"S" to toggle stacks - LR2.1 RC

[ATJ-renamed]

Not sure if this is new in LR2.1 RC or was present in LR2 (as I went back to LR1.4 after first trying LR2). I also don't know if this is a bug or a "feature".

I shoot raw+JPEG. When I import, I stack all the images on capture time (at 1 second) so that the .NEF gets stacked with the .JPG and then collapse all stacks. I review each of the .JPG and choose the ones to process. When I'm ready, I unstack and update the metadata for both the .JPG and .NEF files.

Under LR1.x, hitting 's' unstacked the current stack but kept both the .JPG and .NEF selected so I only had to change the metadata once. Under LR2.1 RC, 's' unstacks, but only the top image in the stack (.JPG) is selected. I now need to manually select the .NEF as well as the .JPG before updating the metadata.

Is this a bug, a fix or a feature?

 

[johnbeardy]

Maybe you should be requesting that metadata applied to a stack applies to all images in the stack? In this nef+jpeg case, it's pretty obvious that the images share all characteristics and you shouldn't even have to go through this stack expansion nonsense.

 

[ATJ-renamed]

John,

That would certainly help. In fact, I think I suggested up front (LR1.2) that stacks should share metadata. I would still need to expand the stack, however, to work with the raw image.

I guess if the default raw processing of LR made the raw image look exactly like the JPEG, I wouldn't even need to use stacks at all, but that is a whole other discussion.

 

[johnbeardy]

I would always question whether one wants to make the raw look like the jpeg, but it sounds like you're equally tired of that debate!

 

[ATJ-renamed]

I would always question whether one wants to make the raw look like the jpeg, but it sounds like you're equally tired of that debate!

Because, it is a good starting point. I'm not saying that it has to stay that way, but it would be better than the current default in LR. I set up my lighting and camera settings so the image "straight from the camera" is pretty damn close (in most cases) to what I want. Isn't that what photography is about?

My goal is to be a photographer, rather than a Lightroom Guru.

 

[johnbeardy]

"Isn't that what photography is about?"

Not necessarily. Just think of Ansel Adams' phrase about the negative being the score and the print being the performance. I'd always shoot for capturing the score which allows me to do the best possible performance. For instance, I recently shot a sunset scene, underexposing heavily to retain detail in the small area of highlights where the sun had been. On the LCD, the overall image was horribly dark and failed your straight from the camera rule, but I knew I could lift those shadow areas on computer (the camera was my D7''). Though that was an extreme case, in general I'm shooting material, thinking ahead to the ultimate rendition, not seeking to get there in one step. Maybe that's the result of loving the b&w darkroom?

John

 

[Denis Pagé]

Another way of seeing it is that in the days of film you were able to choose one. BW? High contrast? Color negative? Color positive? 64, 1'', 2'', 4''ASA? and so on...

With digital capture devices making JPEGs with a combination of a given CCD or CMOS chip and onboard software, it seem at first that one is being stuck working with only one kind of film chosen by the manufacturer.

Think of Develop Presets as a way to change the film in your digital camera. As a bonus, you can even have different films for the same picture! You can easily find on the net some D3'' presets matching what Nikon Capture or the camera does.

 

[ATJ-renamed]

Maybe that's the result of loving the b&w darkroom?

I shoot nature and used transparency film for years. Getting it right in the camera was how one worked with slides (and how thousands of National Geographic photographers worked even if they weren't Ansell Adams). While I did dabble a bit with B&W, it didn't hold my interest.

With digital capture devices making JPEGs with a combination of a given CCD or CMOS chip and onboard software, it seem at first that one is being stuck working with only one kind of film chosen by the manufacturer.

There are all sorts of camera settings that I can use that emulate the reasons why I'd use different films - although most of my time I shot with Kodachrome 64, so I was more than happy with "one is being stuck working with only one kind of film chosen by the manufacturer". Kodachrome 64 gave me the colours, resolution and consistency that I needed and so I used it most of the time. For underwater shots I used Ektachrome 64 (and then 1'') for much the same reasons. In the same way with my digital cameras I use different white balance settings underwater to what I use on land. I use different white balance for different strobes or for available light. This gives me the same sorts of controls I had with the few different films I used.

I do use a preset which most of the time does a pretty good job - but it isn't perfect and I haven't found one that matches "what Nikon Capture or the camera does" in every instance and in some cases it can be quite different. For this reason I'm not prepared to do away with the JPEGs as they at least show me what the camera took - it may not be where I stay, but it is a lot better than the default I get from Lightroom.

I know it is possible for Lightroom to default to the embedded JPEG or at the very least allow me to see the embedded JPEG. There are even non-Nikon tools out there that will convert the NEF to a JPEG using only the information in the NEF file so there's no reason that Adobe couldn't do it.

I wish people would recognise that not everyone works in the same way that they do. I have no problem at all if people want to spend a lot of time fiddling with their images in Lightroom (or any other tool). I don't and I am offended by people that think they can tell me how I should work.

I know I'm not the only one that is unhappy with the default processing of Lightroom. I know a number of people that won't even use Lightroom for this reason. I continue to try because I like so many other aspects of the tool (and remember it is just a tool). I have found ways to work around the limitations (like shooting JPEG+NEF and stacking) but then it seems that Adobe don't want me doing that an keep changing the way things work.

 

[ATJ-renamed]

Please note that at no point was I suggesting that I want to force all my NEFs to be identical to the embedded JPEGs. I am merely talking about the default raw processing, the starting point. Any raw processor has to default to something, so why not default to what you'd get from the camera? Heck, why not give me the CHOICE to have default processing match my camera settings and have other defaults for people that want to play Ansell Adams? That's all I'm asking for.

If I am able to get most of my images the way I want them in the camera, why should I be forced down extra steps just to get that starting point? Certainly, not all the images are correct but that's the beauty of shooting raw, I still have the opportunity to correct my mistakes (or at least more power to go close to correcting them).

I would find it very useful if, on Import, I had the choice of "Default to embedded JPEG" that I could use if I wanted to. Then I wouldn't have to shoot raw+JPEG. And if that can't be done, how about an option to "Display embedded JPEG"? I know for a fact that it can be done because this is exactly what Instant JPEG from RAW does plus more.

 

[Mark Sirota]

If the default processing is your concern, you should be looking at the new camera profiles available at Adobe Labs. They look much more like the default Nikon processing than the standard Adobe profile does.

 

[ATJ-renamed]

If the default processing is your concern, you should be looking at the new camera profiles available at Adobe Labs. They look much more like the default Nikon processing than the standard Adobe profile does.

I have and they aren't much of an improvement. These would still only be a "one-size-fits-all" approach. There is data in the .NEF that could be used and will be specific to the settings used at the time the shot was taken.

 

[Kiwigeoff]

I have and they aren't much of an improvement. These would still only be a "one-size-fits-all" approach. There is data in the .NEF that could be used and will be specific to the settings used at the time the shot was taken.

Andrew, the feedback on the profiles is overwhelmingly positive. From what you are saying would you be better of using NX2 and then importing TIFF files into LR for management. My thinking is if I want the results of Nikkor lenses I don't use Sigma. So if I want the exact results of Nikon settings and processing, I would use Nikon software.

Anyway time for a cold Touheys or two !!

 

[ATJ-renamed]

I must be doing something wrong.

Here is the exported JPEG image:

Here is the NEF with General Zeroed:

Here is the NEF with Adobe Standard beta 1:

Here is the NEF with Camera Standard beta 1:

Here is the NEF with Camera Vivid beta 1:

None of them look like the JPEG. Note, I'm not saying I want to stay with the JPEG version, I just want to use it as a starting point.

Yes, I could start my workflow in CaptureNX and save as TIFF, but that is going to make the workflow far more complex. While I like the job that CaptureNX does with raw conversion, it is slow and memory hungry and would significantly add to my workflow.

If Lightroom default processing could match the embedded JPEG, I could do away with the JPEGs as a reference and my workflow would be much simpler. In fact, I'm generally happy with the preset I'm using now, but I still want a reference JPEG. If Lightroom even allowed me to display the embedded JPEG (or did something similar to Instant JPEG from RAW for display), I'd be much happier.

 

[Kiwigeoff]

Andrew are you using the develop presets in the left panel that are camera specific as well?
I have set up my own Dev Preset using one of the D2'' ones (CM-1) with "autotone" and "Adobe Standard". Then pulled back a couple of settings to make it may liking and saved as "My Preset"!!

I would put up some screen shots but LR is busy importing from an old catalog I am testing so have no access.

Hope that helps.......

 

[ATJ-renamed]

Andrew are you using the develop presets in the left panel that are camera specific as well?

Geoff,

The only presets I have in the left panel are the ones I had before in LR1.4. Selecting any of them sets me back to ACR 4.3 profile.

 

[Kiwigeoff]

Geoff,

The only presets I have in the left panel are the ones I had before in LR1.4. Selecting any of them sets me back to ACR 4.3 profile.

OK. maybe I am getting lost about where I got these presets, they do work well though!!
If you had a Mac I would send them over !!
Maybe you could Google and look. I'm just off out for the evening!!

 

[johnbeardy]

Have you tried using the DNG Profile Editor to create your own default profile? You have to create a DNG for the matching/sampling process, but might use your sample image, and can then apply it to raw files too. In Develop, Alt/Opt + Reset will set it as the default.

John

 

[Victoria Bampton]

I've only quickly skimmed this thread as I'm running out of time today, but do you have any custom settings on your camera that's being applied to the jpeg Andrew? Because my initial thought was that you have the saturation turned up in camera, and of course Nikon aren't nice enough to share your camera settings with other manufacturers, so Lightroom wouldn't know about that.

 

[ATJ-renamed]

Geoff,

I have a develop preset (D3'' MLK Preset) with which I am pretty happy. I have been using it for a number of months, but that really isn't the issue. The preset does a very good job the majority of the time. As I shoot .NEF+.JPG, I am able to compare the untouched .JPG to the .NEF with preset applied and most of the time they are almost identical - certainly close enough for me. However, there are some images where some of the .NEF with preset applied is very close to the .JPG, but other areas where the colour is not even close. I don't have an explanation for this, but when this happens, I "export" the .NEF to CaptureNX and process it there, "importing" the processed .TIF back into Lightroom. (I have actually automated this and trick LR into thinking it is sending a .TIF to CaptureNX when in fact it is the .NEF.)

As I said before, I shoot Nature. Getting the colours accurate is extremely important. I could imagine other fields where colour accuracy is important. While there's no guarantee that the camera is 1''% accurate with capturing the colours correctly, I still believe the .JPG version to be the closest the camera is going to get. I have also done some tests with Kodak Color Separation charts and have found the .JPG is much closer to the original than the .NEF with preset applied.

I have faith in the colour rendition of the .JPG. I don't have faith in the current .NEF + preset. It is for this reason I shoot .JPG+.NEF - so I have a reference for what I believe the image should look like. Now, if Lightroom could show me the embedded JPEG or could default to the processing of the embedded JPEG, I could do away with the .JPG and just work off the .NEF. If it is not possible to give me the correct default processing, being able to see the JPEG version would be the equivalent of what I have now, without the need for the actual .JPG.

John,

I will give the DNG Profile Editor a go. If I can set it up to accurately reflect the colours (at least better than what I have now), it will be a great help. I will still be nervous, though, that under some circumstances, I won't be getting the accurate colours.

Victoria,

I have my Picture Control set to "Neutral". The detail of this is that Contrast, Brightness, Saturation and Hue are all set to '. Nothing is being enhanced. The only thing that is not zero is Sharpening, which is on 2.

I have heard the complaint about Nikon not sharing camera settings, but I have to wonder how true that realy is. There is a free tool called Instant JPEG from RAW, which accurately creates a JPEG from a raw file. The resulting .JPG has the same number of pixels as the image in the .NEF and I can't discern any visible differences between the result and the .JPG that camera produces. How are they able to do that without knowing the camera settings? Perhaps they are just interpolating from the embedded JPEG (which is not full resolution) but that's some pretty smart work for a tool that is only just over 2''KB in size.

 

[Mark Sirota]

I have heard the complaint about Nikon not sharing camera settings, but I have to wonder how true that realy is. There is a free tool called Instant JPEG from RAW, which accurately creates a JPEG from a raw file. The resulting .JPG has the same number of pixels as the image in the .NEF and I can't discern any visible differences between the result and the .JPG that camera produces. How are they able to do that without knowing the camera settings? Perhaps they are just interpolating from the embedded JPEG (which is not full resolution) but that's some pretty smart work for a tool that is only just over 2''KB in size.

Your D3'' (and most other Nikons) include a full-size, basic quality JPEG in the raw file. That's what you're seeing.

 

[johnbeardy]

A lot of programs - BreezeBrowser or iView for example - display the raw file's embedded preview and can extract it, so Instant JPEG from RAW isn't that unusual, other than being free. I've always wanted Lightroom to do so upon request. Apart from those wanting to match colour (and think of the poor souls who set their cameras to b&w with some sort of filter adjustment and wonder which shots they intended to render as b&w), there's also the issue of viewing speed when you're just scrolling through deciding which to keep or trash.

 

[ATJ-renamed]

Well, I guess that means I have no hope of seeing an exact conversion of my raw files so I will have to keep shooting .NEF+.JPG so I have the .JPG for reference.

This takes me back to my original post in this thread and the change in behaviour of the "S" key which no longer results in all members of a stack being selected. Can I have the original behaviour back?

 

[ATJ-renamed]

Thought I'd update my status.

After playing around with profiles and asking a bunch of questions, I am finding that using "Camera Neutral beta 2" and the default settings for Lightroom, the NEFs look identical to the JPEGs. So it does appear that I can get an accurate conversion - mainly because I don't change any camera settings that would affect the difference. I have now been able to ditch the JPEGs and just shoot raw.

Note that I like the JPEG look as a starting point and many will be modified in post processing.

 

[Victoria Bampton]

That's great to hear Andrew! Thanks for reporting back!