Whitebalance difference camera / Lightroom

I am an underwater photographer and white balance is an important issue. I was advised to set the white balance in my camera (Nikon D90) to the color temp of my strobes ( 4800 K) so my subject lighted by by strobes would have the correct color. When I import the RAW (NEF) file into lightroom I would expect that the color temp shown in develop mode would be 4800 K.
Unfortunately it is not. It even differs from picture to picture. I would like to know why and if something can be done about this?

Andrew Rodney wrote:Bill, really. You just want to start another argument?
Yes it is difficult to produce a spectrally neutral white. Danny did a superb job with his target. Shame it will no longer be offered, glad I have two. Yes, a spectrally neutral white, or gray is harder to produce than a non spectrally neutral white or gray. What’s your point about it not being preferable as I pointed out? That the white patch of the Color Checker is not neutral isn’t desirable is it? I’ve measured it and Danny’s target. One is super darn neutral. What is the argument on your part that this isn’t ideal? Hard to produce, yes, we agree.
If you’re saying, if you have two patches, one neutral and one not neutral but closer to white, use the more neutral patch, well I don’t think anyone would disagree. I’m saying a white that is neutral is preferable to a gray when both are neutral. And naturally a neutral white is vastly superior for the job than a gray that isn’t neutral.
Andrew,
I am not trying to start another argument, but simply want to point out a limitation of the Babel target that you have not acknowledged. There are two ways to use a WB target. One is to take a custom WB in the camera by exposing the target so that it fills the frame of the camera and taking a shot to set the white balance. In this case, white is not necessary since more exposure of a spectrally neutral gray target will give the same results. Most Nikons automatically increase the exposure over mid gray to get a better reading. This method is not practical with the Babel target, since it is so small.
The other method is to include the target in the scene and then white balance with the eyedropper. If you are exposing to the right a scene that does not contain areas of 100% reflectance (and few do), you place the brightest area of the scene just short of clipping. A sheet of white paper and most naturally occurring whites have about 90% reflectance. If you place these "whites" just short of clipping, the Babel target will be clipped. In this case, it is better to use a WB target that has less reflectance than the brightest area of the scene. Light gray will avoid clipping and still give a low noise reading. The WhiBal is a good compromise and comes in sizes that enable the first WB method.

Similar Messages

Is there a difference between Lightroom CC and Lightroom 5.7?

Is there a difference between Lightroom CC and Lightroom 5.7? If so, is the upgrade from Lightoom 5.7 to Lightroom CC for free?

Yes the two programs are different. Lightroom CC has a number of new features added to it. They include HDR and panorama creation, brushes for the graduated filter and the radial filter, face recognition, support for new cameras, just to mention a few. Lightroom CC is a free upgrade for those who have subscribed to the creative cloud plan. Lightroom 6 (the standalone version) is a paid upgrade. The price is $79.

Difference between Lightroom 5 and 5.7

What is the difference between Lightroom 5 and 5.7?
In 5 I can see the words "Pictures " and "Lightroom Pictures" on my screen but on my laptop (5.7) it shows the pictures are in there, but doesn't show the label "Lightroom Pictures"
Should I be concerned?
J B D

I am not sure where you are looking to see the words "Pictures" and "Lightroom Pictures". Could you be more specific?

Difference between Lightroom and JPEG from camera

Hello,
I'm using Panasonic GH2 and sometimes I get really strange result with Lightroom. The first image is JPEG from camera, the second one is from Lightroom. I tried everything but I can't reproduce anything close to JPEG. Any ideas?
JPEG from camera.
RAW from Lightroom.
Just for clarification, quite similar result to Lightroom I also get in Bibble RAW. So, any ideas? I can send also RAW, if it will help you.
Bye, Alan

Yes, first tried WB, Fill Light, etc. The sorrounding light was blue. This was done by decreasing the blue channel in Camera Calibration.
Much better if you ask me.

What is the difference between Lightroom and Elements?

I'm trying to decide between Photoshop Elements and Lightroom--both for a Mac. They seem to have very similar photo editing features. Could anyone tell me some of the differences so that I can see which would be better for my work? One feature that I have to have is the ability to add text to a photo. In Photoshop I can do this with the text tool and layers. Is this a feature of Lightroom too?

Ligtroom is far more like a cross between Bridge and Camera RAW than anything like Elements. LR is designed to work with and process larger quantities of RAW files. It also works with TIFF and jpeg but these are secondary to RAW. LR has some local adjustment ability, with limited brushes and tools. LR has sophistocated databased library structure that allows search and keywording functions even when images are off line. LR allows easy batch editing and synching of RAW settings to multiple files and the creation of multiple 'recipies" in RAW conversion without the need to create multiple files. You don't need to make jpegs to create a simple web page or print files from LR. It will do these directly from the RAW files. LR is completely non-destructive. Exporting an image will make a new file with the changes you specify. Nothing you do will alter the original file.
Elements is for pixel pushing. It allows far more local controls, and manipulation at a pixel level compared to the mostly global controls of LR. In other words it's easier to work on individual parts of an image in Elements. Elements is designed for you to spend more time on an individual file compared to LR which is designed to work on larger quantities of files in a less intricate manner. Cloning, etc are easier/more powerful in Elements. Elements supports stitching and layers. Elements lets you work with text and images. LR does not in any meaningful way (except maybe adding a watermark). Making changes in Elements and then saving the file will permanently change it.
In a nutshell if you're working with larger quantities of images you may prefer LR. However you'll probably still need a pixel editor (like Elements) occasionally. If you work in lower image quantities then Elements is the way to go. You'll still have Bridge to find files/process raw files, but not files that are *offline*. I would suggest Elements first and then add LR when you need its powerfull organisational/search/RAW conversion/non-destructive workflow abilities.
Gordon

Sony FE 28-70mm in camera + Lightroom lens correction = double correction or overcorrection?

Hello,
I have a Sony A7 with Sony FE 28-70mm kit lens. On the Sony A7, if i select "Shading Compensation" in the camera menu, the camera corrects vignetting in the saved raw file. I have experimented by taking two raw photos, with in camera Shading Compensation turned on and off. I then imported the photos into Lightroom. I then tried turning lens compensation (vignetting) on and off in Lightroom. This confuses me. In the first image (In camera ON and Lightroom correction ON) it looks like vignetting is completely gone. With in camera ON and Lightroom lens correction OFF, there is still clearly remaining vignetting. With in camera OFF and Lightroom ON there is also clearly remaining vignetting
Can someone tell me what the recommended course of action is? Is the Sony in-camera lens correction worse or better than Lightroom? Neither the in-camera nor Lightroom's correction will correct vignetting completely on their own. Does that mean that the Lightroom correction is supposed to be used in tandem with the in camera correction to achieve full vignetting correction? There is lacking information/documentation of this feature, I have looked at both Sony A7 help guide and Adobes documentation about lens correction without finding any info about this situation.
Thank you.

"Shading Compensation" is probably saved as metadata tag in the raw file but the raw file data is not corrected. This metadata is probably used in the included Sony software to automatically correct the raw for "Shading Compensation" but Lightroom probably does NOT use this data. You will hopefully get a reply from a Sony user.

Color Difference - Camera Raw & Nikon Raw NEF

Hello everybody
When i open a Nikon Raw file in Camera Raw (Photosop CC) I notice a distinct color-difference between the integrated preview image in the Raw file and the camera Raw standard.
I want to start with the exact same color how it came from the camera.
Refers to Nikon D300 or D800 in Raw / Nef format.
left, from Camera Raw 8.4.1 "Camera Raw Standard"
right, integrated preview from the original raw-file
Mostly i have the difference in Blue, it's too much cyan in there an looks not "natural"!
thanks for help

The third icon in from the right (looks like a camera) called camera calibrations is where the presets live that supposedly match that of your camera.
Even though you use those presets, you are not done. To match what you see in your camera, you must manually adjust the sliders under the basic tab until it does match.
What you see in your camera is a processed image, which is applied to a jpg only. The raw file is just that raw, no processing is done to it. Think of it as a negative. It is your permanent record of the image. Camera raw is then used to manually set up the image to your personal liking. Which does a better job the camera or yourself, is dependent on your skills. You can get details out of that raw file that the camera can not.
When you find you are placing the sliders in certain location more than once, then it is time to create a preset in camera raw that stores those settings. The more you use camera raw, more you can see when your own preset can be used (even as a starting point) and when it is time to do everything manually.
So in other words it is going to take time to 1)get a keen eye 2)understand the subtle differences in what each setting does and 3) collect a library of presets that you can use time and again.

Lightroom 2 colour difference in lightroom vs. export and print

Hi,
I am currently using Lightroom 2 and Windows Vista, monitor profile is Dell's E248WFP Color profile.
The problem I have is that everything looks fine in lightroom, I was able to see the black backdrop with some defining detail on it. However, when I export the photo (export colour space: sRGB) and view it, the photo darkens, I could no longer see any detail in the black backdrop (I've tried othercolour space like the adobeRGB but results is the same). I understand that there could be difference using Windows viewer as someone has pointed out to me. I tried importing what I've just exported from lightroom back into lightroom and I could see all the original details.
So I am guessing it's just an issue with windows viewer not able to display all the colours intended. I than send the file to "Blacks photography" (photo developing store) for printing and the same issue exists, it's darker than what is displaying in lightroom. Could someone please point me to the right direction?
Thanks in advance for your help!
Gi

Hi,
Thanks for the advice, I bought a Spyder pro 3 thinking that might solve the problem but I think the problem is what is being exported? (not sure)
Photo looks good in LR but after exporting, open the file and looks different in windows photo gallery than what's in LR.
So I tried looking at the exported jpg in LR and it looks good in LR. I assume that's normal as people has mentioned that LR will display more colour and do it correctly. The problem for me than is printing. I send the photos to local photo processing stores and the colour is still off. Sorry for the ramble but here are some of my questions:
I assume it's completely ok that photos look different in LR and windows photo gallery (or even other viewer). As look as it looks ok in LR than it's fine?
Is the problem with a low quality monitor (Dell's E248WFP)?
I might not be calibrating it correctly? (will try again)
Thanks again!!
Gi

Difference between Lightroom and PSE?

I am a long time user of PSE, and I have just been told by a friend about Lightroom. Can someone please help me to understand the difference(s) between these two products?

Let me just add that if you are a PSE user and you feel that PSE meets your needs, then keep using PSE.
If you feel that PSE doesn't quite work for you, that it is a bit constraining, then here are some areas where Lightroom is superior (according to most people), in no particular order
Lightroom is a workflow enhancement tool; handling many photos from a large photo shoot is simplified in LR compared to PSE
Lightroom's "organizer" is a more powerful tool than the PSE Organizer (and in my opinion, LR is less buggy than PSE in this area)
Lightroom has a mapping module, a module to create web pages, a module to create slidehows
Lightroom has built-in capabilities, and also 3rd party plug-ins, which allow better integration with photo sharing sites on the internet
Non-destructive editing
The advantages of PSE include
Face tagging
Much more powerful editing tools

Differences between Lightroom and Bridge?

I was just wondering what the difference (if any) is between Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Bridge

Adobe Bridge CC vs. Lightroom 5 - Which is best for you? | Adobe Evangelists - Terry White | Adobe TV

Colour- strange difference between Lightroom and all other programs/windows

Hello everyone,
I have a strange problem with the colours in Lr. In the program everything looks good, the colours are the ones that i want to achieve, but when i export the pictures as jpeg (srgb), the tumbnails of these pictures seem to be fine (same colours as in Lr). However, when i open the jpeg (eg in picture viewer or in photoshop) all of the colours are different than the ones in Lr or the tumbnails. On a different computer, the jpegs have the same problem.
Any idea how to resolve this problem? Can I change the colour management of Lr itself (not the external editors)?
Thanx@

OK.
From LR in Develop module I press cmd e to create a TIFF to edit in PS CS3. Edit with LR adjustments is selected. After a while the TIFF appears beside the CR2 Canon 5d raw file.
Still in LR flick between the two and the difference is readily apparent. I notice that all the tiff presets are at 0 i.e. in the develop module as I would expect them to be. But the TIFF image looks sharper and in areas of detail less saturated. I think the decrease in saturation is more a side effect of sharpening.
The new TIFF opened in PS looks exactly the same as the TIFF in LR. But both are different from the raw file they were created from as seen from the LR develop module.
In LR I have applied some masking and a moderate amount of sharpening to the CR2 raw file. I do note that applying sharpening in LR does not seem to change anything except the 1:1 and higher mags unless the sharpening is extreme. In other words I think the imnage as displayed at lower magnifications e.g. Fit to screen is not a realistic representation of the overall effect of sharpening, even when rendered on a large monitor (30") wide gamut monitor. If I am right this is a significant problem. I note that BibblePro perviews reflect the effect of sharpening on the overall image more accurately. (So it is possible.)
(FWIW: My preview settings in LR are quality high, 2048 pixels.)
EDIT: Yes I am correct, the images look the same at 1:1 but not at lower magnification. So guess the LR preview rendering machine does not quite match the preview rendered from the newly created TIFF.
Still knowing this does not help, it just means what I see on the screen in LR at lower magnification than 1:1 is not accurate.

Very slow importing of photos from camera lightroom 4.4

I'm trying to import photos directly from my nikon D7000 as I normally do, but today, it is taking forever. I have tried restarting lightroom, as well s my MAC and also tried optimizing my catalog, and also installed software updates. HELP!!

I would not risk storing all the pictures of a trip to a single 16 GB card... Using your IPAD as backup seems a very good idea.
About the speed of uploading a library of 16 GB, it's not much more than copying 16GB to your computer from a card or a USB stick. You can test it yourself; 'getting' files from the card into the catalog is quick after the 16GB are copied, the only step which will be longer is the creation of the thumbnails, but that does not prevent you from working in the organizer before they are created.

Color Differences between Lightroom and Premiere Pro

I have been making color adjustments to movie clips in Photoshop or Lightroom (both of which do a great job), but when I bring the clips into Premiere Pro or Premiere Elements the colors are not the same as what I was seing in the other programs. It is as if the programs are using different color profiles. How do I resolve this problem?

bryanbrowne1 wrote:
I have been making color adjustments to movie clips in Photoshop or Lightroom (both of which do a great job), but when I bring the clips into Premiere Pro or Premiere Elements the colors are not the same as what I was seing in the other programs. It is as if the programs are using different color profiles. How do I resolve this problem?
Photoshop and Lightroom are designed for still photography. Still photographers use a color managed workflow that in general ends in a paper print. Since printers/inks/papers can in general display a wider gamut than computer monitors can display, we use tools manage it, such as soft proofing. The efficient way to control this is through ICC profiles of the printer/ink/paper combinations, of which there are thousands. Thus Photoshop and Lightroom and other still photography tools are esentially required to be color managed.
PPro and film/video have decidedly different requirements. The video workflow ends in a light source display (projection, HDTV, or web video, all are light sources, where a pigment ink print is a reflective source, which has entirely different characteristics). These end displays are not variable workspace displays. HDTV displays only in REC.709 workspace, its gamut, contrast, etc. are tightly defined. Web video uses the sRGB workspace. Etc.
I'm just sayin' that still photography and video have very different requirements. Trying to force still photography methods onto a video workflow is bound to be difficult and full of problems, as you have found.
The answer to your "How do I resolve this problem" question is perhaps to use the still photography tools for still photography, and the video tools for video. A stills workflow for stills, and a video workflow for video.
A video workflow implies doing color correction and color grading on external monitors that natively support the target work space (Rec.709 in the case of HDTV, Blu-ray, or DVD output [OK, technically DVD uses SDTV's REC.601 work space, but 709 is "close enough" that you can get by in all but the most critical applications]). IOW, use a production monitor, or at least an HDTV (calibrated of course), to judge final output.
Trying to color correct video on a computer monitor is just asking for trouble. As you well know by now.
A good place to start learning the video way of things when it comes to color correction and grading is Alexis Van Hurkman's Color Correction Handbook. Highly recommended; it answered questions that I didn't know enough to ask yet. Might for you too, IDK.

Nikon D3s RAW files are underexposed by Lightroom / Camera RAW

I'm used to shot RAW files only.
I recently bought a D3s, alongside with my D700 and I noticed D3s files were darker than D700 ones, by about 1/2 or even 2/3 stop. Initially I thought the problem was one of the cameras, but after some tests I found the problem is my RAW converter. Infact this happens only with NEF (RAW) files, and if I shot a RAW+JPG image, the D3s RAW file opened in Lightroom 4 (or Camera RAW) is underexposed if compared with its JPG on-camera version.
I think no camera setting is affecting this behaviour. I reset either the D3s and the D700. No D-Lighting is set on-camera. This happens only with the D3s and only with Camera RAW and Lightroom.
Other RAW converters display the D3s RAW file correctly exposed, the same as its JPG version, and the same as the D700 RAW and JPG. I tested so far Capture One, DxO Pro Optics and Raw Therapee.
Color profile used is custom, but I tried using Adobe Standard and the result is the same.
Default develop settings affect only color profile and sharpening, and I got the same problem on a fresh new installation of Lightroom where no default develop settings are set.
If anybody with a D3s can check if his NEFs are underexposed if compared to their JPG versions when opened in LR or Camera RAW, I would appreciate that much.
Any idea about the origins of my problem would be great.
Thank you.

alessandroavenali wrote:
I know, DdeGannes, but a different rendition of 2 pro cameras at the same settings is a bit frustrating.
Would it be better to underexpose the D700 while shooting, or setting a default -0,5EV on every imported picture, if the problem goes on?
Moreover, seems the Nikon D3s ISOs need to be pushed +2/3 to obtain the same exposure as the D700 in LR workflow. So the advantage of this great sensor could be lost.
I'd like to know more about D700 and D3s rendition comparison in LR/ACR at same settings.
It's not unusual for two camera bodies of even the same exact make and model to have Exposure differences of up to 1/3 EV, which is very noticeable. Ditto for White Balance differences. For Example:
Camera 1 is +1/3 EV and Camera 2 is -1/3 EV = 2/3 EV Difference
Camera 1 White Balance is -500KTemp and Camera 2 is +500K Temp = 1000K Difference
Tack on minor differences between the LR Camera Profiles and it will get much worse if heading in opposite directions, as above.
The only way to compare the raw NEF files from two cameras is to use a RAW converter that applies NO profiles, NO Gamma Correction, or any other modifications to the raw pixel data. See may post here for information on 'Rawnalyze:'
http://forums.adobe.com/message/3952812#3952812
You can download it here:
http://dave-anderson-photo.com/files/software/Rawnalyze/Rawnalyze_2.10.4.0.zip
Online manual here:
http://www.oitregor.com/numeric/Rawnalyze/Rawnalyse_doc/datas/RawnalyzeGuide.htm
None of the external links in the manual work, but nothing to worry about. If you have any questions on how to use it let me know.
I believe the Nikon D700, D3, and D3s cameras are supported in Rawnalyze 2.10.4.0. If not you can convert the NEF to DNG.

I am a long-term user of Lightroom as a standalone product with a perpetual licence. As a retired person on limited income, it is very disappointing to me that Adobe have introduced the 'Creative Cloud' (CC) subscription service in order for me to be able

I am a long-term user of Lightroom as a standalone product with a perpetual licence. As a retired person on limited income, it is very disappointing to me that Adobe have introduced the 'Creative Cloud' (CC) subscription service in order for me to be able to continue upgrading this excellent product. It will be for me too expensive at the minimum cost of £9 per month. The additional services that CC brings are personally of no relevance or usefulness. Adobe should be prepared to support existing users who are, like myself, non commercial, amateur photographers by giving them the simple opportunity to upgrade to Lightroom 6 as a standalone, perpetual licence product. As a member of a camera club I know my co-members who use Lightroom are equally disappointed by this move to a subscription-only service.

john beardsworth wrote:
John Waller wrote:
However, Adobe will soon introduce Cloud only features into Lightroom CC for which LR6 (perpetual license) owners will have to wait until LR7 (paid upgrade).
That is possible, John, but it is only speculation on your part. Might, not will.
kwdaves wrote:
There is a "Lightroom 6" upgrade available for US $79 if you have a valid license for any of the earlier versions. From what I can tell, the only difference between Lightroom 6 Full, Lightroom 6 Upgrade and LightroomCC is in the license. The download file is the same.
Other differences - with CC you get LrMobile/LrWeb and they throw in a free copy of Photoshop too.
Yes, but when I bought my standalone license and clicked on the "Download" button it took me to the LightroomCC page. The downloaded file is named Lightroom 6, but in the CC app the installed program is LightroomCC (2015).

Whitebalance difference camera / Lightroom

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for