Undoing raw development

I developed some RAW files in Canon's proprietary software. Although I was careful to save resulting the RAW files with new file name --filenamea.cr2 -- I may have missed some that were developed in the Canon software. Once converted to dng have those changes now become a permanent part of the dng? Can I undo the development if I am working directly on the RAW file in LR before conversion to dng? Or is the best thing to do simply return to the original software and try to back out the steps as best I can?

As far as I know, any changes you make to the RAW photos in Canon's software will not show up in Lightroom, so there's no need to "undo the development". The RAW file that Lightroom sees will have none of the Canon developments.
Note: if you used the Canon software to save the photos as JPG or TIF, then the developments will be baked into these files and will show up in Lightroom. Not true with RAWs.
Once converted to dng have those changes now become a permanent part of the dng?
The edits that are stored by Lightroom in a DNG are not in any sense "permanent", you could have Lightroom (or other software like ExifTool) overwrite or remove these edits. So, I'm not sure what you are driving at by using the word "permanent". Lightroom's edits are never "permanent" (and this is true for originals that are JPG, TIF or RAW). Also, any edits performed in Lightroom, by default, are not stored in the DNG anyway — although there is an option to have Lightroom store the edits in the DNG.

Similar Messages

ACR VS RAW Developer for image detail

I am an avid/loyal ACR fan who makes mural sized landscape prints from digital capture. I keep hearing on various forums how Raw Developer (Mac) is the best out there for extracting every ounce of discernable detail from a raw file to a print. I am to the point of considering purchasing the software to do the tests.
If it proves to be a real world benefit, I will likely have to use it.
What has been your experience with Raw Developer vs. ACR in terms of quality detail?
If the above is true, might ACR step up to bat and give us another optional algorithm for maximized detail (like a "maximize detail" button in ACR to choose a more detailed conversion)?
Feel free to comment on the issue however you want.
I want detail!

I was a big convert and advocate for Raw Developer. I paid my $125 to Brian and I don't regret it one bit. He's a cool and patient guy and answered my emails without fail.
However, the more I got into using the color editing tools on a number of differently exposed and composed images with varying color temps, the more I started not liking what it did to the color. The default settings were pretty good but whenever I adjusted color temp and the saturation and hue sliders including other adjustements I noticed a strange patina in the hues that showed up in my edits that bothered me.
For instance when adjusting RD's red/green tint slider the green looks more like a urine green where as ACR's hue is more pure. When I placed side by side previews of the same image between the two converters I noticed RD's deep shadows on a number of images were void of any color while ACR's retained it.
Some users like the look of neutralized shadows on their display, but from my experience it doesn't look too good on a print. I come from a painting background and charcoal neutral shadows is a big no-no when painting shadow detail on canvas. It ruins the 3D effect. This is the main reason why offset pressman will either include an extra cyan plate duplicate of the black channel or mix blue into the black ink on press. It adds pop to the image.
ACR's color engine is far superior in this respect.
Also I get odd zipper like sharpening artifacts along edge detail in some images with RD. It's still an amazing Raw converter in that it retains the simple interface as ACR with added color controls of Lab and RGB curves which ACR doesn't. But I found I had to work to much to get what I wanted compared to using ACR.
Your experience may be different.

RAW developer for Bayer GB12

Greetings,
I am a newbie to the forum and planning to use a 12MP video camera with APS-C size CMOS sensor as still-picture camera for night photography.. The outputs are Bayer GB10 and Bayer GB12. I would like to develop the pictures on a separate on-board pc to utilize the whole dynamic range as the JPEG outputs of the camera did not help much for low-light situations. Can anybody recommend me a proper RAW developer (like the Lightroom, for instance) so that the shadow detail could be elevated a few stops? Operation on Bayer GB12 is preferred. Thank you.
Bob

Hi BobYil. Welcome to NI Discussion Forums. I'm sorry, but National Instruments doesn't make the RAW developers like you are talking about. We have drivers for loading images from GigE, firewire, USB 2.0 (supporting Microsoft Direct Show), USB 3.0 (supporting USB3 Vision), CameraLink framegrabbers, Analog/Digital Framegrabbers, and National Instruments Smart Cameras.
This is the Machine Vision forum where we discuss questions about our NI Machine Vision software. This is software that automatically processes and extracts information from the images that are already in standard formats (JPEG, TIFF, PNG, etc.) For example, this software would be to locate objects and their locations, read text and barcodes, measure brightnes and color, etc.
I'm not sure if very many people on this forum are familiar with RAW conversion. However, I could be wrong. Does here have any experience with RAW developers like Lightroom?
Jeremy P.
Applications Engineer
National Instruments

Wie RAW Entwicklung kopieren? How2 copy RAW development? PSE 11, CR 7.4

Hallo zusammen,
trotz Google und Forensuche finde ich keine Antwort:
Wie kann ich Entwicklungseinstellungen in PSE 11 / Camera RAW 7.4 auf weitere Fotos anwenden?
Man ist so verwöhnt von Lightroom, aber ich benötige die Antwort für einen PSE Nutzer.
herzlichen Dank für Eure Hilfe
OP
Hi @ll,
how can I copy the development of a raw file in PSE 11 / Camera RAW 7.4 on other files?
(I am a Lightroom user but this needs to be answered to a PSE User)
many thanks & best regards
OP

In the ACR dialog, when you click 'Done' or 'Open', the settings are saved in an xmp sidecar file. But not only, they are automatically saved in another file, the 'previous.xmp'.
In the raw development dialog, look at the title bar on the right part of the scree, with 'basic'.
On the right part of that bar, you have a small icon to let you choose various parameters settings : choose 'previous conversion'.
The settings are recovered from the last session and you can apply that settings to each file you open afterward.

Cinema Raw Development for Windows 1.1 crashes on Canon C500 workflow.

Hey guys, this is mike, new to forum.
We are currently using windows Cinema Raw Development 1.1 to convert Canon C500 .rmf file into .dpx file so that we can import them into adobe premiere for editing.
However, everytime I import something into CRD, it crashes. It doesn't happen on our mac though, we don't want to include any mac machine into our workflow.
Anyone has any idea? Is Canon gonna release a bug fix release for CRD? Or shall I give up the official workflow by Canon and search for other option? As I heard rumors tha Davinci Resolve is able to import .rmf files.

Hi ericvanburen,
I found similar issue with HP Envy Desktop in HP forum , it might be due to blue tooth driver .
And I quoted the genneral solution here :
1. Enter into BIOS setup and set Virtualization as disabled and reboot system.
2. After booting windows 8, enter into Control panel and remove bluetooth driver.
3. Download and install Ralink Bluetooth driver version 9.2.101.10 (SP59632)
4. Reboot system and enable Virtualization Technology again.
For details please refer to following link:
http://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Operating-Systems-and-Software/HP-ENVY-M6-1106er-Windows-8-Pro-hangs-up-to-start-after/m-p/2386453#M126362
Best Regards
Elton Ji
We
are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this
interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time.
Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.

Some imported tifs given some RAW develop settings

For a long time I have processed files in other apps and imported the tif files into Lightroom for printing, slide shows and web galleries. Today I processed a group of files in Capture One 5, adjusted them in Photoshop CS4 and saved them as tifs. When imported to lightroom 2.5 many of them are displayed with very, very high contrast and brighter than they appeared in Photoshop. Some look fine. Most have adjustment layers, but that doesn't seem to make a difference, some with layers are displayed properly while others have look awful. What is happening is that is that Lightroom is applying the same brightness and contrast settings (50 and 20 respectively) to some of the Tifs as it would to RAW files, but only those two develop settings and only to about half the files. Clicking the reset button clears up the issue. Does anyone know why this is happening? The same this occurs to the same files in LR 3, but Photoshop, Aperture and Photo Mechanic display them properly.
Thanks in advance,
Peter

inforumman,
Your questions:
a) Correct, but saving to XMP does NOT replace saving in the Lr catalog. Save to XMP is in addition to saving in the catalog.
b) The wording "saving the XMP" is a bit misleading, insofar as an XMP-file will be created only in case of Raw files, whereas with TIFFs, JPGs, PSDs the metadata (edits or other metadata) is written into (the header of) the image file - but NOT into the image pixels.
c) As LRuser24 already said, it is not possible to have Lr write an XMP-file for JPGs, or for TIFFs, or for PSDs.

How to export RAW/developed jpegs to jpeg, while keeping unmodified jpegs as originals?

Hi all,
I'm new to LR and can't work out how to get the export setting working as I want. What I want to be able to do is:
1. Import a number of photos into a collection (a mix of RAW and jpeg)
2. Develop the photos that I deem necessary
3. Export the whole collection to a specific folder on my hard drive as jpeg, but for the jpegs in the collection that I have not developed, I want to keep as original
I realise I could just export the developed versions as jpegs, and then manually add the unmodified jpegs, but this seems a bit fiddly and unnecessary. Is it possible to do what I'm trying? I'm using LR 4.1.
Many thanks in advance!

I want to create a collection in LR. Then after developing certain images, I want to export the whole collection to different location on my hard drive, while converting the developed files as jpeg, but keeping the non-developed files as originals (but still exporting them to the location). So I would have my 'master' folder in which I keep all my originals, and then a separate folder just for a specific collection, all in jpeg. The reason I want a separate physical location is that I have that location set to automatically sync with cloud storage, so others can view it.
What I was hoping to see when exporting my collection as jpeg was an option for something like 'keep undeveloped jpegs as original'.
Doesn't look l;ike I can do exactly what I want to. I'll find a way I can work with.
thanks for all your help!
Sam

Why do JPEG files with LR Develop settings open in Photoshop Camera Raw?

Why does an image that has been altered by Lightroom cause the RAW Converter to open when trying to view it in Photoshop. Perhaps this might help; if I import, enhance and convert a RAW image in Lightroom to a jepg image it will open in Photoshop without issue. However if I then alter the jpeg image in Lightroom, update the Metadata and try to view it in Photoshop it cause the Photoshop's RAW Converter to open. Is the alter image's information held in a side car file (xmp) that can'r be read by Photoshop? If so would I need to re-export, (convert), the image again in Lightroom to embedd the changes thus making sure it could be read by all the various programs that are available to view images. As is I send photographs to newspapers and print houses it is important for me to know if they would be receiving fully adjusted images or only the adjustments that were made prior to converting from RAW to jpeg. Just in case...I am new to Lightroom. Thanks in advance for any help.
Message title was edited by: Brett N

When you update the metadata for a JPEG, it is saved internally (there is no sidecar). Any JPEG with Camera Raw develop settings saved in its metadata will open in the Camera Raw plug-in in Photoshop. That is the only way for Photoshop to deal with the Camera Raw settings. Camera Raw settings can be added by the Develop module of Lightroom or from the Camera Raw plug-in dialog in Photoshop or Bridge. To prevent the file from opening in Camera Raw in Photoshop, you have to remove the develop settings and other metadata that ties the file to Camera Raw.

Easy way to select files w/develop settings applied?

Hi
Adobe Bridge CS6/Camera Raw Win7 - OK I have a folder w/350 images, some of these (50 or so scattered about) I've applied a Camera Raw develop setting to and can see the results in Bridge and thay have a little symbol in the thumb. Other than manually selecting them (ctl/shft click click click) is there a way to say to Bridge "select all files with develop stting applied"? so I can move/open/export/whatever?
That would save a lot of wear and tear on the wrists...

is there a way to say to Bridge "select all files with develop stting applied"?
Look in the filter panel under Camera Raw and select 'custom settings' . If you then choose the sort order in the path bar (top right in Bridge window) and select sort by date modified they will also get in the order first last you applied settings to.

5D Mark II raw files image quality

Anyone out there using Aperture to convert their 5D2 raw files? I am trying to but I am having image quality problems. This is a surprise coming from Aperture, which for Sony raw files has produced stunning quality for me in the past. It leads me to believe that perhaps Aperture's 5D2 conversion setup needs work. Here is what I am seeing that I don't see from RAW Developer or Canon's Digital Photo Pro:
• Rainbow banding in specular highlights
• Webbing of tree branches, particularly against the sky.
• Not much "pixel level" contrast.
• Rather soft over all (I have good L lenses, tripod, and technique)
• Lackluster color requiring considerable post conversion work.
• The files tend to be rather fragile with tearing occurring easily if several rounds of sharpening need to be applied.
• More noise than one would expect, even at ISO 200.
• Highlights into quarter tones have a slick, almost smeared look (no NR applied in camera or Aperture).
Also, I really need to convert to 2x the native file size but I am limited by Aperture's current maximum size. So converting to 1.5x might be causing some of what I am seeing due to rounding errors, etc.
Can anyone (with direct experience) comment?
Thanks in advance.

Hi & thanks for your comments. I interpolated 8 images up (for store posters) to 1600mm x 200dpi and still got better results from CPP V Aperture - in SRGB. "Better" is subjective in this case. I will experiment further.
Yes I understand the principal behind having a flat - hence max detail raw. My first DSLR was a Kodak D200 13 Years ago - it's raws were flat & magenta - as were many cameras Raws in between time (such as the Fuji Fine Pix s2Pro) - the same principal applied to B & W film long slow dev time produced lower contrast neg = more range to work with.
To me the flat raws are a bit of step backward? The issue is - fast - workflow.
I found the Nikon D200 & 5D Mk 1 raws through aperture required very little work (if any) to get them ready for next stage of production. I just want to get images as "ready" as the 5D Mk I from my MkII - which is not the case at the moment.
Any idea how to carry the 5DII preset over & onto the raws in Aperture? That might help speed things up?
Cheers ADR

Aperture Olympus E-PL2 Raw Color Distortion and other issues

Hello there, Olympus Micro Four Thirds Fans!
So finally, Apple introduced Olympus E-PL2 Raw Support in Aperture 3. After some testing and troubleshooting there are still some issues remaining that sort of still leave the Raw option unusable for me:
The Apple Raw developer does not seam to read Olympus gradation curve settings properly. I usually leave the cameras color mode to "natural" which in JPEG gives the Olympus-typical beautiful documentary-style color accuracy. However, in Raw, colors get distorted in the most unpleasant way! Especially the greens get horribly oversaturated.
Noise reduction settings also are not correctly translated. I'm the type of Raw user who always wants to start from the camera settings chosen and who then wants to be able to tweak settings to perfection just a little bit. But all in all I chose an Olympus camera, because it does deliver superb white balance metering, decent noise reduction and beautiful color gradation right out-of-the-box.
SPEED! Aperture seems to be horribly horribly slow with Olympus .orf files. Lightroom is easily ten times faster in real-time developing of Raw files.
Did someone observe the same behaviour? How do you work around these issues, what is the best setup for the apple raw developer?
Greetings from Esslingen am Neckar!

Hi there!
I am now developing my raw files with Olympus Viewer. It is the only software solution that would deliver results close or identical to Olymus built in JPEG engine. Most of the time I need to get color reproduction that is as subtle and fine as the Olympus engine, but I do want to benefit from all the other postprocessing advantages that RAW has to offer.
Within Aperture I have not been able to get comparable color rendering.

Missing Lensprofiles from SONY and ZEISS in Camera Raw

Hello,
A few months ago I switched from Canon to Sony and Carl Zeiss and ever since I am missing some lens profiles in Camera Raw.
I'm a picture editor and of course miss this opportunity of pre-correcting the lens profiles in the RAW development. I can not create the profiles themselves, like I have already been advised to do by an adobe employee. Now I have been waiting for the latest update and I also changed to PS CC.
Unfortunately, I still miss these camera profiles: SONY SAL-500F40G, SONY SAL-300F28G2, SONY SAL-100M28, 135F18Z Zeiss, Zeiss 85F14Z, 24F20Z Zeiss, Zeiss 1635Z. I hereby would like to respectfully ask for these profiles included in Camera Raw. My entire image processing stands and falls with the RAW development. If I have to make cuts in the beginning, all following workflow suffers.
As a premium provider of image editing software, you should not only follow the mainstream (Canon and Nikon), but also the "niche supplier" (SONY and ZEISS).
I would appreciate any information about that topic very much!

Moving discussion to Camera Raw Forum Discussion

Pentax K-x calibration with Camera Raw 3.1, and calibration updates

The Pentax K-x will save its raw files in either DNG (Adobe) format, or PEF (Pentax) format. Until Camera Raw 3.1 was released, I had my K-x writing DNG files, since there was no support in Apperture for PEF files. With Camera Raw 3.1, the K-x is now explicitly included, so that I could switch to PEF format.
My initial sense after doing that was that the PEF files were coming in darker than the DNG files had. But when I switched back to DNG, those were darker than I thought they should be, too. Since I had DNG files that had been processed with Camera Raw 3.0, I went back and made new versions, processing those with Camera Raw 3.1. Those, too, were much darker than the same files processed with the earlier raw developer. For examples, this picture is from a K-x DNG master processed with Camera Raw 3.0, while this picture is from the same master, reprocessed with Camera Raw 3.1. I've embedded the histograms shown in the inspector in each. Each of those has no adjustments applied. The JPEG image produced in camera (I shoot Raw+JPEG) is much closer to the brighter 3.0 image than the darker 3.1 image.
I've seen one other report of similar behaviour with K-x images in here, but that took the approach that the solution was to revert to Camera Raw 3.0, for now, at least. I hate to move backward, particularly if it locks me out of any future updates. So, does Apple have a history of recalibrating cameras that they've already released Raw support for? Might this change in a future Camera Raw update, or is this likely to be what they alway render for the K-x?
I can get the new style images looking okay (in fact, they seem to have better noise characteristics) with a good deal of adjustment, but not if I confine my adjustments to the Raw Processing brick. There, Boost and Hue Boost are both maxxed out by default, already. If I add adjustments in the exposure brick, and maybe a few others, I can probably get a general set of adjustments that will work as a default for this camera, but how common is it to have to do that?

Aperture 3 mostly seems to work fine for me, at the moment. There were some issues with importing my iPhoto Library that I've mostly worked out, and some quirks that were fixed by the 3.0.1 update. I'm not saying it's all better, but it's not the doom that one might imagine reading some of the threads here, either.
I only had the trial version of Aperture 2, though. I only got the K-x in late December, and before that, I had no need for raw processing. The software Pentax supplies is UGLY, though, and iPhoto wasn't cutting it, so I tried the Aperture 2 trial and the Lightroom 3 beta. I concluded that I much preferred Aperture to Lightroom, but I wasn't going to buy Aperture 2 when all the speculation was that Aperture 3 was right around the corner, or not coming at all. Since my Aperture 2 trial had run out, it wasn't a hard choice to buy Aperture 3 as soon as it came out. I do find I use the editing brushes more than I imagined I would, and I'm very happy that it now directly supports my camera - I've switched to shooting PEF raw instead of DNG raw.

Raw workflow in Aperture 3

I just switched to shooting raw. I'm trying to figure out how to export my raw files after I've tweaked them in Aperture 3. When I export masters, I get the raw version but not the changes. When I export versions, they're jpegs. I'd like to be able to export toned raw files. Is that possible?

lindseydeb wrote:
I am a wedding photographer so I have to put my files in several places for backup, I can't just leave them in Aperture. As it is now, I burn DVDS of all images shot before I edit and tone as well as back them up in a RAID system. I am just looking for a way to have finished versions of the photos in a format other than jpg stored in the same external hard drives.
The short answer is save 'em as 16 bit TIFF files.
But, with deepest respect, you still don't understand RAW and more importantly, you may have wasted your money on Aperture. For the workflow you are describing, you would be better off with Adobe Bridge and Photoshop Elements. And, I would submit, you are losing time and energy that you could use to shoot more weddings. There are a lot of folks on this forum who really "get" Aperture and would really like to help.
As noted by others, you need to read and understand the opening chapters of the Aperture manual, or better yet, find a copy of Ben Long's old book "Real World Aperture." You are looking at Aperture as a mere RAW "converter" and maybe a file browser - it is much, much more. Ben Long called Aperture an image "appliance" and he is right - imagine an automated library that holds all of your images, all the time, can find any one or group in an instant, and produce an endless stream of JPEGs, CDs, prints, or whatever you want. All the time keeping your old images future proofed - better RAW developer, all of your old images just got better.
In simplest terms, you DO want to leave all of your RAW images in Aperture. (You do want to back these data up using Time Machine, the Aperture Vault, and probably a clone program as well. I use SuperDuper! I keep thirty years of images and memories from some of the more difficult places on earth and I don't want to lose a single one. That is precisely why they are kept in Aperture and not scattered across a bunch of disks. And yes, my Time Machine runs on a RAID.
I can't see why you would insist on converting your nice 12/14 bit images to 8 bits for eternity. What happens when the bride comes back two years from now and wants new prints? And could she have them in B&W and cropped for 13x19, not 4x6. And then she asks if you have any images of one of the bridesmaids, the one you ignored. Faces to the rescue, in seconds.
It is your time and money, but you haven't yet realized how much power Aperture gives you and how much easier it is to use Aperture than to do what you are doing now. D.C. is a tough market, you owe it to yourself to use the best tools you can.
Best wishes!

Camera Raw 4.6 Color Conversion Issues

I'm using CS3. In the Camera Raw 4.6 import window the color looks great. When I get the image into Photoshop the color looks horrible. I know it's the color profile that Raw is assigning. My question... is there a way to disable the color profile conversion coming from Camera Raw?
I've always had great results without using profiles and now this alters my color. I've even tried to go in and force the image to use a different color profile but at this point the damage has been done by the camera raw plugin.

"I've been doing professional color correction for about 15 years and know how to use the programs without the use of color profiles."
You're always using profiles no matter what, both a source and and destination for everything from your monitor to working RGB, CMYK and Lab to output profiles for proofing and print.
You need good profiles to define the hardware devices and color spaces. Without them, it's all only a guess.
"When I say "great color", I mean to say Photoshop doesn't adjust my color with profiles because I have profiles disabled."
There's not really a way to disable profiles in Photoshop. You can sort of turn them off, but the default profiles in your Color Settings dialog are still in effect no matter what. In fact, you can't even display in image in RGB or CMYK without at least two profile, and more often three.
Just having profile in the loop doesn't mean that Photoshop will "adjust" your colors. Photoshop will only do what you tell it to do.
"My monitor is corrected and I have no need to use profiles since I understand UCR & GCR conversion for printing."
You monitor is corrected? How? Have you calibrated it? After the calibration Photoshop needs, you guessed it, a monitor profile, in order to properly display your images. And how to you get from the RGB of your digital captures to the CMYK you need for offset? Yeah. Profiles. Even if you're using the archaic and outdated Custom CMYK to set your total ink and black generation, you are still in effect, using profiles. You are using the parameters defined there in the same way custom measurement are used in ProfileMaker to generate a custom ICC profile. It's just not as accurate.
"Also, when I have something printed somewhere I have them disable their profiles to provide true color. And I also force acrobat to use my color maps when building pdfs so my printer has no need for conversion of any kind."
How you do know you've made the right conversion for that printer. Most printer just ignore embedded profiles anyway, but including proper output profiles can enable them to display the files correctly on their calibrated screens, and for the more advanced printers, that embedded profile can allow them to use Device Link Profiles to convert your files to custom press or proofing profiles.
"My complaint was that the Camera Raw Plug-in forces me to convert to a profile with 4 possible choices. I was asking if there is a way to disable this?"
It's actually a choice of four different profiles not a profile with four choices. The choices are based on color gamut and gamma in order of increased gamut. There is no way to disable them. What would you put in their place? There are raw converters that will let you convert the raw data to any color space on output, including CMYK. Maybe that would be more appropriate for you. CaptureOne and Raw Developer are the two that come to mind, but they all use profiles.
Hell, even in the golden age of the drum scanner, scanners like the Hell 3010 without even being able to see an image on screen, used profiles, only they called them by a different name - lookup tables. Lookup tables for scanner input and characteristic lookup tables for the analog proofing system the house used.
"I found if I convert using the Adobe 1998 profile the color comes out close, I simply have to increase the saturation to return to the original optical image values. I would however like to bypass this step."
It sounds to me like you need to spend a few weeks getting up to date with the tools that are available now. Between hardware monitor calibration and custom CMYK output profiles that take into account different ink limits and black generation, you're missing out on a boatload of fun.
A lot of things have changed in prepress in the last fifteen years not the least of which is that little number called Direct to Plate. Since everone has gone DTP, the one thing that has gone by the wayside are any kind of overall proofing standards. Where you used to be able to send the same file to ten different printers and get back proofs that were extremely close, now they're all over the map. The only way to effectively deal with this is with custom profiles for the high end digital proofers that printers use today.
Sure, you still need to take into account the specifics of total ink, highlight and shadow values, but you simply can't rely on the positively ancient ink definitions in Custom CMYK to work very well for any of today's output. Unless, of course, you and your clients don't mind going through rounds and rounds of proofs.

Undoing raw development

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for