Lightroom changes colour in my RAW files captured with NIKON D300

[Guest]

Dear All! Lightroom changes colour in my RAW files captured with NIKON D300. Some of the images are completely ruined. I am sure Adobe must be aware of this problem. What could be done? Is there a solution? Many thanks for your help. Regards, Stanislav

[Keith Reeder · Accepted solution]

Do you mean this, Stanislav?

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/358016

[Jeff Schewe]

Read this and get back to us Why does the color and or tone of my image change after import?

Also, it would be useful if you could describe what you mean when you say "completely ruined". What you you mean? Too light/dark? Too warm/cold? Too saturated or unsaturated?

I see Keith beet me to the post :~)

But we still need to know what's "ruined"

Message was edited by: Jeff Schewe

[Keith Reeder]

Yeah, I can't really imagine how, if we're right, there'd be any "ruined" images...

[Guest]

Dear Colleagues,

you are right in pointing out the phenomenon that causes the problem. However, I took a lot of time to create the images and wanted them to stay exactly as they were captured, with exactly the same colour characteristics. Now this is not happening. I really feel that Adobe could have done a better job by matching the Nikon profiles. I am looking forward to receiving a solution. It is a very sensitive business. I understand that I could alter the images with the help of Adobe Lightroom as I am pleased, that is fine, but I would like the starting point to be exactly where I left them. Hope I am explaining it well.

Looking forward to receiving a solution, dear colleagues.

With best regards,

Stanislav

[Jeff Schewe]

Environmental_Artist wrote:

you are right in pointing out the phenomenon that causes the problem. However, I took a lot of time to create the images and wanted them to stay exactly as they were captured, with exactly the same colour characteristics.

The only way that's gonna happen is if you use the Nikon software to process the files. Lightroom's default for raw files are not designed to match the camera LCD nor what the camera software can do. Lightroom's defaults are normalized rendering of the raw file. There is no "correct rendering" of a raw file...all raw software (except for Camera Raw and Lightroom which share the processing engine) will produce different raw processed results.

There are ways of modifying the Lightroom defaults to more closely match many camera's rendering by using different DNG profiles in the camera Calibration panel, not your desire to have Lightroom render the files the way the camera LCD shows them isn't a realistic expectation. You'll be better off learning how to use Lightroom's controls to get what you want...

[richardplondon]

All my photos appear completely ruined when I first import them.

I think it has something to do with the difference between Raw and JPG. It's very upsetting.

Fortunately, after a few seconds more, Lightroom then steps in and generates a much nicer picture instead, this time according to my preferred Raw defaults... 

which is what I will have had in mind - when setting the camera to Raw in the first place!

(grin)

[areohbee]

I recommend:

1. Change your in-camera settings to produce really crappy pictures, oriented toward showing tonal range captured, and colors present. e.g. a modified neutral picture style.

2. Don't try to make them look good in the camera - try to make them optimal for post-processing with Lightroom.

3. Enjoy the fact that your photos  look better with Lightroom's default processing, or baseline preset..., than in-camera.

- that's what I do.

PS - My favorite aspect of shooting raw, is the division of labor:

* when shooting: concentrate on getting the shot, optimally exposed - no need to worry about how nice it looks, or anything else...

* when post-processing: make it look nice...

I have more ideas for matching in-camera results in Lightroom, but I neither use them nor recommend them, so I don't offer them unless requested.

Cheers,

Rob

[mek]

This thread is a bit older but still valid for me.

I am using a mac and I was coming from Aperture. I used most of the time jpeg as the main file and was

happy with the colors and other parameters as they come of my D800.

Especially the file location handling is what I liked on Lightroom, but the RAW rendering is really something where I think of moving again away from it.

The FAQ article linked in this thread states something like "there is no correct way to render raw". I do not fully agree.

The way on how I like the image is the way at least for me on whats the right way, and how its from the camera is how

I like it and the way Adobe handles it with my images is just not on how I want it.

As described here, I shortly see the camera rendering, then  Adobes interpretation kicks in.

But I really love the camera rendering and I hate the adobe view of the RAW.

It takes a lot of time for me to duplicate the same result, if I am even happy with it.

This is really frustrating and I wonder of using Aperture as my main tool again!

I red somewhere that its Nikons fault as the raw format and the image settings are not fully open.

Not sure if this is true, but there are other tools which try to use settings from one picture and clone it to the other,

and I mean as Lightroom shows me shortly the version which I like, why could there be not an clone-filter to clone

the color settings from either the parallel imported jpeg or the included preview of the raw.

[areohbee]

It's not Nikon's fault (people who still say that just haven't kept up with how things are now). It was Adobe's decision not to try to duplicate manufacturer's camera settings (which is a decision that is very-much understandable, even if not satisfying for some folk).

Adobe provided camera emulation profiles which get you pretty close.

You need to learn to use Lightroom to make photos how you want them, or if not possible, then yeah: try another raw processor.

Dunno 'bout Aperture, but certainly the manufacturer's own software springs to mind, since it replicates the in-camera jpegs almost exactly.

~R.

[dj_paige]

The FAQ article linked in this thread states something like "there is no correct way to render raw". I do not fully agree.

The way on how I like the image is the way at least for me on whats the right way, and how its from the camera is how

I like it and the way Adobe handles it with my images is just not on how I want it.

So, you disagree with "there is no correct way to render raw", and then you state your preference for how the raw should be rendered.

I would state a different preference, I do not want the RAW to be rendered exactly as the in-camera rendering of the JPG appears, I want something different.

It is entirely possible that Rob Cole and others would state even a different preference for how the RAW should appear than either you or I.

And so we are back to the statement "there is no correct way to render raw". What is "correct" for you is not "correct" for other Lightroom users. There is nothing magical or sacred or "correct" about the appearance of the in-camera or JPG preview of your image, and in fact I state (and have read others state) that you can create a more desirable and more pleasing image by editing the RAW, compared to the in-camera produced JPG.

Thus, Lightroom gives you the tools to achieve whatever appearance you want, relatively repeatably and easily. There are the camera profiles, which Rob mentioned; and you can also create presets to be applied to all imported photos from a given camera (or all imported photos in a particular style, for example, architecture photos get a different preset, landscape photos get a different preset, sports action photos get a different preset). Thus, in one example, architecture photos, I have a preset that increases the contrast and vibrance and shadows sliders.

As I said, there is nothing sacred about the in-camera or JPG preview appearance of the photo. I believe I can create better photos than the in-camera or JPG preview. Probably you can too once you learn Lightroom's tools.

[mek]

You want "something different" but this "something different" is quite hard to define.

I want a result which reflects the result on the camera. Have the feeling the display

of the D800 is not the greatest, at least (not only the color issue which is often discussed)

but also the exposure. Often I think I would need to compensate it, but then afterwards

on the computer the non corrected version looks most of the time better.

I think its interesting to see how allergic people react when the word jpeg comes up.

This is also just a rendered result, just by the camera. There are many options in my cam.

I like the vivid setting with some modifications. And that gives me a result I like.

And if I like the result, why shall I spend way more time to replicate it?

I do not talk about that I would want the jpeg, I only say that what I get color wise out of the

box is how I would like to look at it. I still want the capability to fix for example exposure  in image,

but I want the base the version I got from the jpeg view (or how the Nikon raw software could do).

On Lightroom I did not manage to have a profile that looked as appealing to me.

It also consumes way more time in my workflow to fix all pictures manually and results might differ.

To work on an image you need a starting point, I do not say the jpeg look is always perfect and

what I want all the time, but most of the time it is.

You say yourself you use profiles. So why should there not be a profile which automatically adjusts to the camera settings.

Its so frustrating to see a look which you like (the preview image when the pic is first accessed) and

then Lightroom switches to its own rendering which is flat and which I do not like.

For me its clearly something Adobe and/or Nikon should fix, like the mentioned "auto correct to preview look",

Nikon profiles/settings/raw-details in Lightroom or for example a Nikon import module.

[dj_paige]

So why should there not be a profile which automatically adjusts to the camera settings.

Adobe didn't create such a profile, and its not likely that they are going to do so, despite the fact that some people really really want them to.

If you really want your RAW to match the colors and appearance of the JPG, use the Nikon software, this should give you a RAW that substantially matches the JPG with almost no effort on your part.

[Keith Reeder]

mek wrote:

So why should there not be a profile which automatically adjusts to the camera settings.

An equally valid question - probably more valid, given the points made so far - is "why should there be a profile which automatically adjusts to the camera settings?"

For this idea to have value, we'd all have to accept that the in-camera rendering is intrinsically the definitive rendering, and it's simply not: it's just a Nikon (or Canon, or Pentax or Sony) engineer's idea of what constitutes a pleasing image.

[dj_paige]

Great point, Keith.

[mek]

So to say that the Nikons engineers and many users (like me) might have a point is not a good point, I see.

I do not say that you need to use it. I also do not say that its the greatest of all. Neither that it should be the default.

Here in the postings it sounds like "the jpeg of the camera" its not only the Jpeg its on how the raw is rendered.

And there are many options regards picture control profiles and their sub settings, active d-lighting, ...

So whats so bad to use these functions when it archives the look I am searching for!

Works great for me, at least besides Lightroom killing it, ...

[dj_paige]

So ... Lightroom exists today (as all software exists) as a set of features and capabilities. There are some things it can do, and some things it cannot do (or cannot do easily).

You are desirous of a feature in Lightroom that does not exist in Lightroom today. There is nothing wrong with that ... however ... if its that important to you, and the idea of using a profile and/or a preset to achieve this result isn't what you want, then clearly Lightroom is not the right software for you, and other software, which does have this feature, sounds like it would be a better fit for you.

[DdeGannes]

Just another view. When you choose to use third party software to render and process your raw image data then you should expect to be presented with an alternative recipe. Your camera firmware and the computer software provided by your camera manufacturer, already presents you with one "Chef's" taste. Why would you wish to pay for an alternate software package to provide you with the same rendition. Why are you shooting in raw format? Is it not to be able to achieve an opportunity to be creative? If not use the Camera supplied software to render the raw file and create a tiff file for further work and management in LIghtroom.

Quote "Works great for me, at least besides Lightroom killing it, ..."

You also need to be aware that your Camera Manufacturer does not share their Chef's recipe with Adobe or any other third party software provider, it is very guarded proprietary information. Nikon would prefer you to use their own software package.

[ssprengel]

Adobe has a raw engine comprised of software that uses specific software methods and parameters to produce an RGB image—for each camera they support.

Nikon has a raw engine comprised of software that uses other software methods and other parameters to produce an RGB image—for Nikon cameras.

The Adobe Camera Profiles and slider values in the ACR plug-in and Lightroom are the parameters, but there are also software methods that are secret to each company.

For Adobe to reproduce Nikon’s look, exactly, they’d have to use Nikon’s internal, non-publically-known software methods, which are proprietary and secret and perhaps patented or copyrighted, and otherwise intellectual property of Nikon. If Adobe bought Nikon then they’d have access to Nikon’s methods, but until then, they can’t.

Learn how to use LR to get what you want out of your camera’s raw sensor data.

[areohbee]

mek wrote:

On Lightroom I did not manage to have a profile that looked as appealing to me.

What camera model?

For most of the popular cameras, Adobe includes a profile which emulates in-camera rendering (color/tone-wise).

If you have such a profile, you should be able to select it and have a rendering which nearly matches that in camera. I say "nearly" because it's close but not exact, and additional "exposure/contrast" and detail adjustments may still need to be applied..

Anyway, that's what most people do who've become very-much attached to the in-camera look and want to start in Lightroom with a rendering which is close to it:

* re-create it in Lightroom using camera emulation profiles in concert with other adjustments.

Indeed it's not automatic, unless you use a plugin for importing or post-import processing, but you can set your defaults to use a preferred profile, and come up with presets to apply on top of the defaults.........

Do you have the camera emulation profiles for your model, or not ???????? - post a screen-shot of which profiles you have (camera calibration section).

~R.

[ssprengel]

Mek's first post from today mentions "my D800":

Re: Lightroom changes colour in my RAW files captured with NIKON D300

[areohbee]

OK, begging the question:

If he/she selects one of the camera emulation profiles for D800, is the color not very close to what camera would render with same "picture style" chosen?

mek said: "I did not manage to have a profile that looked as appealing to me."

But did not say things like: "The D800 Landscape profile does not look as appealing to me as the in-camera Landscape picture style".

In other words, I can't tell yet whether mek even knows what we mean by "profile" (we specifically mean: as chosen in drop-down list in camera calibration section of develop module).

Rob

[Jao vdL]

In other words, I can't tell yet whether mek even knows what we mean by "profile" (we specifically mean: as chosen in drop-down list in camera calibration section of develop module).

For the mentioned camera (D300), the Adobe supplied camera matching profiles are virtually identical to the in-camera rendering using the same picture style. I have used this camera for a long time with Lightroom and you would be very hard pressed to see the difference. The Adobe folks have worked hard on this camera as I send them lots of raw files to test. Of course if you enable crappy HDR modes in camera (Nikon calls these modes things like active D-lighting), you'll end up with underexposed images in Lightroom, because that is exactly what the camera does, underexpose and correct in post. If you are a raw shooter, ignore all the in-camera settings and as Rob mentions earlier, shoot in a mode that is very neutral and allows you to see the full breadth of what is captured and do your post ..... in post. You'll get FAR better quality images than optimizing in camera raw rendering settings. Lightroom is lightyears ahead of Nikon's software in almost every aspect, especially including rendering of raw files, let alone user interface.

[ssprengel]

The D300 camera mentioned in the subject of this thread back from Sept 2012, is not the D800 camera owned by the current poster, MEK, but your comments are likely similarly applicable. 

[areohbee]

Environmental_Artist wrote:

Is there a solution?

Ottomanic Importer can (automatically) match camera settings upon import, and ISO Detailer can match camera settings after import - both are plugins I wrote.

In addition to choosing a matching camera profile (and ISO-based detail settings) here are some example settings you can use to compensate for ADL:

	["Low"] = { Exposure2012=.1, Contrast2012=-5, Highlights2012=-20, Shadows2012=20, Clarity2012=3, Blacks2012=-5, Whites2012=5, Vibrance=3, Saturation=1 },
	["Normal"] = { Exposure2012=.2, Contrast2012=-10, Highlights2012=-30, Shadows2012=30, Clarity2012=6, Blacks2012=-10, Whites2012=10, Vibrance=6, Saturation=2 },
	["High"] = { Exposure2012=.3, Contrast2012=-15, Highlights2012=-40, Shadows2012=40, Clarity2012=9, Blacks2012=-15, Whites2012=15, Vibrance=9, Saturation=3 },
	["ExtraHigh"] = { Exposure2012=.5, Contrast2012=-25, Highlights2012=-50, Shadows2012=50, Clarity2012=12, Blacks2012=-20, Whites2012=20, Vibrance=15, Saturation=5 },

You can fold such settings into a preset to apply manually if you prefer such handling over plugin automation..

Rob