RAW in LR3

[Eersel]

More of a general consensus question. When I import some of my RAW images into LR3, I've been finding that the actual RAW image in its default state comes out quite under exposed from the way I shot it. I understand how the RAW format works, but the level of exposure I'm lacking just seems to be a bit too much.

I'm currently using a Canon 50D. I am able to edit them back to what they should be, however I just find it odd that my photos come out so dark.

Has anyone else had this occurance or is there any way to address this.

[TPF Sponsor]

[jwbryson1]

When I import some of my RAW images into LR3, I've been finding that the actual RAW image in its default state comes out quite under exposed from the way I shot it.

I have found the same to be true with my images and find it quite frustrating. I can get the images back to where I want them to be but I do wonder why they appear underexposed after being imported.

I have also found that the images when "properly exposed" to MY eye do not always (and generally do NOT) go all the way to the right side on the histogram. I find that when I think they are properly exposed they are often 1/4" to the left of the right side of the histogram. I do not understand that either.

[Ysarex]

Well now there's a can of worms.

You're making a number of assumptions in what you're saying that warrant closer examination.

You say the default RAW comes out underexposed compared to the way you shot it. Do you mean the default RAW is underexposed compared to the camera processed JPEG? Or do you mean the default RAW is underexposed because you had zeroed the camera exposure meter?

The camera JPEG and the RAW file both come from the same exposure. The camera only makes one exposure. I know this can sound like semantics, but it's really pretty critical. If the JPEG is derived from the RAW data and there was in fact only one exposure then we really don't want to allow ourselves to start thinking there were two exposures and one is under and the other one is not.

So if you are comparing the camera JPEG and RAW you want to be asking this question: What's going on with the different software algorithms such that the camera's software produces one result and LR3 produces a very different result from the same data set?

Are either of then actually showing you your exposure? Or are you dealing instead with different software interpretations of your exposure and if so aren't you now curious to know whether your exposure was in fact any good at all given that both interpretations may be wrong?

Joe

[Ysarex]

Continuing on with that last thought.

The JPEG engine in the camera is programmed to normalize the tone response of the photo to an 8 bit RGB target. Typically your camera's RAW capture contains more tonal information than will fit that 8 bit RGB target and so "processing" takes place.

We would hope that the RAW converter is programmed to give us access to all the data the camera recorded and then allow us to do the processing ourselves. That's the theory. In practice it's also necessary for the RAW converter to manipulate the data just to get it on the screen for you to see. The disconcerting experience comes when you try opening the same RAW file in 4 or 5 different converters and see that you have 4 or 5 different "default" results.

Joe

[Eersel]

I'm basing mine off the fact that I have my exposure meter zeroed. Then again I need to take into account that most of my past shooting requirements has always required a slight over exposure. I may just start slightly compensating in some extra light at the capturing stage as that would seem to be the easiest work around.

[MLeeK]

zero exposure isn't always correct exposure. Zero exposure is only correct if your scene meters out to be middle of the road (or your spot or however you meter.) If you are shooting a scene with a lot of bright light in it to 0 it will be really underexposed. If you are metering a scene with a lot of darks/blacks it will be over exposed. Most scenes are NOT middle of the line 0. They tend to be about +1 or even more if you are using evaluative metering.
Your meter does not know what you are shooting. It only knows that it is supposed to measure the reflected light in the scene and tell you how bright or dark it is when compared to middle gray. It doesn't know you are metering a child and a christmas tree. It can't pick and chose which tone in the image is supposed to match that middle gray tone, it just measures it all.

I'd say your problem lies more with learning to understand metering and how it works. I RARELY meter to 0. I use spot metering and I know that if I am looking at white/caucasian skin it's a whole lot brighter than 0. So have to look at how light or dark that skin tone is, meter it and decide how far on the + side it should be. Skin is usually about +1.5.
If the same subject had on a sweater that was a dark red color? I'd want that sweater to be a lot darker in brightness than the skin. I might be able to meter on the sweater and make it 0.

[o hey tyler]

If your RAW files are looking different on import, it could be a setting in Lightroom. I had a friend who said that his files looked better on his camera, and when he imported his photos to lightroom, it was changing the White Balance and Exposure. As it turns out, he had a check box checked that he shouldn't have.

Go to your Lightroom Preferences, click on "Presets" at the top. All of those boxes should be unchecked (at least, that's how mine is), so make sure that you don't have any of those activated. The one that would get you would be "Apply Auto Tone Adjustments" at the top.

[jwbryson1]

You say the default RAW comes out underexposed compared to the way you shot it. Do you mean the default RAW is underexposed compared to the camera processed JPEG? Or do you mean the default RAW is underexposed because you had zeroed the camera exposure meter?

Speaking for myself, I mean that the image when imported looks underexposed versus (i) the image that appears on my LCD when shot and (ii) the in-camera histogram that I checked when I shot the image.

[jwbryson1]

Go to your Lightroom Preferences, click on "Presets" at the top. All of those boxes should be unchecked (at least, that's how mine is), so make sure that you don't have any of those activated. The one that would get you would be "Apply Auto Tone Adjustments" at the top.

This is interesting, that one is not checked on mine, Tyler, but the one on tone adjustments when converting to B&W is checked. I never convert to B&W though.

[KmH]

You say the default RAW comes out underexposed compared to the way you shot it. Do you mean the default RAW is underexposed compared to the camera processed JPEG? Or do you mean the default RAW is underexposed because you had zeroed the camera exposure meter?

Speaking for myself, I mean that the image when imported looks underexposed versus (i) the image that appears on my LCD when shot and (ii) the in-camera histogram that I checked when I shot the image.

Since the brightness level of the rear LCD is user adjustable, and the rear LCD is viewed with hugely varying levels of ambient light, how do you know the brightness level of the rear LCD on your camera matches the metering mode used? Maybe the rear LCD is set to bright, or to dark.

The histogram of a properly exposed image of a black dog in front of a black background, will have the majority of the pixels distributed to the left side of the histogram, while the histogram of a properly exposed image of a white dog in front of a white background, will have the majority of the pixels distributed to the right side of the histogram.

[Rephargotohp]

Couple things to understand, The inage on the back of the camera is of the embeded JPEG in all Raw files even if you are shooting RAW only. That JPEG contains any Jepg settings you have on your camera, again even if you are shooting RAW
The Histogram on camera is based on the Jpeg again even if shooting Raw. Make all your jpeg setting neutral for the best preview

On canon cameras(can't vouch for Nikon) The LCD brightness if set in the Middle, Is One notch too bright If you move it one notch down that is closer to what the image actual is. However that setting makes it harder to view in daylight.

When you import RAW's to Lightroom, The first thumbnails you see is the embedded Jpeg (even if you shot RAW) Lightroom, then generates new thumbnails and preview from the RAW, That is why you see the thumbnails change as all the previews are loaded.

Also, there is a default contrast curve applied in Lightroom. If you want a linear curve you must set it or turn off tone curve

[Ysarex]

When you import RAW's to Lightroom, The first thumbnails you see is the embedded Jpeg (even if you shot RAW) Lightroom, then generates new thumbnails and preview from the RAW, That is why you see the thumbnails change as all the previews are loaded.

That's correct, now my question: Do either of those thumbnails actually present useful information about your photo -- in other words reliable feedback about the exposure back at the camera?

Also, there is a default contrast curve applied in Lightroom. If you want a linear curve you must set it or turn off tone curve

And again my question; does the default curve or the linear curve give you useful feedback about the exposure?

Other RAW converters also have an option to present the image using a "linear" curve. It's fascinating how three different RAW converters can all be set to display the same RAW file using the "linear" curve and all three produce substantially different images.

Thinking back through this thread to the OP's original question. What is it telling you if you have:

1. The camera meter zeroed. (MLeeK did a good job explaining how that's pretty arbitrary).
2. The camera processed JPEG and its histogram displayed all over the place from the LCD to the thumbnails in LR or Bridge.
3. The Raw file displayed in LR and or other RAW converters with default curve applied.
4. The Raw file displayed in LR and or other RAW converters with linear curve applied.

Back in the day (film) we would break out this machine called a densitometer. We could photograph a known target like a grey card and then read that piece of film and get a pretty hard number from the densitometer. That hard number felt pretty good -- useful feedback. Are all the options above basically soft? Can we get a hard number? Can we get a hard number that applies across different brands of RAW converters? Can you photograph a grey card with a Canon, Nikon, Sony, whatever and put that RAW file into three different RAW converters and get back the same number from each converter? In other words useful feedback.

Joe

[Rephargotohp]

The Previews of the actual Raw file give me useful information and allow me to do my work On my Calibrated Monitor and also useful tools I use in Photoshop To Sample Things I may need to know

The Curve doesn't give any Information, It's an Adjustment.

End of the day, I'm not interested in MEASURING anything.

In 40 Years of Shootiing Film, I've achieved great prints

In 7 Years of Shooting Digital...I've achived great prints

Other than that and if you are looking for a Film v. Digital dialog...I honestly don't care ( no offense, I just don't)

RAW converetrs are different, Films are differenet, Papers were and are different and what we want out of it all..is different

[wvsmphoto]

Different screams have different color profiles unless everything is calibrated they all will be different that is why of you go to sears all 30 display model televisions will have different color variations

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum

[jwbryson1]

[QUOTE=KmH;2431127]

Since the brightness level of the rear LCD is user adjustable, and the rear LCD is viewed with hugely varying levels of ambient light, how do you know the brightness level of the rear LCD on your camera matches the metering mode used? Maybe the rear LCD is set to bright, or to dark.

I understand this but how do you reconcile that with the following. I've always heard and have been taught that you can take a photo, look at the LCD screen (assuming that you are not in really bright conditions which makes it tough to view) and get a "reading" of whether the photo looks properly exposed or not properly exposed. It it appears underexposed, you can adjust with the exposure compensation button on the top of the camera, recompose and take the shot again.

If the LCD is totally unreliable for these purposes, then what purpose DOES it serve? You must be able to rely on it for something.

EDIT: The quote above is from KmH, not jwbryson1.