When I import my photos to LR it changes the color, it looks very dull and not as vibrant. When I import to Canon software it looks the same as in camera so I don't think it's the file. I would work in Canon but I got addicted to LR. What is going on? Help!!

you are shooting raw? If so it is loading the LR default image treatments.. I'm not sure that it has a way to load the Picture Style you used,
I'm sure someone else will know

Yes, I was shooting raw. It sertanly didn't load my custom camera settings. I hope someone knows what is the problem :-(

To my knowlegde it will not load them,.. I could be wrong,

Thanks so much!! I do appritiate your fast help. I guess I should convert in Canon then import to LR and finish there. Men.. that's sucks.

Any other thoughts out there???? Did it only happened to me??

Here's the easiest fix I can think of - open one file in Lightroom and one in Canon software.

Edit the Lightroom file to look EXACTLY like the Canon file. Add those settings as a preset called Canon Raw Import.

Now go back and import your whole shoot - on the import dialog select to import with that Canon Raw Import preset.

This will make all your files look like they did in Canon's software.

M

Mat, thanks so much! I was hoping you would know somethinng! Why on earth LR didn't think of RAW shooters when designed such a great programm?

Don't you have to setup your settings in Canon Raw too? I don't shoot RAW (yet?) so you're out of my league in this conversation but - isn't that basically what DJ's "brilliant settings" is for? What if you created your own Brilliant Preset? It'd basically be the same?

I've been surprised that Bridge and no LightRoom do not solve this problem.. It seems easy as the information is in the file (DPP retrieves it) any how the frustrating thing is that If I were shooting RAW I wouldn't stay on one picture style the whole shoot.. This seems like it should be a high priority for RAW conversion software

Maybe I'm being slightly retarded (admission of guilt) but isn't the whole point of RAW that camera software doesn't affect it? That you have *control* over the post production? And you're saying that the fact RAW isn't post produced for you is a problem?

I'm so confused - and not trying to be antagonistic. I understand LR but I may not understand RAW fully. Why would you want Picture Styles applied to your photos and if you did, why would you not shoot JPG?

Well, presets are out of my league , don't know much about it. When I open raw in Canon they look exactly as I shot, never bothered with presets. Never knew about DJ's settings. Where can I read about that? What would be the best place place to learn about LR?

Step by step tutorial to creating your own presets:
http://www.mattantonino.com/tutorials/LR004/index.html

I understand your point, but here is the issue.. By wanting LR to load the photo "by DEFAULT" exactly how you shot it in camera is not losing control over post production.. When I am at a shoot and feeling the moment and knowing the circumstances and adjusting tone/contrast/sat accordingly.. USUALLY I am RIGHT on with my setting and the application. I DON'T want to go through every image and "re-decide" what setting to apply (again just IMO). I can if I want to and will have complete controll to do as i wish.. but again.. not for every image

That would be OK for a 100 shot portrait shoot, but when you apply that to a X,000 shot wedding, it starts to get cumbersome

Just my$0.02

Gotcha - that does make sense. Wish I knew how to help with that.

Let me poke around it a bit...and maybe shoot a few RAW so I know WTF I'm talkin about.

M

Made me think the same. I often change my costum settings in camera depending on situation. I wouldn't probobly notice the change in LR but on my last wedding shoot I saturated many images in camera and wanted to stay that way. Now if I want to save the presets it would copy all my images in one setting? I don't really want to do that. Now I think I just saturate in LR again but what a pain...
Sorry for the spelling, no time to check.

The same thing happens in bridge when you try to load RAW images in. Bridge takes what is has been told is the default setting and changes every image in that folder to that specific default preset. I have been trying to figure out how to tell bridge not to "touch" the images unless I tell it to. I love the batch capabilities but I only want it to apply a specific preset to the images I tell it to.


That is not just an IMO, any efficient workflow would want to incorporate that idea and I have a hard time believing that there is not a way to change that. True it should have been thought out so that it is easy and obvious to change, but I am sure there is a way around doubling up on your work.




I had a similar problem posted about Bridge and got some fixes but never a way to stop the problem from happening at import.

Matt I do not know if you shoot canon(but it looks so from the white lens in your avatar) but if you have a body that has the picture style functions, shoot in RAW and change your settings to BW, sepia, heavy saturation, etc. In simple terms, those picture styles are like DJ's "Brilliant" presets but they are applied in camera. So what happens is LR and bridge, replace those camera presets with its own defaults

Take your test RAWs and load them onto your computer without bridge or LR and then again with those applications. You will see that applications starts batch changing your images, because they erase the camera presets to replace them with their own...if that makes sense. It will take a BW RAW photo (or a sepia, cross processed, etc.) and turn it back to a color RAW, processed with the default preset.

This was the reason I decided that Lightroom wasn't a good fit for me. I wanted it to read the custom settings (and curves) I have loaded into the camera by default. If I wanted to change them, then fine. Either way the RAW file is unaffected -- it just has defaults set by the camera. And if those camera settings change during a session (as can often happen), I don't want to have to choose one that LR will use and then go back and change the changed ones all over again.

Lightroom reads the color temperature setting, why not the other settings?

I still find it hard to believe, that with thousands of beta testers, LR does not have a workaround for this problem. I do think that this should not have been an issue with so many photographers shooting RAW, but with the resources that Adobe had while developing this software, I can't understand why there would not be a fix, or workaround, for this problem.

Maybe this is naive to say, but I think that LR and bridge must have a setting to leave the pictures "as is" from the camera. We just need to find that setting. If there is not an option for such a setting, then shame on Adobe and its 1,000+ testers for not anticipating this.

Canon and Nikon Raw files are encrypted and proprietary. Adobe sometimes is able to pry the encription from the manufacturers and other times must make "guesses" as to what the setting was or what would be an ideal compromise. This is why ACR is always being updated. If camera manufacturers would adopt the DNG format then it would always look the same in camera and in any software that can read DNG.
DNG is open source. The one major disadvantage to DNG that I have found so far is that it is takes up too much space compared to .CR2 or .NEF files.

Carlos Andres

Mat, thanks for the tutorial!!

Kevin Swan should chime in on this topic! Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee - viiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin, where are you????

One thing I like about LR is it just takes the file in basically. I set my cameras flat so I get a more true histogram. Lets me know if I really am blowing whites or not. This is something I just started trying recently.

What people are seeing in bridge, if I'm correct, is the in camera thumbnail being loaded first then the real picture being processed and the thumbnail replaced with a copy of the RAW picture. The original thumbnail is just an mini embedded jpg the camera creates to show on the lcd. That's why it looks like the in camera shot then changes.

I'm not really sure either but I think you are correct Jeff.

Raw is raw, in camera presets do not change the image (color temp, and white bal do though). The image on the back of the camera is a jpeg and has been changed. At least that is how it was explained to me one time. I'm not sure I understand completly though or have it 100% correct either.

Anyone know for sure?

Have you checked if your monitor's default color profile matches your camera's color space? Since LR is a color-managed application, it is using the default color profile and if it doesn't match your camera's the pictures will look ugly in LR.

I'm pretty sure you have this covered, but in case you haven't this may be what's causing your issue.

I understand that a RAW file is just that, an image in the raw, unprocessed. but what about Canon's picture styles, where you can bump up sharpness, contrast, saturation, b&w filters (red, orange, green , etc.) those settings should be contained in the file RAW or not, but it seems that LR and Bridge discard those. I know I can just manipulate the image and process it in bridge or LR, but I like doing somethings in camera to cut down on post time, but this "glitch" voids my workflow.

The best example I can think of and I believe I mentioned it before. I can take a B&W RAW image in my 5D, set with a red filter, but when I import it into bridge or LR, it makes it a color image. How do I stop this?

I look at every image (or group of images with identical exposure and lighting) and adjust the contrast and color manually using curves control.

Post-production is half of what creates the image. It's what we get paid to do.

I think you have to use the DPP program that came with your camera. Adobe's programs don't have the ability to read that data. I've read it's because of the way the encrypt it and doesn't share the programming. Adobe has to reverse engineer the RAW's and I guess hasn't cracked that part yet.

This thread is about LR and making it fit in your workflow, not opinions about how much time should be spent in post. but since you are still on your post-production horse I have to comment...

I understand processing and developing because a lot of us did it back in the film days. And I have read the thread about Nailing the Exposure, but if I can do part of the 'post-production' in camera it is still being done, just not on my computer. Technology is allowing us to do things simpler and quicker, but that does not imply that our images are any less thought out, or that our work is of inferior quality. If you want to look at each and every image or 'stacks' of similarly exposed images and do curve adjustments for each one, have at it. Yes, I concede that processing your photographs (RAW's DNG's etc.) is a very important part to making good images, but I find that I can do most of that in camera, and it does not matter if we do both halves of the creation in our camera (exposure and processing) or do the processing in Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, etc. everyone has the way that works for them, and we utilize the tools that we have in a manner that allows us to create what we intended. I get paid to create images, plain and simple. whether that includes 40 hours of post production or 4, is not a factor. all the same work (post production) is being done, just in different ways.

I've stayed out of this because it was covered, really. Matt told her how to set up a camera-specific preset (VERY easy to do) and apply it to every image that comes in (also VERY easy to do). I shoot Canon, have never used Canon's software, could care less that it looks like my little screen on the back of the Mark II or the 20d. I don't trust those things anyway. Like Matt said, raw is supposed to be just that--raw. If you want to apply presets in-camera that save to the file, shoot JPEG.

Someone else accurately described the problem: proprietary information in the two formats that neither company is disclosing to Adobe. All that's happening in Canon's software is it's reading the files with a preset setting--exactly like what would happen if you wrote a little preset and applied it to all the images as they imported. You will get the exact same effect.

As for them "not thinking about raw shooters." That's just silly, since the application was clearly built around raw work flow. You're trying to get a proprietary camera-dependent preset that exists in the Canon system to show up in an Adobe program. You should be bitching about Canon and Nikon not switching to a universal, open-source format that can be used by any camera manufacturer/software developer.


David,

If you really believe you're only paid to create images or that 40 or 4 hours is not a factor, then I think you're missing the much bigger picture. I look at photography as less than half of what I'm paid to provide my clients; just like Starbucks doesn't just get paid to make a cup of coffee.

I don't agree with jkantor, either, that I'm paid to post-process. I'm not really even doing that work any more in my business.

I think we're paid to satisfy our clients' expectations, and that comes in _many_ different forms, many of them not having anything to do with a photo.

Don't limit yourself!

You have to use Canons software to do this. I suppose you can just open them up in DPP and export them all out as TIFs and go from there in LR.

That answers it...LR can't read the Canon presets. Matt did explain it well. perhaps I should have started a new thread with my added question.




Great advice! I have a good understanding of all of the nuances that go into my clients photography and am learning more everyday. I realized a long time ago that people contact me because of my work, but they hire me based on, well, me. I would rather develop relationships than just collect a paycheck. I do not want to rush clients in and out my door. To me, "creating images" implies all aspects of a client's experience - from the first telephone call, to the photography experience, to viewing the images, to a call back just to check in.

Although income is a necessity, I didn't pick up photography or start my studio to just pay the bills. My comment about 40 hours or 4 was intended to make the point that it does not matter how much time I spend developing the pictures, but what is important is that I deliver what my clients expect and that I desire to exceed that expecation. the LR questions were about just that, exceeding that expectation by presenting the images quicker and more efficiently with no compromise on quality or what the client envisioned.

ramble ramble, this was not the right thread for this conversation, but good nonetheless.