Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question
-
#2. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 0
jsa Registered since 12th Jun 2006Mon 27-Aug-07 07:58 PMScott,
When you import your nef files into lightroom there is an option to choose what presets are applied to your images.
After import you can select all the images and apply a different preset also.
Each preset contains the particular values that will be applied.
Cheers
John
Cheers
John-
#3. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 2
I have develop set to none when I import. I just can't figure out why it's doing this and I'm pulling my hair out
I did make a preset and apply it but I would have thought it would have not done that in Lightroom.
Regards,
Scott
A Washington D.C. Area Nikonian
-
#4. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 3
jsa Registered since 12th Jun 2006Mon 27-Aug-07 08:57 PMScott.......
>I have develop set to none when I import.
None actually sets lightroom to its default, which means lightroom uses its internal algorithms to set auto white balance and auto exposure. These auto algorithms don't do my nefs much good.
> I just can't
>figure out why it's doing this and I'm pulling my hair out
> I did make a preset and apply it but I would have
>thought it would have not done that in Lightroom.
>
Best to make a preset and apply that on import instead of applying none.
For a while I'm using the zeroed preset on import. Then in Develop I add about +1.65 exposure, bring contrast to 25 and fiddle the rest from from there. About time I made this a preset for myself.
Cheers
John
Cheers
John-
#5. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 4
Voodoo Registered since 29th Apr 2006Mon 27-Aug-07 10:05 PMI use lightroom and it dulls all my original colors from nefs on import.
for example, I took a shot of some beautiful purple fireweed against a green forest background and lightroom turned it into a muddy, dull, dying forest.
however, I have managed my lightroom skills to adjust appropriately and I am happier than with using only nx...which produces much better results straight from the card.
Thanks for sharing,
Jeff-
-
-
-
#9. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 8
Thanks Nick.
I know how to use lightroom, I never really figured out nx so I would like to stick with it. It just seems like so much more work for raw files. And of course, the preset that I made only looked good on a few files so I guess it wasn't a very good preset
Regards,
Scott
A Washington D.C. Area Nikonian
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
#10. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 3
Tue 28-Aug-07 03:05 PM
There's interaction between the default settings in ACR 4.1 and Lightroom 1.1. I suspect you've set the default processing parameters (which are applied when you don't select a preset) to something that automatically corrects the image. This article may help:
www.computer-darkroom.com/lr_camera/camera-defaults.htm
www.computer-darkroom.com/lr_camera/camera-defaults.htm
Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography
-
-
#14. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 12
Tue 28-Aug-07 09:16 PMIf you want to make the default settings specific to a certain specific camera (handled via the serial number), go into Edit>Preferences>Presets and then place a checkmark beside the item labeled "Make defaults specific to a camera serial number". After you've done that, bring up a photo taken with that camera, modify it to whatever you want as your future default settings, and then select Develop>Select Default Settings. Select "Update to Current Settings" and you're done.
Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography
-
#15. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 0
billg71
Registered since 14th Aug 2006
Tue 28-Aug-07 10:34 PM
This part is easy... LR is showing you the embedded .jpg preview until it processes the .nef file and generates its own preview based on the Preset you've chosen. Choosing "none" on import doesn't mean you get no changes, you get the LR default which, as you've observed, makes some changes of its own. Using the "General-Zeroed" preset brings in the .nef file with no corrections except WB data. This will give you a pretty "blah" image, as you've noticed.
The problem is that Nikon hasn't seen fit to publish it's encryption for in-camera settings that affect the .nef translation except for WB data. So any in-camera settings for color mode, contrast, saturation, etc. aren't available to LR or any other third-party software provider. But they are available in Capture NX.....
There are so many variables you can get through the in-camera menu system that it's practically impossible to arrive at a generic preset in LR for a given Nikon camera. I've played for literally hours with an image in LR trying to achieve a near match with what I get from CNX with less-than-optimal results. There are some D200 presets available on the Web, olycoly from our forum has a couple,that are OK with most images and a Google search will turn up others. And you can always play around and develop your own.
For most images, the General-Defaults or General-Punch LR presets work fine for me. For the others, I resort to CNX and the in-camera settings, sometimes with a little tweaking. I mainly shoot in Mode II ARGB with very little in-camera adjustments but the images still look dark and flat in LR with the zero preset.
Things would be so much easier for those of us who pay the bills if Nikon would just publish their encryption for the camera settings..... Personally, I view Capture NX as more of an affliction than an asset but I use it for those images I just can't get to look right in anything else. LR beats the pants off it in every category except for those hard-to-deal-with images(which are usually the ones I most want to look great).
Just my $.02/worth,
Bill
Georgia Nature Photographers Association
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#17. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 15
Wed 29-Aug-07 07:39 AMDespite rumors to the contrary, those camera settings aren't encrypted in the NEF. If they were encrypted, Adobe Photoshop wouldn't be able to display them in its File Info panel. Look for items in the EXIF area called "Saturation", "Contrast", "Sharpening", etc. White balance was encrypted for some cameras and that was frankly a mistake, but Nikon has given Adobe a mini-SDK that allows them to decrypt that info using Nikon's code. What's proprietary to Nikon is how it takes those stored parameters and converts them to specific color profiles, etc. within the camera or within its raw converter, NX. I haven't seen Adobe publish its algorithms for Photoshop and Lightroom and don't expect Nikon to do the same.
Incidentally, Adobe doesn't do this kind of processing for any camera, so it's not unique to Nikon. If they did, Adobe would have to increase the complexity of their code and have a larger amount associated with the specifics of each camera body and brand. Imagine what the user interface in Lightroom would be like if it varied for each camera body and brand and used each manufacturer's terms and definitions. Adobe's stance is that it chooses not to recognize the in-camera settings in an effort to make the processing of all raw files from all brands of cameras essentially the same. It's a valid approach, but different than what the camera manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Fuji, etc.) do with their brand-specific converters. You'll need to decide which one you want for your own photographs.
Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography
-
#19. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 18
Wed 29-Aug-07 08:36 AMThat's the one you want to use for TIFFs and JPEGs. It will give you pretty poor results for a raw file and will require a lot of manipulation.
Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography-
-
#21. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 20
Wed 29-Aug-07 09:59 AMThe original defaults aren't terrible (black value of 5, brightness of 50, contrast of 25, others at zero, medium contrast curve) and are closer to what more people would generally want, but exactly what defaults a photographer picks for themselves will depend on the subjects they normally photograph. I do a lot of landscape stuff, so I have my defaults set to a higher contrast amount (by going with the "strong" contrast curve) and have color settings altered in the HSL and camera calibration area that make reds red, reduce the yellow emphasis in the image and enhance the green tones, but someone who is a portrait photography may like the original settings better. The whole point is to pick something that will require the smallest number of adjustments on average for you.
Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography-
-
#23. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 22
-
#24. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 23
>"Would have been nice that it would take what the camera
>took."
>
>NX will.
>
>Mark
From what I can see a lot of people seam to have both LR & NX.
-
-
-
-
#26. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 22
Wed 29-Aug-07 11:36 AMI think you're making things harder than they really are. I photograph a lot of subjects, too. The settings I mentioned are the ones that work well for most of my shots, so they're a good set of defaults. I can easily create a preset that does everything I just mentioned, but has a neutral color response and a lower contrast level that works well for portraits. I can apply it instead of the default as part of the download process and then everything is tagged that way instead. Alternatively, I can select a whole bunch of photos in LR and then apply that same preset to all of them. It takes seconds. This stuff isn't hard nor is it time consuming.
By the way, I also like NX, but it's not for this reason.
Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography
-
-
#31. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 19
jsa
Registered since 12th Jun 2006
Thu 30-Aug-07 01:52 AM
>That's the one you want to use for TIFFs and JPEGs. It will
>give you pretty poor results for a raw file and will require
>a lot of manipulation.
Rick,
Of late I've been bringing my nefs (raw) into LR using the General Zeroed preset as I've found it better than LR defaults as a starting point, less manipulation to go from zeroed, than from defaults, to get images to my liking.
Yes upon importing RAW they are darker than expected when using zeroed, I don't let the brightness slider adjust the lighting levels.
Certainly a finely tuned preset for the prevailing camera body and technique is the best solution for LR. Getting to that fine tuned preset is proving easier for me when LR does not apply some auto settings that are different for each image.
From the zeroed import, I usually;
Leave WB as shot (D200 WB set to auto when taking the image), maybe change it a little, unless different lighting types are in the image then more WB adjustment might be needed
Adjust exposure up until the image and histogram look right, typically +1.65.
Adjust the contrast up to 25
Maybe touch the highlight recovery, fill light or blacks to fine tune an image.
Adjust the clarity to taste, typically 25-50
Adjust the tone curve to medium or strong, to taste
Sharpen to taste.
I'm still trying different types of images to see if this holds for a broard spectrum of my images or just recent ones.
I've found letting LR apply its defaults is more work to recover from.
Cheers
John
>give you pretty poor results for a raw file and will require
>a lot of manipulation.
Rick,
Of late I've been bringing my nefs (raw) into LR using the General Zeroed preset as I've found it better than LR defaults as a starting point, less manipulation to go from zeroed, than from defaults, to get images to my liking.
Yes upon importing RAW they are darker than expected when using zeroed, I don't let the brightness slider adjust the lighting levels.
Certainly a finely tuned preset for the prevailing camera body and technique is the best solution for LR. Getting to that fine tuned preset is proving easier for me when LR does not apply some auto settings that are different for each image.
From the zeroed import, I usually;
Leave WB as shot (D200 WB set to auto when taking the image), maybe change it a little, unless different lighting types are in the image then more WB adjustment might be needed
Adjust exposure up until the image and histogram look right, typically +1.65.
Adjust the contrast up to 25
Maybe touch the highlight recovery, fill light or blacks to fine tune an image.
Adjust the clarity to taste, typically 25-50
Adjust the tone curve to medium or strong, to taste
Sharpen to taste.
I'm still trying different types of images to see if this holds for a broard spectrum of my images or just recent ones.
I've found letting LR apply its defaults is more work to recover from.
Cheers
John
Cheers
John
-
-
#37. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 34
jsa Registered since 12th Jun 2006Fri 31-Aug-07 05:00 AMNick.....
>Each to their own naturally, but do you really adjust your
>Exposure to +1.65 typically?
Yes that is where I typically end up with the exposure setting. Some might get to +1.8 others look right at +1.5, but +1.65 in a lot of cases.
Keep in mind I have brightness set at Zero which is the midpoint on the slider.
> Your RAW file must be very
>underexposed.
I have considered that, but I've always shot jpg+nef, the jpg always looks reasonably exposed with matrix metering. nef of course gives scope for better fine tuning.
>Also why adjust the contrast twice? You say you adjust
>CONTRAST to 25 and then adjust the TONE CURVE to Medium or
>High. Well the tone curve at Med. or High is adjusting the
>CONTRAST; in this case again!
Well I must admit I'm not entirely proficient at using the tone curve alone. I'm content for now with what 2 bites at contrast gives me.
I haven't really worked out the detail differences between what the contrast slider and tone curve choices do, but suspect it is different in some way ?
I wish the LR tone curve changed when the contrast slider is adjusted, then it would be obvious how it compared with the linear, medium and strong choices.
>A very unusual processing method indeed! The results must be
>very interesting........
Certainly Rick produced an 'interesting' result, I'm going to have to try Rick's preset on some shots I like with my method to see how they compares.
Cheers
John
Cheers
John
-
#43. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 31
Wed 16-Jan-08 10:12 AM
I would experiment some more before drawing a conclusion that these are good general purpose settings. The problem with your approach is that if you've exposed the image correctly, you're extremely likely to blow out the highlights, potentially by a stop or more. You're also shifting the mid-tones down past where they should be, which results in images with a gap in the upper mids. Make sure you have some well-exposed shots that have a full range of tonal detail in them before creating defaults.
Incidentally, the settings I mention yield virtually identical results in virtually all respects to NX. Here is the same photo processed four ways: Capture NX, Lightroom with the defaults I mentioned, Lightroom with the Zero'd setting and Lightroom with the settings you mention. It's not art, but the image is correctly exposed, representative of many general scenes and has a full range of tones. All are otherwise unmanipulated and the NX image used the in-camera settings of Mode III, a normal tone curve, and normal saturation. I'll let you conclude which one looks the most like the in-camera shot.
I hope this helps a bit.
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
Attachment#2 (jpg file)
Attachment#3 (jpg file)
Attachment#4 (jpg file)
Incidentally, the settings I mention yield virtually identical results in virtually all respects to NX. Here is the same photo processed four ways: Capture NX, Lightroom with the defaults I mentioned, Lightroom with the Zero'd setting and Lightroom with the settings you mention. It's not art, but the image is correctly exposed, representative of many general scenes and has a full range of tones. All are otherwise unmanipulated and the NX image used the in-camera settings of Mode III, a normal tone curve, and normal saturation. I'll let you conclude which one looks the most like the in-camera shot.
I hope this helps a bit.
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
Attachment#2 (jpg file)
Attachment#3 (jpg file)
Attachment#4 (jpg file)
Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography
-
-
#35. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 33
Thu 30-Aug-07 11:16 AMSure. You can find the settings in this thread:
www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID36/19463.html#5
The settings described there would actually make the car match the NX image slightly closer, but since I often like a little bit less instense look, I have my default red saturation set to 35 instead of 50.
Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography
-
#36. "RE: Lightroom, RAW and Auto settings question" | In response to Reply # 43
jsa
Registered since 12th Jun 2006
Fri 31-Aug-07 02:19 AM
Rick.....
>I would experiment some more before drawing a conclusion
>that these are good general purpose settings.
Yes, I've yet to make it a preset until I'm convinced it is right for me.
>The problem
>with your approach is that if you've exposed the image
>correctly, you're extremely likely to blow out the
>highlights, potentially by a stop or more.
Using a D200 I'm presently using Matrix metering, but have previously taken in your advice on spot metering the various areas of an image. I have no reason to think I'm underexposing the great bulk of my images, does raise a question in my mind about the metering on my D200 sample.
I'm not getting blown highlights or the washed out look you provided an example of when using my settings. I typically stop increasing exposure just before the historgram indicates blown highlights. That slider position has a habit of being around +1.65.
I have brightness at Zero which is middle of the slider.
> You're also
>shifting the mid-tones down past where they should be, which
>results in images with a gap in the upper mids.
Food for thought, thankyou, I'll check that out some more.
>Make sure
>you have some well-exposed shots that have a full range of
>tonal detail in them before creating defaults.
>
Yes, I'm trying settings with a variety of images before settling on defaults. The jpg partner to my nef's appear exposed well, so I am thinking exposure is OK.
>Incidentally, the settings I mention yield virtually
>identical results in virtually all respects to NX. Here is
>the same photo processed four ways: Capture NX, Lightroom
>with the defaults I mentioned, Lightroom with the Zero'd
>setting and Lightroom with the settings you mention. It's
>not art, but the image is correctly exposed, representative
>of many general scenes and has a full range of tones. All
>are otherwise unmanipulated and the NX image used the
>in-camera settings of Mode III, a normal tone curve, and
>normal saturation. I'll let you conclude which one looks
>the most like the in-camera shot.
>
>I hope this helps a bit.
Your settings are indeed superior for that image, I certainly wouldn't like the poor result you experienced using my settings.
Cheers
John
>I would experiment some more before drawing a conclusion
>that these are good general purpose settings.
Yes, I've yet to make it a preset until I'm convinced it is right for me.
>The problem
>with your approach is that if you've exposed the image
>correctly, you're extremely likely to blow out the
>highlights, potentially by a stop or more.
Using a D200 I'm presently using Matrix metering, but have previously taken in your advice on spot metering the various areas of an image. I have no reason to think I'm underexposing the great bulk of my images, does raise a question in my mind about the metering on my D200 sample.
I'm not getting blown highlights or the washed out look you provided an example of when using my settings. I typically stop increasing exposure just before the historgram indicates blown highlights. That slider position has a habit of being around +1.65.
I have brightness at Zero which is middle of the slider.
> You're also
>shifting the mid-tones down past where they should be, which
>results in images with a gap in the upper mids.
Food for thought, thankyou, I'll check that out some more.
>Make sure
>you have some well-exposed shots that have a full range of
>tonal detail in them before creating defaults.
>
Yes, I'm trying settings with a variety of images before settling on defaults. The jpg partner to my nef's appear exposed well, so I am thinking exposure is OK.
>Incidentally, the settings I mention yield virtually
>identical results in virtually all respects to NX. Here is
>the same photo processed four ways: Capture NX, Lightroom
>with the defaults I mentioned, Lightroom with the Zero'd
>setting and Lightroom with the settings you mention. It's
>not art, but the image is correctly exposed, representative
>of many general scenes and has a full range of tones. All
>are otherwise unmanipulated and the NX image used the
>in-camera settings of Mode III, a normal tone curve, and
>normal saturation. I'll let you conclude which one looks
>the most like the in-camera shot.
>
>I hope this helps a bit.
Your settings are indeed superior for that image, I certainly wouldn't like the poor result you experienced using my settings.
Cheers
John
Cheers
John
#38. "RE: My way" | In response to Reply # 43
jsa
Registered since 12th Jun 2006
Fri 31-Aug-07 07:30 AM
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/MySettings1-1.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/MySettings-2.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/MySettings-3.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/MySettings-4.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/MySettings-5.jpg
Cheers
John
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/MySettings-2.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/MySettings-3.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/MySettings-4.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/MySettings-5.jpg
Cheers
John
Cheers
John
#39. "RE: and with Rick's preset" | In response to Reply # 43
jsa
Registered since 12th Jun 2006
Fri 31-Aug-07 07:35 AM
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/RicksSettings1-1.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/RicksSettings-2.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/RicksSettings-3.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/RicksSettings-4.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/RicksSettings-5.jpg
Slightly different in each case, what do you think ?
Cheers
John
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/RicksSettings-2.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/RicksSettings-3.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/RicksSettings-4.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/RicksSettings-5.jpg
Slightly different in each case, what do you think ?
Cheers
John
Cheers
John
-
-
#41. "RE: and with Rick's preset" | In response to Reply # 40
jsa Registered since 12th Jun 2006Sat 01-Sep-07 06:36 PMScott....
>Are these Rick's settings that he posted from the other
>post?
Yes they are Rick's settings from the post link he provided above.
>
>For the car pic, what was the original color of the
>orange/red mirrors, bottom and spoiler?
The yellow of the car is right with my settings.
The oranges on both versions have desaturated upon export from Lightroom raw too web size and colour space jpg's. My settings are much closer to the actual colour for the orange.
> Rick's settings are
>definitely more vibrant but if the colors originally were
>faded, then yours would be more what it was really like.
>
Yeah, Rick's are more vibrant. Both are a little faded in the exported jpg format.
Having observed the scene as it was, there is a tendency to process to that memory even though a documentary of the scene is not the intention. To my eye Rick's settings make the grass look strange, but then maybe the grass is that colour in his part of the world.
As they appear to us on the web I think mine could do with a bit more orange, but not too the tangerine extent.
Which of the two demonstrated approaches are better, obviously depends on the image, what you like the look of and the intended use of that image.
I still think there is merrit in keeping the brightness slider at zero (the slider midpoint) and using the exposure slider to adjust the image. +1.65 exposure doesn't work on Rick's house sample, but it would be interseting to see what exposure setting did work in combination with zero brightness.
Cheers
John
Cheers
John
-
#42. "RE: Combo of settings" | In response to Reply # 43
jsa
Registered since 12th Jun 2006
Mon 17-Sep-07 11:30 PM
I thought I would share my results for a combination of Lightroom settings derived from Rick's preset and my zero brightness approach. Same examples as before with settings combo.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/ComboSettings1-1.jpg
Exposure +1.27, Recovery +15, Fill Light +15, Blacks 0, Brightness 0, Contrast +25, Clarity +25, Vibrance 0, Saturation 0
Tone Curve Strong
HSL all 0
Camera Calibration - Tint 0, Red Primary Hue -10 & Saturation +30, Green Primary Hue 0 & Saturation +10, Blue Primary Hue -10 & Saturation 0
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/ComboSettings-2.jpg
Exposure +1.65, Recovery 0, Fill Light 0, Blacks +5, Brightness 0, Contrast +25, Clarity +25, Vibrance 0, Saturation 0
Tone Curve Strong
HSL all 0
Camera Calibration - Tint 0, Red Primary Hue -10 & Saturation +30, Green Primary Hue 0 & Saturation +10, Blue Primary Hue -10 & Saturation 0
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/ComboSettings-3.jpg
Exposure +1.74, Recovery +11, Fill Light +5, Blacks +5, Brightness 0, Contrast +31, Clarity +20, Vibrance +10, Saturation +11
Tone Curve Strong, Lights +10
HSL all 0
Camera Calibration - Tint 0, Red Primary Hue -10 & Saturation +30, Green Primary Hue 0 & Saturation +10, Blue Primary Hue -10 & Saturation 0
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/ComboSettings-4.jpg
Exposure +0.50, Recovery +7, Fill Light 0, Blacks +5, Brightness 0, Contrast +25, Clarity +25, Vibrance +25, Saturation +25
Tone Curve Strong, Lights +10
HSL all 0
Camera Calibration - Tint 0, Red Primary Hue -10 & Saturation +30, Green Primary Hue 0 & Saturation +10, Blue Primary Hue -10 & Saturation 0
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/ComboSettings-5.jpg
Exposure +1.55, Recovery +5, Fill Light 0, Blacks +11, Brightness 0, Contrast +25, Clarity +25, Vibrance 0, Saturation 0
Tone Curve Strong
HSL all 0
Camera Calibration - Tint 0, Red Primary Hue -10 & Saturation +30, Green Primary Hue 0 & Saturation +10, Blue Primary Hue -10 & Saturation 0
From this I'm settling on an import preset with;
Exposure +1.00, Recovery 0, Fill Light 0, Blacks +5, Brightness 0, Contrast +25, Clarity +25, Vibrance 0, Saturation 0
Tone Curve Strong
HSL all 0
Camera Calibration - Tint 0, Red Primary Hue -10 & Saturation +30, Green Primary Hue 0 & Saturation +10, Blue Primary Hue -10 & Saturation 0
From there individual images would get Exposure, Recovery, Fill Light, Blacks, Contrast, Clarity, Vibrance, Saturation and Tone cureve adjustments. Also Detail and Lens Corrections as required.
Cheers
John
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/ComboSettings1-1.jpg
Exposure +1.27, Recovery +15, Fill Light +15, Blacks 0, Brightness 0, Contrast +25, Clarity +25, Vibrance 0, Saturation 0
Tone Curve Strong
HSL all 0
Camera Calibration - Tint 0, Red Primary Hue -10 & Saturation +30, Green Primary Hue 0 & Saturation +10, Blue Primary Hue -10 & Saturation 0
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/ComboSettings-2.jpg
Exposure +1.65, Recovery 0, Fill Light 0, Blacks +5, Brightness 0, Contrast +25, Clarity +25, Vibrance 0, Saturation 0
Tone Curve Strong
HSL all 0
Camera Calibration - Tint 0, Red Primary Hue -10 & Saturation +30, Green Primary Hue 0 & Saturation +10, Blue Primary Hue -10 & Saturation 0
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/ComboSettings-3.jpg
Exposure +1.74, Recovery +11, Fill Light +5, Blacks +5, Brightness 0, Contrast +31, Clarity +20, Vibrance +10, Saturation +11
Tone Curve Strong, Lights +10
HSL all 0
Camera Calibration - Tint 0, Red Primary Hue -10 & Saturation +30, Green Primary Hue 0 & Saturation +10, Blue Primary Hue -10 & Saturation 0
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/ComboSettings-4.jpg
Exposure +0.50, Recovery +7, Fill Light 0, Blacks +5, Brightness 0, Contrast +25, Clarity +25, Vibrance +25, Saturation +25
Tone Curve Strong, Lights +10
HSL all 0
Camera Calibration - Tint 0, Red Primary Hue -10 & Saturation +30, Green Primary Hue 0 & Saturation +10, Blue Primary Hue -10 & Saturation 0
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/jsaworksescort/Nikonians/ComboSettings-5.jpg
Exposure +1.55, Recovery +5, Fill Light 0, Blacks +11, Brightness 0, Contrast +25, Clarity +25, Vibrance 0, Saturation 0
Tone Curve Strong
HSL all 0
Camera Calibration - Tint 0, Red Primary Hue -10 & Saturation +30, Green Primary Hue 0 & Saturation +10, Blue Primary Hue -10 & Saturation 0
From this I'm settling on an import preset with;
Exposure +1.00, Recovery 0, Fill Light 0, Blacks +5, Brightness 0, Contrast +25, Clarity +25, Vibrance 0, Saturation 0
Tone Curve Strong
HSL all 0
Camera Calibration - Tint 0, Red Primary Hue -10 & Saturation +30, Green Primary Hue 0 & Saturation +10, Blue Primary Hue -10 & Saturation 0
From there individual images would get Exposure, Recovery, Fill Light, Blacks, Contrast, Clarity, Vibrance, Saturation and Tone cureve adjustments. Also Detail and Lens Corrections as required.
Cheers
John
Cheers
John
G
Upload images
6
Uploading and including images in forums available to members on Silver membership level or higher. Please upgrade to take full advantage.
I crossed posted this in a couple of other forum sites because I am just at a loss. I shot a wedding in RAW this past weekend and when I open the pictures up in Lightroom, it automatically sets the brightness, contrast and sharpening. I thought the only thing that was supposed to be set from the camera was the WB. This would be ok I guess except each picture turns pretty dark when it looked fine before it loaded fully. Any ideas?
Regards,
Scott
A Washington D.C. Area Nikonian