1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

LR under-exposes my OM-D files?

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by veereshai, Apr 22, 2013.

  1. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    777
    May 12, 2011
    Arlington, VA
    Have been using LR for a while and this is what happens to my OM-D RAW files. I was out shooting yesterday and compensated for metering by over-exposing almost all the photos by about a stop. They looked good on screen but when I imported them into LR, they were all under-exposed. Not only that, they got "corrected" by LR after I opened individual files in the library mode and they seemed to be okay (in the film strip view) before I selected them to be displayed.

    The question is, am I doing something wrong or probably using some wrong JPEG mode on OM-D or is there a setting on LR which does not mess the exposure up after I open them? Any help is appreciated.

    PS: I haven't seen this issue with my X-Pro1/Nex files, just with the OM-D files. Also, OM-D files allow me to correct the exposure without introducing banding, but it's a pain to correct the exposure and then flag the file for deletion.

    EDIT: Aargh, sorry about starting this thread in the wrong section. Mods, can you please move this to the right section? Thank you.
     
  2. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    777
    May 12, 2011
    Arlington, VA
    Came across this post:
    Why did Lr 'ruin' my picture?

    Looks like that's the solution and I'll have to read up more on develop settings for OM-D.
     
  3. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 14, 2012
    New Mexico
    Larry
    I have LR set up to apply no developing settings when importing raw files, including those from the E-M5 ( I know certain lens corrections are made automatically, whether you want them or not) and have not noticed any problem. If I overexpose in camera, I get an overexposed file in LR.

    I don't know the solution, but check to make sure your settings are not configured to apply certain corrections automatically.
     
  4. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    777
    May 12, 2011
    Arlington, VA
    Thanks. Yes, I think that's where the problem lies. I'll check the import settings and set everything to default or zero.
     
  5. RobWatson

    RobWatson Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Lately I've taken using Olympus Viewer 3 to export tiff - tiif import to LR. Results are camera/lens corrections are applied by OV3 similarly to in camera effects. Seems to give a better base to apply LR adjustments.

    Downside is Huelight, etc profiles not readily avaiable for tiff imports ...
     
  6. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    777
    May 12, 2011
    Arlington, VA
    That's a good idea too, I wouldn't mind exporting the TIFF files I need and delete the rest. Would be easy on my storage space too and I don't use profiles, so I should be good I guess. Thanks for the idea.
     
  7. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    Perhaps an unnecessary warning: whatever you do, please do yourself a favour and make sure to keep your RAW files above all others. RAW processors improve significantly over time - I can get a lot more out of old 300D and 5DII RAW files with current processors than I could with older stuff. Downside of TIFF: the files are often stupid big.

    FWIW, give DxO Optics Pro a try. Best lens/camera body combination specific corrections in the business, including Pana glass on Oly bodies and vice-versa. Check if your lens combinations are supported and download the trial. You may like it.
     
  8. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    777
    May 12, 2011
    Arlington, VA
    I always keep the RAW files of the photos I like, but I am trying to delete RAW files of a lot of "Okay" shots that I'll never go back to but thanks for the warning :). I'll try DxO Optics, but I don't think I'll move away from Adobe products as a new software would mean lot of new things to learn and figure how they work.
     
  9. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    Some additional comments related to this part of your post:

    First, the way different cameras expose is not uniform. Photograph the same scene at exactly the same moment with several cameras and you will see that the shot from some cameras look a little underexposed or overexposed compared to the shots from other cameras. Add to that the fact that some people prefer their photos a little darker or lighter than other people so what looks "correctly exposed" is not the same for everyone.

    Second, Adobe develop their own "profile" for each camera supported. The Adobe "Standard" profile is their idea of how things should look for the default conversion and it certainly does not try to replicate the rendering of in camera JPEGs. Camera manufacturers go to a lot of trouble to come up with their own JPEG conversion 'recipes. There's a lot of room between "accurate" and "eye catching" and they each pick their own point somewhere in between, perhaps more to one side than the other. The results from different cameras aren't the same, and sometimes look noticeably different to each other, and some look more different to the Adobe standard profile for the camera than others.

    You're obviously much happier with the way LR renders your X-Pro 1 and NEX files than with how it renders files from the E-M5. Part of that could relate to differences in the way the E-M5 exposes shots to the way the other cameras expose them, and part to differences in the characteristics of the Adobe profiles for the different cameras.

    If you think the exposure on your E-M5 is off by a reasonably uniform amount, you can create a preset which adjusts the exposure by that amount and have LR apply it automatically to all E-M5 shots. That's a relatively easy thing to do. Alternatively you could go to the trouble of creating a profile specifically for your own camera. That's a more complicated process requiring test shots from a specified target and a separate free application you can download from Adobe. I've got no experience of the process but I know it can be done.

    Alternatively there is at least one 3rd party profile you can purchase for the E-M5, the Huelight profile (do a search for the thread on the Huelight profiles for purchase details). They produce a slightly different rendering to the Adobe profile and you may find that having the default processing done with such a profile gives a result you prefer to what you get with the Adobe standard profile.
     
  10. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    777
    May 12, 2011
    Arlington, VA
    Thanks David for a very informative post. Yes, I do understand that different cameras and lenses expose differently (even with the same F-stop) but apologies for not being that clear in my OP. What I meant was that when imported into LR, the RAW files looked closer to what they would look on the screen of the X-Pro1/Nex-5N. With OM-D, they were off by a big margin.

    Yes, I think it's something to do with the import settings and how Adobe treats OM-D files. And you're right, the exposure was off uniformly, so I intend to either go the Olympus RAW converter/TIFF way or do tests (exposure/contrast mainly) and develop an import profile specifically for the OM-D.

    I have been wanting to download Huelight's profile for a while now and haven't been able to do so. This might be the right time to download and re-import the photos and see if that one will help fix this issue for me.
     
  11. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    This is the most commonly misunderstood thing about 3rd party raw processors, especially Lightroom. The reason that you see a difference is because LR is doing LESS to your files, not more, than the native raw processor. At it's default settings LR is specifically set up to preserve as much detail and DR as possible. So the black and white points are set very wide, the sharpening low and the colour very neutral. This is with the default settings and the Adobe standard profile.

    To change this behavoiur you need to spend the time creating your own "starting point" and saving it as the default when importing files. Once you've done that you'll have done what Olympus viewer does (and the in camera jpeg) which is set more agressive black and white points, curves, colour saturation, noise reduction and sharpening. It will never look exactly like the OV version of the file because Olympus don't share their information on raw files with Adobe and they need to reverse engineer the demosaicing algorithms. That's also why the Huelight profiles make such a big difference, because Colin has spent the time and effort to make LR sing.

    Gordon
     
  12. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    777
    May 12, 2011
    Arlington, VA
    Gordon,

    Hmm, makes me wonder as to why Olympus wouldn't share their information on RAW files? I mean, it would only make sense for them to get Adobe on board ASAP seeing that their products are used by a lot of photographers if not by the majority. I do understand that they'd like their RAW converters to be used for best results, but it's just cumbersome to learn it all over again. Well, corporate decisions I guess, otherwise most camera companies would have ended up supporting the DNG format natively.

    Anyway, definitely going to try Huelight preset this evening. Thanks again for the recommendation.