My Lightroom lens corrections need correcting. Is this normal?

[Pbeck1]

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.

[areohbee]

trshaner wrote:

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.

Good questions, but I'm not ready to pursue it just yet, maybe at some point.

Thanks though,

R

[Pbeck1]

Rob

I'm trying out Exportant now.

I have to admit i've never used a Lightroom plug-in before and don't really know for sure what i'm doing (or doing wrong). I'm having a bit of trouble getting things to work.

I've installed Exportant, and registered it with the Lightroom plug-in manager.

Now i assume i call this plug-in at export time in lightroom. I've double clicked on the name Exportant at the bottom left of Lightrooms export window and that ticks it. Then in the Exportant options that then appear in the export window all i done was ticked 'add maker notes'.

When i open the exported Tiff into DxO it won't perform any distortion corrections.

Any ideas what i might be doing wrong?

[areohbee]

Pbeck1 wrote:

Any ideas what i might be doing wrong?

I assume 'Exiftool Session' box was also ticked.

Note: the photo being exported must *already* have maker notes in it (Exportant isn't checking such), e.g. it must be a raw file. In other words, Exportant can't manufacture maker-notes, it can only assure they are transferred from source photo to the exported file.

If that's not it, then I'd have to look at the (preferrably verbose) log file.

Please contact me outside the forum for additional plugin support.

Rob

[Pbeck1]

Yes, was a Nef

Will PM you

[areohbee]

Exporant did what it was supposed to do, and the resultant file is correctable in DxO as soon as user corrects the lens module ambiguity.

(there are two very similar lenses, and DxO is uncertain which is correct, and plays it safe).

PS - DxO has the same problem with the NEF, or at least my copy did (v6.6).

Rob

[Pbeck1]

No lens module ambiguity as far as i can see.

I'm running version 8.3 of DxO. I seem to remember reading somewhere that version 6 had more support towards Lightroom exports but was dropped in version 8. I think it may be possible that we need to consider the possibilty that version 6 and 8 behave differently?

I have managed to get a lightroom exported image being lens corrected in DxO afterwards using a program called Exif Copier, its a GUI for Exiftool. The only problem is that it copies all metadata/exif over from 1 file to the other and thus would probably cause incompatibilities somewhere along the line. So perhaps maker notes is only part of the problem and we need to figure out what else?

[areohbee]

OK, so I downloaded/installed DxO v8.3:

lens ambiguity is no more, and although all lens corrections were available (e.g. could be checked/unchecked), they didn't do anything (the auto/profile-based ones) when adjusted (e.g. check/unchecked), until I copied all metadata (instead of just makernotes).

I'll be making a corresponding change to Exportant.

UPDATE:

-----------

Change made to copy all exif metadata, probably similar to what Exif Copier does.

Note: there is no conflict that I can see. Certainly, there is no conflict with ICC profile.

-----------

R

[Pbeck1]

Rob, why would there be no conflict with something like color space in the exifs? Sposen the raw was Adobe rgb or Nikon srgb but the lightroom exported tiff was plain srgb. Would conflict not occur?

[areohbee]

Pbeck1 wrote:

Rob, why would there be no conflict with something like color space in the exifs?

Although NEFs know which ICC profile should be assigned to the embedded jpeg, such ICC profile is not actually assigned to the raw data in like fashion (and is not actually assigned to the embedded jpeg either, not without a fair amount of work, which is why many jpeg extractors leave the jpeg with no icc profile), transferring all metadata does not actually set the ICC profile in the target rgb file. I just double-checked - all is well (icc-profile is handled perfectly, colors are spot-on...).

Note: I can't guarantee there is never a problem assigning raw metadata to rgb export, but so far, for the purpose of editing in DxO - no problems. Reminder: since DxO output is what's coming back to Lightroom, metadata and icc-profile will be as assigned/maintained by DxO, but the icc-profile going in to DxO is as it should be (is whatever you set it to be in Lr, i.e. it's not overwritten by icc-profile in raw metadata).

'nuff said?

Rob

Message was edited by: Rob Cole

[areohbee]

trshaner wrote:

if I try using the Manual Distortion control it makes distortion worse for most of lenses

Sorry for not being clearer - I was talking about vignette correction.

I'm usually "OK" with good-'nuff partial distortion fixes, but I am sensitive to wonky vignetting on some photos.

PS - I thought at first that my 18-200 was off, since when I posted about it way back when, the only responses I got were: "works fine for me at all focal lengths", but my lens is corrected perfectly by DxO, which also uses a profile-based scheme which ignores individual variances, I think. I have since concluded that the folks responding previously were looking at their Lr's lens corrections through  "rose colored lenses" (so to speak) - maybe I'm wrong...

PPS - I know how to use the defringing tools, but some photos can not be properly corrected without resorting to local defringing too, or instead, regardless of skill at setting globals. Adobe obviously agrees or such local control would not exist.

R

[Todd Shaner]

Rob Cole wrote:

PPS - I know how to use the defringing tools, but some photos can not be properly corrected without resorting to local defringing too, or instead, regardless of skill at setting globals. Adobe obviously agrees or such local control would not exist.

My expereince with the Defringe tools has been primarily with the two lenses I mentioned, Canon 8-15mm F4L and 85mm F1.8. I did try the Defringe tools today on images shot with a Canon 18-55mm IS II lens images from a 600D. This lens only exhibits a very small amount of axial CA in bright areas when wide open at F3.5, which is more likely sensor "blooming". It was quite a bit more difficult to eliminate fringing without also causing deaturation in normal picture areas. I finally found a setting that worked well without desaturating any other areas (Purple 5, 37/47). I'm sure there are some images that exhibit axial CA and/or blooming that require use of the Local Defrige tool to prevent desaturating normal picture areas. Thankfully I haven't encountered any yet.....maybe a testiment to Canon's lens designs?

Cheers,

Todd

[areohbee]

Paul,

If distortion is a primary concern, I'm guessing you're shooting buildings, or shots with buildings in the background...

If so, and you haven't tried Lr5's new 'Upright' feature - try it.

Sometimes just one click of the Upright/Auto button makes everything look about right (and sometimes it needs a little extra "help"...).

It's supposedly useful in non-architecture-oriented shots too, but that (architecture) seems to be where it really excels, in my experience so far.

Cheers,

Rob

[Pbeck1]

No mate, I only really take photos of my child. I became uneasy after noticing that the lens corrections in Lightroom were far from perfect (to give you a rough idea, some photos needed a manual adjustment of -65 on top of what Lightroom was suggesting).

I've since made my own lens profile with the Adobe lens profile creator and have compared a lot of shots with it vs DxO and they render almost identical, and so i've settled for that now.

I dont think i want to upgrade to LR5 yet as all my catalogues have been made with LR4 and i just feel safer somehow knowing that at the moment they are all still being opened by their original program. Also, i dont see a lot of difference between 4 & 5. I think i'll probably upgrade to LR6 if a new processs version is developed and is better.

Perhaps i should expand my photography interests into other areas other than my child too?

[areohbee]

Pbeck1 wrote:

I only really take photos of my child.

Right - I forgot about that. So I guess the distortion is noticeable in the interiors - doorways and ceiling lines, maybe some furniture etc... Anyway, if you get around to trying Lr5 or Lr6, the upright may help. But it sounds like you've got it under control for now. - Cheers, R.

PS - Nuthin' wrong w/shootin' yer kid. I'm sure you'll start shootin' something else if it seems more interesting .

[Pbeck1]

Absolutely, yes. I started noticing that straight lines were a bit curved all over the place (even if just a bit), but my mindset is one that once i notice something i can't unnotice it (this sometimes serves as good and sometimes bad, but in this case good because it forced me into eventually solving the problem)

Human Beings defining characteristics include it's ability like no other to solve problems (hey i just made a quote, lol)

[Pbeck1]

I seem to remember you mentioning that you mainly shoot landscapes Rob?

[areohbee]

Pbeck1 wrote:

you mainly shoot landscapes Rob?

Mostly, and macros...

Which is why distortion had never been a huge issue for me. But wonky vignettes can be a problem in sky...

[Pbeck1]

Can i view your work?

[areohbee]

Here's some of my personal photos:

http://www.robcole.com/Rob/Personal/Pictures

Note: It takes a long time to load. After loading, try clicking the 'Full' button, for full-screen mode, then the 'Big' button, for bigger pictures.

Rob

[Pbeck1]

Ok, will take a peek now (should be good).

Rob, i've just done a test on lots of my raw images (all mixed focal length, distances, apertures etc). I've exported them from both Lightroom and DxO to compare the lens distortions (i used my new lens profile with them in Lightroom). Guess what, without any exception the exports from both programs are almost identical.

Conclusion: You CAN get lens corrections as good as DxO's in Lightroom but you may have to make your own lens profile via the lens profile creator tool. The results are equally as good

[Pbeck1]

Yes, enjoyed looking at your photos (i couldn't go through them all as so very many, lol).

You have a slight Oliver Reed look to you (obviously a better looking version, lol).

You and Anne look very close and was nice to see.

Moonset over the hills looked great to me. Loved the squirrels (inc 2010>squirrelzip>30064). Loved the image of the deer clocking you as you snapped it (like a self re-inforcing link).

Nice close ups of the bees and birds & has given me some ideas to get my child interested in photography too (at the moment she runs when i get the camera out as she knows i'm going to try and snap her, lol).

I think i prefer the images of the animals to everything else you've shot. Perhaps that's where my own passion would lay.

The birds in flight must of been a challenge to capture, as would the high contrast in the landscape photos  too (i.e to get those pesky camera settings right prior to shooting).

Nice

[Pbeck1]

Rob

I was just wondering if you've had a go at making your own Lightroom Lens Profiles yet?

Paul

[areohbee]

Hi Paul,

Sorry it took so long to respond. I appreciated the comments about my website photos.

I haven't braved the perilous waters (exagerating for effect...) of making custom lens profile(s), yet. - I'll keep ya posted.

Rob