Why is it that my 5D3 can very quickly render a 100% view of my image and Lightroom takes a lot longer? It isn't like I have a slow computer. I have an imac with a 3Ghz processor and 16GB of RAM. I don't even shoot RAW just JPEG. I am considering connecting my camera to a TV or monitor to rate images before I import them into Lightroom. Has anyone done that and if so how do you like it?
Image Review Camera vs Lightroom
- Thread starter jaayres20
- Start date
- Status
I'm not liking Lightroom 4.1 RC2. I've read numerous accounts and have witnessed myself the lack of the ability of this program to import your camera's settings in RAW files. I shot a parade yesterday and my photos were fine in my histogram when I shot the photos and fine in photoshop, but in LR the highlights were totally blown, to the point I didn't even bother using LR anymore to modify RAW images. You also have to choose the camera profile settings: 2012 (crap), 2010 (pretty good) and 2003 (no idea). If you want your images in LR to turn out like they actually are on the camera when you take them, either get another program or wait until the final version of LR is released and just hope it has better profile settings.
Sorry, this doesn't help your question. Watch your resolution on your TV.
Sorry, this doesn't help your question. Watch your resolution on your TV.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
LR on your iMac is reducing the full sized jpg image to your monitor resolution. What you're seeing on the camera LCD is the small 'thumbnail' preview image embedded in the full jpg file (it's in RAW files, too) - that small image is quicker to display. That's why some image editors show you a 'soft' image that then 'comes into focus' - the initial image is a crudely up-res'd version of the embedded thumbnail.
Upvote
0
U
UngerPhotography
Guest
@bdunbar79
You have to be joking. First off, the process version has to do with how LR/ACR is able to process the image. The 2012 process version is leagues beyond 2010. The camera profile is LR's recreation of the the in-camera Picture Styles. This is 100% optional, and in most cases Adobe Standard great. What camera settings are you wanting it to import? You know, you can create your own develop presets to apply to the images upon import.
As to the OP's question about LR loading the image, have you ever used LR with an image from another camera? Are you rendering 1:1 on import or standard or minimal? As stated before, your camera isn't showing the full res jpeg. If you aren't rendering 1:1 on import, LR has to render the image when viewing to fit screen or more longer for the 1:1 preview.
You have to be joking. First off, the process version has to do with how LR/ACR is able to process the image. The 2012 process version is leagues beyond 2010. The camera profile is LR's recreation of the the in-camera Picture Styles. This is 100% optional, and in most cases Adobe Standard great. What camera settings are you wanting it to import? You know, you can create your own develop presets to apply to the images upon import.
As to the OP's question about LR loading the image, have you ever used LR with an image from another camera? Are you rendering 1:1 on import or standard or minimal? As stated before, your camera isn't showing the full res jpeg. If you aren't rendering 1:1 on import, LR has to render the image when viewing to fit screen or more longer for the 1:1 preview.
Upvote
0
UngerPhotography said:
I'm not trying to turn this into a LR help section, but I know LR ignores camera settings of things like Picture Style, HTP, Auto Lighting Optimizer, etc. I'm sure ACR does too. Plus, if you set your camera to a certain Kelvin setting, take the picture, import it into LR, the temp in LR will be totally different. I just haven't mastered how to fix this without completely starting over on something I already did when I took the photo, ie blown highlights in LR and not on camera. I'm not joking either, this is a well-known issue. It auto-recovers highlights and it also does this with whites. There is a difference obviously between 2012 and 2010.
As a final note, I'm not saying this is out of the oridinary. It's not good, but it's probably normal and something you must master and get good at, which I have NOT done yet. Like I said in an earlier thread, I am better at PS. For some reason it just clicks with me better. Would I love to do all my processing in LR? Of course, it's way cheaper.
"...you can create your own develop presets to apply to the images upon import"
Yes, certainly going to try to learn to do this.
Upvote
0
bdunbar79 said:
LR and photoshop use a common engine, they will look identical if you use the same version and settings. Only DPP imports settings from the Camera. Its propritary, and not under the control of Adobe, DXO, or anyone else.
There appears to be a lack of understanding of the jpeg histogram on the camera versus raw shooting.
Upvote
0
Yep, ok. Let me add this, I'm sure it actually is helpful that it does this in the long run, otherwise there would be no flexibility to change things post processing, such as WB? Suppose WB were not just a flag, but rather a hard-entered # by the camera to the file? Perhaps then you could not edit WB?
Upvote
0
U
UngerPhotography
Guest
Simple solution, don't bother with things like HTP and ALO. Even WB doesn't even really matter when shooting RAW. And Picture Style is nice to get an idea of what a processed image could look like, but doesn't play any part in the RAW file. DPP (Canon's proprietary software) can read this info, but all you are doing is still letting the software process for you.
Since you are using LR, if you want to get images processed quickly, or at least at a starting point you like (and if you are indeed shooting RAW) then create presets that you can apply as you import the images.
I have a basic preset for my sports photos that I like to use. Because I need a fast turn around on them, I use this preset to get a very nice, but basic, process on them, and then I only have to do very slight work on them. Because I am not shooting jpeg, I can still adjust them to my liking and nothing is baked in. Now DPP's ability to use the in-camera settings is similar, I find that LR (a program with many professional photographers input and made by the largest and most popular imaging software company) is a far better program.
It is very simple to make these presets based off what you are shooting as well as the look you want to start with, ans the nice thing is you can customize them rather than going with what the camera setting think they should be.
Sorry to derail, but all I am trying to do is spread some knowledge. As for the OP, the answer has pretty much been made. Camera is not showing the full size jpeg, while LR, Bridge, etc. start by showing a basic low res jpeg and then render the full res RAW/jpeg.
Since you are using LR, if you want to get images processed quickly, or at least at a starting point you like (and if you are indeed shooting RAW) then create presets that you can apply as you import the images.
I have a basic preset for my sports photos that I like to use. Because I need a fast turn around on them, I use this preset to get a very nice, but basic, process on them, and then I only have to do very slight work on them. Because I am not shooting jpeg, I can still adjust them to my liking and nothing is baked in. Now DPP's ability to use the in-camera settings is similar, I find that LR (a program with many professional photographers input and made by the largest and most popular imaging software company) is a far better program.
It is very simple to make these presets based off what you are shooting as well as the look you want to start with, ans the nice thing is you can customize them rather than going with what the camera setting think they should be.
Sorry to derail, but all I am trying to do is spread some knowledge. As for the OP, the answer has pretty much been made. Camera is not showing the full size jpeg, while LR, Bridge, etc. start by showing a basic low res jpeg and then render the full res RAW/jpeg.
Upvote
0
Gotcha. I'm not a post-processing expert as you have seen. Your post makes sense and is useful. If in RAW, it wouldn't matter because you can change those (WB, Temp, HTP, etc.) anyways. Perhaps you are also lending insight into the power of shooting in RAW? Thanks for your posts.
Upvote
0
U
UngerPhotography
Guest
Exactly. The power of RAW gives you full creative power. The in-camera processing is meant for jpeg. When you shoot RAW, what you see on the back of the camera is mainly a good judgment of what the outcome can look like. In jpeg, what you see is what you get, and you can make some adjustments.
You can create your own Picture Style that will better represent the RAW file. It isn't the defacto outcome, but it can help in understanding that you are in control if the image, and not the camera. I believe the histogram is a representation of the jpeg, but it can still help in seeing that you are not clipping the shadows or highlights.
If you want quick results, you can create develop presets that give that pre-processed look. But even then, you should mess around in LR to get the image you want. When I am shooting for my own fine art photography, all I am concerned about is getting a proper exposure. I apply no develop presets. But when I am shooting for editorial, I have presets that get a good overall image, and do WB and exposure myself and crop.
If you do shoot jpeg, those in-camera settings will be visable, but because of jpeg you will not have full control. Now I know LR, did recently add 5D III, so it may not be perfect, but you should be able to still get a great image.
The main thing is to not fully trust that the RAW file will look exactly like what you see on the back of the camera, but you can make it look that, and in RAW, can make it look like you want. RAW has a greater dynamic range so highlights and shadows can be corrected even though they may seem clipped. That does depend on the image and it's exposure, but you learn to know how your camera works.
I have worked very extensively in LR3, and LR4 is far greater. Of course, Adobe keeps updating it's software to better take advantage of new cameras. So the 5D III, may not be perfect yet in LR4, but I doubt the human eye can notice any flaws. If you do have LR4, or just tyring out the trial, keep on messing around. I would be willing to bet that once you figure it out, you will love LR.
I do teach private lesson, and have worked with pros on LR, but I truly believe that a proper understanding of RAW and LR will give you great results. Now only if Adobe and Canon would pay me for this thoughts
You can create your own Picture Style that will better represent the RAW file. It isn't the defacto outcome, but it can help in understanding that you are in control if the image, and not the camera. I believe the histogram is a representation of the jpeg, but it can still help in seeing that you are not clipping the shadows or highlights.
If you want quick results, you can create develop presets that give that pre-processed look. But even then, you should mess around in LR to get the image you want. When I am shooting for my own fine art photography, all I am concerned about is getting a proper exposure. I apply no develop presets. But when I am shooting for editorial, I have presets that get a good overall image, and do WB and exposure myself and crop.
If you do shoot jpeg, those in-camera settings will be visable, but because of jpeg you will not have full control. Now I know LR, did recently add 5D III, so it may not be perfect, but you should be able to still get a great image.
The main thing is to not fully trust that the RAW file will look exactly like what you see on the back of the camera, but you can make it look that, and in RAW, can make it look like you want. RAW has a greater dynamic range so highlights and shadows can be corrected even though they may seem clipped. That does depend on the image and it's exposure, but you learn to know how your camera works.
I have worked very extensively in LR3, and LR4 is far greater. Of course, Adobe keeps updating it's software to better take advantage of new cameras. So the 5D III, may not be perfect yet in LR4, but I doubt the human eye can notice any flaws. If you do have LR4, or just tyring out the trial, keep on messing around. I would be willing to bet that once you figure it out, you will love LR.
I do teach private lesson, and have worked with pros on LR, but I truly believe that a proper understanding of RAW and LR will give you great results. Now only if Adobe and Canon would pay me for this thoughts
Upvote
0
I have the LR v 4.1 now and yes if anybody had some time I'd love a basic explanation of RAW file into camera to importing properly and editing. Thank you. Can PM me if you'd like.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
