Incorporating Active D-lighting in Lightroom or Bridge?

I would like to have the capability of using the Nikon 800 Active D-Lighting when I want it.
My organizing and basic (gross) adjustments happen in Lightroom 5.3. Lightroom, and as near as I can find, NO Adobe products (Lightroom, Bridge, Photoshop) can read the ADL information from a Nikon D800 .NEF, so apparently I have to go outside my normal workflow to incorporate the ADL data.
I'm looking for the simplest and most efficient way to get from a NEF that has information Adobe won't read to some kind of raw file (a .dng?) WITH the ADL data. So far, the only path I've found is to open the images in View NX2 and convert them to 16-bit tiff files because View NX2 doesn't have any "convert to dng" that I can find.
Then, I have to open the tiff files in Bridge (or LR), shove them into ACR, and save them as .dng files. Aside from being clumsy, the .dng files are HUGE... a 48MB .NEF becomes a 42MB (approximately) .dng file. BUT, if I go through View NX2 and generate .tiff files, the tiff conversion to .dng generates a file between 110 and 120MB - almost THREE TIMES larger than a .dng created directly from the .nef.
Is there a reasonable way of getting a source file into Bridge orLightroom that incorporates the data in the Nikon .NEF?

DavePinMinn wrote:
I've seen arguments both ways
Many are made by people who don't know what they're talking about, even some proclaimed to be "experts" .
DavePinMinn wrote:
Picture Controls - similar results from calibrations in ACR?
Active D-Lighting - maybe sort-of doable in ACR although from what I understand it there's no substitute for the in-camera shadow curve applied
Vignette Control - I presume ACR does something similar in effects?
Auto Distortion Control - don't know whether the loss of this is a problem or not
High ISO NR - does ACR do a better job with this than the camera can do? seems like this one would be nice to have from the camera
All Settings from “Custom Setting Menu” - I'm not sure what other settings there may be
Focus Point Location in the frame - interesting to have but most times not critical
Only thing Lr reads is white balance and in a few cases some other thing.
My biggest complaint about Nikon manuals, is nothing talks about which settings affect raw data and which don't.
Turns out, other than a possible reduction in exposure via ADL, none of them affect the raw data - they only affect the creation of the jpeg(s) by camera firmware or Nikon software. (I mean, basic exposure settings affect raw data too, but none of the others do).
To me, this is a really good thing - shooting raw means all you have to worry about when shooting is getting the exposure right - yippee!: the rest you can worry about in post.
DavePinMinn wrote:
I may as well shut off most of the unique settings the D800 can adjust 'cause they won't be read anyhow.
Or just forget about them. Personally, I shoot with a contrast reduced & saturation increased neutral profile - all the time. This allows me to better assess raw exposure, highlight/shadow detail, and captured color.
DavePinMinn wrote:
I understand better now why there are people in other forums swearing by the Nikon software...
Yeah - they haven't mastered ACR! Seriously, ACR's lens corrections are very good, and color handling, and sharpening, and noise reduction, and ...
Nikon's editing toolset is far more extensive than ACR, but in terms of the basics, I think ACR is better.
DavePinMinn wrote:
Focus Point Location in the frame..
Yep - a point in favor of Nikon software to be sure.
ExifMeta can show focus point(s), in custom-friendly (text) format, but not on the image itself, so ya still gotta use your powers of visualization...
Rob

Similar Messages

How does LR 1.3.1 support Nikon D300 Active D-Lighting?

Is somebody able to explain in which way if at all LR 1.3.1 supports the ACTIVE D-Lighting facility of the new Nikon D300?
The user manual explains that this function works directly on the RAW file and not on the jpeg like the normal D-Lighting of the D300, therefore I guess LR supports this function in some ways.
In some german photo forums there are discussions going on if it works at all and if it works how it could work, unfortunately nobody really knows anything precise about it, just too much guesswork.
I would be very happy if it anybody, hopefully from the development team, could shed some light into this topic.
If LR doesn't support it, would it be better to shoot in jpeg fine with the active D-Lighting function switched on and do the required changes in LR based on jpeg instead of RAW?
Thanks a lot, Andreas.

It doesn't. The way that feature works on the RAW file is that it simply underexposes a little. Otherwise it is basically the same RAW file. The magic is all in the RAW processing. You can get the same effect on the RAW data by decreasing the ISO while keeping shutter and aperture constant. SInce Lightroom cannot read the tag in the RAW file that says, this is a active lighting image, it just interprets it as any other RAW file. I think someone from the ACR team posted on this ages ago in the ACR forum when the D300 came out. In general, do not expect Lightroom or ACR to use any of the camera maker's proprietary features if you shoot RAW. The active D-lighting effect is basically similar to the shadows, recovery and clarity control combined in an automatic adjustment. So you can mimic it yourself if you want.

Why Does the Photograph's Preview Change in Lightroom and Bridge? | The Complete Picture with Julieanne Kost | Adobe TV

In this video tutorial Julieanne explains one of the great mysteries of Lightroom and Bridge – why Lightroom (or Bridge) displays a photograph one way and then changes the way it looks a moment later. It will all become clear with just a little information about how digital camera files are captured and displayed by different applications.
http://adobe.ly/LiGnOc

This tutorial was outstanding in explaining why Bridge and LR may have different renditions of the same photograph as well as why it changes after a few seconds. This camera calibration video is one of the best that I have seen.

Does Lightroom make Bridge obsolete?

I'm new to Lightroom, and really like the simplicity of Bridge. I find Lightroom very confusing and with duplicate features of Photoshop. I particularly find the "catalog" feature very confusing. Bridge is very intuitive and the Explorer metaphor works like one would expect. I can manage my images perfectly, with no confusion. I like the combination of Bridge, ACR, and Photoshop CS5. Why would I need Lightroom? PS: I don't need "tethering" feature of LR. One more question: I wonder if in the future Adobe will get rid of Bridge (because it's free) and make people buy LR. ???

I like the simplicity of Bridge, and how everything I do with files (managing folders, deleting/moving files, etc) works exactly like in Windows Explorer. However, once I understand LR, and the way I can catalog images and search images, I may find that I use both--Bridge for truly managing the images and folders, and LR for cataloging images for rapid search. I plan on giving LR the benefit of the doubt and working with it before categorically rejecting it.
T.N. Turner, www.TheArtfulToad.com
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 16:19:10 -0700
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Does Lightroom make Bridge obsolete?
    Re: Does Lightroom make Bridge obsolete?
    created by web-weaver in Photoshop Lightroom - View the full discussion
LR might be confusing at first, particularly if one doesn't that LR is not a browser-type program but a data base program. It's data base being the catalog.LR is far superior than Bridge for image management. You willbe able to apreciate this only after you have dived deep into LR. But, Bridge still remains useful just because it's a browser based program. It will display everything that is on the hard drive - as far as image files are concerned, whereas LR displays only what has been imported. Also, Bridge displays image files that are not supported in LR. But after 5 years of working with LR I have to say, it's a fantastic program (despite some flaws) and I could not do the work I'm doing without LR. WW
     Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4078090#4078090
     To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4078090#4078090. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
     Start a new discussion in Photoshop Lightroom by email or at Adobe Forums
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

Should I use Lightroom or Bridge? | The Complete Picture with Julieanne Kost | Adobe TV

In this episode of the Complete Picture, Julieanne Kost helps you decide which application is right for your workflow by explaining the differences between Lightroom and Bridge for managing images and assets.
http://adobe.ly/zi93Ct

Lightroom 4 supports Soft Proof capability that also lets you see an accurate histogram for different output RGB spaces. Lightroom 5 now also supports under 'Edit In' > 'Open As Smart Object in Photoshop.'
I agree the tutorial was excellent, thank you very much. I would just like to add that there is no reason why you can't use both Lightroom and Adobe Bridge for"digtal asset management." Keyword metadata added in LR can be written to the file or XMP sidecar using CTRL+S keys that will appear in Adobe Bridge and vice-versa. I do most of my InDesign layout image processing using LR, but keep track of ALL my project assests using Bridge. Keywords are added using BOTH applications with no issues to date.

Lightroom and Bridge

Ok, we all know there is great integration between Lightroom and Photoshop, as there should be. What about Bridge?
Or is Bridge being phased out even though it of course is integrated with almost all Adobe products?

Remember that Bridge is for folder browsing, like a glorified Finder or Explorer, and not for cataloguing. Lightroom is a catalogue and can record the location of pictures whether or not they are on drives connected to the computer. Bridge searches go through the file system, so chugging through all attached drives to find pictures, while LR searches its database. Those are big differences.
"Lightroom is better for images without a doubt. So in the eyes of someone who does graphic work, will Lightroom replace Bridge?"
No for graphic work, and that's Ian's point about the limited range of file types that LR handles. But in the eyes of someone who only does photographic work, Lightroom is likely to substantially replace Bridge, and in many cases totally. Quite often, continuing to use Bridge is because some people don't/can't get their head around working with a catalogue-based workflow, and/or they have a preference for working with folders. I might use Bridge to dig into metadata, but not for much else (I use iView/ExMedia catalogues for managing other file types).
John

Visible artifacts caused by Fill Light in Lightroom

With the LR V1.0 I noted in many cases very strange looking highlight-shadow edges. This was very pronounced in same cases, and never appeared with RawShooter in similar situations. After having done some experiments I think that one culprit is the Fill Light algorithm. Please take a look at the following example. Its a quite ordinary 8Mpix Canon CR2 file with an ordinary landscape scene. I soon I use some "fill light" to bring up the shadows on the mountain, strange "band of pixels" appears along the edge of the trees and the sky. RawShooter has a similar Fill Light algorithm, which does not case such side effects.
At first I thought that too strong jpeg compression might be causing this, but that I saw this in the Lightroom screen before any conversion.
I made a few screen dumps from 1:1 view of this image fragments:
http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/lightroom_strange_artifacts
Have you also encountered such problem?

Thomas,
Before, I start, I'm going to be entirely objective here. You are having a genuine issue here and I'm approaching from that point completely. You've documented it well, which helps in following it.
Both Fill Light and Highlight recovery use internal masks to work. This means that there has to be an edge somewhere. When dealing with sudden contrast jumps like in your image, then it is possible to get the edge showing. I'm looking at 2 images here on my machine. Both of the same scene. A ruin against a blue sky. One underexposed a lot, the other mildly underexposed. Over 30 of FL gives me an edge like yours on the underexposed image, but not until 60 with the mildly underexposed image. The edge in the first image still looks okay until I start adding Recovery. This is probably because the Masks have the same edge point and are boosting each other, making it look much worse.
FWIW, the Fill Light in Lightroom is not based on any RSP code, so I suspect that a like for like figure comparison is moot, much like comparing F or C scales on a degree by degree basis.
Is there an issue? Not so much on reasonably exposed images, but for underexposed images, I do see an edge when pushing Fill Light in regions of high contrast . It is exacerbated by using Recovery.
It has been mentioned before by me in the past.

How Do I upload from Lightroom and Bridge to the Creative Cloud

How Do I upload from Lightroom and Bridge to the Creative Cloud?

Adobe is still failing on this very important issue!
They said that their Creative Cloud Connection app would be ready in May/June, and here we are in October!
I wish Adobe would learn to not release products that are not ready to be used, my 20GB are useless to me unbtil they do something that integrates Br, Lr, Id & Ps specifically with the cloud. I really think that we should start charging interest for the money that we have been loaning Adobe for their developement process.

JPG's from Lightroom vs Bridge... file size difference.

I'm a Photographer. I only shoot in RAW. I use CS2 and Bridge to process my RAW files and then export the finals to JPG.
I heard the buzz about Lightroom and downloaded the trial to give it a whirl. I have since upgraded my trial version to full version (via serial number) and then took a set of RAW files that were already tweaked (via Bridge/ACR), copied them to another folder (with the xmp side car files), brought them into Lightroom and exported them to JPG. The JPG's created by Lightroom were MUCH smaller. I was very surpised by this.
I shoot with a Canon 20D and the JPGs generated from Bridge ending up being between 4 to 6mg per image. For the same set of RAW images, the JPGs generated from Lightromm avereaged between 1.5 and 3.5 mg. Both Lightroom and Bridge were set to export the JPGs at the highest quality.
Can anyone tell me why this would be? Has anybody else found this to be the case? I can't help but think that some data is being discarded from Lightroom.
Lou
http://www.steadfastdesigns.com
Rochester, NY Wedding Photographer

Did you choose export metadata to file first? The edits made to RAW images are contained within the database as well as xmp files if you choose this option. The edits for all other formats are embedded within the file (as well as the database) but of course you have to choose the export metadata option first. Your files may be smaller because they don't contain this data.
The image quality settings are not like for like across the Adobe range so cannot be compared.

Basic: Does or can Lightroom replace Bridge

I have been using Lightroom and am switching from Elements 5 to CS2. Can Lightroom replace Bridge?
Thanks in advance

if you're a photographer, LR basically is the new Bridge. Bridge and the associated work flow sucked, so they gave us a new application that just cuts out one of the steps. That's about it...

Basic: Does Lightroom replace Bridge?

I am giving up my training wheels and moving from Elements to CS2. I have tried Lightroom and find it impressive. Does or can Lightroom replace Bridge, or do I have to learn Bridge also when learning CS2? Thanks,

Bridge is really designed for people who use much more of the Creative Suite than just PhotoShop. And CS is designed (IMHO) for graphics designers and such, not for photographers.
LR is designed for photographers. Adobe doesn't make a pixel-editor that's designed for photographers. Elements 3 is what I use because it's the closest. But I'd love to eventually see a dedicated pixel editor, with all non-destructive commands, eventually integrated into LR as a module. This would include the fundamentals of image editing post RAW conversion (layers, masks, selection tools, brushes, etc.).
No I don't expect this to be in version 1.x of LR. ;-)

Ipad and Lightroom or Bridge

Dear fellows,
I did a decent search but I can not find an answer for my problem.
Can anyone tell me if it is possible to install or Lightroom or Bridge on an iPad I bought Yesterday?
I'm a photographer doing concertphotography and I want to judge the first pictures I take at the beginning of the repetition.
Kind regards for your help,
L.

For the iPad you can only install programs (called app) that are obtained from Apple's App Store. If there is not an Aperture or Bridge app in the store you are out of luck

Lightroom or Bridge, which is best to change 20m photo names

I would like to completely change the naming structure of approximately 20,000 images and would like to hear opinions on which program, Lightroom or Bridge, to use and if there are any precautions with either program that I should be aware of.

Ray, I have LR and CS4. In the last few days I've tried to use Bridge to rename a folder with about 250 photos in it. I've never had more problems with such a simple operation. Bridge would stop renaming them and half would end up with temp file names. I would select all of the files and do a batch rename and then nothing would happen. I would wait and wait and nothing would happen. Then I would quit Bridge and get the Windows message that Bridge experienced a problem and would I send an error report, and when I reopened the folder half of the files would again have temporary names assigned by Bridge. It took me hours to finally get them all renamed. I don't know if it is my computer, my OS, or what but it was an irritating mess. I will never use Bridge to do file management again.
Like was said, if they are in LR then you have to use LR to do this. But if they aren't in LR I would download Irfanview to do the batch renaming. I've never had a problem with it and it's fast and easy.

Lightroom vs Bridge

Someone please tell me the core difference between lightroom and bridge.
Also, when I export a photo from lightroom to photoshop it cannot be opened in the raw converter in bridge. Why is this?

If you want to use Bridge, the thing to do is, after whatever edits you do in LR, tell LR to save the metadata to a file (in the Library module's Metadata menu). Then you can point Bridge at the file and Bridge can "see" the LR edits. You can open the file in Camera Raw, and ACR will apply the values from the LR xmp file, because the ACR engine is the same as LR's Develop module. That is, if you have ACR version 4.1 installed. If you don't see all the controls in ACR that you see in LR's Develop module you might not have an up-to-date version of ACR. You can download an up-to-date version of Camera Raw from Adobe for free.
If you prefer to use DNG it works just the same except that from what I see Bridge doesn't render a preview of the DNG so you won't see the image.
When you send a RAW file to PS from LR, LR saves as either a tiff or a psd file because PS needs an
image, not a RAW or DNG file. Bridge and Camera Raw have a seamless way of just handing things off without saving an image file first, but still Camera Raw renders an image to pass off to PS, you just save it in PS. Some of us have asked for a "don't save the file first" function in LR, but Adobe has to enable that within PS before LR can do that.
I hope all that helps some!
Tony

Elements vs. lightroom vs bridge

I would like to know the purposes of elements vs. lightroom vs bridge. I am currently using bridge and elements (CS3) and plan on upgrading to CC2014 soon.
All of my tagging etc was done in Elements, but don't seem to be visible in bridge... If I understand correctly, Photoshop CC2014 includes bridge, abd the Photographer Package includes Photoshop and Lightroom.
My questions are:
1) Will my tags that are in my elements import into Lightroom?
2) What is the purposes of Lightroom vs. Bridge?
Any clarification would be helpful.
Thanks in advance!

It depends on what you want to do. Bridge is a browser, not an image management system, which allows keywording and raw processing. Lightroom is a fancier image management system than the organizer, with very good raw processing built in, and yes, you can set PSE as your external editor from LR.
I'd just give bridge and LR a try and see which your prefer. Personally, I prefer to retain control of my photos myself, so I like bridge, but there are many people who infinitely prefer LR. It's all a question of how you like to work.

Incorporating Active D-lighting in Lightroom or Bridge?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for