Digital Media | Spotlight: Photography | Inside Lightroom | Blogs
Lightroom to the Rescue!
On Tuesday, while shooting images at a small iron foundry here in Ulefoss, Norway for my Under the Hood, Working Raw project, I messed up. What followed is both a testimonial for Lightroom and shooting in the RAW mode.
The Ulefos iron works was founded 350 years ago, employs just over 200 workers, and uses a fascinating mix of old and new technologies to produce stoves, man-hole covers, and other custom made cast-iron objects. It's situated a kilometer down river from our family house, near the thundering water falls it uses to generate power. It's actually a very small factory--don't' think Pittsburg!-- and physically it leaves a very small imprint on the environment. When you drive by it's hard to believe it's even operating at all. Call it a "micro" foundry if you will.
As I photographed one stage of the manufacturing process and then another I encountered varied lighting conditions. Instead of using a strobe in low light situations, I mostly bumped up my ISO as needed. Outside, for example, I shot at 100 ISO but inside, in some areas, I went as high as 1600 ISO. On my Nikon D 200 the ISO button is near the white balance button and at some point I must have inadvertently changed the white balance from automatic to K 5000.
Normally I would have caught this kind of error when previewing the images in the camera's LCD, but frankly I was caught up in visual intensity of the place, especially when I watched several tons of liquid iron poured a few feet from me.
Back in Lightroom, after the shoot, I noticed my error when I compared the JPEG and RAW files. (I set my camera to shoot both RAW and JPEG because I like to have the JPEG as a reference file. Often I also set Lightroom's preferences to bring in both the RAW and JPEG file under the General tab, by selecting "Treat JPEG files next to raw files as separate photos").
Here is the JPEG file. Notice the strong red shift.
And here is the RAW file, using LR's default settings. You can see the colors are more neutral.
Now, this brings up an interesting point. Why didn't LR "see" my custom white balance setting and apply it to the RAW file as a default? This is because Nikon encrypts their white balance setting and LR must "intelligently" come up with a setting of its own. Putting the JPEG and RAW photos side-by -side illustrates what I mean.
Anyway, the point I'm making is since I shot RAW it really doesn't matter that my white balance setting was incorrect. I can use LR to set any white point I want, as I have done in this image using LR's white balance tool in the Develop module.
Once I come up with a white balance I like I can copy the setting and apply it to any or all of the other images nearly instantly. Whew, my butt is safe thanks to LR and RAW.
Are you sure that Adobe hasn't registered as a Nikon developer and thereby been given access to the SDK required to write apps that read Nikon's white balance settings? I shoot only RAW on Nikons and Lightroom always picks up my white balance settings - presets or custom. The values Lightroom displays are usually very different from the ones it guesses if I click 'Auto" in the WB section of the app, the latter really representing Lightroom's best guess.
What a beutiful image that last one!
I agree with you. I feel so much more powerful with those two (LR + RAW) on my side!
Bahl, I don't know the answer to your question. But I know what I see. And I know that at least at one point Nikon was encrypting the wb. Are they still? I don't know. And Eduardo.... thanks!
Hi Mikkel, I know this is a LR blog, but Nikon's Capture NX is a wonderful RAW convertor and can help in this kind of situation too.
Nikon are still encrypting the WB but Adobe has access to a mini-SDK. This was the outcome of the encrypted WB fiasco a year or two back.
Jay, you are absolutely right! I especially like Nikon Capture's NX U Point technology, which allows you to apply localized editing directly to the image itself. That would be nice in Lightroom as well. I am also a big fan of Dave Coffin's DCRAW, and Eric Hyman's Bibble, both very fine RAW converters. And of course, there is Adobe Camera Raw, which I covered in my book Photoshop RAW. Lots of choices...
John, what is a "mini-SDK'? Does this mean LR reads the WB partially? What explains the difference between my JPEGs and RAWs which is evident in Adobe Bridge as well as LR. I really appreciate you shedding some light on this subject!
It's a subset of the full SDK, the code library that gives developers a roadmap to the information that Nikon put in our images but do not otherwise document. As far as I know, this mini SDK purely explains how to read the WB setting - eg "tungsten". How Adobe then interpret "tungsten" in the raw conversion may well differ from how Nikon interpret it in writing the JPEG (and the raw file preview that is visible for a moment when LR is importing it).
An SDK is a software development kit. Nikon offers registered developers a software development kit as the only official method for third-party coders to read encrypted white balance settings. It would be very surprising for Adobe not to have this sorted and working well for all their apps and John's comment would suggest that they have done the right thing.
Is it possible that the JPEGs and RAW images in Lightroom are being affected differently by camera settings (like Color Mode, Saturation, Hue Adjustments, etc.) that contribute to the differences you're seeing? With RAW (NEF) images, Lightroom might be discarding some of these settings, which travel to the application purely as metadata, not affecting the actual RAW file at all. With JPEGs, the settings are used in-camera to define characteristics of the image-creation stage, defining the way the JPEG is actually created from the sensor data. Just a theory, and probably a ropy one at that but changing some of these settings (Optimize menu) might be a useful experiment. My finger of suspicion would point (somewhat unconvincingly, perhaps) to any Color Mode other than Color Mode II and to high saturation settings. Hue might also play a role. All guesses but while we await the definitive answer...
(Was writing my comment while John was writing his, which wasn't considered when I was writing.) John: custom WB settings set on the camera (i.e., those made with a grey card) also appear to work well. I'll experiment with JPEG+RAW when I next get the chance.
Although I think the key is that the JPEG is Nikon's interpretation of the in camera WB setting, and what you're seeing in ACR is Adobe's interpretation of the raw data, it's also worth noting that Nikon's full SDK's has contained inaccuracies / inadequate documentation. And for all I know, Adobe may have made little use of the data other than covering their corporate backside by being able to say they weren't cracking the encryption.
No proof, but there was some speculation that the SDK version of NEF conversion Nikon license to others is not quite as good as the one they keep for themselves in Capture NX. Who knows, but possible I guess...
@Mikkel - I agree, U-Point or the likes in Lightroom would be fantastic, that would make it the tool of choice for me. I have watched the Lightzone demo video's and figure these kinds of new paradigms for editing are the a profound landmark in the history of digital photography.
Having purchased a few Photoshop books and magazines over the years (easily seduced by the before and after pictures) I have followed along with the recipies with partial success, but left to my own devices I would not begin to know when to multiply, when to soften, how much bevel and so on. So many variables and so much trial and error needed to become proficient at PS. Enter Lightroom, Lightzone and Capture NX and "BOOM!" now there's a better way for photographers who are not graphic designers or don't have the time to learn to fly a 747. Not to mention the non-destructiuve nature of these editors. I applaud Adobe and others for making these programs available. PS has a massive market, but the learning curve never seems to end, whereas you can just dive in on these newer programs and get instant (and reapeatable) results.
Which raises this question for me Mikkel.
I have three cameras. The most easily portable and versatile of the three doesn't shoot RAW. In this respect alone its versatility is limited. I know this limits the degree to which I can manipulate images in LR (or any other program!).
Just how effective do you think Adobe Camera RAW is in making the processing of JPEG images reasonably effective?
Thanks.
Mark
Hi Mark, sorry for not replying to your post sooner. We are getting ready to return to the US so we are bit distracted with packing etc. Anyway, the key point is Adobe Camera Raw (or LR) is non-distructive both for RAW and JPEG files. That alone is reason to use it. But it's also very effective as a image processor. Hope this helps. And BTW, thanks for the kind words on amazon.com! Much appreciated.
John, regarding your comment : "
Although I think the key is that the JPEG is Nikon's interpretation of the in camera WB setting, and what you're seeing in ACR is Adobe's interpretation of the raw data, it's also worth noting that Nikon's full SDK's has contained inaccuracies / inadequate documentation. And for all I know, Adobe may have made little use of the data other than covering their corporate backside by being able to say they weren't cracking the encryption..."
I've noticed that when I set my Nikon D200 to auto WB, and compare the JPEG and RAW files in LR, they are pretty much identical...it's only when I stray from auto that I notice a difference. This fits with what you where saying about Nikon's SDK not being accurate. Thanks for the information, and thanks for weighing in here. I know and respect your fine work and your input is always very welcome.