Lightroom CC/6 continues to ignore m43 lenses

[OldRadioGuy]

While Lightroom CC (6) released earlier this week contains some very good additions, Adobe continues to believe the self-contained lens corrections in m43 make it unnecessary to provide "automatic" tools for additional correction. Thus, no Olympus or Panasonic lenses are on the lens profile list.

Meantime, Capture One 8.2 has the longest list of lenses yet for their support of Olympus m43 cameras (I didn't look at the Panasonic list). And DxO continues to be the standard for automatic lens correction with virtually every lens for m43 cameras tested and profiled.

 

[DeeJayK]

I can't say this feature is something that I've missed, except in the case of de-fishing the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower fisheye. In it's stead I've been using the Nikon DX 10.5mm profile.

Can you provide an example of an image processed by Capture One or DxO (with the lens correction) versus the same image processed in LR (without lens correction) to demonstrate what we are missing by sticking with LR?

 

[dwig]

While Lightroom CC (6) released earlier this week contains some very good additions, Adobe continues to believe the self-contained lens corrections in m43 make it unnecessary to provide "automatic" tools for additional correction. Thus, no Olympus or Panasonic lenses are on the lens profile list...

They aren't on the profile list because you don't have manual choice. That doesn't mean that Lr is ignoring the lens' correction data embedded in the RAW file.

According to this summary of the what's new in Lr6/CC http://www.lightroomqueen.com/whats-new-lightroom-cc-6-0/ (thanks Mcasan for the link in this post: https://www.mu-43.com/threads/75856/#post-765461 ) there is a display in the corrections panel that shows what embedded corrections are being applied.

 

[T N Args]

Given that Lightroom is using the manufacturer's specified embedded corrections, I don't see how a third-party profile will be better. Third-party will use a sample lens. If lens sample is off spec, or any mistakes made in measurements, the third-party profile will be worse.

 

[David A]

While Lightroom CC (6) released earlier this week contains some very good additions, Adobe continues to believe the self-contained lens corrections in m43 make it unnecessary to provide "automatic" tools for additional correction. Thus, no Olympus or Panasonic lenses are on the lens profile list.

Meantime, Capture One 8.2 has the longest list of lenses yet for their support of Olympus m43 cameras (I didn't look at the Panasonic list). And DxO continues to be the standard for automatic lens correction with virtually every lens for m43 cameras tested and profiled.

Some RAW processors do not automatically apply the lens correction profiles embedded in the RAW file, others do. Lightroom does, and does not provide you with an option not to use that profile, nor does it provide alternative profiles. What it does do is comply with the M43 standard and do things how the lens manufacturer intended them to be done. That certainly isn't a bad thing.

Lightroom does provide the ability to manually correct for distortions and you can manually adjust the embedded corrections by using those manual correction controls. You can also make presets for any manual corrections you apply so that you can apply the same corrections to other photos taken with the same lens just by selecting the appropriate preset. That's no harder to do than selecting a lens from a drop down profile list. Lightroom most certainly does not leave you with no option other than accepting the automatic correction. The automatic correction is just the starting point if you want to adjust it in some way.

It would be interesting to know whether both Capture One and DxO apply the embedded correction profiles or not. They may well not do so, and what you may be selecting when you select an Olympus or Panasonic M43 lens in their lists is simply the application of the embedded profile. There's no guarantee that the profiles those firms provide in their software are any better than the ones Olympus and Panasonic embed in the RAW data. I do think DxO is likely to be generating their own profiles on the basis of their lens testing but as far as I'm aware Capture One doesn't test lenses so they may only be letting you choose between using or not using the embedded profile.

 

[sesser]

Well, I have noticed that OV3 will correct various lenses beyond what the raw file specifies so even Olympus knows that the lens corrections in the camera are not perfect. Happens with the 17/1.8 and the ZD 50-200 SWD for certain. I haven't tested the 12-40/2.8... yet.

 

[Clint]

... Can you provide an example of an image processed by Capture One or DxO (with the lens correction) versus the same image processed in LR (without lens correction) to demonstrate what we are missing by sticking with LR?

I posted these in June 2013 using Lightroom 4.4 and Raw Therapy. LR6/CC has not improved the situation.

The discussion concerned whether Lightroom automatically corrects for the lens.

On the left is of this image is Lightroom and the right is Raw Therapy. While Lightroom made some negligible corrections, it far from corrected.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

If it was corrected it should be more like this which was done with DXO software.

Corrected

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I would really like the ability to turn on or turn off the corrections, whether they be from the micro 4/3 standards or a profile. If I wanted a camera that did things automatically I would buy a point and shoot or compact.

 

[T N Args]

I would really like the ability to turn on or turn off the corrections, whether they be from the micro 4/3 standards or a profile. If I wanted a camera that did things automatically I would buy a point and shoot or compact.

It's not right to turn off the corrections, because with these lenses they are integral to the design. It's like insisting you want a half-finished version of a Canon lens that has only been crudely designed and the design team has been prevented from finishing their work.

 

[budeny]

While Lightroom made some negligible corrections, it far from corrected.

Embedded corrections are never at 0% - more at "acceptable" level of 1-2-3%.

 

[johnvanatta]

I agree that it'd be nice if LR had a checkbox to disable the automatic corrections, standards be damned. There's generally a small gain in acuity for disabling them and for some pictures the distortion just doesn't matter.

However this is not all that high on my list of wants for LR, and if precise distortion correction is a major issue for you DxO is probably a better software package (and maybe m43 isn't the best system to start with).

 

[T N Args]

(and maybe m43 isn't the best system to start with).

Come off it

 

[Clint]

It's not right to turn off the corrections, because with these lenses they are integral to the design. It's like insisting you want a half-finished version of a Canon lens that has only been crudely designed and the design team has been prevented from finishing their work.

On the contrary, to build in a (half-baked) correction into the micro 4/3lens standard is simply an inexpensive way to deal with lens design issues. When I say half-baked, another example posted here https://www.mu-43.com/threads/57030/

No lens is perfect! Every other manufacturer outside of micro 4/3 depends on their lens designers to develop lenses that are compelling for their customers, lens aberrations, distortions and all. Adept photographers since the beginning of photography have found ways to adapt lens designs to benefit their photographs! As a simple example – vignette.

Lens designs were one reason that beget photo manipulation. Again as a simple example – vignette. Digital processing has just made it much easier to do and lens profiles were developed for the many that wanted a quick solution – but the choice should still be the photographers, not the manufactures!!! Similar to the choice to use the manufactures decision of image quality though jpeg or the photographs conceived notion of IQ from Raw files.

 

[David A]

Embedded corrections are never at 0% - more at "acceptable" level of 1-2-3%.

Embedded corrections are at whatever level of correction is specified in the embedded data. You get 100% of the specified correction.

It's not right to turn off the corrections, because with these lenses they are integral to the design. It's like insisting you want a half-finished version of a Canon lens that has only been crudely designed and the design team has been prevented from finishing their work.

I'd stop a bit short of that. I'd say it's not necessarily right to turn off the correction but it's also not necessarily wrong to turn off the correction. How many people add filters to modify lens behaviour and produce things like starburst effects or soft focus or the like, effectively modifying lens behaviour in ways which are not intended in the lens design? I view this in a similar way. It's a choice the photographer has and it's up to the photographer to justify that choice by making sure that the results they get with that choice are what they wanted. At the very least, their results have to convince them or they've definitely done the wrong thing. I'd lay odds, however, that for every photographer who could use a set of manual correction controls to do a better job of correction than what the embedded correction profile does, there's several more who couldn't, or who either don't want to spend the time or effort doing so.

If a software designer wants to offer this feature then I'm quite happy with them offering it. If they don't want to offer it then I'm OK with that too because it isn't part of the M43 standard and it isn't something the lens manufacturers expect. It's an add-on, like a starburst filter. It's something you buy if you want, but it's also something that no one has to offer if they don't want to offer it. Adobe don't seem to want to offer this feature. If someone wants it, then they need to buy it from someone who's offering it.

 

[Deleted member 20897]

After reading the Lightroom does, they do provide lens corrections for the voightlander m43 lenses. Just FYI.

 

[T N Args]

On the contrary, to build in a (half-baked) correction into the micro 4/3lens standard is simply an inexpensive way to deal with lens design issues. When I say half-baked, another example posted here https://www.mu-43.com/threads/57030/

No lens is perfect! Every other manufacturer outside of micro 4/3 depends on their lens designers to develop lenses that are compelling for their customers, lens aberrations, distortions and all. Adept photographers since the beginning of photography have found ways to adapt lens designs to benefit their photographs! As a simple example – vignette.

Lens designs were one reason that beget photo manipulation. Again as a simple example – vignette. Digital processing has just made it much easier to do and lens profiles were developed for the many that wanted a quick solution – but the choice should still be the photographers, not the manufactures!!! Similar to the choice to use the manufactures decision of image quality though jpeg or the photographs conceived notion of IQ from Raw files.

I guess you just don't understand what integrated lens design is, at the conceptual level, or you wouldn't have written the above. How it is only realistically pragmatic with mirrorless cameras, how it can theoretically yield higher lens performance outcomes than optical design in isolation, how Lumix and m.Zuiko lenses are taking advantage of it, how lucky we are, and how the idea of the end user 'undoing' the last stage of integrated design is as sensible as having Canon build a switch into their lenses that 'un-does' the optical correction of distortion and aberration.

 

[Luckypenguin]

The only times that I can recall adding extra correction for barrel distortion from a Micro 4/3 lens is when I've taken an image with a wide-angle or ultra wide-angle lens either at or close to the minimum focusing distance. I think that the lens manufacturers have made the right decision to base the lens corrections on the distortion that is visible over the remainder of the focus range. Best case would be to include the focusing distance as a variable in determining how much automatic correction is applied.

 

[ttomino1980]

I was wondering the same why Pna nor Oly profiles isnt there while other manuf are there ... But as I am a beginer I thought I have to download somewhere the profiles ...but didnt find anything ....this thread explains a lot ....anyway wondering why profiles are not there when others do.

 

[Clint]

I guess you just don't understand what integrated lens design is, at the conceptual level, ....

Integrated lens design was intended as a means of integrating lens design data into image system simulation tools so that designers could visualize the consequence of altering lens parameters. The system was intended to foster better decision making regarding designing trade-offs.

Integrated lens design was not originally intended as a way to resolve lens design issues with the final product output. But as implemented by the micro four-thirds standard, it is half-baked! And has been treated as nothing more than a cost savings tool!!!!

With Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, Leica, etc., all of which use integrated lens design processes, the final outcome is still left to the photographer/artist as to implement, or not, the corrected change by using lens profiles. That is all I would like from Adobe!!!!

 

[T N Args]

Opposite of half baked, it's better baked. Maybe I need to change the terminology, but having the freedom to choose how much correction to deploy via glass and how much via software will allow higher image performance for a given price point. That's an advantage.

 

[David A]

Integrated lens design was intended as a means of integrating lens design data into image system simulation tools so that designers could visualize the consequence of altering lens parameters. The system was intended to foster better decision making regarding designing trade-offs.

Integrated lens design was not originally intended as a way to resolve lens design issues with the final product output. But as implemented by the micro four-thirds standard, it is half-baked! And has been treated as nothing more than a cost savings tool!!!!

With Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, Leica, etc., all of which use integrated lens design processes, the final outcome is still left to the photographer/artist as to implement, or not, the corrected change by using lens profiles. That is all I would like from Adobe!!!!

The problem with "…was intended…"/"…was not originally intended…" is simply that it ignores the fact that so many things in life are invented/developed to meet a specific need and then people adapt them to other needs or use them for other purposes, find them useful there as well, and eventually they end up being of more benefit for things that they were not intended for than for things that they were intended for. There's no reason for any development to be restricted to only the uses it was originally intended for. I'm sorry but that part of your argument is a bit like saying "it's always been done that way so we should always do it that way". It sounds great in theory but none of us really want to apply that principle to everything in our lives and if we aren't prepared to apply it to everything I think it's a little inconsistent to suggest that it should be applied in certain cases but not in others, especially when the certain cases it should be applied in are going to be different depending on who you ask.

On the other hand I have no problem at all with someone saying they should have the option to select whether or not to apply the embedded profile, and to be able to choose an alternative profile if they so wish. The problem is that they have that choice and the means of exercising that choice is to use a different application instead of Lightroom.

For whatever reasons made sense to them, Adobe chose to use the embedded profiles for M43 lenses and not to give users any choice in the matter. In doing so they complied with the M43 standard and the lens manufacturer's views on how the lenses were to be used. That's a legitimate choice for them and I have no argument with it. I would have an argument if they failed to comply with the M43 standard. I see the standard as a minimum to be offered and what the software developer chooses to offer in features over and above that is up to the developer. In this case Adobe are offering the bare minimum I feel should be offered but it is all I think they HAVE to offer.

Yes, Adobe offer a wider range of options in Lightroom for photographers using Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, Leica etc but there are a lot more Lightroom users using those lenses and cameras than there are using M43 systems. We're a niche market in number terms. Adobe doesn't even have to provide support for our systems in Lightroom and ACR if it doesn't want to. I'm not saying we should all bow down and be grateful to Adobe for even considering our existence but I am saying that I don't think Adobe feels that there's a great demand for what you're asking and that they do feel that it would cost more to implement that feature than it would gain them in income. In other words, I think they feel their development money is best spent elsewhere and that's their choice. I think if anyone wants Adobe to offer us the same range of options as they offer for lenses from those other manufacturers, then they need to start persuading a lot more photographers to not use those lenses and to start using M43 gear. That would have a lot more impact on Adobe's choices about what features they include for us than standing around demanding that Adobe include this or any other feature some or all of us think might be nice.

Anyone who wants this feature has the standard choice that's available to anyone looking for software to perform some function: to choose between competing products and to select the one that best does what they want. It doesn't matter what you're looking for, no one product does it all and no one product does everything better than all of the competition. Regardless of what Adobe includes in Lightroom, it's never going to offer everything that is offered in other applications and it's never going to do everything better than anyone else can do it. This isn't the only difference between Lightroom and the competition and more than a few people use other applications for reasons other than this. If you want a 7 seater family transporter you don't choose a 2 seater convertible and demand that the manufacturer offer an upgrade to a 7 seater model. If you want options with the application of lens profiles, you don't choose Lightroom and demand that Adobe include a range of lens profile options.