's possible for a user to do a better job using the downloadable kit, or if there are inherent limitations / imperfections in the algorithm / technology being used.

Download the Adobe Lens Profile Creator and read the Shooting Guide. The biggest limitation is the shooting distance. You are optimizing the lens profile for these specific shooting distances from the calibration targets, which is much, much less than infinity:

The focus distance positions will include (1 × minimum focus distance), (2 × minimum focus distance) and (5 × minimum focus distance).

So far no problems here with my Canon EF and EF-S Adobe Lens Profiles at infinity.

Report · Aug 04, 2013

trshaner wrote:
The biggest limitation is the shooting distance.

My 18-200 vignette correction is significantly/noticably off using Adobe's lens profile, and spot-on in DxO.

Any idea why?

Rob

Report · Aug 05, 2013

Rob Cole wrote:
trshaner wrote:
The biggest limitation is the shooting distance.
My 18-200 vignette correction is significantly/noticably off using Adobe's lens profile, and spot-on in DxO.
Any idea why?
Rob

Is the difference seen in images shot at or near infinity focus, or all images? You can PM me or post a link to an example NEF and I'll try to determine what's happening.