Lightroom and RAW

Hello ALL, I'm on a G5 Mac, latest version of lightroom, running OS 10.5.x 2ea 1TB HD's, 4Gigs RAM.
I've been using Lightroom 1.x since Beta. I love the app. I also shoot both RAW and jpeg with my D300. Previously, I was using a Finepix S2 Pro and shot in the RAF format. Those RAW files looked great. However, my RAW files from the D300, when I import them with the jpeg, look dull and soooo boring. is there a way to change that so they look more like the jpegs with regards to color, etc instead of the true RAW image. I'd rather just shoot raw, and forget the jpegs but I don't want to have to go through all these steps.
Thanks
J

One answer to your problem would be to use Nikon Capture NX2 for Development. I do this for a number of images that present development challenges, or where I need to do some very finite local corrections, etc. I then export the image (or images) as a jpeg and import into LR using 'nx2'to the original filename.
If I need to rework the image, which has been saved as a NEF after development in NX2, I simply go to the jpeg image in Explorer (R menu in LR)find the original filename.NEF and then (R menu) open with NX2 do the work and hit save. I do not know what the equivalent would be on a Mac.
If any changes are made, then synchronize that folder in LR.
No other converter will will replicate the images that NX2 produces from a D300 initially--or faster. You can come close with the right preparation, a preset or two, perhaps a camera calibration, but it will take work and to replicate what NX2 will do.
And if you want to do some serious work on your images, NX2, although a bit slow with a few operations (depending on your machine specs), will allow you to do serious local corrections, and other specialized adjustments far easier and faster with greater control than LR 1.41 or LR2 at this point in time-- may be a different story when it LR2 is optimized and all the local corrections and other new features revealed when it ships.

Similar Messages

  • Canon Eos 5D, Lightroom and RAW images

    After a series of tests I carried out with my Canon camera, do you agree with these conclusions on the raw format?
    Following an import in Lightroom of RAW pictures:
    Loss of image styles (portrait, landscape, B&W...)
    Loss of image style changes (+/- sharpness, +/- hue...)
    The white balance setting is kept but can still be modified in lightroom
    The temperature of color setting is kept
    > Are B&W filters (green, yellow, sepia...) kept or deleted through import?
    Thanks!

    I believe we'll all agree that your comments are true. That is, Adobe ACR or Lr make no attempt to read much more into the raw data than the data itself (ie, without interpreting any setting other than the white balance).
    While that is the case, Adobe has provided profiles that should very closely match the "portrait, landscape, ..." styles. Lr is also very versatile such that you can create presets that will closely match all the other in-camera styles ... and, btw, many more.
    my CA$0.02 :)

  • Lightroom and Raw Files from 60D

    So i was looking around the web for answers to why my lightroom isnt recongnizing my raw files from my new 60D. I am currently using Lightroom 3.6 . I saw answers saying that i needed to install updates because if i remember correctly its lightroom 3.2 that the 60D came into play, anyway, i tried to update my lightroom but it says that there are no updates available. So any idea why my its not recognizing the files if i am up to date?

    The files may be corrupted or truncated.  Look at their sizes in Windows Explorer - Details View and see if they are smaller than normal.  If you are able to see thumbnails in Windows Explorer then that must means the camera-embedded JPG preview is intact, but not that the raw data is all there.
    Try opening the files in Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) that came with your 60D and see if you can save a JPG from them.  Seeing thumbnails in DPP is not enough to confirm corruption.  You have to do something that actually interprets the raw data, like saving a JPG.
    Determining why they are corrupted is important.  If they are still on the memory card then retransfer them.   If they are corrupted on the car then the camera or card has a problem.  If they were ok on the card, then maybe the camera or computer or cable or reader has a problem.

  • Creative cloud quit, says "download again" and still no joy, same message.  Camera raw gone, Existing Lightroom and PS-12 won't talk.  What's up?  Looks like Creative Cloud trial botched up something. iMac

    Creative cloud quit, says "download again" and still no joy, same message.  Camera raw gone, Existing Lightroom 4.3 and PS-12 won't talk.  What's up?  Looks like Creative Cloud trial botched up something. iMac
    Tried a number of "fixes" from blogs.  No joy.  Deleted all my adobe apps, rebooted, and Creative Cloud says it needs to reload.  Went through that process, and it quit near the end, saying it needed to reload and directed me back to same Adobe site.  Hmm.  Round and round we go.  How do I get off of this loop and get my Adobe Lightroom and PS working fine again?  Whole episode started after loading CC and then PS said it didn't have Camera Raw.  Went and downloaded that, wouldn't load and said I needed Adobe Download Diagnostic (or something like that) went to suggested link, whereupon it tells me it is no loger available. 
    Looking forward to cleaning everything off and starting over!!  Any input gratefully accepted and I will NOT be trying CC again.  I am sure it is just fine, just not for me, now. 
    David Balcaen

    I forgot to write down my computer specs:
    iMac 27 Mid 2011
    2.7 GHz Intel Core i5
    4 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
    AMD Radeon HD 6770M 512 MB
    OS X 10.9.2

  • Will Elements and Lightroom open RAW files fro the Sony DSCRX-100 camera?

    Will elements and l;ightroom  open RAW files from the Sony DSCRX-100 camera ?

    202daansn wrote:
    Will elements and l;ightroom  open RAW files from the Sony DSCRX-100 camera ?
    I have the RX100 and confess to be an Adobe fan.   You did not say which Lightroom or which elements you want to use.  You need the latest versions.
    Photoshop Elements 11 comes with Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) version 7.0 in place when you install it.  Under the help menu, there is a choice to check for updates.  If you do, ACR 7.2 installs.  The RX100 is included in 7.2.  Previous versions of Photoshop Elements will not udate to 7.2.  When you open a RAW photo, a screen pops up that lets you adjust, convert and save to something Photoshop Elements can handle. 
    You have to have Lightroom 4.2 to get RX100 usefulness.  Lightroom uses, but hides, the ACR engine.  Instead the slider controls are built in the user interface.  When you buy it, it installs as 4.0.  The help menu also has an update choice so that you can get to 4.2 from 4.0.
    You didn't ask, but Premier Elements 11 is a good choice for video because it is he first version that "officially" supports the high quality 1080p60 or "PS" setting in the RX100. 
    On T day, I shot RAW photos of my granddaughters dancing to a Wii game in terrible light.  Yesterday I "adjusted" the batch of RAW shots taken with the RX100 in Lightroom and saved them as .jpg files.  Today, I wll make a video in Premier Elements from those .jpg images, put in some pan and zoom effects, add a sound track and put it on Vimeo. 
    My view is that an RX100 owner needs PSE 11, PrE 11 and Lightroom 4 to take advantage of the camera's capabilties.  Setting it on "fine" .jpg and uploading snapshots to Flicker leaves an awful lot on the table!
    Bill

  • Need camera raw plugin 8.5 to switch between Lightroom and PS CC. Tried to update CC. It say installing but nothing happens.

    Need camera raw plugin 8.5 to switch between Lightroom and PS CC. Tried to update CC. It say installing but nothing happens.

    You may need to do a manual install:
    http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/camera-raw-applictions-cannot-updated.html

  • Camera Raw 8 the same cropping choices as are in Lightroom and Photoshop?

    Seriously, how hard would it be to give Camera Raw 8 the same cropping choices as are in Lightroom and Photoshop (i.e., Fibonacci, Triangle, Diagonal, etc.)? This disparity in features is inexcusable and embarrassing. Surely the teams communicate?

    I don't have CC nor LR.  Just be sure you are comparing apples to apples
    That is a nice statement for a Windows guy…
    I never use crop in ACR because I like this feature more in PS itself. Also the inability to save crop presets in ACR makes it very limited. The ACR engine for PS and LR are the same, the body differs.
    Thanks to hard yelling people we now have about the same crop tool in PS as in LR. Although I still don't like it in PS, after having used it years and years I now have to move the image instead of the crop.
    Sadly the ability to rotate crop and having adjust it automatically to the borders is a very nice option. If it wasn't for this I would stay with the old classic mode.
    But the OP is right, many features in different Adobe Products have somewhat the same result but sometimes very different approaches, options and tools.
    Until the Adobe HQ is going to settle in Utopia we might be better off trying to learn living with it

  • Colors of RAW vs JPG in Lightroom and CS3

    I am confused by this.
    When shooting RAW +JPG on my Canon 350D, the RAW and JPG have different color qualities. The RAW is more yellow, or maybe warmer. The JPG more blue or cooler.
    I think this is odd. And it is consistent in Lightroom AND CS3 and yet in Irfanview and Canon Digital Photo Professional they they are identical. Totally.
    Why would this be? And which is "right" in Lightroom? The RAW? It looks the better of the two, but hard to compare across programs. But why the difference and why not in all programs, just ADOBE?
    Thanks.
    ~Bob

    DPP uses the in camera settings as its starting point to view RAW files, so these files will appear identical to any jpegs produced at the same time. The in camera settings are attached to the RAW file and DPP reads this information when opening or loading a RAW file for the first time.
    Lightroom does not have access to this information and so it has its own starting point that it uses when you open a RAW file, thus the RAW file will look different than the JPEG and different to the RAW file opened in DPP (while the JPEG and RAW file in DPP will look the same). Most other RAW programs do not have access to this information (Capture 1, Bibble etc) and they also will have a starting point that is different to DPP. One of the significant advantages of Lightroom over DPP is that you can create your own profiles so you can tailor your "starting point" to suit your preferences and style whereas with DPP you always start where the Canon guy says you should be.
    There are a few programs that use the Canon SDK or Canon RAW viewer utility in windows to display images (Breeze Browser comes to mind). Irfranview may be one of these which is why RAW files viewed here may look te same as DPP or the JPEG.
    As to which is right. Neither, none or all of them. Right or wrong is purely subjective and based on which you prefer. If you never make any changes to the RAW file you may as well just shoot jpegs and that will be right for you. But then you loose thae ability to influence the look of your files proior to the file creation which is why we shoot RAW in the first place.
    Hope this helps
    Gordon

  • Colors differences between jpg and raw - Lightroom 4.1

    Dear All,
    I have a doubt on colors and monitor profile. I am using an imac with monitor calibrated with Spyder pro3 and shoot photos with a Canon 500D (RAW+JPG).
    I recently added a cir polarized filter to my camera, and really satisfied of colors I see in the camera screen, and the same colors I see on my imac when I look at jpg files. Unfortunately when I open photos on Lightroom 4.1, colors seems the same while loading the picture (probably reading the jpg) but than suddenly changes when rendering the preview and in develop module. Colors seems less vivid like missing some contrast (in attachment an example of the same file opened with lightroom and apple preview in raw and jpg).
    I know that jpg created by camera are different from raw files, but actually never had such a difference in colors with all other photos I shoot before. Is this because of the filter or do I have to set anything in particular in lightroom, such as monitor profile or others?
    Thank you for your kind advices, have a nice day,
    dk

    -d82k- wrote:
    Unfortunately when I open photos on Lightroom 4.1, colors seems the same while loading the picture (probably reading the jpg) but than suddenly changes when rendering the preview and in develop module.
    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/358016?

  • Separating jpg and raw files after importing in lightroom 5

    i would like to separate my jpg and raw files once they are in lightroom (right after importing) so that all my jpgs are 1 after the other on the film strip below  and my raw files are one after the other. is this possible?

    In Library Grid view, on the Tool Bar (T), change "Sort:" to "File Extension"

  • Goo night, I have Nikon D810, and i can not see the raw photos on lightroom and Ps, could someone help me?

    Good night, I have Nikon D810, and i can not see the raw photos on lightroom and Ps, could someone help me?

    Good morning,
    Thanks for your message, the versions are LR 5 and PS6
    2015-02-24 21:31 GMT+00:00 John Waller <[email protected]>:
        Goo night, I have Nikon D810, and i can not see the raw photos on
    lightroom and Ps, could someone help me?  created by John Waller
    <https://forums.adobe.com/people/John+Waller> in Photoshop Lightroom - View
    the full discussion <https://forums.adobe.com/message/7226636#7226636>

  • Why does Lightroom (and Photoshop) use AdobeRGB and/or ProPhoto RGB as default color spaces, when most monitors are standard gamut (sRGB) and cannot display the benefits of those wider gamuts?

    I've asked this in a couple other places online as I try to wrap my head around color management, but the answer continues to elude me. That, or I've had it explained and I just didn't comprehend. So I continue. My confusion is this: everywhere it seems, experts and gurus and teachers and generally good, kind people of knowledge claim the benefits (in most instances, though not all) of working in AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB. And yet nobody seems to mention that the majority of people - including presumably many of those championing the wider gamut color spaces - are working on standard gamut displays. And to my mind, this is a huge oversight. What it means is, at best, those working this way are seeing nothing different than photos edited/output in sRGB, because [fortunately] the photos they took didn't include colors that exceeded sRGB's real estate. But at worst, they're editing blind, and probably messing up their work. That landscape they shot with all those lush greens that sRGB can't handle? Well, if they're working in AdobeRGB on a standard gamut display, they can't see those greens either. So, as I understand it, the color managed software is going to algorithmically reign in that wild green and bring it down to sRGB's turf (and this I believe is where relative and perceptual rendering intents come into play), and give them the best approximation, within the display's gamut capabilities. But now this person is editing thinking they're in AdobeRGB, thinking that green is AdobeRGB's green, but it's not. So any changes they make to this image, they're making to an image that's displaying to their eyes as sRGB, even if the color space is, technically, AdobeRGB. So they save, output this image as an AdobeRGB file, unaware that [they] altered it seeing inaccurate color. The person who opens this file on a wide gamut monitor, in the appropriate (wide gamut) color space, is now going to see this image "accurately" for the first time. Only it was edited by someone who hadn't seen it accurately. So who know what it looks like. And if the person who edited it is there, they'd be like, "wait, that's not what I sent you!"
    Am I wrong? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I shoot everything RAW, and I someday would love to see these photos opened up in a nice, big color space. And since they're RAW, I will, and probably not too far in the future. But right now I export everything to sRGB, because - internet standards aside - I don't know anybody who I'd share my photos with, who has a wide gamut monitor. I mean, as far as I know, most standard gamut monitors can't even display 100% sRGB! I just bought a really nice QHD display marketed toward design and photography professionals, and I don't think it's 100. I thought of getting the wide gamut version, but was advised to stay away because so much of my day-to-day usage would be with things that didn't utilize those gamuts, and generally speaking, my colors would be off. So I went with the standard gamut, like 99% of everybody else.
    So what should I do? As it is, I have my Photoshop color space set to sRGB. I just read that Lightroom as its default uses ProPhoto in the Develop module, and AdobeRGB in the Library (for previews and such).
    Thanks for any help!
    Michael

    Okay. Going bigger is better, do so when you can (in 16-bit). Darn, those TIFs are big though. So, ideally, one really doesn't want to take the picture to Photoshop until one has to, right? Because as long as it's in LR, it's going to be a comparatively small file (a dozen or two MBs vs say 150 as a TIF). And doesn't LR's develop module use the same 'engine' or something, as ACR plug-in? So if your adjustments are basic, able to be done in either LR Develop, or PS ACR, all things being equal, choose to stay in LR?
    ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
    PS RGB Workspace:  ProPhotoRGB and I convert any 8-bit documents to 16-bit before doing any adjustments.
    Why does one convert 8-bit pics to 16-bit? Not sure if this is an apt comparison, but it seems to me that that's kind of like upscaling, in video. Which I've always taken to mean adding redundant information to a file so that it 'fits' the larger canvas, but to no material improvement. In the case of video, I think I'd rather watch a 1080p movie on an HD (1080) screen (here I go again with my pixel-to-pixel prejudice), than watch a 1080p movie on a 4K TV, upscaled. But I'm ready to be wrong here, too. Maybe there would be no discernible difference? Maybe even though the source material were 1080p, I could still sit closer to the 4K TV, because of the smaller and more densely packed array of pixels. Or maybe I only get that benefit when it's a 4K picture on a 4K screen? Anyway, this is probably a different can of worms. I'm assuming that in the case of photo editing, converting from 8 to 16-bit allows one more room to work before bad things start to happen?
    I'm recent to Lightroom and still in the process of organizing from Aperture. Being forced to "this is your life" through all the years (I don't recommend!), I realize probably all of my pictures older than 7 years ago are jpeg, and probably low-fi at that. I'm wondering how I should handle them, if and when I do. I'm noting your settings, ssprengel.
    ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
    I save my PS intermediate or final master copy of my work as a 16-bit TIF still in the ProPhotoRGB, and only when I'm ready to share the image do I convert to sRGB then 8-bits, in that order, then do File / Save As: Format=JPG.
    Part of the same question, I guess - why convert back to 8-bits? Is it for the recipient?  Do some machines not read 16-bit? Something else?
    For those of you working in these larger color spaces and not working with a wide gamut display, I'd love to know if there are any reasons you choose not to. Because I guess my biggest concern in all of this has been tied to what we're potentially losing by not seeing the breadth of the color space we work in represented while making value adjustments to our images. Based on what several have said here, it seems that the instances when our displays are unable to represent something as intended are infrequent, and when they do arise, they're usually not extreme.
    Simon G E Garrett Apr 29, 2015 4:57 AM
    With 8 bits, there are 256 possible values.  If you use those 8 bits to cover a wider range of colours, then the difference between two adjacent values - between 100 and 101, say - is a larger difference in colour.  With ProPhoto RGB in 8-bits there is a chance that this is visible, so a smooth colour wedge might look like a staircase.  Hence ProPhoto RGB files might need to be kept as 16-bit TIFs, which of course are much, much bigger than 8-bit jpegs.
    Over the course of my 'studies' I came across a side-by-side comparison of either two color spaces and how they handled value gradations, or 8-bit vs 16-bit in the same color space. One was a very smooth gradient, and the other was more like a series of columns, or as you say, a staircase. Maybe it was comparing sRGB with AdobeRGB, both as 8-bit. And how they handled the same "section" of value change. They're both working with 256 choices, right? So there might be some instances where, in 8-bit, the (numerically) same segment of values is smoother in sRGB than in AdobeRGB, no? Because of the example Simon illustrated above?
    Oh, also -- in my Lumix LX100 the options for color space are sRGB or AdobeRGB. Am I correct to say that when I'm shooting RAW, these are irrelevant or ignored? I know there are instances (certain camera effects) where the camera forces the shot as a jpeg, and usually in that instance I believe it will be forced sRGB.
    Thanks again. I think it's time to change some settings..

  • Lightroom and Photoshop Integration

    Hello Everyone,
    I am a beginner photographer and beginner Lightroom / Photoshop person.
    I use Lightroom for most of the "darkroom" type stuff with my pictures (cataloging them, minor croping, playing with tint, hue, etc).  However some things can only be done in Photshop - layers, HDR, masks, adding textures.
    One reason i like LR is that the changes are non destructive.  That means that the original picture is not changed, but the edits I make are stored in some file and applied on top of the picture and saved elsewhere - not saved with the pic.  But i need to use PS and learn PS a bit more.  I heard both products were highly integrated, but does anyone know how?  If I edit in LR, how do I send the pic to PS to do more?  Do the PS edits need to be "saved as" a new file or are they sent back to Lightroom and somehow saved as non-destructive edits?
    Also can both products convert color RAW files to BW and Sepia just as easily?

    Confusedxx wrote:
    I heard both products were highly integrated, but does anyone know how?  If I edit in LR, how do I send the pic to PS to do more?  Do the PS edits need to be "saved as" a new file or are they sent back to Lightroom and somehow saved as non-destructive edits?
    Also can both products convert color RAW files to BW and Sepia just as easily?
    To send an image to Photoshop for editing you use the Edit in Adobe Photoshop command (see Photo>Edit in menu or use the Cmd/Ctrl+E shortcut). When you use this command Lightroom creates a rendered version in ram. It is this rendered version that you edit in Photoshop.  When you have completed your Photoshop edits use the "Save" command not  "Save As" to save the image back into Photoshop. The edited file will be saved as a fully rendered TIFF or PSD file (you can define which in Lightroom Preferences).
    Non destructive editing in Photoshop requires that you use either layers or smart objects. While Lightroom can handle files with layers and/or smart objects it can't actually edit the Layers or Smart Objects. That being said, if you need to re-edit the non-destructive Photoshop edits just send the rendered file back to Photoshop.
    Photoshop uses the Camera Raw plug-in to convert raw images and Lightroom uses an embedded version of the Camera Raw engine for the same purpose. So, both convert colour to B&W and Sepia with equal ease.

  • Lightroom and using the Edit in Photoshop CS3 Options

    Today, I installed Lightroom v1.1 and Photoshop CS3 v10.0.1 I have an issue...Using Lightroom, I import a photo (JPG) into LR Library. Then, I right-click the photo and select the option to Edit In Photoshop CS3. This opens a window within Lightroom and there are three available options concerning What to Edit. Two Options reference Edit a Copy and One Option references Edit the Original. The two referencing Editing a Copy always says Lightroom cannot prepare the file for editing and that the file cannot be opened. If I select the last option to Edit the Original, that photo is brought into PS CS3 for Editing.
    This is also the situation with files TIFF and PSD.
    This is also the situation if I use a different Photo Editor other than PS CS3.
    I have read the user manual and if I read correctly, the Two Options which do not work should also work. Or does my thinking need correction?
    I would appreciate someone helping me with the understanding of this issue.
    Thanks.
    James

    Thanks to you both. I do appreciate your responses. Please keep them coming.
    I think Judith has a point.
    I believe I should be able to Import a JPG from somewhere (HD, Floppy Drive, CD Drive)into the LR Library and then call upon Photoshop CS3 to Edit that JPG. If I am not incorrect, when reading the Lightroom Documentation, I see where this action is supported.
    The action is: Right-Click a JPG (also TIF and PSD as well) in the LR Libary. From the menu presented, select Edit in the Adobe Photoshop CS3. A new Window appears from which to select either of two Edit a Copy Actions (with LR adjustments or without LR adjustments), I alway receive a Warning Window saying: Lightroom was unable to prepare the selected file at C:\Documents and Settings\My Name\My Documents\My Pictures\photo.JPG (or TIF or PSD) for editing. It will not be opened.
    If I select Edit the Original, the photo is brought into CS3 for editing. This selection is the only one which work. I wish to point out that the Copy File Options are grayed-out with the Edit Original Selection. And, the Copy File Options are NOT Grayed-out with Copy Options.
    In summary, if Copy File Options available, the JPG (or TIF or PSD) will not be prepared by Lighrooom for editing in CS3. My Copy File Options show TIFF and PSD pnly; no JPG. If I read correctly, I cannot Copy a JPG for editing into CS3. What I do not understand is if I have a TIFF or PSD in the Library, the Copy Option still fails to execute. The point John has made about RAW requires me to look into that aspect. I need to know more about that.
    Can anyone right-click a JPG in the LR Libary. Then select Edit in CS3. Then use either of the two Copy Functions Selections for the action of that JPG being prepared by LR and brought into CS3 for editing?
    This action will not work for me.
    I do plan to update my version soon.
    All replys and suggestions are welcomed.
    Regards,
    James

  • How to make colors looks same in Lightroom and Photoshop?

    The colors of JPGs with sRGB colorspace are displayed differently between Lightroom and Photoshop and other image view applications.
    I edited RAW images in Lightroom and export them to JPG files with sRGB colorspace, but their colors are eventually different from what I saw in LR.
    (I set ProPhoto as the colorspace for my Photoshop.)
    Is there anything I can do to solve this problem? Or maybe to reduce the color difference?
    What is the best I can do to manage colors for those images that I want to share on the internet?
    Thank you !!! 

    If colours look different between two colour managed applications such as LR and PS then you have either not calibrated your monitor at all or are using a corrupt monitor profile.
    If the former you require a calibration device, such as a Spyder (lots of other around). If the second then re calibrate.
    In the meantime you can set your monitor to use a colour space such as sRGB as a profile. This is not a solution, it is a temporary fix. Using a colour space as a monitor profile is not colour management, but will at least make the colour appear the same on your monitor.
    There are some useful links concerning colour management and LR here you may wish to read.

Maybe you are looking for