Lightroom's interpretation of camera raw data washes out colours

After I import images from my Canon 5D, they look different when I go into the develop module. I read the FAQ and I understand that this is caused by the difference between the stored thumbnail on the camera and the way lightroom interprets the raw image data.
The problem is, the tone and colour are always far superior in the camera thumbnail interpretation, and I spend considerable time on Lightroom to try and get the image back to how it originally looked on the camera thumbnail, usually unsucsessfully.
Is there a way I can get lightroom to match exactly the look of the previews stored with the raw file on the camera?
It is a big problem, because after lightroom interprets the data, skin tones look washed out and the colours are not as rich or natural looking.
I don't have this problem on other raw converters, and it is making me look for another software solution if I can't resolve the problem.
Help!

Well, my eyes must be doing some wonky things then... because in my experience its LR that is cheating me on the colors.
Yes... Canon many times oversaturates the colors... but I'm pretty sure that those red cherries I took a picture of were not pumpkin orange as LR shows them. ACR has some serious hue shift problems, yet not for everyone... it varies from camera model to camera model, and even within camera model from camera to camera.
The best we can do, since ACR isn't intelligent enough, is to fiddle with the calibration settings, and save that as the new default for the camera. (There are scripts that help do this if you have a Color-checker and CS2/CS3... but are of no help if you use only LR or Elements.)
Never expect the default settings in RAW (for ANY converter... Canon's included (with execption, perhaps of Zoombrowser)) to match the preview you see on the camera, or the out-of-camera jpeg. Adjustments will need to be made. Unfortunately in ACR, this means hours of messing the calibration sliders, much trial and error, and perhaps multiple presets to help with different lighting conditions.
That said... I too would like to see ACR improve in this area... but for the mean-time this is the best we can do.
edit: (I'm (slightly) exagerrating the extent of the shift above... but its VERY noticable... and can be very frustrating.
This site: http://www.photoactivity.com/Pagine/Articoli/023%20Calibratori%20al%20sole/Calibratori%20 al%20sole_en.asp explains in more detail than I understand some of the calibration scripts... and even has some screenshots of a color-checker comparing ACR defaults and various scripts to the color-checker. I'd guess the shifts I see are comparable to some of those shifts seen on that page.)

Similar Messages

Importing Camera Raw data in iPhoto

I cannot get iPhoto 08 to import camera raw data . It shows a thumbnail when I select the file to import but fails to import it. On all atempts with good photo files, this is the same. The files were made in the camera raw setting on a Nikon coolpix 5700.

I have the same problem with my Nikon 5700 and have had since iPhoto version 5. Discussions on dpreview forums confirm other users have the same problem. If you want a laugh, you can read about my experiences below and save yourself a frustrating call to Apple technical support. But the short answer is that you need software other than iPhoto. Any product of this type from other companies will handle your files no problem.
I have a new, up to date version of iPhoto 08 that came with my new MacBook and it will not import the 5700's RAW files. (The same files are imported perfectly by iView Media Pro, Adobe Lightroom, and by Photoshop.)
(iPhoto Version 4 supported RAW from the 5700 but, on upgrade, I lost the ability to import RAW. My existing imported RAW files lost the ability to preview too. Hundreds of users on web user forums reported the same problem. Attempts to revert to iPhoto 4 corrupted my library. I eventually had to reformat my drive to allow me to reinstall iPhoto 4. In the end, my confidence was shaken enough that I reluctantly switched to iView Media Pro.)
I also converted the 5700 RAW files to DNG (Adobe's standard open RAW format designed for just this purpose), but no luck there either.
I called Apple technical support and eventually got through to the "iPhoto department" and talked to someone who had no clue about the subject. He didn't even know what a DNG was.
I asked if he could supply a list of cameras compatible with iPhoto and he said no he couldn't. I noted that there was an "iPhoto Device Compatibility" link on the web site but that the link was broken. I suggested that this meant that such a list existed somewhere and that it was just a matter of finding it. He said that, if the list wasn't on that page, it didn't exist.
I asked if the technical question could be escalated to a higher level of tech support, and he didn't know what escalate meant. He eventually went away to talk to someone titled "Product Specialist" (I had thought that was who I was talking to) and the product specialist said that no one at Apple could confirm what devices iPhoto is compatible with. Apparently, the development team at Apple wrote the software and then promptly forgot how it works, so we're pretty much on our own.
In short, it appears that there's no guarantee that upgrades to iPhoto will continue to support RAW files from a given camera. Since iPhoto stores your catalogue info in a proprietary file (the iPhoto library), this means each upgrade runs the risk of all your photo library work going down the tubes.
This is a crying shame and a show stopper for an otherwise intuitive and elegant program.
Try Adobe Lightroom or iView Media Pro as alternatives. Lightroom is more expensive ($300), but gives great photo adjusting capabilities. iView Media is just a cataloguing program, but has a superb file organization system. Unfortunately, its interface is not as pretty as iPhoto's and it has a steeper learning curve.
Good luck!

Upgrade of Lightroom 4 with newest Camera Raws possible?

I'm still on Windows XP. My question: Can I buy Lightroom 4 and update Camera Raw files subsequently? Or is the only chance to use newest camera raws by using Lightroom 5? I want to get access to Olympus EM-5 Raw files (in addition to EOS 5D MII) and want to avoid for now changing the windows system.
Any advice very much appreciated!

Lightroom 4 is no longer sold. It would depend first on your being able to find a copy for sale. That said, you would only be able to upgrade your camera compatibility to LR 4.4.1. Any cameras added after 4.4.1 was released would be unavailable to you.
At this point the only alternative that allows you to remain on XP and continue to get the newest cameras is to download and implement in your workflow the free Adobe DNG Converter. It is XP compatible (at least for now) and allows access to the latest cameras, and its DNG files are backwards compatible to all versions of Lightroom.

Lightroom 2.3 and Camera Raw 5.3 Available - Note from Adobe

Lightroom 2.3 and Camera Raw 5.3 are now available as release candidates on Adobe Labs.
Lightroom 2.3, http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Lightroom_2.3
Camera Raw 5.3, http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Camera_Raw_5.3
Regards,
Tom Hogarty
Adobe Systems

Hi All:
based on the good work of Dorin above (post #19), he did a timeline of various releases of Lightroom from Adobe and it shows that from "version x RC" to "final release version" was around 1 month.
as it is already exactly one month now, it must not be too much longer till they will release the LR2.3 Final Version.
As for what Robert said in post #23, well, there's never any "guarantee" on a problem-free piece of software, or, for that matter, anything one purchases or anything in life, actually!! Yet, one can make educated extrapolations, right? From the range of comments thus far on LR2.3RC, it appears that it is the best version yet of LR2.x. This leads to the conclusion that it is probably a "good bet" that this version will likely lead to the least amount of issues, right? Maybe not "zero issues", but most likely, the least amount of issues from the various LR2.x versions available.
So by waiting, say, merely 1-3 more weeks approximately, i can go directly from LR1.4 (which i've been using for many months) to LR2.3 Final Release Version. It seems like it is a prudent and conservative move or plan.
What do the good folks here think, please?
thanks in advance for helping me to mull this over. If i were a PC expert, i'd be thinking about this less. as i'm just a somewhat competent user, and not a whiz, i thought that a bit of care and planning it out intelligently can possibly reduce frustrations later.

Lightroom 3.2 and Camera Raw 6.2 Now Available

Final releases of Lightroom 3.2, DNG Converter 6.2 and Camera Raw 6.2 are now available. Additional details here: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2010/08/lightroom-3-2-and-camera-raw-6-2-now-avail able.html
Regards,
Tom Hogarty
Lightroom, Camera Raw, DNG Product Manager

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}Hudechrome wrote:
You have a wild hair about Bridge, Noel?
Not at all. I like good tools, and from everything I read Bridge is marvelous. I don't have anything against Bridge, I just don't need it.
As a computer engineer, I use my computer for WAY more than just Photoshop. As such, I do everything I can to have the operating system (via Windows Explorer) integrate things for me.
For example, via right-click or double-click or drag and drop onto icons:
I access my configuration management system from Explorer (Tortoise SubVersion).
I do searches (grepWin) from Explorer.
I compare things (Beyond Compare) from Explorer.
I start Photoshop and other image tools on raw and processed image files I manage with Explorer.
I start my development tools (Visual Studio and a host of utilities) from Explorer (e.g., double click .sln files).
I access my web sites with Explorer (via WebDrive).
I get file paths from Explorer (right click, Send to Clipboard as Name).
I access office management apps from Explorer (e.g., double click .doc or .xls files).
This is an abbreviated list. Explorer can be a VERY powerful integrator, and is at the center of my computing world at a higher level. So now you can start to imagine why I prefer Explorer for image work.
-Noel

Lightroom 3.2 and Camera Raw 6.2 Release Candidate on Available on Adobe Labs

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2010/08/lightroom-3-2-and-camera-raw-6-2-available -on-adobe-labs.html
with additional lens profiles available.

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}Hudechrome wrote:
You have a wild hair about Bridge, Noel?
Not at all. I like good tools, and from everything I read Bridge is marvelous. I don't have anything against Bridge, I just don't need it.
As a computer engineer, I use my computer for WAY more than just Photoshop. As such, I do everything I can to have the operating system (via Windows Explorer) integrate things for me.
For example, via right-click or double-click or drag and drop onto icons:
I access my configuration management system from Explorer (Tortoise SubVersion).
I do searches (grepWin) from Explorer.
I compare things (Beyond Compare) from Explorer.
I start Photoshop and other image tools on raw and processed image files I manage with Explorer.
I start my development tools (Visual Studio and a host of utilities) from Explorer (e.g., double click .sln files).
I access my web sites with Explorer (via WebDrive).
I get file paths from Explorer (right click, Send to Clipboard as Name).
I access office management apps from Explorer (e.g., double click .doc or .xls files).
This is an abbreviated list. Explorer can be a VERY powerful integrator, and is at the center of my computing world at a higher level. So now you can start to imagine why I prefer Explorer for image work.
-Noel

Lightroom 3.2 and Camera Raw 6.2 final releases are available

Lightroom 3.2 and Camera Raw 6.2 are now available as final releases on Adobe.com and through the update mechanisms available in Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3. These updates include additional lens profiles support among others. Check out http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/. Following the example of Adobe's collaboration with SIGMA, leading lens manufacturers such as Pentax, Tamron and Zeiss worked closely with Adobe to create some of the profiles.
-Simon

Excellent! Now if there were only a way to use my S95 in raw... I guess I'll have to wait another few months

Lightroom 2.7 and Camera Raw 5.7 Release Candidates now Available

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2010/04/camera_raw_57_and_lightroom_27.html
Regards,
Tom Hogarty
Adobe Systems

Tom Hogarty wrote:
Here is a draft of my final release notes for working with Lightroom 3 and Camera Raw 5.7:
Viewing Lightroom 3 settings in Camera Raw 5.7
Before working in conjunction with Lightroom 3 and Camera Raw please set the Camera Raw preference to: Save image settings in: Sidecar ".xmp" files. By default Camera Raw will display the image adjustments exactly as performed in Lightroom’s develop module. However, at this time Camera Raw 5.7 is unable to support further adjustments to the following settings or tools:
Highlight Priority and Color Priority post-crop vignette
Enhanced Luminance and Color Noise Reduction
Grain effects
Process Version
Lightroom is also dependent on a compatible version of the Camera Raw plug-in for the "Edit in Photoshop" functionality to work properly. Camera Raw 5.7 will ensure that Lightroom 3 beta 2 will maintain that compatible functionality with Photoshop CS4.
Regards,
Tom Hogarty
Adobe Systems
That seems to clarify the interoperability of ACR 5.7 and LR 3. Thank you for that, Mr. Hogarty.
Now, for the benefit of those of use who are not and/or will not be using Lightroom 3 for whatever reason, perhaps Mr. Chan or you can address the question of whether ACR 5.7 RC has a different or improved Noise Reduction functionality over that of ACR 5.6, and/or whether this will be the case for the final, GM release of ACR 5.7. Let's leave any and all versions of LR out of the equation for a second, please.
I think I see improved Noise Reduction in ACR 5.7 RC, but I wonder if this is real or whether I've just improved my skills in handling the noise reduction sliders since earlier versions.
Thanks.
Wo Tai Lao Le
我太老了

I have Lightroom 3.6 and Camera Raw 6.6 but I can't open my CR2 files from my Canon eos 6D

Hi,
I have Lightroom 3.6 and Camera Raw 6.6 but I can't open my CR2 files from my Canon eos 6D
Lightroom doesn't show a thumbnail image and when trying to import it says the camera format isn't supported. But normaly Camera raw 6.6 should cover the Canon eos 6D
All help is welcome,
Thanks

No, the older versions are not free. If you upgrade you will have to get Lr5 unless you can still find Lr4 for sale somewhere as it has been discontinued by Adobe. You can also use the FREE DNG converter to convert the 6d files for use in Lr3.6.

Problems with Nikon Coolpix P7700 and Lightroom 4.4 with camera raw 7.4.

When I import raw (NRW) files (size 3000 x 4000 pixels) from my Nikon Coolpix P7700 to Lightroom 4.4 (camera raw 7.4) it seems that Lightroom doubles file sizes. In Metadata section I can see that picture´s file size is 25.xx Mb. Camera´s sensor size is, however, only 12 Mb. I have also Nikon D300 and imported raw files (size 3000 x 4000 pixels) in Lightroom 4.4. are varying between 12.xx and 16.xx Mb. I´m very confused about the situation. I have iMac 27" (late 2007) and operating system is Mac OSX 10.8.4. Can somebody explain what is happening. Is there a bug in Lightroom 4.4 and Camera Raw 7.4 or what?
Thank you in advance
Eero

You are mixing megapixels (your camera takes 12 megapixel photos) with megabytes (the file size). These two different units cannot be compared, and I conclude from the numbers you have provided that nothing is wrong.

Open in camera raw is greyed out in bridge cs5.1. how do I activivate this feature?

open in camera raw is greyed out in bridge cs5.1. how do I activivate this feature?

The D600 was first supported in Camera Raw 7.3 which is only compatible with CS6 and later - not CS5 unfortunately.
http://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/global/camera-raw-compatible-applications.html
Some options:
FREE
Download the free Adobe DNG converter, convert all D600 Raw files to DNGs then open the DNGs in CS5
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.displayTab2.html
PAID
Upgrade to CS6
Buy Lightroom 5.4
Buy Photoshop Elements 12
Join the Cloud and get CC (subscription only)
Join the Photoshop Photography Program and get Photoshop CC + Lightroom (subscription only)

Camera Raw preferences greyed out in Bridge CS5 mac

camera Raw preferences greyed out and Raw's are not visibel in Bridge CS5 mac
Imac 10.9.2 CS 5 updated Camera raw plug in 6.7.1
Ps opens Raw in Camera raw fine but not visilbel in Bridge.
help please

Without system info and otehr details nobody can say anything.
Mylenium

When will the new camera raw update come out for my nikon d7100

when will the new camera raw update come out for my nikon d7100

Hi,
See if this answers your question:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1178283?tstart=0

Washed out colour

Hi Everyone
When i try to alter washed out colour in my footage using Shadow/Highlight or Gamma ,i get a comb effect on the edge of the subject and if i use auto colour or auto levels ,the colour isn't stable.I need a really good solution to the problem if anyone can help.Thanks

SpeedGrade is the best solution.
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/adobe-at-ibc-2013/adobe-premiere-pro-cc-speedgrade-cc-direct-lin k/

Uneven brightness + washed out colours

I got a new iBook G4 12in a week ago. Love everything about it apart from the screen. As soon as I booted it for the first time I noticed the screen wasn't particularly bright and that the colours were washed out. It's usable but not of a level I'd expect from Apple. It's bad even under standard office fluorescent lighting.
A colleague with an identical iBook noticed my screen was a bit dim and said he usually runs his iBook at a low brightness level (two notches off bottom). If I did that on mine, I'd struggle to see anything! It has to be run at full or just below full brightness to be usable.
I've also noticed that the bottom of the screen is brighter than the top. This took me a week to notice so isn't a huge problem. At the bottom corners there are very light streaks - it's a bit like the screen is being run from two halogen spotlights placed underneath the plastic surround!
Should I phone Apple's support and get this fixed, or is it to be expected? Research online shows half the people have a similar problem with washed out colours, while half claim their screens are bright and vibrant.

I called AppleCare last night. First, the guy asked me to do a couple of adjustments. He suspected that the display was damp. So he asked me to turn off the system, take out the battery, and then discharge the whole machine completely by pressing Shift, Ctrl, Alt, and the power button at the same time. But this trick didn't solve the problem. Second, he asked me to put the installer cd in and adjust something. It didn't work either. After this, he got me a system engineer on the phone, and he said there were two options: I could either send it in for repair, which would be quicker, or exchange it for a new unit, which would be slower, about 10-12 days. So I decided to exchange it for a new one. They are sending me the packing labels. Then I will send this one back. They will send a new one to me.
I suspect that displays with such problems are recycled ones. I mean they are taken from junk ones with an okay display. I hope this is not true. The display on my three-year-old Compaq still looks better than this one.
Apart from this small defect, my new computer works really well, and I love it. I am just a little disappointed with the product quality of Apple computers. It seems that they have put a lot of effort in the design of the appearance of their computers. But there is some degree of negligience on other aspects of their computers. That's why this forum is full of complaints.
Personally I think it is better to buy a computer directly in a store. It is easier to return or get a new one.

Lightroom's interpretation of camera raw data washes out colours

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for