RAW files look horrible in lightroom

[gonças]

I've had this problem since I bought my 5D Classic and it's driving me crazy - when I import my RAW files to Lightroom 3.0, it automatically adjusts the settings. The blacks, contrast, colours, levels, etc are much higher than they were in the camera and th photos look horrible.

when I click a photo to develop, I can see, for a second, the original image. but than it changes to that horrible preset.

It would be good to change the photos back to normal (neutral), but I'd love to import them with the original settings.

I know this is a common problem and that there are many threads about this on the internet, but I can't fix it at all and I feel like breaking stuff :lol: :(

Please help:confused:

[silvrr]

I beleive you can setup a preset to automatically run on import that will restore the settings you had in camera. You are simply not seeing the RAW image and not the processed JPEG with the in camera settings applied.

When I first started using lightroom I found this frustrating too but I have learned to like the 'clean slate' that you work with. If you would rather have the version with the in camera settings just apply a preset on import.

[gonças]

I beleive you can setup a preset to automatically run on import that will restore the settings you had in camera. You are simply not seeing the RAW image and not the processed JPEG with the in camera settings applied.

When I first started using lightroom I found this frustrating too but I have learned to like the 'clean slate' that you work with. If you would rather have the version with the in camera settings just apply a preset on import.

How do I do that! Because LR is ruining my photos, I can't work with this!

[PixelMagic]

Actually there's no way to restore all your in-camera settings. Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw only read and apply ISO, shutter speed, aperture and White Balance. All other settings are ignored.

You can use the Camera Matching profiles to approximate the colors in the original capture, but that only address the color rendition. Other settings like Tone Curve, contrast, sharpening, etc. are not addressed through the camera profiles.

[PixelMagic]

If you want photos that look like the JPEG preview saved in the Raw file then your best bet is to use Digital Photo Pro.


How do I do that! Because LR is ruining my photos, I can't work with this!

[gonças]

no solution than? Here's me going back to JPEG...

[tim]

Set your defaults in Lightroom up properly. The images will never look the same, as Canon doesn't release the information to third parties, but they should look good.

Extract the embedded jpeg from the image, you can use exiftools or other software. Process an image using Lightroom. Make both 800 pixels across and post both to this thread.

[chauncey]

Are you up to date on your upgrades, are you shooting in RAW...they are supposed to come into LR looking a little bland. If you want to make a preset as part of your import process...do it.

I prefer to have camera settings and LR dialed toward the bland side, left, to have my chimped histogram more closely match what I see in LR

[lungdoc]

Take a look at this page for some great instructions on this (actually uses 5D as the example). You can use various default develop settings specific to a camera and an ISO if you wish. There are several Adobe ones like "faithful" or "neutral" etc that closely mimic the Canon presets. I suspect there's something messed up with your default develop settings as they should be decent "out of the box".

http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lr2_camera/lr2-camera-defaults.htm

[gonças]

Make both 800 pixels across and post both to this thread.

jpeg origina on the left and jpeg converted from RAW on the right
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1043/5185953828_31256f085e_o.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1277/5185953836_fcdbbe2a04_o.jpg



notice how the colours are over saturated and the darks over contrasted

[5Dmaniac]

There are 1000s of people using LR with the 5D in RAW mode - me included. It seems you need to learn how to get the best out of your RAW files. I have created a preset that pops the colors and applies a tone curve, as well as the lens correction. This gives me a great starting point to edit my pictures further if needed.
Saving presets is very easy - you can use that preset during your RAW import and your pics will look great.

[windpig]

no solution than? Here's me going back to JPEG...
I'd toss LR and go back to DPP before I'd give up on RAW. I think you'll find the solution fairly simple.

[5Dmaniac]

All you needed to do in your example is tweak the White Balance!

[Sdiver2489]

jpeg origina on the left and jpeg converted from RAW on the right
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1043/5185953828_31256f085e_o.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1277/5185953836_fcdbbe2a04_o.jpg



notice how the colours are over saturated and the darks over contrasted

I can see the same detail in the hair and the brights are about the same in each picture so I don't know where you think there is more contrast. The only major difference I see is color temp. The JPG is too green and the LR version is a bit too warm. Otherwise, they're both fine. If I had to pick an image that was better between the two you presented I'd go with the RAW image myself as the warmth doesn't bother me as much as the green-ness does.

[René Damkot]

jpeg origina on the left and jpeg converted from RAW on the right

notice how the colours are over saturated and the darks over contrasted

Well, for starters, one (the first) is AdobeRGB, the other is sRGB. (as it should for web use)
The AdobeRGB image will look "bland" in non color managed software on a "normal" (non-wide gamut) screen.

Also, since I browse color managed, I don't see "over saturated colors and overcontrasted darks" in the converted Raw. Other way around actually, but not a huge difference.
The converted CR2 does look a bit warmer, but I prefer that actually. Jpg is greenish.

As said before, create a new preset in LR.

Set everything up as you like (I'd suggest WB "as shot", exposure 0, recovery <10, fill light <5, blacks around 4, brightnes about 55, contrast 25, everything else "default" (=0) and "camera calibration at whatever mimincs your favorite picture style (I prefer "Camera neutral")

[tim]

Yep it's mostly white balance, maybe a slight tweak to the brightness. They look very similar to me otherwise. If they look hugely different to you either you're more particular than most people or there's something wrong with the way you're viewing it.

You can't expect images to come out of your RAW converter looking perfect without doing any work. It would take me about 5 seconds in a RAW converter to make that image look better than the jpeg.

btw the image is about two stops underexposed.

[Sdiver2489]

Well, for starters, one (the first) is AdobeRGB, the other is sRGB. (as it should for web use)
The AdobeRGB image will look "bland" in non color managed software on a "normal" (non-wide gamut) screen.

Also, since I browse color managed, I don't see "over saturated colors and overcontrasted darks" in the converted Raw. Other way around actually, but not a huge difference.
The converted CR2 does look a bit warmer, but I prefer that actually. Jpg is greenish.

As said before, create a new preset in LR.

Set everything up as you like (I'd suggest WB "as shot", exposure 0, recovery <10, fill light <5, blacks around 4, brightnes about 55, contrast 25, everything else "default" (=0) and "camera calibration at whatever mimincs your favorite picture style (I prefer "Camera neutral")

Good catch on the adobeRGB, must be the reason he is thinking that is more neutral when it really is more green.

OP, color manage your browser if you don't already. You probably have a wide gamut display which makes the JPG look less saturated than the sRGB exported RAW.

[gonças]

I did not say something important: I'm colorblind! oops

[tim]

Convert to B&W. Problem solved!

[gonças]

lol

[tonylong]

no solution than? Here's me going back to JPEG...

People are giving you good info here -- learn how to workd with the White Balance and camera profiles are good bits of advice.

Now if you really think LR is "doing something" you can check your History in the Develop panel -- maybe a preset is being applied.

But, the jpeg, aside from the aRGB problem, is the one that gets adjusted -- the camera applies White Balance/Color tone settings as well as Contrast, Sharpening, Saturation and Noise Reduction when it creates a jpeg. Lightroom leaves those steps up to you.

You can do a simple White Balance setting in Lightroom by clicking the WB eyedropper tool and click with it on something that is supposed to be "neutral" in your image -- you might try that now on your Raw image and see if it makes things more to your liking.

But seriously, I'd advise you to slow down and do some reading up on Raw processing and the Lightroom Raw workflow. There are three good books that could help get you started by Victoria Bampton (LightroomQueen.com), Scott Kelby (LightroomKillerTips.com) and Martin Evening. Amazon sells them.

Also, there are excellent sites with Lightroom help resources and tutorials. The two above as well as AdobeTV are very good -- google "lightroom tutorial" and you well see these and tons more.

In the meantime, I'll second the advice above to install the Canon software Digital Photo Professional (DPP). Although I've been a long-time user of Lightroom and it's the base/center of my workflow, I like DPP and consider it the very best for someone beginning in the Raw "world". It begins by showing you the Raw image with the settings the jpeg would have used, and then gives you total freedom to work with those settings. So you can very quickly get a nice "jpeg-like" conversion and you can also exercise your creative control to improve on that image. And, you can do like I do and keep it on your computer(s) for those quick conversions while you are using Lightroom for your "serious" stuff.

But definitely take your time learning Lightroom. There is "stuff" to learn, but over some time you'll "get it". Some people do walk away from LR, but I'd say the majority of people who learn to work with it end up glad they did.

[tonylong]

OK, I just saw your color-blind statement after posting my above reply. So, in addition to my above advice I would say that you really would hugely benefit from learning to set your White Balance in a "good" way. When shooting Raw you have two approaches that can work together. You need a White Balance "target" -- this can be something you pay for that is guaranteed "neutral gray" or it can be as simple as putting a white coffee filter over your lens front end.

You shoot this target in the lighting for a scene. Then you have a choice -- you can set the camera to use this shot as a Custom White Balance shot (if you filled the center of the shot with the target) and the camera will adjust to this, or in a Raw converter you can simply use the eyedropper to click on the target. Either or both ways can be useful.

And, I'd definitly double-down on the suggestion to install and use DPP. With a condition of color-blindness you may find yourself struggling with a processor like Lightroom when everything is "up to you" (unless you follow the suggestion of going grayscale) whereas DPP has the built-in "jpeg look" that you can stick with unless or until you want or need to do more. You should be fine with the liminance/tonal corrections, of course -- I will say I prefer Lightroom for its highlight and shadow capabilities, but DPP can get you started without getting lost in color issues.

[kirkt]

If it is helpful at all, PSCS5 permits softproofing with two color blindness models.

Kirk

[dru8p]

All you needed to do in your example is tweak the White Balance!

+1 for this. I was wondering why my photos looked bland or a little off then I played with the White Balance. Rather than using the "As Shot" default, try the other options, auto, daylight, etc. this makes a huge dif.

[landth]

Hope you get it sorted!
I have only in the last 6 weeks switched to shooting in RAW, encouraged and enabled by LR3. (And Scott Kelby's book on it, which once I learnt to skip the intros, I have found massively useful).
I am thrilled with the results so far, my images are stronger, sharper and far more "adjustable" as I only really like very light PP.
I am being held back by my lack of knowledge far more than by the format or the program :)

[gonças]

Thanks! I shot today and I was quite happy with the results this time, even if they needed minor tweaking in LR. =)

[tonylong]

Thanks! I shot today and I was quite happy with the results this time, even if they needed minor tweaking in LR. =)

Well that's good to hear -- what did you do differently that made you happier with the results?